War Nerd: US vs Iran

Interesting podcast regarding a what-if military confrontation between the US and Iran, by the War Nerd/Gary Brecher/John Dolan.

TLDL: Iran has a lot of SS missiles and an advantageous geography. The US Navy and the Gulf States are vulnerable. The US would have a hard time winning without going nuclear. Regardless, a confrontation would be disastrous to the world economy.

It ends after 1,5 hours. Then it's some weird music and then they discuss previous episodes. 

https://youtu.be/sJ6Tzij-Pbs

 

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

4 Likes
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

Agreed 100% - but we will never fight another gloves off war again.  Between eliminating civilian casualties, not harming the environment or any endangered species, religious sites, archeological sites, indigenous or disadvantged people's land or land they identify with, conducting the war with a zero carbon footprint using only biodegradable materials and definitely not offending anyone's delicate sensitivity, plus super restrictive rules of engagement etc, etc - you get the point.   Will never happen.  And is not the fault of our soldiers but our our faggot politicians and the even faggier left...we would have a hard time with Iran given the current state of affairs 

jspeed -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

You think?

By who - Iran??? How do you see that happening given our geography and geographic isolation from other powers, land mass, bases across the world, underground silos, aircraft carriers at sea, millions of rural armed population, nuclear subs under the Arctic, missle defense systems, continuity plans, etc. 

only one with a shot is Russia and that is if they simulataneously launch their whole arsenal...which guarantees we will do the same (mutually assured destruction) so its the end of the world anyway 

JohnJamesUrgayle -
jspeed -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

You think?

By who - Iran??? How do you see that happening given our geography and geographic isolation from other powers, land mass, bases across the world, underground silos, aircraft carriers at sea, millions of rural armed population, nuclear subs under the Arctic, missle defense systems, continuity plans, etc. 

only one with a shot is Russia and that is if they simulataneously launch their whole arsenal...which guarantees we will do the same (mutually assured destruction) so its the end of the world anyway 

Any nuclear armed country with 200 or so nukes and with intercontinental ballistic technology could wipe out anyone.  And Russia has like 10,000 nukes, they'd have to launch only a fraciton of them to take out 99% of the critical infrastructure and most life in the USA.

Subbed

jspeed -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

Keep thinking that my friend....

 

NKcell -
jspeed -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

Keep thinking that my friend....

 

How would usa stop a coordinated attack from Russia and china launching 10,000 ICMBs with nuclear warheads?  If the warheads were launched right this minute USA would be able to do nothing except return fire and wait for their annihilation.  Dont be naive.

"The US would have a hard time winning without going nuclear."

 

lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol

Only a fool would face the Dothraki in an open field. 

 

 

1 Like
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The US got their ass kicked by rice farmers in flip-flops.

2 Likes
NKcell -
jspeed -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The problem is that the USA can also be obliterated in a day.

Keep thinking that my friend....

 

Google hypersonic middles idiot. The US has no defense for them.

*missles

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/hypersonic-weapons-what-they-are-and-why-us-cant-defend-against-them.html

 

SAPPER13 -
Shugum -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The US got their ass kicked by rice farmers in flip-flops.

Yes, the military is exactly the same as it was then. Brilliant input. 

This has nothing to do with weaponry. US has no history of fighting foreign Invaders and being occupied by a foreign government.

NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The podcast argues against that, which is what makes it interesting. The US can't obliterate a country in a day on a day's notice, and that makes a difference.

War is politics by other means. If you're not achieving your political goals you're not winning. Any thought experiments with conventional warfare in a controlled environment is just military masturbation.

One political goal for an Iran action would be that the Gulf States, and thereby the world economy, shouldn't be ruined. And it's questionable if that can be achieved.

Another issue is missile and drone swarm development. The US Navy is formidable, but big, expensive and vulnerable. The podcast references the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game. Basically, the military had to adjust the rules, because the red team was beating the blue. 

ziggystardust -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The podcast argues against that, which is what makes it interesting. The US can't obliterate a country in a day on a day's notice, and that makes a difference.

War is politics by other means. If you're not achieving your political goals you're not winning. Any thought experiments with conventional warfare in a controlled environment is just military masturbation.

One political goal for an Iran action would be that the Gulf States, and thereby the world economy, shouldn't be ruined. And it's questionable if that can be achieved.

Another issue is missile and drone swarm development. The US Navy is formidable, but big, expensive and vulnerable. The podcast references the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game. Basically, the military had to adjust the rules, because the red team was beating the blue. 

You are aware that we don't fight full up 100% in those war games.  Air Force is famous for sandbagging . Like when the German Air Force was bragging about beating F-22's in a war game . It's designed so that both sides get good quality training. Usually by simulating enemy  Aircraft and flying accordingly 

edit : a good example would be the war games  in Brazil 2013 . We flew against old Mirages and old block 10 f-16's . Venezuela got cocky after a week and so they got bitch slapped the rest of the time . 

ChucksChin -
ziggystardust -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The podcast argues against that, which is what makes it interesting. The US can't obliterate a country in a day on a day's notice, and that makes a difference.

War is politics by other means. If you're not achieving your political goals you're not winning. Any thought experiments with conventional warfare in a controlled environment is just military masturbation.

One political goal for an Iran action would be that the Gulf States, and thereby the world economy, shouldn't be ruined. And it's questionable if that can be achieved.

Another issue is missile and drone swarm development. The US Navy is formidable, but big, expensive and vulnerable. The podcast references the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game. Basically, the military had to adjust the rules, because the red team was beating the blue. 

You are aware that we don't fight full up 100% in those war games.  Air Force is famous for sandbagging . Like when the German Air Force was bragging about beating F-22's in a war game . It's designed so that both sides get good quality training. Usually by simulating enemy  Aircraft and flying accordingly 

edit : a good example would be the war games  in Brazil 2013 . We flew against old Mirages and old block 10 f-16's . Venezuela got cocky after a week and so they got bitch slapped the rest of the time . 

Yes, but is that valid in this specific context? To quote retired USMC Lt Gen from the wiki page:

"This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, free playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming U.S. victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted". Van Riper was extremely critical of the scripted nature of the new exercise and resigned from the exercise in the middle of the war game. Van Riper later said that Vice Admiral Marty Mayer altered the exercise's purpose to reinforce existing doctrine and notions within the U.S. military rather than serving as a learning experience."

ziggystardust -
ChucksChin -
ziggystardust -
NKcell -

America can obliterate any country in a full scale gloves off war in a day. It's not even a question.

Yes , I was in the military and combat arms.

The podcast argues against that, which is what makes it interesting. The US can't obliterate a country in a day on a day's notice, and that makes a difference.

War is politics by other means. If you're not achieving your political goals you're not winning. Any thought experiments with conventional warfare in a controlled environment is just military masturbation.

One political goal for an Iran action would be that the Gulf States, and thereby the world economy, shouldn't be ruined. And it's questionable if that can be achieved.

Another issue is missile and drone swarm development. The US Navy is formidable, but big, expensive and vulnerable. The podcast references the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game. Basically, the military had to adjust the rules, because the red team was beating the blue. 

You are aware that we don't fight full up 100% in those war games.  Air Force is famous for sandbagging . Like when the German Air Force was bragging about beating F-22's in a war game . It's designed so that both sides get good quality training. Usually by simulating enemy  Aircraft and flying accordingly 

edit : a good example would be the war games  in Brazil 2013 . We flew against old Mirages and old block 10 f-16's . Venezuela got cocky after a week and so they got bitch slapped the rest of the time . 

Yes, but is that valid in this specific context? To quote retired USMC Lt Gen from the wiki page:

"This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, free playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming U.S. victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted". Van Riper was extremely critical of the scripted nature of the new exercise and resigned from the exercise in the middle of the war game. Van Riper later said that Vice Admiral Marty Mayer altered the exercise's purpose to reinforce existing doctrine and notions within the U.S. military rather than serving as a learning experience."

They start negotiating the rules at least a year or two prior . That has a huge effect on the outcome . So judging any war game without knowing the exact rules isn't the most accurate assessment. 

I like what you said about war is politics. I never looked at it that way before