Iran War. How do you think it will lead to that and the possible outcome.

I think you are not taking into account the ranks of some countries previous to when this list was established.

You are right I wasn't, I can't find a site that lists them from that long ago though. My mistake.

The US fought China during the Korean war which on your list is ranked 3rd. Iraq back in 1991 [Gulf War I] had the 5th largest standing army on the planet before it was reduced to a smouldering heap

They did fight China, but only a portion, they also fought the Soviet Union during that war as well, but it is a lot different to fight some battalions than the whole army vs. army situation. Iraq may have had the 5th largest standing army, but how trained were they? During the Persian Gulf War, the Iranians were caught with their pants down and within less than 2 years had repelled the Iraq army and taking back virtually all territory that they lost. So, they may have had a large army, but it is evident that Iran's army/training was vastly superior.

Iran ranked 12th?

Yes, I had no idea either. Afghanistan is rated #51 and it took over 10 years to "win" that war, with high American casualties.
Hmmm..

reply to post by superman2012

SM...Most of the knowledge I have past on I have learned first hand although you can google this information as nothing I have said has not already been reported or speculated. I cannot discuss classified programs that have not in one way or another already appeared in the media.

I would first google the FEL or Free Electron Laser...as I have said many times...this is the ULTIMATE WEAPON and will render Nuclear weapons OBSOLETE.

Next...there is much information on Non-Nuclear EMP devices on the net...and the U.S. is not the only country that has them...it is just we are the only country that has them SMALL ENOUGH and POWERFUL ENOUGH to be delivered by Airborne Systems.

As far as ISRAEL...you have THAT all wrong. My friend...a Lt. Colonel has just been hired as a Consultant for the IDF...I was also asked to go but declined. Israel is trying to hire as many Retired U.S. Military and "CIVILIAN" opperators as possible to give the Iranians the appearence of a Massive U.S. Military Buildup...hey...the pay is outstanding! But this is the reality.

ISRAEL will not be allowed to bomb Iranian Nuclear Sites as this would Irradiate the whole Middle East. I don't care who is in office for the Israelis and Israel is the U.S.'s BITCH! PERIOD! If they were to DARE bomb those sites....we would cut off aid. Plus bombing those sites would kill Hundreds of Thousands over time and Cancer and Birth Defects would be prevelent for a Hundred plus years. There is only one way to do it Militarily....our way...but the best way is for Iran's people to dismantle them with U.N. Inspectors...and this will happen as the current Iranian Regime has only 12 to 18 months left of life in it before Pro-Democracy Movements take over.

I have worked in the field and still do on occasion and there is no Nuclear Option on the Table...Nukes are a thing of the past. The U.S. has far more effective and clean weapons in the tool box. We have been developing them for a long time specifically to protect irradiation of Middle Eastern Oil fields while at the same time defeating a Soviet Invasion of this area. It has been only recently...in the past 5 years we were able to develop the Super Computers and understand Energy frequencies and conservation with super conductors to develop these things that have been on the drawing boards for a long time.

There are other U.S. Weapons that are too terrible to talk about...but they exist and in an all out slug fest....no one could take us on. Remember...the U.S. Weapons that everyone says are so advanced were developed in the 70's...it is 2012. We have some serious weaponry. Split Infinity

Originally posted by superman2012

They did fight China, but only a portion, they also fought the Soviet Union during that war as well, but it is a lot different to fight some battalions than the whole army vs. army situation.

Tell that to over 400,000 Chinese who never made it back home or the over 250,000 North Koreans compared to 64,000 US. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest. This thread has good potential to educate many...

Iraq may have had the 5th largest standing army, but how trained were they? During the Persian Gulf War, the Iranians were caught with their pants down and within less than 2 years had repelled the Iraq army and taking back virtually all territory that they lost. So, they may have had a large army, but it is evident that Iran's army/training was vastly superior.

True to an extent yet it was a stalemate. They fought each other to a bloody stand still. Iraq in GW-I thought they could fight the US/West the same way they fought Iran and inflict major casualties relying heavily on Soviet doctrine and tactics and using Soviet equipment and it was a disaster for them.

Yes, I had no idea either. Afghanistan is rated #51 and it took over 10 years to "win" that war, with high American casualties.
Hmmm..

American causalities in 10 years are 1/4 of what the Soviets lost in Afghanistan in 7 years. Yes, there is fighting still going in Afghanistan and I wouldn't call it a "Win"

If you have issues with what I've written Google is always there. Better yet pick a library of your choosing and crack open some books.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

You will have to excuse me if I doubt you. If I only had a nickel for everyone that claimed to either be a part of black ops, or their father's friends husbands cousins nieces weatherman knew someone who knew someone, I would be a hundredaire! Hmm...maybe I should ask for a dollar instead of a nickel....anyways, back on topic, if you can provide proof (which you can't...classified right?)...that you are who you claim to be, I will believe you, until that time though, good luck with the meds and please don't kill me.

reply to post by superman2012


First, OP, I hope Iran doesn’t attack US or Israeli forces and start a conflict. I also hope US and Israeli forces do not start a conflict with Iran (or Syria or anyone else). More conflicts would not be good for the world.

Having said that…

As much as I hear the US is “spread too thin” I believe that is completely false. This is propaganda at its finest. The US is quite capable of fighting a war on multiple fronts and hasn’t even come close to tapping into its full troop strength or full projection of force.

The US has the most battle-hardened military in the world right now. We’ve got men coming home from the Middle East with 7+ combat tours. These are hard men with more combat experience than any soldiers on the planet.

The US asymmetric warfare capability has grown leaps and bounds since Vietnam. Hard lessons were learned and the proof of this has been seen over the past 10 years in Iraq (compare the American death toll in Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan combined). A much bigger focus has been applied to special operations. All US military branches have made HUGE strides in this area.

If things go nuclear then the outcome is obvious and devastating (especially for people on that side of the world). I do not think US wants a repeat of Japan, so I doubt US would use that force unless all options were exhausted (as it should be).

reply to post by SLAYER69

True to an extent yet it was a stalemate. They fought each other to a bloody stand still. Iraq in GW-I thought they could fight the US/West the same way they fought Iran and inflict major casualties relying heavily on Soviet doctrine and tactics and using Soviet equipment and it was a disaster for them.

Yes it was. Every war is different and the US learned that with Afghanistan. The US is not very good with asymmetric warfare, Iran is. If you keep a war going long enough, eventually the invaders will leave when it costs them more to be there than they would profit from staying. Afghani people used homemade bombs against the US's trillion dollar military budget, I would say that countries are bleeding the US dry by having them enter these unnecessary wars.

Originally posted by superman2012
Yes it was. Every war is different and the US learned that with Afghanistan. The US is not very good with asymmetric warfare, Iran is.

Could you show us the readers some examples of how Iran is good at this?

If you keep a war going long enough, eventually the invaders will leave when it costs them more to be there than they would profit from staying. Afghani people used homemade bombs against the US's trillion dollar military budget, I would say that countries are bleeding the US dry by having them enter these unnecessary wars.

Just to be fair.
They can't force the US/West out either.
Meanwhile, schools, hospitals, roads and bridges etc are being built.

reply to post by superman2012

Yes it was. Every war is different and the US learned that with Afghanistan. The US is not very good with asymmetric warfare, Iran is. If you keep a war going long enough, eventually the invaders will leave when it costs them more to be there than they would profit from staying. Afghani people used homemade bombs against the US's trillion dollar military budget, I would say that countries are bleeding the US dry by having them enter these unnecessary wars.

I think you’re overlooking the fact that the US appears to have a hard time with asymmetrical warfare simply because the bureaucrats in DC limit the actions of the men on the ground. Politics create the illusion that the US isn’t good at fighting that type of enemy. This is something the US has NOT improved since Vietnam. If the bureaucrats would let the generals do their jobs (fight and win wars) then you’d see a much different outcome.

First, OP, I hope Iran doesn’t attack US or Israeli forces and start a conflict. I also hope US and Israeli forces do not start a conflict with Iran (or Syria or anyone else). More conflicts would not be good for the world.

Having said that…

As much as I hear the US is “spread too thin” I believe that is completely false. This is propaganda at its finest. The US is quite capable of fighting a war on multiple fronts and hasn’t even come close to tapping into its full troop strength or full projection of force.

I also hope for common sense to rule and no one attacks anyone.
The US is spread too thin, that being said, the US for right now, is capable of fighting a war on multiple fronts, but, what happens when your economy tanks and the troops are overseas suddenly fighting for only their country, and not a paycheck, benefits, etc.? Would you work for free when no country is threatening your own country?

The US has the most battle-hardened military in the world right now. We’ve got men coming home from the Middle East with 7+ combat tours. These are hard men with more combat experience than any soldiers on the planet.

You mean these same tired men/women that just want to live in peace and watch their children grow up after watching their friends die and their families grieve? They may have more combat experience, but, why does Ron Paul get more money from military men/women than any other candidate? Answer: They are tired of policing the world, tired of killing innocent people, tired of not seeing their family, tired of going to fight for "freedom" to find out that they were lied to and no one was trying to kill their families in the first place.

The US asymmetric warfare capability has grown leaps and bounds since Vietnam. Hard lessons were learned and the proof of this has been seen over the past 10 years in Iraq (compare the American death toll in Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan combined). I much bigger focus has been applied to special operations. All US military branches have made HUGE strides in this area.

No it hasn't. If that was the case, Afghanistan would have been a cakewalk. The death toll lowering can be attributed to better intelligence, better technology, etc. If you send in a drone to kill someone, the operator isn't really at risk is he/she?

If things go nuclear then the outcome is obvious and devastating (especially for people on that side of the world). I do not think US wants a repeat of Japan, so I doubt US would use that force unless all options were exhausted (as it should be).

If things go nuclear, we are all doomed. Simple as that. It won't matter where you live. I don't think any nation is that stupid to go that route.

reply to post by seabag


Well that's true.

The West wasn't doing bad at all [Relatively speaking] when it was just Special Forces in Afghanistan helping the Afghan Northern Alliance fight the Taliban. But the Brass over at the Pentagon wanted a "Real War" and brought in the Billion dollar toys.

Now look at that mess....

reply to post by superman2012

You mean these same tired men/women that just want to live in peace and watch their children grow up after watching their friends die and their families grieve? They may have more combat experience, but, why does Ron Paul get more money from military men/women than any other candidate? Answer: They are tired of policing the world, tired of killing innocent people, tired of not seeing their family, tired of going to fight for "freedom" to find out that they were lied to and no one was trying to kill their families in the first place.

That’s speculation on your part. Just because some feel that way, don’t think for a minute that reflects the mentality of them all. Nonsense…sorry!

No it hasn't. If that was the case, Afghanistan would have been a cakewalk. The death toll lowering can be attributed to better intelligence, better technology, etc. If you send in a drone to kill someone, the operator isn't really at risk is he/she?

Is a drone not a form of asymmetrical warfare??

As I previously stated, I think you’re overlooking the fact that the US appears to have a hard time with asymmetrical warfare simply because the bureaucrats in DC limit the actions of the men on the ground. Politics create the illusion that the US isn’t good at fighting that type of enemy. This is something the US has NOT improved since Vietnam. If the bureaucrats would let the generals do their jobs (fight and win wars) then you’d see a much different outcome.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012
Yes it was. Every war is different and the US learned that with Afghanistan. The US is not very good with asymmetric warfare, Iran is.

Could you show us the readers some examples of how Iran is good at this?

If you keep a war going long enough, eventually the invaders will leave when it costs them more to be there than they would profit from staying. Afghani people used homemade bombs against the US's trillion dollar military budget, I would say that countries are bleeding the US dry by having them enter these unnecessary wars.

Just to be fair.
They can't force the US/West out either.
Meanwhile, schools, hospitals, roads and bridges etc are being built.

edit on 30-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

No I can't show you any examples of how Iran is good at this. I'll let the US Gov't show you. Another link with Igor Korotchenko (Moscow based Military expert).
Lots of examples in Google.

You are right, to be fair, although I don't think the US/West will "win", Iran most definitely will not "win" either.

reply to post by seabag

That’s speculation on your part. Just because some feel that way, don’t think for a minute that reflects the mentality of them all. Nonsense…sorry!

You're right of course...but it works both ways.

Is a drone not a form of asymmetrical warfare??

Yes, it was. However, the "enemy" has found a way to counteract the "attempt to exploit their characteristic weakness" (meaning on Wikipedia). They shot them down, or waited for them to fail themselves. No doubt they have themselves or have the Chinese reverse engineering the RQ-170.

As I previously stated, I think you’re overlooking the fact that the US appears to have a hard time with asymmetrical warfare simply because the bureaucrats in DC limit the actions of the men on the ground. Politics create the illusion that the US isn’t good at fighting that type of enemy. This is something the US has NOT improved since Vietnam. If the bureaucrats would let the generals do their jobs (fight and win wars) then you’d see a much different outcome.

I think the only fact that all of us are overlooking is that the US and every other country for that matter, should look at and take care of their own house before telling anyone else that their house is dirty. I don't think the US should be fighting a war for Israel. I don't think the troops should be over there risking their lives for more lies. I don't think anymore innocents should die for the suits in Washington. Maybe I'm just weird though.

Originally posted by superman2012
No I can't show you any examples of how Iran is good at this. I'll let the US Gov't show you. Another link with Igor Korotchenko (Moscow based Military expert).
Lots of examples in Google.

I'll take those two with a grain of salt considering the sources.

You are right, to be fair, although I don't think the US/West will "win", Iran most definitely will not "win" either.

I think Iran would end up on the shorter end of the stick since the fighting would be taking place in their living room

Let's just hope the situation never escalates in the first place for me to be proven correct.

For those who have been keeping score and has paid attention to Clintons gutting of the Us Military then to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last decade then figure in the massive defense cuts and the canncellation of a myraid of projects like the f-22,the commanche and other system.

Then figure in the massive man power cuts and a military based off 70's and 80's technology and the casualties of war for the past decade i would say the American position could be a hell of alot better than it is.

That said to reitterate an earlier point this nation needs at least a decade to rearm,resupply and requipp and get into the 21st century some say we have the best military of the world i submit that for what we spend on it it should be a hell of alot better.

Also people haven't been paying attention to the last decade we have already been fighting Iran via their proxy wars in Iraq.Afghanistan and Isreal.

Pay attention there are no winners and losers in war especially those who sit on the interent and play arm chair generals and have a pissing contest whose got the better what.

They are all safe and sound running their mouths never experiencing what war is ok that is true for 99% that 1 % who goes off and fight them at walmart prices.

Everyone said Iraq was the baddest kid on the block and shown twice to be less than now everyone is saying Iran is the biggest baddest kid on the block.

Soon your going to find out but after 2012 and that is if the current potus is voted out.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012
No I can't show you any examples of how Iran is good at this. I'll let the US Gov't show you. Another link with Igor Korotchenko (Moscow based Military expert).
Lots of examples in Google.

I'll take those two with a grain of salt considering the sources.

You are right, to be fair, although I don't think the US/West will "win", Iran most definitely will not "win" either.

I think Iran would end up on the shorter end of the stick since the fighting would be taking place in their living room

Let's just hope the situation never escalates in the first place for me to be proven correct.

You don't like the United States Joint Forces Command as a source? Geez, you're hard to please.
There are lots more, just google it.

I also believe that Iran would take the brunt of the fire, but, the US would sure get singed. I also hope this is nothing more than armchair general talk.

Here's another link for you.

Originally posted by superman2012
I also believe that Iran would take the brunt of the fire, but, the US would sure get singed. I also hope this is nothing more than armchair general talk.

Let's hope we never find out.

PEACE

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

You will have to excuse me if I doubt you. If I only had a nickel for everyone that claimed to either be a part of black ops, or their father's friends husbands cousins nieces weatherman knew someone who knew someone, I would be a hundredaire! Hmm...maybe I should ask for a dollar instead of a nickel....anyways, back on topic, if you can provide proof (which you can't...classified right?)...that you are who you claim to be, I will believe you, until that time though, good luck with the meds and please don't kill me.

As I have said on this board...if no proof is given then you shouldn't believe it. Split Infinity

reply to post by seabag

Wise words. I have family members who died in Nam. I remember the pain. That was not a WAR...that was a weapons testing ground. The U.S. didn't even bomb Hanoi till the end. It was a JOKE that Politicians Micromanaged.

You are right about the Bull of the U.S. being spread thin. Split Infinity

reply to post by Chance321

How do you think we get agents in country?