Hob_Gadling posted:You could attempt to solve the same problem with genocide. The point stands that it's a conscious and important decision to limit violence. Not really. If you want to play dumb unrealistic games then sure, killing the entire civilian populace of a country will eliminate an insurgency within the region where mass murder occurred. It's not a realistic proposition. "Hearts and Minds" campaigns are really an amalgamation of methods(infrastructure building, food aid, medical aid, reform of poorly functioning insitutions etc) designed to reach out to the civilian population in order to sway their beliefs towards the legitimate government. It is a recognition that an insurgency draws it's strength(men, material, food, intelligence, etc) from the civilian population and, in order to win the war, COIN forces must win the support of the civilian population. If suffering is reduced through such means it is only because COIN forces believe it will lessen support for insurgent forces and not in a sincere effort to reduce suffering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Lobster God posted:Killing Hope is the standard recommendation for this sort of thing. It only gives a relatively brief summary of each 'intervention' but has copious notes if you want to take it further. I'm going to second this recommendation. One of the best books I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Morose Man posted:Technological question. As has been said, the Iraqi T72s that kept having their turrets blown off in Desert Storm were inferior export models and a generation behind the M1 Abrams, which were one-shotting them from farther away than the Iraqis could see. I've read the after-action report on 73 Easting (and, sadly, lost the link). If you can find it, it'll answer your question -- there was a lot of friendly fire in that battle. I forget the Abrams-vs-Abrams stats (I think they are proof against their own silver bullets on the front and not so much on the sides, as you'd expect, but don't quote me), but the APC results were pretty funny -- drat near every shell hole in a Bradley (and there were quite a few Bradleys hit) was small and "slightly radioactive," which means depleted uranium penetrator, which means it came from an M1. The report does not say whether they were targeted or just drove between an M1 and a T72. Whatever the case, it turns out an APFSDS lawn dart doesn't do much to a lightly-armored APC, it just goes through and leaves a tiny hole and the crew barely notices. The only friendly-fire hard kill was one Bradley putting a TOW missile into another. quote:Will we ever again see a situation like the Russian Front in World War 2 where astonished Panzer commanders saw their shells bounce harmlessly off T-34s? quote:How important will armour be on AFVs in the future? APCs/IFVs are pretty much only proof against small arms, possibly with slat armor to stop RPGs; if you get in a shooting match with a tank, you run the gently caress away and let your tanks take care of it. Tangentially, back in the age of sail it was an unwritten rule that ships of the line wouldn't fire on frigates unless the little guy shot first. The frigates were scouts and messengers and it would be unsporting for the heavies to engage them. Edit: slightly less of a tangent: It amuses me that 73 Easting was basically a heavy cavalry charge, using essentially the same tactics as the knights of old. Sure, you've got depleted-uranium lawn darts and Browning .50s instead of lances and swords, but the movements are the same with tanks as with horses. It makes sense, I suppose -- Patton, who wrote the book on tanks (well, read that magnificent bastard's book and added his own comments) was originally a horseman, and designed the last serious fighting sword before he was put in a tank and out-blitzed the blitzkrieg. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Sep 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 02:33
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
If the Iraq war had ended in a month or two, was Iran probably going to be the next domino to fall?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
I've heard that the Bradly had a rough development. Was it mission creep or something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: slightly less of a tangent: It amuses me that 73 Easting was basically a heavy cavalry charge, using essentially the same tactics as the knights of old. Sure, you've got depleted-uranium lawn darts and Browning .50s instead of lances and swords, but the movements are the same with tanks as with horses. It makes sense, I suppose -- Patton, who wrote the book on tanks (well, read that magnificent bastard's book and added his own comments) was originally a horseman, and designed the last serious fighting sword before he was put in a tank and out-blitzed the blitzkrieg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:If the Iraq war had ended in a month or two, was Iran probably going to be the next domino to fall? How in your wildest of dreams have you imagined this to happen? And which war in Iraq is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:If the Iraq war had ended in a month or two, was Iran probably going to be the next domino to fall? My understanding is that Iran had/has a much better equipped and better trained military that Iraq did in 2003. They have newer equipment. More importantly, their soldiers are much better trained. More important than that, their command and control is much more advanced. I'm not a military nut, though. Perhaps someone with more experience can weigh in on those areas. Let's not forget the greatest advantage that Iran has over Iraq: they're not diplomatically isolated. Iran would be impossible to attack, not because of any conventional or nuclear military ability; but because Russia, China, and dozens of other countries wouldn't abide it. Iraq had no such advantage in 1991 or 2003.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Iraq is also a much smaller country than Iran is. Both population-wise, 34 vs 76 million people. Tehran is also more than twice the size of Baghdad. And in regards to land area.  Not only is Iran vastly larger, most of it is mountain ranges. So think of cities bigger than in Iraq, with countryside like in Afghanistan. You would have to be either utterly insane or be prepared to send in something like half a million soldiers to take control. USA just simply doesn't have resources for that. Plus it'd seriously endanger oil trade because Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and they are themselves a very big player in the market, something that Iraq wasn't in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, I couldn't even imagine what kind of nightmare an invasion of Iran (especially if it is done at the same time as Iraq and Afghanistan!) would be. I think that just could do it for the U.S. You know, end it as a superpower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Jesus Christ, I couldn't even imagine what kind of nightmare an invasion of Iran (especially if it is done at the same time as Iraq and Afghanistan!) would be. I think that just could do it for the U.S. You know, end it as a superpower. People forget just how big the US is. If the US wanted to I have no doubt it could take over Iran, but it would have to go into an actual war footing to do so; start up the draft, etc. Which isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:People forget just how big the US is. If the US wanted to I have no doubt it could take over Iran, but it would have to go into an actual war footing to do so; start up the draft, etc. Which isn't going to happen. It's not so much people forgetting that, it just isn't within the realm of possible, just like so many other things. Eg. Soviet Union was a super power much bigger than Afghanistan, and if they could defeat Germany in WW2, then they surely COULD have brought peace and communism to A-stan. Even if millions of Russians died. Had the US public truly reacted to 9/11 in a similar way to Pearl Harbor, they wouldn't have minded sending millions of men to hunt Al Qaida down and having hundreds of thousands KIA. But no, such sacrifices are considered acceptable only when there is a real, acute, unavoidable existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How in your wildest of dreams have you imagined this to happen? And which war in Iraq is it? The Iranian gov't is an even bigger boogyman to the US than Hussein. Someone once speculated to me that one of the secondary goals of having a bunch of American forces on the Iran-Iraq border, ready to push into that country. Whether or not this was actually planned to happen or not, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:The Iranian gov't is an even bigger boogyman to the US than Hussein. Someone once speculated to me that one of the secondary goals of having a bunch of American forces on the Iran-Iraq border, ready to push into that country. The biggest worry already in 1991 with regards to invading Iraq was that the Iranian-backed Shias would get too much power, so I would say that speculation was mistaken. So did I - already in 1991, nothing made that concern disappear in 12 years. Except in the minds of GWB's cabinet. VVV Nenonen fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The biggest worry already in 1991 with regards to invading Iraq was that the Iranian-backed Shias would get too much power, so I would say that speculation was mistaken. I meant the current Iraq war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:The Iranian gov't is an even bigger boogyman to the US than Hussein. Someone once speculated to me that one of the secondary goals of having a bunch of American forces on the Iran-Iraq border, ready to push into that country. We were certainly thinking about it. Waaaay back, in the 3rd presidential debate in the 2004 campaign John Kerry cut one of his answers short and then went on a tangent about Iran. No reason, no connection to the question he was responding to, just "by the way, if we need to use force against Iran I'm all for it." And Iran's actually in the Axis of Evil, so it's certain the case against Iran was studied in detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:We were certainly thinking about it. Waaaay back, in the 3rd presidential debate in the 2004 campaign John Kerry cut one of his answers short and then went on a tangent about Iran. No reason, no connection to the question he was responding to, just "by the way, if we need to use force against Iran I'm all for it." And Iran's actually in the Axis of Evil, so it's certain the case against Iran was studied in detail. 'Use of force' is different from 'full on invasion', however. Israel has been threatening Iran with a use of force - ie. an airstrike on a nuclear facility. Ditto John McCain with his 'BombBombBombIran' song. Neither Israel nor John McCain are going to actually invade Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
It makes sense that invading a flat, weakened, diplomatically-isolated country would be a lot easier than sending troops into Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Diplomatic considerations aside, even just bombing Iran is not as simple as it seems. The IRIAF has not changed greatly since the end of the Iran-Iraq war (with the exception being all those Iraqi aircraft that flew to Iran) and it does not have a large amount of good planes, its biggest asset being 20-something operational F-14s. However, it has a lot of experienced personnel, an actual SAM network, and is looking to acquire more modern equipment, mainly either Su-30s or J-10s. The point being that even bombing Iran would provoke losses to the US/assorted allies, unlike the pre-war bombings of Iraq, or the missions over Libya now. The US would most likely be able to meet all of its objectives, but from a media/pr point of view it would not be cakewalk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
How are those F-14s still operational?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How are those F-14s still operational? Same way other 70's aircraft are still operational. Through maintenance and tech updates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How are those F-14s still operational? I would imagine just like those 50s Fords in Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Same way other 70's aircraft are still operational. Through maintenance and tech updates. Yeah, but an F-14, I assume, is way more complex then a car, and its not like the US is giving them parts and updates. I guess they managed to learn how to maintain them on their own?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yeah, but an F-14, I assume, is way more complex then a car, and its not like the US is giving them parts and updates. I guess they managed to learn how to maintain them on their own? I would assume they would cannibalize some of the Tomcats for parts, get others through the black market, and such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
They can probably do most of their training flights with more accessible planes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How are those F-14s still operational? Well it's been 30 years. I'm guessing they probably figured out how to manufacture spares for them by now. I don't think the Iranian F-14's have the ability to load Phoenix missiles, which kind of takes away the point of having a Tomcat in the first place. So basically they have a bunch of carrier interceptors without teeth and without a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Well it's been 30 years. I'm guessing they probably figured out how to manufacture spares for them by now. More importantly, they sure as gently caress aren't getting any more AIM-54s. I read that they actually rigged some of the Tomcats to be able to carry and fire goddamn Hawk missles from the SAM systems we sold them. How wild is that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I don't think the Iranian F-14's have the ability to load Phoenix missiles, which kind of takes away the point of having a Tomcat in the first place. So basically they have a bunch of carrier interceptors without teeth and without a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Iranian F-14As can fire the aim-54 and they have some in stock and it is recognized that they can manufacture some of the spare parts associated with the missile (like the the thermal batteries, which they nearly ran out of during Iran-Iraq). Now whether they have a lot of a few is a bit of a mystery, as are claims that they have developed their own copy. Unless something has changed dramatically in the last two years Iran really doesn't have the capability to copy the Phoenix, in particular the nose cone. The Phoenix's radar was a ridiculously powerful and versatile thing, and its nose cone was made of a super high-tech ultra thin ceramic setup that had to be able to allow through a half dozen different electronic wavelengths and at the same time withstand the heat of traveling Mach 6 and however many Gs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Unless something has changed dramatically in the last two years Iran really doesn't have the capability to copy the Phoenix, in particular the nose cone. The Phoenix's radar was a ridiculously powerful and versatile thing, and its nose cone was made of a super high-tech ultra thin ceramic setup that had to be able to allow through a half dozen different electronic wavelengths and at the same time withstand the heat of traveling Mach 6 and however many Gs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
If we're talking about attacking an Iranian enrichment facility, then I think USA would use cruise missiles at first like they always do. But the bigger question is what would happen next. Iran would certainly retaliate. It would also make it even harder for Iranian reformists to participate in Iranian politics. Neither are exactly things that the west wants. Israel on the other hand is more concerned with stopping Iran from whatever they might be doing, and they have about as bad relations with Iran as it can get (apart from Iran starting to persecute Iranian Jews as enemy spies). But they don't have any of the luxuries that USA has - Iran is far from home, and the airspace between them is well guarded. They did bomb Osirak by crossing through Saudi airspace in 1981, but the countries in the area have gotten much better air defense systems since then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
I cant say i envy Israel in this situation. If they decide to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme I support them whole heartedly. For them its like sitting in the same room with a man assembling a gun while saying "when this is done, im going to shoot you in the head"
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
I wish Israel would've been made from a chunk of post-WW2 Germany, as some wanted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:I cant say i envy Israel in this situation. If they decide to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme I support them whole heartedly. For them its like sitting in the same room with a man assembling a gun while saying "when this is done, im going to shoot you in the head" What a ridiculously stupid statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:I cant say i envy Israel in this situation. If they decide to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme I support them whole heartedly. For them its like sitting in the same room with a man assembling a gun while saying "when this is done, im going to shoot you in the head" Except if he shoots Israel in the head his population is going to be devastated by nuclear fire so he won't do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:What a ridiculously stupid statement. Anyone else know the thread I am talking about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Herv posted:I thought that the whole 'Iran is making nukes' was debunked? Cefte and Grover were going back and forth for quite a while on it in a d&d thread, can't dig it up without a big hassle from my phone though, sorry. I didn't see the specific argument you're talking about, but the 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear program is pretty straightforward in stating the consensus of the US intelligence community that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. Basically, information that emerged in 2006 indicated that the Iranian leadership was extremely intimidated by the Bush administration's recklessness over the Iraq war, not to mention the rapid collapse of Iraq: WaPo posted:Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. The Bush administration's spurning of this message was in fact yet another of the historic errors of that collection of jackasses, but it's still clear that Iran was quite fearful of the US and the international community following the fall of Baghdad. One of the outcomes of this period, according to the 2007 NIE I mentioned above, is that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was halted in 2003 and never resumed. Due to the senselessness of US policy in the Mideast (e.g. hand-delivering Iraq into Iran's sphere or influence) and their own shrewdness (e.g. their investment in Hezbollah), Iran's position has gotten much stronger since then and they are effectively one of the three dominant states in the region--Turkey, Israel, and Iran. Paradoxically one of the effects of Iran gaining influence in the Middle East is that it will probably make them more likely to behave in a fashion congenial to regional stability, because disrupting the status quo could endanger their position. Conversely, normalizing their status and retreating from the behavior of a rogue state (for example, by ceasing pursuit of nuclear weapons) would allow them to diplomatically apply the influence they have built for their own benefit. It seems as though the Iranian leadership has realized this, and decided not to pursue nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
The biggest problem with the idea that Iran is going to build a nuclear weapon and then right away use it against Israel is that... why would they do that? Israel has nukes too, and is sorta allied with with a superpower that also has them. From Iran's point of view Israel is the real danger, with all of their WMD's destabilizing the region. Exchanging nukes with Israel would not even be of any political worth for Iran because Jerusalem is a Muslim holy city and contaminating it would really annoy over a billion Muslims world wide. We also know from history that countries that have developed nuclear weapons have been very hesitant to actually use them: only USA has done so and this was with low yield weapons at a time when people were not going to hesitate on using them (unlike with poisonous gases). China and USSR didn't nuke themselves out, neither have India and Pakistan. These weapons are more of a life insurance to guarantee that you don't get nuked by someone else. The biggest danger with countries like Iran or Iraq developing such weapons is that if they fall into chaos, like Iraq did in 2003, there is the fear that such weapons could slip into the hands of terrorists who don't have any political limitations to worry about although them delivering an actual nuke to Israel is doubtful, and anyway Pakistan already has both nukes and also is a reserve for more terrorists than Iran (including late Osama bin Laden). Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if all nations wielded nukes and methods of delivering them to anywhere in the world. The defenders of nuclear weapons say that without nukes we'd had a WW3 by now. But if everybody had nukes, wouldn't we put an end to all wars forever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
An Iranian nuclear program intended for immediate use against Israel would require the thousands of people involved all be suicide bombers. A good argument against nukes is just Murphy's law; It's inevitable that SOMEONE/THING will gently caress up and destroy civilization. This is more true with faster delivery methods where NORAD or whoever have less time to figure out whether or not full-scale retaliation is the proper response. "Whoops, it was just a computer glitch! Boy is my face red and also melting". Ograbme fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:
How the gently caress does the bradley crew not notice a 2km/s, pyrophoric, long rod penetrator spalling the gently caress outta the insides of their vehicle? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 22:28
|
|
