Bombing Iran: Potential death of hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Okay. So let's say we bomb Iran's peaceful-but-supposedly-not nuclear program.

What do you think the result will be? The military retaliation. Most people yell to bomb it but don't understand what that fully entails. How will Iran react? Will our dispersed and unorganized military magically assemble from being vulnerable policeman, in one day into a organized force and repel an army on the offense 10x larger than itself?

And do this in a hostile land, where the army we just trained in Iraq may turn on us?


--------

 

I'll give my own answer, and I hope others do the same.
--------------

WHEN, not if, the CIA reports are disregarded in favor of Mossad reports, cuz why trust our own intelligence agency? Heck, we don't need a CIA! We'll just listen to the Israeli Mossad! I think we need to look at what will happen from a US military strike.

I will sum up, in my studies of basically every major and minor war this past century, what I think is an entirely likely outcome. Let me give you some history to back it up, and to inform the vast majority of you who know little or nothing about prior mideast wars other than Gulf Wars part I and II.

There are two situations, entirely different outcomes. One thing I have always seen and must be emphasized is that being on the offensive is CRITICAL, anyone caught offguard, will suffer immense casualties. (See invasions of France, Poland, Iraq) The blitzkrieg is a great example of capitalizing on this by catching them before a counterstrike can be mounted.

The Iraq Wars we fought is a misleading illusion of how to fight a mideast battle. Here's why:

Iraq, backed by the US, attacked Iran. After the USA funded both sides, (see Iran-Contra scandal), prolonged the war, leading to the eventual total destruction of the Iraqi military, Iraq lost the war in 1988.

WITHIN TWO YEARS, in Gulf War episode I, 1990 after George. H.W.'s "New World Order" speech, with their army hardly reorganized, we attacked that army. Needless to say the new poorly trained recruits surrendered VERY quickly.

With no-fly zones, sanctions, and international disgrace, Iraq was in shambles. When the Return of the Americans happened a decade later, they still had nothing resembling an army. The Iraq Army was practically used to surrendering to Americans by that point.

COMPARE TO IRAN. Winner of the Iraq-Iran war. Larger country. Better technology. Arrogant and patriotic of their country, Shiite, more religious, THEOCRACY instead of secular, chances are they would be willing to die for their Religion, they see under attack, more than Iraqis would for their hated formerly U.S.-backed dictator. Not to mention Iran has a million man army.

Iran also has 11 million troops in reserve. Iran has the largest reserve army in the world.

Simply put, if the US foolishly bombs Iran, Iran could within a matter of hours send a million troops into Iraq, and have 10 million more waiting for us. They have good technology, and much better military training than Iraq did. Even if we kill them at a 1 for 10 ratio (not likely), it would be unlikely we ever make it to Tehran. And I mean that because we would have no choice but to nuke them, many times. This of course would lead to us becoming not only a "rogue" nation in the view of the world, but also lead to a united 1.2 billion muslims being pissed off at us.

The US forces are not organized, they are dispersed and as vulnerable as your local policemen in most cities. The half of them that are on bases, are also sitting ducks for the most part during an enemy offensive.

---------------------
My prediction is two:

A)After a bombing of a THIRD, shiite Muslim country, the two camps of Islam unite against America. Iran makes a deal with Turkey to jointly invade Iraq. Turkey sends about 400,000 on the border pour across and take Kurdistan a thorn in their side for some time (PKK troubles). Then Iran sends 500,000 into Southern Iraq. US forces are massacred as they are unprepared and dispersed. Only the main bases in western Iraq were able to scramble in time and mount a defense against the North, East, and South invasions, leaving 50,000 americans operational, but Iranian puppet Syria prevents retreat westward. Possible escalation into an all-out Arab vs. Israeli/USA war.

Only possibilities, millions of dead Americans and Israelis, the draft reinstated. Or firing several massive nuclear warheads and genociding the Iranian people. Of course this was to prevent a possible bomb going off here and killing maybe 30,000 people. Dirty bombs are really not capable of much more than that.

Because instead of protecting our USA borders and making sure one DOESN'T get into the country, we should just genocide their populations because they might be hiding or helping terrorists. That makes real sense.

or

B) Iran goes it alone, but the majority Shiite Iraq population joins him. Al Sadr deposes Al Maliki, with help of Iranian agents, and the Iraqi army, with a potential exception of Anbar provincial forces, turns on their American counterparts.

In the event that the Iraqi president who kisses Ahmadenijad's butt also turns on America, then we are really fucked.

Iran sends a million troops from all angles on a "liberation" (yes politics works the same way there too) mission of southern Iraqi Shiites at the request of Al Sadr. US air forces have a definite technological advantage, however the difference is not what it used to be. US air force is able to provide defensive support, but offensive is difficult due to limited numbers in the region and numerical advantages of the enemy.

With the insanely likely event of the Iraqis turning on America after we bomb yet another muslim country, then the organized, offensive of a million Iranians would so easily deal with our tiny spread-out and dispersed 100,000 in Iraq.


Just think about it.

I don't see how a majority of the soldiers now in Iraq could survive the few weeks after we bomb Iran.

The only way is if we draft now, and send 400,000 men to Iraq to deter an invasion. And we'd need more than a month to train them better than the Iranians.

-----


And I think this situation is especially tricky as nuking Iraq for the Iranians inside of it looks really, really, really, bad, as in the entire world declares war on us bad. Note I am not for this, but I am just wondering how exactly one could possibly conceive of waging this war.

Edit: Notice I am operating on the assumption Ahmadenijad, a muslim who supposedly believes these extreme apocalyptic things, is not going to adapt a turn-the-other-cheek christian approach to us bombing his country.

If Ahmadenijad is the bigger man, and doesn't retaliate, I will be very surprised. I can hardly see that version of Iran through the way the media portrays him.

So if you believe the neoconservative viewpoint of Ahmadenijad that would lend credence to the idea that Ahmadenijad would throw all 11 million soldiers at us, and risk his country being obliterated and killing millions of americans and israelis with him; then you should be very careful about any war. You're talking potentially a large portion of world population being eradicated, a draft, etc.

And there would be very little STRATEGIC value to nuclear bombs, because Iranian forces would be in Iraq and potentially Israel. and we can't nuke ourselves. Nuking Iran would be mostly to kill innocent civilians to lower their morale (like Dresden bombings of Germany) as their army are in our ally nation-states.

 

To be honest I am just waking up and I didn't really read much of your post as I found it as insane. Iran having the 'largest reserves' does no good against the US army.

These 'reserves' are not ready, these 'reserves' do not have very good equipment, hell the regular army has crap equipment compared to the US.

Your premise is further insane on the thought that we would bomb Iran while leaving our US men and women in the same spot they currently are without thinking of a plan, positioning for Iran counterstrike.

I'm sorry but IMHO this thread is pretty silly and trully not thought out.

You'll have to forgive me again as I am just waking up, not even firing on 2 cylinders, even now however I can see just how silly this post is.

 

Iran can ready most of the 10 million within a few days. If we bomb them, the retaliation is NOT instant.

Most analysts think we can bomb Iran and walk away without a war as Israel did to Iraq. Which flies in the face of their whole idea of him being a crazy dictator hell bent on the apocalypse.

It's insane to you why? Discussing the military and geopolitical implications of bombing Iran is insane?

Things like potential troop sizes sent at the dispersed and unorganized americans whose current function is policework, if Al Sadr will turn Southern Iraq and the majority Shiite population against us? If Turkey will finally take Kurdistan as has been their goal since the Versailles treaty was signed, etc.

Talking about the reaction to our bombing is insane?

Guess so if you're a short-minded neocon.

Do you remember Vietnam? A bunch of UNTRAINED farmers were handed guns, and killed quite a lot of people. Change that from just a few hundred thousand untrained farmers to 10 million trained fanatical theocratic zealots.

Any plan for a counterstrike involved 100,000 troops many of whom are preoccupied with police functions is inadequate.

Iran will not attack back immediately. That would be foolish, they would be whipping up a fury and gaining other Muslim nations onboard, while having agents help to overthrow the Iraqi government with ease. Chances are the Iraqi government would collapse, and Al Sadr would be de-facto ruler of Iraq and their U.S. trained army would turn on the U.S. undoubtedly.

 

Grim is a short-minded Neocon. LOL.

 

Yes, just because you support Paul does not mean you aren't a Neocon. While generally they believe in spreading Democracy through force, which Grim does not ascribe to. There are things such as America = invincible. Islam = evil, Islamic "jihadists" that "hate freedom" is a real threat to the world.

If you believe the Neocon position if anything you'd be AGAINST rebuilding Iraq and training up a modern Iraqi army to kill us in the inevitable Israeli vs. Arab war. So Paul's position really works for both people who hate muslims and don't want to build their army up to fight Americans in a future war, and those who don't hate them and don't want to oppress them.

I've never heard his reason for not being in Iraq. It could be either A or B. If it's because Islam is evil so we shouldn't build up their army to kill us. Then he could be termed a Neocon with a brain, if unaware of the realities. If it's because he doesn't want to occupy them and piss them off, creating terrorism, then he is not so much, though he might want to lose America = invincible ideas.

The main reason I say neocon is he went "America can't lose" and chose not to read WHY I wrote it, and yet tell me I'm not just wrong, but "insane".

Not to mention the Afghan war, Paul did approve the attacking of a nation rather then sending in covert agents, after all.

He's making the same "America is indestructible" arguments. "America couldn't possibly be challenged militarily by Iran, Al Sadr, and Turkey's 2 million troops on an offensive blitzkrieg combined against our isolated and scattered 120,000 troops!"

It'd be like saying China could do no harm to us. Iran has a larger army than China including reserves, and they are much more fanatical.

Germany was FAR MORE advanced than Japan, but Japan caused WAY greater casualties to America. Why? Fanatical soldiers.

The same can be said of Iran. China has better tech and training, but Iran has probably some of the most fanatical soldiers.

 

Anyways, you don't need to pick apart my answer. I just wanted others to give their own.

You can read mine, fine. Give your own assessment.

 

nice post Cyrus, its a common sense that a war with > 10 mln population country will be dangerous to any country, unless they use nukes to wipe the whole country.

 

THANK YOU.

I mean really, what the hell, a Ron Paulite acting like if we bomb Iran with an 11 million man army there is no real casualties to Americans.

A RON PAUL person is saying that! I guess atleast he believes they would retaliate.

Can't wait for a real "rebuild-their-countries" type to come in and say they won't retaliate, since that is the neocon official position, even though it's neocons who believe Iran is a crazy suicidal dictatorship, but it.... won't go kamikaze on us if we bomb them?

 

Who has an "11 million man army"?

 

Iran. 1 million regular standing army, 10 million trained reserves who could be called up quite quickly. Largest in the world. Said this enough times. Please read.

 

Why couldn't they beat Iraq in an armed conflict?

 

They did beat Iraq. They struggled at first because we armed the Iraqis with chemical weapons and they gassed the Iranians to death.

Eventually through Iran-Contra, the CIA sold drugs to US citizens via Contras to fund arms deals to the Iranians, arming both sides.

We held this balancing act for a 8 years, then Iran won. But since then, the larger Iran has never been attacked and has radically reformed and upgraded their military. Whereas Iraq was attacked again and again, and had a pathetic army.



Keep in mind Iran was attacked by U.S.-backed Iraq when Iran was in a revolution. Iran was at the peak of revolution and the army lost control of it's people, many were avoiding duty or resigned, etc. THEN Iraq invaded.

So there was LITERALLY no one at the border to meet Iraq when they attacked. They conscripted a tens of thousands of suicide bombers within an amazing amount of time, and literally blew themselves up so much Iraq retreated.

Edit: Note the sucide bombers they conscripted for muslim vs muslim warfare. Imagine the collective fury in a muslim defender vs. american invader engagement.

 

the Iranian army is not prepared for an offensive war. They simply don't have the equipment to do it. If they are attacked they will defend themselfs and then use guerilla tactics like the Iraqis use. The problem for the US is that Iran is a very big country and it has a large population. The US would need huge numbers of soldiers and a war with Iran would probably cost a lot more than the war in Iraq

 

same thoughts, although they make bln $ military deals with Russia, probably will be better equipped than Iraq.

I lost the path, do US still plan to attack Iran?

 

On what basis, they have a well-trained standing army. They have over 2,000 main battle tanks. The US has 1100 main battle tanks in Iraq, with over 30% having either minor or major damage from roadside/makeshift bombs.

They outnumber our Iraq forces 10 to 1 with their STANDING army alone. They have about as many special forces as we have troops total. If they call up the reserves before assaulting, they would outnumber our iraq forces 100 to 1.

And I would frankly be surprised to not see Al Sadr and Shiite Iraq turn on their American "crusader" occupiers who just bombed Shiite Iran who attacked no one. Frankly major factions of the Iraqi army could very likely turn on us. And the Sunni already hate us for taking them away from power.

 

Ahh yes and if we bombed them we would have bombers, fighter jets, superior air power in place. We could destroy them as they approached the border.

Yes I do agree on the bold. Iran however I do not believe is insane enough to attack us from a simple bombing. Even if they could mount some form of counter offensive against us, they would know it would only be a small victory for them if they won it. They would be destroyed shortly after.

Not at all, not insane for discussing it. Insane on how you laid it out

We would have to be the biggest fools on the face of the planet to bomb without repositioning our troops, making sure we have air power in place. Our power is so overwhelming it would not take much moving around to ensure Iran could not touch our troops. They could try to lob some missiles I'm sure, ground forces and air forces though, you honestly think they would get through?

How you laid it out there

Of which I am not. To me it appears you are the short minded one, not taking into account that our military of course would change our positioning for such a bombing. If they didn't, well they would have to be some of the poorest planners on the face of the planet. Yeah I know ironic considering the Iraq war, I just don't see them being that inept. Unless of course they are trying for hitting Iran without warning, still very hard to believe they would not at least have plans laid out, and move some forces around.

Ahh yes and you have to get those 10 million into the country, plus take away from the fact that we are much better armed ourselves now

How are they going to get acrossed the border? Our air power alone could simply ravage them as they even attempted to cross.

Ahh yes, here I will agree with you. They would do it under the table, that however takes alot of the reserves argument really out of the picture IMHO.

I also highly doubt Turkey would attack 'us' they might attack the north, they would not be hitting us though. Don't see how Turkey really would matter even if they did attack the north in the situation you laid out.

BTW part of why I posted in the thread was to get it going. I do have a similiar fear if we attacked Iran while we occupy Iraq in the current state

 

Iran's revolutionary guards are one of the best trained Army's in the world, while the USA sure may have the best equipment and money, their soldiers are pretty incompatent. You can't attack Iran because you will only come out as the loser, just look at the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. You have to understand that us Muslims are not afraid to die, even the ones that aren't in the military, because of the religion.