This is what a US strike on Iran would look like.....

I was sent this link from another member who stumbled across it earlier today while they were surfing other unrelated topics. I did a quick search and didn't see it posted. It's fairly new Oct. 26, 2012, 12:51 PM

I thought it was worth posting and see what other members think of the "Plan" I'm sure there will be a few posters given their political opinions of the situation [That's a given] I'd also like to here from those who are more familiar with Iranian and Western capabilities to also chime in also.

Follow the link for some very interesting visuals on the possible scenario.

Obviously I'd like to hear both Pro and Con but remember people, keep it civil...

This Attack Plan For Iran Is So Extensive There's No Way The US Could Go It Alone

With Britain questioning the legality of a strike on Iran, denying the U.S. access to pivotal airbases, and the U.S. presidential election just days away, we wanted to re-examine how extensive an endeavor a strike on Iran would be.

Washington D.C. foreign policy think tank the Center For Strategic & International Studies took a long hard look at what it really means to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, what it would take, and what it could lead to in a report last month authored by the renowned Anthony Cordesman.

The speculation that Israel can go it alone against Tehran remains, but the specifics of what's required by a US attack to put the nuclear program in the dust is outlined in detail. At least 16 F-18s, and 10 B-2 bombers carrying 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, would initially be required by US forces. The U.S. fleet of B-2s called for here are largely stationed in the U.S. and though aerial refueling is common, where those tankers may fly from is limited.

Iran's retaliation would be another story entirely with a massive incoming missile salvo directed about the entire region. When that happens a full ballistic missile war could ensue with untold US space, air, sea, and land elements coming into play.

Some illustrations of the possible outcomes are below......

I hate short posts but , check this out.

www.itv.com...

That seems a little light.I would think cruise missiles would be used extensively as well.

Con

There are too many negative outcomes and lasting ramifications if Israel and the US was to follow through with a strike.

Oh I do not doubt that the joint Israel/US venture would eventually be the victor, but at what cost. Regardless of how contained this conflict will be, the global environment will turn toxic in my opinion and any prospect for the promotion of peace and collective progress will be thrown out the proverbial window.

In my mind, there is yet to be enough justification to warrant any strike, or even enough to warrant the covert operations under way.

Can someone please email Washington and the entire Obama administration the IAEA inspector reports from the last two years? Maybe CC the Brits as well, for good measure.

Thanks.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
In my mind, there is yet to be enough justification to warrant any strike, or even enough to warrant the covert operations under way.

But Iran has been Covertly active for decades.
Doesn't Warrant any kind of legitimate response?

I just sent the link to the Iranian embassy
Hope I get a nice check in the post for telling them how they will get invaded.
Come on they are not going to release real plans are they.

reply to post by SLAYER69


As long as Obama is in office, this'll be just a pipe-dream.

If Romney becomes president, see a similar Iran reaction to when Reagan won.

So, no war.

Sorry folks, but it won't be happening.

You anti-Israel folks will have to find another word other than war-monger to call us.

SnF!

1. There is no way of bombing most of the underground facilities. They're too deep and no bomb or bunker buster or whatever has the power to get THAT deep.

2. If chemical or biological weapons are stored also underground they're not as deep as the facilities, so bombing it will basically release EVERYTHING into the atmosphere - SMART.

3. Nukes are out of the question.

4. So you can hit 1 or 2 facilities. What about the others? Oh yes, the theory is "seal the entry and exit points".... which is so stupid and so pointless that I cant even comment.

5. The shahab is the only missile raining on israel? No. It will be LOTS of them. It will be the freakin missile monsoon season in israel - along with the shahab of course.

6. Israel cant do it alone. Iran is not palestine where you just bulldoze your way through people's houses

7. US cant do it alone. Iran is not Iraq, and if Iraq was already a mess, can you imagine Iran?

8. Its obvious it needs an "invasion plan" to really put a stop to this (imaginary) "nuclear threat" - again Teheran is not Baghdad.

9. The chain reaction is too big and too dangerous to predict.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

As long as Obama is in office, this'll be just a pipe-dream.

If Romney becomes president, see a similar Iran reaction to when Reagan won.

So, no war.

Sorry folks, but it won't be happening.

You anti-Israel folks will have to find another word other than war-monger to call us.

SnF!

Since when is anti-war synonymous with anti-Israel?

reply to post by SLAYER69


With the US's economy and the fact they told Iran not to attack them if Israel attacks Iran, leads me to believe (might be wrong) that the US will not enter a war with Iran.

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Since when is anti-war synonymous with anti-Israel?

Since Iran started building nukes.

Personally, I look at the map and look at what they have laid out and have a few reactions. First, I hope to God our military isn't looking at a similar map and with only those options, is considering this a viable campaign.

Second..I want to laugh.

Last....I recall those are my fellow Americans represented by aircraft and ship icons..and personally know and am related to a couple who will BE in that mess. Finally then, I want to cry.

IF that is what they are looking at at the Pentagon and White House and IF they actually entertain the concept of victory based only on THAT force in Iran? We'd better hunker down and settle in for a very long and very ugly war. The first wave is going to get it's ass kicked real hard and I just pray the pilots lost aren't taken alive on the ground. We sure as hell can't get there to rescue any of them.

Now why would I say such things? Well... One has to look at a map and run mileages. It's a real bad thing when one does that. It's ugly without much way to put it otherwise.

Tehran to the Gulf Waters = 418 Miles x 2 - 836 Miles for the round trip.
Tehran to the Afghani Border = 531 Miles x 2 = 1062 Miles for the round trip

F-15 Range = 3,400+ miles if configured as a flying gas can / 1,000 Nautical miles for combat operations
F-16 Range = 2,620 miles in gas can config / 340 Miles for combat operations
F-18 Range = 500 Nautical Miles
F-117 Range = 1,250 Miles in gas can config / 765 Miles for combat operations (this one at least gets there!)
AH-64 Apache Range = 1,180 Miles in gas can config / 300 Miles for combat operations

(Source - A prior thread I wrote on geography for this)

Coming from the Gulf? It's too far. Coming from Afghanistan? It's too far. Coming from the Indian Ocean? it's WAYYYYY too far. There are TWO ways, I see, the United States can hit Northern Iran (where the good stuff actually IS...not at the Gulf where nothing but oil and and the power plant sit). Either a Caspian sea nation has to give full cooperation to us or Iraq has to allow us back in to stage there.

On the Caspian? MAYBE....but what could have happened 4 years ago, won't now, IMO. Nations who may have trusted us with such a HUGE risk then, have NO reason to now. We crap on allies, burn secrets and share intelligence publicly like it's a game. Iranian soil is 116 miles from the soil of the Russian Federation. In THAT neighborhood, it's absolutely no game and actions today will bring actions lasting years or decades AFTER the U.S, gets what it wants from it. So... Little chance there.

Iraq?? lol.... do I even need to cover why Iraq wouldn't let us re-stage there? Besides.... Iraq signed a historic multi-BILLION dollar pipeline deal this year to be the center of a Iran -> Syria gas pipeline. If Iraq has to choose friends? They already did and we lost.

*** now this doesn't even TOUCH on the fact that by known intelligence the public can see, nothing the United States has in conventional weapons can destroy the Fordow facility. The 30,000lb MOAB goes DEEP. Indeed. Fordow is KNOWN to be deeper. Not by much....but close doesn't count when 100% destruction is absolutely essential. Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons? Oh hell....Fordow won't even know what hit them.....but then, nor will Obama when the world comes down on him with the weight of the entire planet.

I think csis is one of those "scenario generators" that probably already boarded 1000 of these.

I like the graphics

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Since when is anti-war synonymous with anti-Israel?

Since Iran started building nukes.

“My friends, you don’t have to-you don’t need to do nation-building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.” ~ Israeli PM Benjamin Netananyahu to Congress in 11'.

We don't even have a formal defense treaty with Israel.

Whatever dude. They're clearly not synonymous.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by MDDoxs
In my mind, there is yet to be enough justification to warrant any strike, or even enough to warrant the covert operations under way.

But Iran has been Covertly active for decades.
Doesn't Warrant any kind of legitimate response?

I am all for an appropriate response, however I feel that killing numerous young scientists is a bit extreme.

Of course, this is purely speculative. Iran's nuclear program could be miles ahead of what we have been told, or still in the Stone Age.

From the information that I have seen over the last couple decades, I am hesitant to support any incursion or conflict over this program at this time.

replace the nuclear facilities with hospitals and schools and you may be onto something.

No matter what plans are drawn up, something will always go qrong because the entire scenario will depend on the responce of Iran, they could have a compleyely other idea for defence

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

*** now this doesn't even TOUCH on the fact that by known intelligence the public can see, nothing the United States has in conventional weapons can destroy the Fordow facility. The 30,000lb MOAB goes DEEP. Indeed. Fordow is KNOWN to be deeper. Not by much....but close doesn't count when 100% destruction is absolutely essential. Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons? Oh hell....Fordow won't even know what hit them.....but then, nor will Obama when the world comes down on him with the weight of the entire planet

Devils advocate.


Why would it need to touch the facility?

They could theatrically use 3 or 4 and just obliterate all access deep down and entomb those working there ....

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I just sent the link to the Iranian embassy

Hope I get a nice check in the post for telling them how they will get invaded.
Come on they are not going to release real plans are they.

That's part of the problem in these types of discussions.
This scenario isn't an invasion, it's a strike.


Big difference

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

*** now this doesn't even TOUCH on the fact that by known intelligence the public can see, nothing the United States has in conventional weapons can destroy the Fordow facility. The 30,000lb MOAB goes DEEP. Indeed. Fordow is KNOWN to be deeper. Not by much....but close doesn't count when 100% destruction is absolutely essential. Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons? Oh hell....Fordow won't even know what hit them.....but then, nor will Obama when the world comes down on him with the weight of the entire planet

Devils advocate.


Why would it need to touch the facility?

They could theatrically use 3 or 4 and just obliterate all access deep down and entomb those working there ....

As I believe will happen eventually.

I also believe that the technology to do it "clean", is out there. No one really knows "what" types of weapons, could be used.