How I would have conducted the war.

If we assume that I were a general responsible for launching a war against Iran, I would mass up at least 300.000 units along the (western) border, with defensive positions inbuilt. Then I would have focused on building up a formidable artillery magazine, of several tens of thousands of units.

1. The first thing done is to institute a terror bombing campaign of Iranian cities, industries, power plants and military bases, especially in western Iran.

2. Then letting the artillery talk and focus all firepower on the invasion route area.

3. Then slowly moving in, as well as moving the artillery behind the motorized units in order to destroy everything alive in the front area before the invading force, as well as on the flanks.

4. Any living being that is encountered is going to be destroyed, due to the experiences of the Iraqi war.

My bet is that the Iranians would surrender quickly when it comes to such a remorseless enemy, at least part by part. Cities who gives up without resistance are going to be spared, if the inhabitants themselves kills and sends over the heads of potential troublemakers.

What do you think?

I think that under these circumstances the Iranian armed forces would be given orders to melt away and take their weapons with them. They would fight only after the US declares "victory"

And the civilian population then? No army, not even an insurgent army, could melt away if the civilian population is systematically wiped out.

[MrWanted]

Originally Posted by Cunver_Goadbeiles

If we assume that I were a general responsible for launching a war against Iran, I would mass up at least 300.000 units along the (western) border, with defensive positions inbuilt. Then I would have focused on building up a formidable artillery magazine, of several tens of thousands of units.

1. The first thing done is to institute a terror bombing campaign of Iranian cities, industries, power plants and military bases, especially in western Iran.

2. Then letting the artillery talk and focus all firepower on the invasion route area.

3. Then slowly moving in, as well as moving the artillery behind the motorized units in order to destroy everything alive in the front area before the invading force, as well as on the flanks.

4. Any living being that is encountered is going to be destroyed, due to the experiences of the Iraqi war.

My bet is that the Iranians would surrender quickly when it comes to such a remorseless enemy, at least part by part. Cities who gives up without resistance are going to be spared, if the inhabitants themselves kills and sends over the heads of potential troublemakers.

What do you think?

IAF used average 3-4 kilo of bombs and missiles per square meter and you saw the effect on the well dug in HA. How much would US need to take 1/100 of Iran before running out of water?

SO you want to know what I think? I think you are sick. Kiddo this is no place to make plans for Armageddon wet dreams.

Originally Posted by MrWanted

IAF used average 3-4 kilo of bombs and missiles per square meter and you saw the effect on the well dug in HA. How much would US need to take 1/100 of Iran before running out of water?

SO you want to know what I think? I think you are sick. Kiddo this is no place to make plans for Armageddon wet dreams.

YOu are taking this hezbollah war and running with it i see. Dont try to compare them to fighting Iran. So are you telling me Iran million men army is going to go hide in the mountains and let the US destroy the cities at will.


Iran army will have to come out and fight. Its not hard hiding a couple thousand men. Its not going to happen with a normal army

The IAF did not use chemical and bacteriological weapons. Without a civilian population to mobilise support and new recruits from, and without functioning communications, the efficiency of any army is going to be reduced.

[Darkblade]

Originally Posted by Cunver_Goadbeiles

If we assume that I were a general responsible for launching a war against Iran, I would mass up at least 300.000 units along the (western) border, with defensive positions inbuilt. Then I would have focused on building up a formidable artillery magazine, of several tens of thousands of units.

1. The first thing done is to institute a terror bombing campaign of Iranian cities, industries, power plants and military bases, especially in western Iran.

2. Then letting the artillery talk and focus all firepower on the invasion route area.

3. Then slowly moving in, as well as moving the artillery behind the motorized units in order to destroy everything alive in the front area before the invading force, as well as on the flanks.

4. Any living being that is encountered is going to be destroyed, due to the experiences of the Iraqi war.

My bet is that the Iranians would surrender quickly when it comes to such a remorseless enemy, at least part by part. Cities who gives up without resistance are going to be spared, if the inhabitants themselves kills and sends over the heads of potential troublemakers.

What do you think?

I dontt think the iranians would sit back while you build a mass of fortifications their border.

[MrWanted]

Originally Posted by Cunver_Goadbeiles

The IAF did not use chemical and bacteriological weapons. Without a civilian population to mobilise support and new recruits from, and without functioning communications, the efficiency of any army is going to be reduced.

HA didn't had strategical weapon as oil or the depth of Iran while Iran has those plus chemicla and biological weapons.

Iran's range is limited. And contrary to the Americans, I could endure 25.000-50.000 dead units.

[MrWanted]

Originally Posted by Reality101

YOu are taking this hezbollah war and running with it i see. Dont try to compare them to fighting Iran. So are you telling me Iran million men army is going to go hide in the mountains and let the US destroy the cities at will.


Iran army will have to come out and fight. Its not hard hiding a couple thousand men. Its not going to happen with a normal army

Are you for real? The Iranian doctorine against US is a geurillia fight, well studied and well trained on even before 2003 when they announced it. Who do you think give the means and strategies to HA? US can invade but every city, every town, every villiage , every road and behind every tree, there are Iranians waiting to fight.

Don't get confused about yout abilities looking at the Iraq invasion. I'm an IRAQI and it was for well known for everyone of us if US would attack, everyone would put down the arms and go home. Nbody fought against you when you enterd. Invading Iran would teach you a lesson you won't forget.

If you declare OPEN WAR, so will they, on any level you like, even nucleair. But they deliver it indirectly via Tel Aviv.

Originally Posted by MrWanted

Are you for real? The Iranian doctorine against US is a geurillia fight, well studied and well trained on even before 2003 when they announced it. Who do you think give the means and strategies to HA? US can invade but every city, every town, every villiage , every road and behind every tree, there are Iranians waiting to fight.

Don't get confused about yout abilities looking at the Iraq invasion. I'm an IRAQI and it was for well known for everyone of us if US would attack, everyone would put down the arms and go home. Nbody fought against you when you enterd. Invading Iran would teach you a lesson you won't forget.

If you declare OPEN WAR, so will they, on any level you like, even nucleair. But they deliver it indirectly via Tel Aviv.

That is why the best strategy for an invading army is to destroy the civilian population. Then the stamina of the armed forces would go down the drain.

[MrWanted]

Originally Posted by Cunver_Goadbeiles

That is why the best strategy for an invading army is to destroy the civilian population. Then the stamina of the armed forces would go down the drain.

Don't count on it, US won't/can't use that weapon beacuse of tel Aviv.

No, but I am talking about what I would have done, given the theoretical structure and character of my ideal state.

[MrWanted]

Originally Posted by Cunver_Goadbeiles

No, but I am talking about what I would have done, given the theoretical structure and character of my ideal state.

So in your ideal world , you'll be a mass murderer?

Oh now i get the point of this thread

Murder is when a crime is committed inside a state, and one or several of it's subjects have killed one or several of it's subjects. A war is conducted when two states are needing the same resources, or when one very large state is needing resources inside the territory of a smaller state.

War is darwinism in action.