"The US outguns Iran, but it faces painful realities in" Topic

… the event of a war.

"Rising tensions that, according to President Donald Trump, left the United States just short of open conflict with Iran this week highlight a grim reality that the Pentagon has coped with for years: While the U.S. military outguns Iran, Tehran could still make even a limited war painful.

Iran's military has more than 700,000 troops, including a conventional army of about 350,000 soldiers, according to a Congressional Research Service report published last month. That's not counting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a specialized force comprising another 125,000 troops in its army and 20,000 personnel in its navy, the CRS report said…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Even though Stars and Stripes does the usual downplaying of the enemy, it strikes a cautious note.

What it did not state was that Iran is likely be willing to take more casualties defending itself than the US is willing to take conquering it. Such would even out technical inadequacies quite a bit.

The US has no desire to conquer Iran. Trump is not a hawk.

Yeah, I heard this one once before about 28 years ago. It didn't turn out well for the other guy.

Like everything else in the news it will be replaced with the next "crisis" in a couple weeks. It will continue at a low simmer like all the other problems in the world.

The US has no desire to conquer Iran. Trump is not a hawk.

Yeah, there's no "nation building" motive here -- just blowing stuff up until they can't launch missiles at people and they don't have anything left afloat that can interdict shipping.

Technology wins wars not men. You can have a trillion man army and my bomb will make me the winner. Whenever Iran is feeling froggy, they can jump.

Technology alone does not win wars. The will power of men and nations wins wars.

Yea, it's not the number of people that win wars anymore, it's the tech and tactics/strategies that do, along with the skilled personnel to use them.

Of course, one needs to have the will to fight, and backing of one's citizens too. That seems to be the most important lesson for both the 20th and 21st Centuries. Without that, you might as well not even consider fighting.

Sadly, since WWII it seems as if the appropriate grit needed for our leadership seems to be lacking, despite valiant efforts in the Korean, Vietnam, and other, later conflicts.

When our generals are more worried about how things will play on the nightly news than they are about killing our enemies, and winning the wars, then all is lost.

It would also help if you can get the media to be loyal, and not to play for the other side, like they've done in various conflicts, in the post-Korean War era.

…Tehran could still make even a limited war painful.

The "maximum pressure" campaign has no motive to put boots on the ground in Iran; much more likely to strike infrastructure and military assets, putting even more pressure on Iran.

When our generals are more worried about how things will play on the nightly news than they are about killing our enemies, and winning the wars, then all is lost.

If that isn't a concern at all, that's how you lose the war in public opinion, like what happened in Vietnam.

It's why I really liked the idea of that PS2 game, where one facet of how well you did in the battle was how it looked on the news. Wish I could remember the name…

"What it did not state was that Iran is likely be willing to take more casualties defending itself than the US is willing to take conquering it. Such would even out technical inadequacies quite a bit."

How do you figure? This isn't 1980's Iraq-Iran where the Iranians were willing to have volunteers link arms and clear minefields by walking through them. The Iranian people are tired of their dictatorship, expansionist, Islamist government. And we have stealth fighters and armed drones, not T-62s.

Hmmm… It appears the majority is of the opinion that "We'll be home by Christmas".
The familiar refrain of all those who think war is easy.

"Technology wins wars not men"

And which war did technology win? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan? None.. no war ever was won by technology..

"Yeah, I heard this one once before about 28 years ago. It didn't turn out well for the other guy."

HAHA ? AND we are still there and it's now a BIGGER mess than it was 28 years ago! I'm out

Mkultra99
While I am largely in sympathy with the foundation of your message a little decorum on this forum might lead to a more productive discussion. Lives are on the line so I understand your passion.Oversimplification does seem to rule this particular discussion; but most people are clearing their throat. With respect. H

"Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory."
George S. Patton

I think most here would agree that saying "technology wins wars not men" is a gross over simplification of a statement on the use of technology in warfare. Any amateur student of history knows this. Maybe MOOSEHEAD was just trying to stir the pot and elicit such a reaction by making an idiotic statement.

Hmmm… It appears the majority is of the opinion that "We'll be home by Christmas".

I think the majority thinks there won't be war.

"How do you figure? This isn't 1980's Iraq-Iran where the Iranians were willing to have volunteers link arms and clear minefields by walking through them. The Iranian people are tired of their dictatorship, expansionist, Islamist government. And we have stealth fighters and armed drones, not T-62s."

Well…some of the Iranian people are tired of their dictatorship, Islamist government. And an awful lot have vested interest in the Regime continuing. And that's before you add in the Kurdish and Baluch seperatists. so the likely outcome is an Iraq V2.0 on a bigger scale.

Many of the Iranian people are tired of their dictatorship, Islamist government.
Nothing like an external attack by a superpower to make people rally round their government though.
People just see the bodies not the reasons for the conflict.

There are also a lot of Iranian supporters in Iraq so it would get extremely messy very quickly.

Still say that the best way to over through fundamentalist governments is to flood the country with cheap phones and the tools to crack firewalls and leave to simmer for a few years.

Much cheaper than using $10 USDm missiles to destroy piles of sandbags and hoping you don't hit a market or a school.

Nothing like an external attack by a superpower to make people rally round their government though.
People just see the bodies not the reasons for the conflict.

This.

Most Iranians IIRC are West-friendly & well educated. And while they may be sick of their jerks in power, at least they are THEIR jerks in power & not someone else's. Also consider that Iran had its government kicked over twice in the 20th C by western powers, a fact I am sure is not lost on many of them.

If you really want regime change in Iran, give the Iranian people the tools to do so themselves, not by invading their country & committing to decades-long rebuilding with a population that may be resentful to your presence…

Damon.

not by invading their country

Why would the US do that?? Trump is clearly not inclined to be a "nation builder," but he will blow stuff up until Iran stops being aggressive.

He's already given them an out when he said he was sure some Iranian general went off the rails and shot down the US drone. Funny thing is, Iran's military said it was the RG that did it, not them. So that made the regime look silly.

Then Trump painted a picture of two futures for Iran.

Behind door number 1, Iran can join the broader community of nations and the Iranian people will once again be great and prosperous.

And behind door #2 if Iran escalates the violence, Iran will have its military obliterated.

Most Iranians IIRC are West-friendly & well educated.

Very true.

When all the Arab nations were having spontaneous mass celebrations with the attack on the Great Satan on 9-11, Iran had spontaneous mass candlelight prayer vigils, with tens of thousands of people showing up to pray for those killed.

So I'm rather fond of the Iranian people. Less fond of their government, but that's rather par for the course.