An Easier Way To Deal With Iran and DPRK?

[capitalistpig]

I'm pretty concerned that the US military will be invading North Korea and/or Iran within a few years. In Iran, politicians will sell it to us by saying that our troops are already on the east and west of Iran and it would be easy. In N. Korea, politicians will justify it by troops being in South Korea.

Here's my way to avoid confrontation:

Continue leaving Iraq
Finish up in Afghanistan and get out
Pull troops out of South Korea
Put up missile defense shields around the USA​

We could shoot down any North Korean missile or any Iranian missile. Our troops would be home and out of danger.


I guess I sound naive, but I think this would work pretty well.

Thoughts?

 

[rathi]

Neither is likely to happen. The American public is completely ignorant of logistics, and could care less about how practical the war actually is. American wars are sold on political nonsense not realistic analysis on how the war will play out.

Obama is quite unlikely to invade Iran, and we will leave Iraq during his presidency. If we leave Iraq, Iran will have zero power to attack us, so justification will be hard. Its true that didn't stop Bush from invading Iraq, but the populace is war weary, and I doubt the next president will be so foolish.

Invading North Korea would come a terrible price. They can destroy Seoul merely with artillery, and unleashing their WMDs could devastate SK and Japan. Unless NK goes nuts and engages in offensive actions, the U.S. is unlikely to risk such horrible destruction.

 

[OxymoronP]

Better Idea topple both regimes.

 

[capitalistpig]

Better Idea topple both regimes.

That's what they said about Iraq. How much $$ are you willing to sacrifice in taxes to do that? How many of your kids are you willing to sacrifice for that?

 

[OxymoronP]

That's what they said about Iraq. How much $$ are you willing to sacrifice in taxes to do that? How many of your kids are you willing to sacrifice for that?

I am not willing to sacrifice a single person.

As Patton said I dont want you to die for me, I want you to kill for me.

 

[Scorpion89]

That's what they said about Iraq. How much $$ are you willing to sacrifice in taxes to do that? How many of your kids are you willing to sacrifice for that?

A few well placed Cruise Missile and the problem is settled.

 

[rathi]

A few well placed Cruise Missile and the problem is settled.

How exactly is that going to solve anything?

 

[Apocalypse]

How exactly is that going to solve anything?

It's going to solve the problem, and create a lot of other, bigger problems.
He technically answered correctly.

 

[Scorpion89]

How exactly is that going to solve anything?

Well lets see if we fired well placed Cruise Missile at certain Govn. Building when these folks are in session it would take out said problem now wouldn't it.

think about it before answering what would happen if we did this, beside violated President Fords Excutive Order but I think that order is a crock and needs to go the way of the DoDo Bird.

 

[rathi]

Well lets see if we fired well placed Cruise Missile at certain Govn. Building when these folks are in session it would take out said problem now wouldn't it.

The early warning systems have a decent chance of detecting the missile and giving them enough warning to get clear. It wouldn't do much in Iran, as you couldn't hope to wipe out the clerical power structure in a single hit. Furthermore, public opinion would demonize us and give more power to elements who speak out against the U.S.

think about it before answering what would happen if we did this, beside violated President Fords Excutive Order but I think that order is a crock and needs to go the way of the DoDo Bird.

The consequences for such an action wold be numerous and terrible.

North Korea would probably retaliate by obliterating Seoul with artillery fire and maybe firing some nukes at our troops on the border. A full scale invasion of SK wouldn't be out of the question either.

Iran would likely re-double their efforts to build nuclear weapons, and make us a priority target for terrorism. It could also unite more ME countries against us, and make Iraq even more dangerous.

We would also loose quite a bit of international standing, but that is peanuts compared to the other problems.

I would estimate 100k dead best case scenario, with the worst case starting a world war and/or the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Scorpion89]

The early warning systems have a decent chance of detecting the missile and giving them enough warning to get clear. It wouldn't do much in Iran, as you couldn't hope to wipe out the clerical power structure in a single hit. Furthermore, public opinion would demonize us and give more power to elements who speak out against the U.S.



The consequences for such an action wold be numerous and terrible.

North Korea would probably retaliate by obliterating Seoul with artillery fire and maybe firing some nukes at our troops on the border. A full scale invasion of SK wouldn't be out of the question either.

Iran would likely re-double their efforts to build nuclear weapons, and make us a priority target for terrorism. It could also unite more ME countries against us, and make Iraq even more dangerous.

We would also loose quite a bit of international standing, but that is peanuts compared to the other problems.

I would estimate 100k dead best case scenario, with the worst case starting a world war and/or the use of nuclear weapons.

Nope because we would cut off the Head of the Snake in each Country.

 

[rathi]

Nope because we would cut off the Head of the Snake in each Country.

Do you seriously think a country is run by a single person alone? The clerical power base in Iran is composed of hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals. Killing them all would be impossible. Taking out even the supreme leader isn't going to change anything, except for the worse. Kim is already on the way out, and a heir is already being chosen. The best you could hope for from an assassination would be a power struggle for control.

Furthermore, you completely ignored any of the consequences I outlined. Even if you could change the government, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Here's my way to avoid confrontation:

Continue leaving Iraq
Finish up in Afghanistan and get out
Pull troops out of South Korea
Put up missile defense shields around the USA​

We could shoot down any North Korean missile or any Iranian missile. Our troops would be home and out of danger.


I guess I sound naive, but I think this would work pretty well.

Thoughts?

Well, one thing you are missing is our agreements with other nations. Like South Korea. We have a 50+ year mutual defense treaty with them. Our pulling out would be the same as inviting North Korea to invade them again. And that would be the exact opposite of peace.

As for the "Missile Shield", there is no way to do it. Not in my lifetime, probably not in my children's lifetime.

And while we can probably shoot down an Iranian or North Korean missile, what does that prove? At the moment, neither of them can hit the US with a missile. But Nukes existed before there were ICBMs. It is foolish to think that is the only way they would be delivered.

And "out of danger" did not help much on 9/11. Isolationism is not the same as peace. Twice before we tried that, and both times we got bit in the arse because of it. Just because our forces sit at home does not mean that somebody else is not going to attack us.

Personally, I would rather be in danger in the Middle East, then in danger in the US. Or my wife and children in danger in the US.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

A few well placed Cruise Missile and the problem is settled.

yeah, you are forgetting that cruise missiles are not entirely accurate:lol:

 

[capitalistpig]

Well, one thing you are missing is our agreements with other nations. Like South Korea. We have a 50+ year mutual defense treaty with them. Our pulling out would be the same as inviting North Korea to invade them again. And that would be the exact opposite of peace.

As for the "Missile Shield", there is no way to do it. Not in my lifetime, probably not in my children's lifetime.

And while we can probably shoot down an Iranian or North Korean missile, what does that prove? At the moment, neither of them can hit the US with a missile. But Nukes existed before there were ICBMs. It is foolish to think that is the only way they would be delivered.

And "out of danger" did not help much on 9/11. Isolationism is not the same as peace. Twice before we tried that, and both times we got bit in the arse because of it. Just because our forces sit at home does not mean that somebody else is not going to attack us.

Personally, I would rather be in danger in the Middle East, then in danger in the US. Or my wife and children in danger in the US.

We should leave South Korea as soon as we can while still following the treaty.

I believe the military just tested their missile defense system. They fired a missile near Hawaii and their missile defense system shot it down. I think it would definately be plausible if we stopped funding our huge military empire. We spend over $600 billion on the military and we have bases all over the world. If we brought the troops home, we would save a lot of money which we could spend on actual defense.

If they can't hit us with missiles, why are we going so crazy? How else would they attack us? One ship left North Korea and the Navy was on it immediately. Iran is also heavily monitored. Both countries know that a nuclear attack on the US would lead to the US military destroying them.

I do not want isolationism, I want peace and trade with all nations, alliance with none. There is a big difference from isolation and non-intervention.

By being in the middle east, we are in more danger at home. They see our soldiers on their streets and it makes some of them go crazy enough to blow things up. The hijackers on 911 were from Saudi Arabia where we had a large military presence. Imagine if China had their tanks roaming through Canada and Mexico and every day the Chinese news would tell stories of how horrible our government is and smear our religion. Would we be a little intimidated? Would we maybe want a nuke?

 

[Oozlefinch]

We should leave South Korea as soon as we can while still following the treaty.

ANd if that happens, expect South Korea to last about as long as South Vietnam did when we pulled out of there.

Peace is all well and good, but wishing for peace does no good if your neighbors wish for peace no the end of a sword.

I believe the military just tested their missile defense system. They fired a missile near Hawaii and their missile defense system shot it down. I think it would definately be plausible if we stopped funding our huge military empire. We spend over $600 billion on the military and we have bases all over the world. If we brought the troops home, we would save a lot of money which we could spend on actual defense.

Yes, we tested it. But it is not fielded, other then a few test units. It is still 15+ years until it is ready for wide fielding.

And you should learn where the US Military budget goes to. Did you know that $515 billion of the US military budget goes solely to base management and upkeep? This covers the land, maintenance of buildings and facilities, purchase of utilities like water, electricity, and the like. So if the military did what you said, expect that to skyrocket as more barracks and larger bases are built to take them all in.

And the next biggest part of the military budget? Training and Operations, at just under $180 billion. It takes a lot of money to train our military. Do you suppose we stop all training? Because training just a basic PATRIOT missileman takes almost a year. Training the RADAR crews takes almost 2 years. And RADAR Maintenance personnel take almost 3 years to train.

#3 expenditure of the DOD budget is Personnel. In other words, what we pay our men and women in the military. And we both know how extravagently they are paid. Maybe the cuts should be made there.

If they can't hit us with missiles, why are we going so crazy? How else would they attack us? One ship left North Korea and the Navy was on it immediately. Iran is also heavily monitored. Both countries know that a nuclear attack on the US would lead to the US military destroying them.

They can not hit us now, but they are trying to get that ability.

You have a misconception that many people have about nuclear weapons. These are not military weapons, they are political weapons. The decision to use them is a political one, made irreguardless of any military concerns. Most of them are targeted at civilian population centers, not military targets.

And it does no good to destroy a nation after they have destroyed yours. That is the idea of MAD, and it is not a solution for peace.

I do not want isolationism, I want peace and trade with all nations, alliance with none. There is a big difference from isolation and non-intervention.

By being in the middle east, we are in more danger at home. They see our soldiers on their streets and it makes some of them go crazy enough to blow things up. The hijackers on 911 were from Saudi Arabia where we had a large military presence. Imagine if China had their tanks roaming through Canada and Mexico and every day the Chinese news would tell stories of how horrible our government is and smear our religion. Would we be a little intimidated? Would we maybe want a nuke?

Pulling ouy of the rest of the world and only staying in our nation is isolationism. Non-intervention is isolationism. Failing to uphold our own agreements with other nations is cowardace.

And you are seriously deluded. Most people in the Middle East do not have a problem with the US being there. Heck, they are invited and courted into creating military bases there. Some of the most prestegious jobs in the region are on US military bases.

If the bases were not wanted, then there would be protests. Large ones. ANd that simply is not happening. There was a protest in Doha a month or so back against the US Military presence there. I think around 100 people showed up. And over 250 counter-prosters were there. In Kuwait, they do not want the US to leave. On two seperate occasions the US bailed them out of serious trouble, and did not make any demands on them.

Most people understand that the US does not want any kind of empire. They simply want to trade and be at peace. But that does not stop the lunatics from preaching that the US wants to destroy Islam, enslave the world, and poison everybody else with it's decadance.

 

[Orion]

An invasion of NK won't happen because of China. Both the U.S. and China don't want a military confrontation to endanger their economic assets. Another Korean war involving the U.S. and China would destroy both economies.

An invasion of Iran won't happen because it controls the canal where most of the world's oil flows. You attack Iran and world oil prices skyrocket to ridiculous levels. It is also a relatively powerful nation, which is why Israel is so afraid of it.

Neither of these powers would be easy to attack or dismantle... not without a lot of resources and without risking nuclear war.

 

[Oozlefinch]

An invasion of Iran won't happen because it controls the canal where most of the world's oil flows. You attack Iran and world oil prices skyrocket to ridiculous levels. It is also a relatively powerful nation, which is why Israel is so afraid of it.

What canal?

There is the Persian Gulf, and Iran learned the hard way in 1987 during the "Tanker War" that it could not stand up against the US Navy there. If they thought they could stop shipping in the gulf again, it will only drive more nations to asking the US for support, and erode their already fragile alliances with the other Persian Gulf nations.

 

[PeteEU]

What canal?

There is the Persian Gulf, and Iran learned the hard way in 1987 during the "Tanker War" that it could not stand up against the US Navy there. If they thought they could stop shipping in the gulf again, it will only drive more nations to asking the US for support, and erode their already fragile alliances with the other Persian Gulf nations.

The US navy is a sitting duck in the Persian Gulf. Iran has a very long coast line to launch attack after attack against US ships who are far from home, and with limited backup. Nearest US base is Diego Garcia, which is technically British. The ships can dock in "safe" harbours in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and so on, but they are only as safe as long as Iran does not attack them. While the US might not want to risk its military people, Iran has a history of using suicide attacks and since there are quite a few number of Iranians then well.. All it takes is one or two to get through and bye bye aircraft carrier.

The Strait of Hormuz can easily be closed off by Iran if it wished to do so. Just the threat of attack will stop oil tankers going in and out and that will make oil go up considerably. All it takes is one rocket to hit an oil tanker and you have a nice floating burning barrier.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The US navy is a sitting duck in the Persian Gulf. Iran has a very long coast line to launch attack after attack against US ships who are far from home, and with limited backup. Nearest US base is Diego Garcia, which is technically British. The ships can dock in "safe" harbours in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and so on, but they are only as safe as long as Iran does not attack them. While the US might not want to risk its military people, Iran has a history of using suicide attacks and since there are quite a few number of Iranians then well.. All it takes is one or two to get through and bye bye aircraft carrier.

The Strait of Hormuz can easily be closed off by Iran if it wished to do so. Just the threat of attack will stop oil tankers going in and out and that will make oil go up considerably. All it takes is one rocket to hit an oil tanker and you have a nice floating burning barrier.

Well, Iran has attacked our Navy before. And it came out very much the worse for wear. They have damaged the USS Stark, the USS Samual B. Roberts, and the US Tankers SS Bridgeton and SS Sea Isle City. They also lost 1 helicopter due to mechanical failure.

During the engagements, Iran lost 2 oil platforms they had armed with artillary, the Iran Ajr (mine layer), 3 speedboats (2 others damaged), the fast attack missile boat Joshan, the frigate Sabalan, and an F-4.

So if this was a baseball game, the score would have been Iran 0, US 9.

And in the last 22 years, the US Navy has increased it's power much more then Iran has. I expect that if there was a "Tanker War II", the results would be much the same.

 

[UtahBill]

Re Iran, remove their military power with cruise missles, then stand back and watch their neighbors attack them, should they care to do so. If Iraq was to attack Iran, it would help unify the Iraqi people, and help stablilize their regime.
In no case send ground troops......loss of life to our troops would be very little....

North Korea, I would wait til the current leader dies and see if his son is smarter than old dad....could be that the North Koreans are ready for a change for the better and a new leader might bring it on.

 

[rathi]

Re Iran, remove their military power with cruise missles

Can't be done. The U.S. could defeat the Iranian military, but not without substantial forces committed and a combined arms approach.

watch their neighbors attack them, should they care to do so.

Nobody is going to attack. Azerbaijan is puny, Turkey and Pakistan have no reason, and Iraq and Afghanistan have civil wars to deal with.

.
If Iraq was to attack Iran, it would help unify the Iraqi people, and help stablilize their regime.

I doubt getting stomped by the Iranian military would help unify their country. Remember, the Iraqi military is but a shadow of what it once was.

In no case send ground troops......loss of life to our troops would be very little....

Exactly what is your battle plan then? Bomb Iran randomly without a purpose or strategy?

 

[UtahBill]

.



Exactly what is your battle plan then? Bomb Iran randomly without a purpose or strategy?

as I stated, cruise missles til their military is severly weakened, if not destroyed, then stand back, no ground troops needed.

or can't you read?

why would we have to do anything more than destroy their ability to fight?

what could they possibly do about it?

 

[Oozlefinch]

as I stated, cruise missles til their military is severly weakened, if not destroyed, then stand back, no ground troops needed.

or can't you read?

why would we have to do anything more than destroy their ability to fight?

what could they possibly do about it?

"I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the ass." - President Bush 43

Cruise missiles would be the wrong thing to use for many reasons. For one, they are very expensive for simply putting ordinance on target. For two, there is no substitution for "eyes on the ground" before you strike a target. And for three, with a good maskirovka program will totally defeat the offensive.

General LeMay also believed that Bombers would be all that was needed to defeat Germany and Japan in WWII, as well as North Korea in the Korean War. But no Air Force ever won a war, and the only way to ensure an enemy is defeated is to put troops on the ground.

And has been seen, in the minds of these people, one of the reason the US is scorned is because they are willing to fire missiles at unseen enemies, but not face them on the ground. An offensive with that as the main avenue of attack will simply increase this scorn, and reinforce the idea that the US military is "to cowardly" to fight like "real men".

 

[UtahBill]

"I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the ass." - President Bush 43

Cruise missiles would be the wrong thing to use for many reasons. For one, they are very expensive for simply putting ordinance on target. For two, there is no substitution for "eyes on the ground" before you strike a target. And for three, with a good maskirovka program will totally defeat the offensive.

General LeMay also believed that Bombers would be all that was needed to defeat Germany and Japan in WWII, as well as North Korea in the Korean War. But no Air Force ever won a war, and the only way to ensure an enemy is defeated is to put troops on the ground.

And has been seen, in the minds of these people, one of the reason the US is scorned is because they are willing to fire missiles at unseen enemies, but not face them on the ground. An offensive with that as the main avenue of attack will simply increase this scorn, and reinforce the idea that the US military is "to cowardly" to fight like "real men".

We need to face them on the ground to avoid being labeled cowardly by Islamic extremists? Bull.....
The idea is to make them defenseless, not humilitate them by occupying their homeland, or providing them with targets disguised as American troops...
The second dumbest thing Bush ever did was occupy Iraq. The first dumbest thing was to attack them in the first place. Nearly all the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. We should have demanded reparations from the Saudis immediately....and if they didn't pay immediately, we should have charged them for the munitions used to motivate them to pay.