Washington: Attack Iran after Elections?

[VigilVirus]

Active duty:

Army: 500,203

Marine Corps: 180,000

Navy: 375,521

Air Force: 358,612

Coast Guard: 40,151

Total 1,450,689

Alright, so how many of those are ground forces? I would hardly consider the majority of Navy and Coast Guard to be designed to participate in ground combat. Air Force, while having paratroopers and helicopter drops still mostly serves as support and is limited by base or carrier proximity.

So then, consider that about 150,000 of these are already deployed in numerous countries in the Middle East, so that leaves about 550,000.

Then consider the meaning behind the term "National Defense". Most of these troops are designed to protect the homeland and maintain order, which would be especially crucial during a significant engagement. So, how many of those 550,000 ground troops would you actually use in the engagement? 200,000 seems like a fair estimate to me. Plus, you completely fail to consider that the US army deployed in Iraq today is suffering from a shortage in equipment, such as armored cars and body armor - and that's just for the 130,000 troops in combat there right now, in addition to 20,000 more in Afghanistan. Do you really think US can sufficiently equip another huge army? Just because the soldiers are active duty doesn't mean they come with their own supplies.

So, when you add that up, you have a maximum of a 700,000 ground troops available.

[GUNWOUNDS]

funding isnt an issue... congress just approved another 70 billion for the iraq war... there's plenty money to be had for equipping troops if we really had to do so.....

[Megashrap]

"Active duty:

Army: 500,203

Marine Corps: 180,000

Navy: 375,521

Air Force: 358,612

Coast Guard: 40,151

Total 1,450,689 "

"So, when you add that up, you have a maximum of a 700,000 ground troops available."

I think your forgetting the technological aspect of this a bit. This isn't 1945, we are not sending mass troops in large bulky boats with VW engines into enemy territory and hope they survive the landing.

Of the numbers you mention, how many of these does it take to guide a cruise-missile,Tomahawk,Bunker-busters....(and I believe the list goes on and on on those types of arms alone) into an enemies targeted window of a viable target? Not to mention that they are nowhere near harms way for the most-part when it takes place. Or what 2 men can do with just 1 Apache helicopter.

Sorry, but it just kind of sounds alot like the pre Gulf-War worries and woes to me is all. I would rather have 180,000 well educated Marines working each of their specific jobs than 500,000 or more ground troops any day. Hell, that's already been proven.

[Acriku]

Naturally, the real fight would be in the air, not on the ground - save for special forces.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Point well made Scar

[Andrew]

I don't think anyone questions whether Iran can be bombed to oblivion with missiles etc, the question is whether they can occupy it. or why bother ocupying it? :P, just blow them up so that it is impossible for WMD, even though that means civilians will suffer with no power or water or anything.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't think anyone questions whether Iran can be bombed to oblivion with missiles etc, the question is whether they can occupy it. or why bother ocupying it? :P, just blow them up so that it is impossible for WMD, even though that means civilians will suffer with no power or water or anything.

Now you're using your noggin!  bravo!

[Davidu]

I am really courious: how do you decide wich country is WORTH attacking? I mean if it's all economical, anyone with unused or subused natural resources would be a potential target.

Another issue: ok, let's say you can blow any army to pieces with superior firepower, technology, etc. Great. AFTER that what will you do? Things are going to hell in Irak and Afganistan. You can't patrol the streets with Apaches, or F-16. You need men to patrol, and to search houses. Men that require weapons, food, equipment, payment, places to stay (preferably SAFE places) and much more. The "money solves all" might not work here.

You were talking about reserves: why would anyone go and kill/die for some corporation's economical interests? A country's interest is to evolve, to have peace and prosperity not to become a police state bleeding dry anyone else around it.

I mean if USA would be attacked I am sure every able man would enlist to defend its country, but people don't go to war just because you tell them to.

I have a friend in collage in Louisiana with a scholarschip, and some marines tried to enlist him in a parking lot, and they kept insisting even after he told them he is not an american citizen. Also some people he knows enlisted because the army promised them to fund their music band when they return. If it has come to that it seems things are not that well...

About Iran: the most efficient way to deal with it it's to bomb the hell out of it and then send relief. I mean someone gets paid for the weapons/ammo, some else is getting paid for the relief material ( the non-profit organisations have to BUY the food&stuff from someone), so everyone ( on my side) is happy. But that is not humane.

I hope you see what I mean.

[VigilVirus]

I don't think anyone questions whether Iran can be bombed to oblivion with missiles etc, the question is whether they can occupy it. or why bother ocupying it? :P, just blow them up so that it is impossible for WMD, even though that means civilians will suffer with no power or water or anything.

Like I said before, without occupation, how do you make absolutely certain that they do not have the capability to acquire nuclear weapons? You can bomb a nation for however you long you want, but there's no way to make certain that you've destroyed everything. Air power alone isn't sufficient.