How would a war with Iran go?

[major liability]

What we need are more nuclear power plants (there are bead fuel designs that have NO chance of meltdown) hooked up to electralysis (sp?) stations to produce hydrogen. There are already working high-performance hydrogen vehicles. New technology such as the molecular lattice can compress hydrogen into tanks small enough to be practical. And of course, there'd be MUCH less air pollution. Everybody wins, except oil companies and Arabs.

 

[Damien435]

The US won't be going alone on this, like I have said before, the EU can step up to the plate and prove they are the world leaders they claim to be.

 

[The Other Guy]

No Invasion of Iran is planned.

In response to therise21:

There would be no insurgency in Iran, it would be like the Finnish against the Soviets in WWII; constant guerilla tactics simply driving the enemy insane.

 

[Maytime]

constant guerilla tactics simply driving the enemy insane.

insurgency
n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict [syn: insurgence]
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Sounds like an insurgency to me.

 

[jequirity]

In the case of the US invading Iran, damned right there wouldn't be an insurgency, there would be guerrilla tactics employed by freedom fighters/terrorists (Whichever you want to see them as) defending Iran.

For there to be an insurgency then the US would have to organize a rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government i.e Iran through the use of subversion and armed conflict. That would be naughty though.

In the case of the US invading Iran without everything going tits up, then there probably would be an insurgency in the case that a constituted government was formed.

In any case, i doubt the US would want to invade Iran, too costly in lives and material and i really doubt that any EU state would join in, having seen whats happening in Iraq at the moment and using that as an indication of what may happen.

My view on any ill thought out and misconceived war with Iran would be:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c324/Jimag/father_ted.jpg

"Down with this sort of thing!"
"Careful Now!"

 

[warhappy100]

rise21 have you been watching the news coverage and how many books on war have you read I'v e lost track of how many I've read over 15 years but war sometimes is not the best answer though Iran will requier long term planning know this Iran will not be a cake walk it will be a bloodbath.

 

[Kirruth]

Well, militarily the Iranians would not have a hope, but the political situation after such an invasion would be truly fearsome: Iran has a very complex society, and putting the pieces back together in any combination that doesn't lead to fanatical-terror-dictatorship is unlikely.

 

[Easy-8]

No Invasion of Iran is planned.

In response to therise21:

There would be no insurgency in Iran, it would be like the Finnish against the Soviets in WWII; constant guerilla tactics simply driving the enemy insane.

I don't think Iran's military is anything like the Finnish or Wehrmacht in WWII. I think it is best to look at the Iraq/Iran War for details on how their tactics and strategy will be. If they are smart they will deploy into the cities (which Saddam being the total retard he normally was when in came to military matters - didn't) and turn it into a bloodly street fight. If they are smarter that ol' Saddam Insane (which they most likely are) they will demolish all bridges and underground tunnels making troop movements harder.

Iran is not Iraq. Their soldiers are probably of the same caliber as Hezbollah which is not super awesome but still fairly decent and their kit is a mix of modern and outdated gear. I am pretty sure a invasion would be a success but the Iranian Forces could put a bit of a hurtin' on us.

 

[Donkey]

rise21 have you been watching the news coverage and how many books on war have you read I'v e lost track of how many I've read over 15 years but war sometimes is not the best answer though Iran will requier long term planning know this Iran will not be a cake walk it will be a bloodbath.

And I am sure there is people somewhere in the US planing it right now and have been forever...wether or not they use those plans is another story...

Iraq was in planning for years before the actual invasion...

 

[therise21]

rise21 have you been watching the news coverage and how many books on war have you read I'v e lost track of how many I've read over 15 years but war sometimes is not the best answer though Iran will requier long term planning know this Iran will not be a cake walk it will be a bloodbath.

what are you talking about? i think you either didnt read my first post, or you misunderstood it.

 

[ASTRALdragon]

A political science professor of mine once told my class that for the last century, the US has always had some type of war every 10 years. As I look back to it, I realized that it was true. My professor said that the US needs a war every now and then to boost the economy. I don't know if this is true or not (the economic boost), but it seemed pretty interesting to me.

Fyi, this is not meant to be an anti-American/Bush statement or anything. Just something I decided to throw out there.

As for hydrogen power being an alternative power source of cars, weare still decades from that. Why? The reactors to create hydrogen energy made to fit into cars are still very very expensive. Another reason would be road rage. A hydrogen reactor with hydrogen in either gaseous or plasmic form could produce an explosion enough to take out several cars within the vicinity.

Finally, a war with Iran? The US is going to need some major major intelligence. They will have to hit Iran's nuclear sites hard and decimate most of them. I don't think the US and its allies can completely take out all of Iran's nuclear sites, but they can send a strong message telling Iran (and any other nation seeking nuclear weapons) that the world will not stand idly by as they produce weapons. They would set them back so far, that it would be simply too expensive and damaging to the spirit of the people to continue on its path. In any case, the US will need strong political and military allies along with focused intelligence.

 

[Maytime]

A hydrogen reactor with hydrogen in either gaseous or plasmic form could produce an explosion enough to take out several cars within the vicinity.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but here goes:

In some of my engineering classes, we've studied hydrogen fuel cells, and I've done multiple papers on alternative fuels. The problem doesn't lie in the volitility of the fuel containers, they've fixed that with emergency systems such as quick release foam, among other fancy stuff. The real problems are 1. Leakage, and 2. Efficiency. Hydrogen is extremely hard to contain, and it will find a way out of almost any container. That means at refueling stations, you could have much more hydrogen fumes than car would give off, and if they're trapped -say, under a roof- then you might have a problem. Also, the efficiency of a hydrogen engine is not quite up to snuff with gas internal combustion engines, making hydrogen a very cost inefficient thing, and the world runs on money, so that in itself could kill it.

 

[Damien435]

A political science professor of mine once told my class that for the last century, the US has always had some type of war every 10 years. As I look back to it, I realized that it was true. My professor said that the US needs a war every now and then to boost the economy. I don't know if this is true or not (the economic boost), but it seemed pretty interesting to me.

Political science professors have this way of downplaying what our troops do or make them look like monsters for serving their country. My political science professor decided one day to make the following statement: "The only war that America has fought where our troops were fighting for our freedoms was the War of 1812." He went on further but I wasn't listening to his b******t that day.

 

[Donkey]

Political science professors have this way of downplaying what our troops do or make them look like monsters for serving their country. My political science professor decided one day to make the following statement: "The only war that America has fought where our troops were fighting for our freedoms was the War of 1812." He went on further but I wasn't listening to his b******t that day.

Wow....

I suppose he believed Kerry when he said democracy was never started with a gun (something like that)...Kind of forgot about the whole revolution there but meh what is that I mean it was only the founding of the USA....like that was important or anything....

 

[The Cooler King]

Political science professors have this way of downplaying what our troops do or make them look like monsters for serving their country. My political science professor decided one day to make the following statement: "The only war that America has fought where our troops were fighting for our freedoms was the War of 1812." He went on further but I wasn't listening to his b******t that day.

I would have walked right out of the room.

 

[ASTRALdragon]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but here goes:

In some of my engineering classes, we've studied hydrogen fuel cells, and I've done multiple papers on alternative fuels. The problem doesn't lie in the volitility of the fuel containers, they've fixed that with emergency systems such as quick release foam, among other fancy stuff. The real problems are 1. Leakage, and 2. Efficiency. Hydrogen is extremely hard to contain, and it will find a way out of almost any container. That means at refueling stations, you could have much more hydrogen fumes than car would give off, and if they're trapped -say, under a roof- then you might have a problem. Also, the efficiency of a hydrogen engine is not quite up to snuff with gas internal combustion engines, making hydrogen a very cost inefficient thing, and the world runs on money, so that in itself could kill it.

Lol I'm just going to take your word for it because what I know is only from reading and reading this stuff from science journals and magazines is like reading the waterred down kid's version. Law and biology are my departments but I strayed from engineering looooong ago.

Political science professors have this way of downplaying what our troops do or make them look like monsters for serving their country. My political science professor decided one day to make the following statement: "The only war that America has fought where our troops were fighting for our freedoms was the War of 1812." He went on further but I wasn't listening to his b******t that day.

Errr yea, this is what I meant from it was only a "for your info" statement. I don't think my professor was trying to downplay or disrespect anything. I think it was more of an economic than a political statement. Crappy statement from your professor btw. What a moron....

 

[Englander2]

Having read all these wonderful ideas about a war with Iran, it would seem to me, the mistakes made in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, are all being ignored. The USA may intend to do good by starting all these wars, but when things go wrong, it expects the EU and Nato to clear up the mess. The best war is no war.
An attack on Iran would be the last straw for those who already believe the USA wants to destroy Islam. The armed forces of Iran can be defeated, in the same way as those of Iraq, but it would lead to yet more terrorism, also in the USA itself.
If America continues along these lines, it will destroy itself from within!

 

[Donkey]

Having read all these wonderful ideas about a war with Iran, it would seem to me, the mistakes made in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, are all being ignored. The USA may intend to do good by starting all these wars, but when things go wrong, it expects the EU and Nato to clear up the mess. The best war is no war.
An attack on Iran would be the last straw for those who already believe the USA wants to destroy Islam. The armed forces of Iran can be defeated, in the same way as those of Iraq, but it would lead to yet more terrorism, also in the USA itself.
If America continues along these lines, it will destroy itself from within!

Funny how Europe used the US to clean up its mess back in the forties....

 

[ASTRALdragon]

Having read all these wonderful ideas about a war with Iran, it would seem to me, the mistakes made in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, are all being ignored. The USA may intend to do good by starting all these wars, but when things go wrong, it expects the EU and Nato to clear up the mess. The best war is no war.
An attack on Iran would be the last straw for those who already believe the USA wants to destroy Islam. The armed forces of Iran can be defeated, in the same way as those of Iraq, but it would lead to yet more terrorism, also in the USA itself.
If America continues along these lines, it will destroy itself from within!

I don't think the US expects the EU or NATO to "clear up the mess" in any conflict they involve themselves into. I believe they only involve them because they want to show that terrorism is not only an American problem, but a worldly problem (as the bombings in London and Madrid has shown). They involve the EU and NATO because the world views them (or at least the Western half) views them as neutral parties. Only a fool would believe that only the US is in Iraq for personal interests because France and a myriad of other nations have investments over there whether it be in oil or labor. The US is more than capable of handling a military conflict in Iraq, but the American public is fickle and once you show a few soldiers' funerals on TV, the polls reverse. Whatever happened to screw political correctness because terrorism don't play by the same rules? Or let's just get the freakin job done the way we know how? What really makes me laugh is back when the EU pledged to send troops to Lebanon after the cease-fire. France, the one nation that was vocal about the whole conflict, initially pledges 200 soldiers out of a pledged force of 15k! Italy, on the other hand, a nation that was virtually neutral about the whole issue, sends 2k soldiers! Gotta love the Italians. ray:

I don't think America will "tear itself apart from within." America has always shown solidarity and committment through hard times. Though opinions may waver (I blame the media and their quest for ratings), Americans always seem to pull together in the end.

 

[Damien435]

Tearing itself apart from within rarely causes the downfall of a nation, what usually happens is a nation/empire is weakened by internal strife and then another nation or group of people take advantage of that weakness. Like the barbarians who sacked Rome, that would not have been possible if Rome hadn't been divided by civil wars, but at the same time Rome would have survived those civil wars if the barbarians hadn't been there to take advantage of that temporary weakness.