Iran has the World's LARGEST MILITARY; The U.S. Response: NUKES

[berni_mccoy]

Iran has over ELEVEN MILLION TROOPS. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_iran) They have an established military with plenty of hardware, solid navy, air force and army. If Iran and Syria get involved in the current M.E. conflict, the only response from the Bush administration will be nuclear. This is what the administration is gunning for. They have wanted to go to war with Iran. By allowing this conflict to rage on and spurring Israel on, they will bring about a Nuclear War in the Middle East. The U.S. will not win a ground war or air-battle with Iran. The only strategic response that will provide a success for the U.S. Military will be to launch Nukes.

What will the World's response be to that.

[panader0]

1. Iran is not a threat to the US

They would never invade our country. Anything short of that is not a threat to us.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Who said anything about invading the U.S.

They don't need to. Our military is in Iraq. They merely need to attack our military there and attack Israel. The U.S. would be forced into a war.

[spanone]

9. Iraq proved you don't need to be a threat to the US.

[alarimer]

2. I find this hard to believe

11 million??? You can't always believe what you read on Wikipedia.

[Pavulon]

4. You are correct,

off by an order of magnitude.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

[berni_mccoy]

7. Those are active duty. Iran has over 350K ACTIVE DUTY

They have 11 million at least that have previously SERVED ACTIVE DUTY and that could reactivate. Read the ENTIRE wiki article and you will see that.

[berni_mccoy]

32. From your very own reference: 11 MILLION

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

[berni_mccoy]

6. Iran requires everyone serve 2 years

These are people who are trained to be soldiers. They go through basic military training and then serve 2 years active duty. There are 19 million people who could reactivate into service. 11 million is conservative. Check the CIA website.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. Rumbo has been training the Iraqis for going on four years now

and they only have a few combat ready troops so far! I wonder what the problem is there?

[Buzz Clik]

17. Interesting. So everyone who ever served is still in the army now?

With a total population of 67 million, that means roughly 20% of the entire population is in the army. Do you really think that Iran has the capability to mobilize and outfit an army of 11 million? It seems very, very unlikely.

[berni_mccoy]

26. In WWII, The U.S. Activated 16 MILLION troops... 12% of the population

in just under 2 years. And those WERE UNTRAINED troops. And we made the equipment we needed.

You don't think Iran could do that.... hasn't been doing that since the Iran-Iraq war? If Saddam wasn't bad enough for them to conscript, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was certainly a shot across their bow...

[Posteritatis]

69. The US kinda went nuts during WWII

What they could pull off in a country of their size and development, that was all but immune to attack during the war, and what Iran will be able to do when it has enemies on two borders and a few thousand sorties a day coming down on it are two very, very different things.

This isn't to say that an invasion of Iran wouldn't (A) suck and (B) suck, but that 11 million figure will hardly be disciplined, teeming ranks of able and organized soldiers. General levies can give the title of "soldier" to a lot of people, but it doesn't mean much if they're a disorganized, ill-equipped mob.

[Pavulon]

3. Us response

Mass bombing. We killed 3 million people in Tokyo in a few days, 60 years ago.

We have no need for nukes to collapse a nation with no ability to project power.

Shut off their power, water, and food, bomb their cities (if warranted) and create havoc.

They have zero ability to protect any of their toys against a system designed to crush the USSR. Their toys are Soviet era, ours are not. Their carrier groups and long range strategic (60,000lb bomb load per) bombers do not exist. Ours are IDLE.

The US military was not designed to paint schools and win hearts and minds. That job belongs to state and the UN.

In the event of a nuclear war Iran would be burnt to cinders. That would only happen in two scenarios and the world would sit back and lament the action but would do nothing if the us retaliated against a nuclear first strike against our troops or israel. Both of these would trigger a massive (1000mt plus) response.

[AlamoDemoc]

15. "Shut off their power, water, and food, bomb their cities (if warranted)..

....and create havoc."

WOW! that strategy looks familiar in Lebanon. It looks as Copy and Pasty strategy by the Israeli forces in Lebanon.

[Pavulon]

21. There are about 1000 dead in 19 days

in lebanon, this action in Iran would create hundreds of thousands of deaths. 100 or more every MINUTE.

It is staggering. I am speaking of an unrestrained open air war. Similar to GW1. That is what it would be. Attacking military targets in cities with several thousand sorties a day. The death toll and destruction would have the effect of stopping motion in Iran.

A radiological mess would be made of their reactors.

Black jets blind them, b52, b1b, and b2 pour in millions of tons of conventional bombs.

If we were in Nato would be in. And Iran would be crushed. No occupation, no hearts and minds.

In effect a nuclear war without the stigma of the double flash and radiation.

This should never happen, but it is the reality of the events that would unfold in an open war with Iran.

I would bet the plan is sitting on someones desk ready to be executed on short notice.

[AlamoDemoc]

37. some would argue that attack on Iran would strengthen....

.....how Islam feels about the west. I do not agree, but I believe an attack on Iran by Israel, or the by United States would bring about challenge to our empire in the long term. In addition, it would have a long effect of how many of us live in the world for centuries to come.

[Hardrada]

24. Thank you, Dr. Strangelove.

Vat iss the use of a Doomsday Machine ven you don't tell anybody about it!!

(So I guess you are telling everybody... predictably as usual).

[Gabi Hayes]

28. really......and it's hard to take anybody seriously who gets his basic

facts so VERY VERY wrong

shall we start with three million Japanese killed in a few days?

according to stats I've read, 2.6 million Japanese dead is the total, including soldiers

you might just want to check on those numbers yourself before spouting off like that

and you also might want to educate yourselves to what these would do to our carriers, at the very least:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iranian+cruise+missiles

[Pavulon]

31. Meant 100k sorry

the sunburn was a drone joint venture between the US and Russia. We tested our weapon systems against it.

The wonder weapon does not win wars.

My mistake on the casualty report from 1945

[Pavulon]

33. Strange love would be the 3000 mt

of active stockpile. None of which is needed to cripple a 3rd world nation from the air.

The OP put out a SCENARIO my response is to that. A contingent response to a theoretical event.

Not reality.

Grow up. I an not advocating that position.

Sometimes the responses are very freshman year.

[Hardrada]

46. No the responses are meant to indicate we think you are

some kind of robot or Alien from Outer Space playing war games with the Earth.

[Pavulon]

50. The OP posted a Theoretical Situation

That calls for a theoretical response. You missed the point of the post. It is not advocacy it is discussion of possible outcomes to a scenario. Like the OP solicited.

The proverbial we, the royal we?

Context Clues...

[Hardrada]

70. The royal "we" of course.

And is the air breathable on Antares V?

[tocqueville]

42. I wouldn't be so confident

the air/land battle you are talking about doesn't work anymore

it "worked" in the Gulf War but didn't took Saddam out of power. If Saddam's army had been a real army wanting to fight the "liberation of Kuwait" had been a bloody affair. The US won a war against an army that surrendered to journalists. The Gulf War inflicted enormous pain to the Iraqi population and specially to the Kurds and the Shiites. It's only result was that 12 years after the war had to restart under fake pretenses and end up in a quagmire.

the Kosovo war was of the same type. It was won because the Russians stopped to support Milosevic and a part of the Serbian leadership thought that Kosovo wasn't worth the carnage. The losers were as usual the civilian population. The Serbian military came out intact with a few scratches. Be sure that the Iranians have learned about the Serbian deceit techniques and how to shoot stealth planes. Kosovo is relatively peaceful (practically no resistance and casualties under occupation) because of the skills of the occupying powers which are to 95% non-US.

Lebanon shows even more the flaws in the Powell strategy (The US haven't really learnt the lesson from Vietnam and are still fighting WWII with better toys). The Israeli failed to knock out the Hezbollah because the Hezbollah doesn't have a chain of command with electronics and bunkers and satellite stuff. They have donkeys and a population that support them. When they then attacked teh Hezbollah they had to retreat. Today I watched on French TV a singular event : the reporter was on the Israeli side and commenting over a file of tanks on a road about 300 yards over the border. Then came a RPG shot out of nowhere and blew out the first tank. A probably badly burned (he was all black) IDF soldier managed to escape. This was not staged !.

We are fighting ghosts said later an interviewed IDF soldier. So the airstrikes continue and the Qana "incidents" will multiply with all the outrage it causes. This is even more accurate for Iran. I bet that the Iranians have buried their stuff so deep and planted so much decoys that the strikes won't be very successfull. REtaliation in Iraq and Hormuz will be horrible. Invasion is out of question. Strategic nuking ? not probable.

Those who will create tomorrow's empires are the one that can answer militarily to asymmetric warfare and avoid civilian casulaties. Big toys' time is over, at least when it's not question of matching a similarly equipped power like the old USSR or tomorrow's China.

[unkachuck]

54. "Big toys' time is over"....

....I think we're wittnessing the development of stategies that render 'big-toys' much less effective....and behind all of this is oil....

....the major powers have no interest in a US hegemony of oil....compound that with the fact that we are the only nation to have killed with nuclear weapons and if we use them again, we'll relinquish any claim to the political/moral high-ground....

....I'm afraid we are not the only nation with advanced technology....should we go nuclear again, I would think a way would be found to detonate nuclear devices on US soil without leaving an address....

[Pavulon]

57. Nukes aren't car keys

they are like dna. We have the recipe of everybody's pie. If it shows up here they get all of our efforts in return.

Your oil comment is correct.

The us will not go first strike with nuclear weapons. If we did not with the soviets, why bother with a pissant 3rd world theocracy. Lemay is dead. We do not espouse first strike in the NPR. It is limited to immediate threat.

[fmlymninral]

5. sorry

but Iran's military may be a million men but nowhere near the 11 million number.
Its hardware is no match for the american or Israeli army. I do not believe we will go to war with them anytime soon.
They will push us as far as they can but will not risk war.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG502A.html

[berni_mccoy]

10. See my responses above... they DO have MILLIONS of people who could

IMMEDIATELY REACTIVATE. Iran TRAINS THEIR PEOPLE VIA CONSCRIPTION.

This kind of understimation is what Iran is COUNTING ON... If the U.S. military doesn't take them seriously, it is in for a big surprise.

[Sherman A1]

11. One Third of their Main Battle Tanks

show to be T55's according to GlobalSecurity.org. That's not exactly state of the art in this day and age (having been designed in the 1950's). I didn't look up their air component, but they are not able to project power and I would guess might have a real problem defending themselves against either an air or ground campaign (which I hope never, ever develops). It would turn into another Iraq in short order in my opinion, guerrilla warfare against an occupying force.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Our splendid military have done such great jobs in Iraq and Vietnam.

How could they possibly fail against Iran?

Unfortunately, the Pentagon and BushCo has yet to learn that wars are about more than bomb tonnage and body counts.

[Retired AF Dem]

36. Our military didn't fail

in Vietnam or Iraq. The Govt did. If you want to rebuild a country you have to destroy it first. Worked in Japan and Germany. Nobody has the balls to do it anymore.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. I heard Henry Kissinger say the same thing last week.

[eridani]

63. I'd call trying to win a political battle with military power failure

No amount of military power can force people to want to fight on behalf of foreign occupiers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. "Destroy the village in order to save it." ?

It seems the military tried that approach in Vietnam..with predictable results.

Our military got their asses royally kicked by the NVA and VC who knew how to fight a war, and understood that bombs and body counts do not a victory make, except in the minds of generals.

[bronxiteforever]

13. didn't China just cut the largest oil deal with them last year-mess

with the bull get the horns-China and Russia make play if we go to war with Iran-we can't risk it either although for the past five years the GOP has been profligate with the lives of americans-would this stop them?

[upi402]

18. Republicans to war is like

a 16 year old guy to p*ssy.
They just can't stop themselves when there's war-profiteering to be done. Reason goes absent.

[Retired AF Dem]

40. Another person that needs to read up on history

Roosevelt got us into WW11 to get us out of the depression even though most Republicans was totally against us getting involved in another "European" war. Who was it that got us into the Korean war? Truman wasn't it? Democrats got us fully involved into Vietnam with no clear mission. Wilson got us into WW1. Living overseas for 30 years I have seen my share of terrorism. I'm for the war against terrorism, but this batch of idiots is going about it in the wrong way.

[upi402]

71. WWII -Pearl Harbor got US involved, VN -was the military industrial

complex. Kennedy was getting out and was murdered. We have never learned the full facts of that murder. I side with Marr's book's evidence myself.

Korea... well we may see the Chinese on the move yet. And we will then be neutered from the Bushlers.

I say Republican in modern neocon terms, whichever politician they use. Seems Major General Smedley Butler saw it as a racket too;
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
and that is what my point was. That it's a war racketeering, conservative's game -not a middle class, populist pursuit. The guys with skin in the game, not the guys who fatten their wallets and concentrate power.

Don't mean to debate this, just trying to expand the picture.

[NNN0LHI]

16. I think they have Winnebagos of Death too n/t

[tocqueville]

19. Iran will fight to its strengths

By Richard M Bennett

It seems increasingly likely to many foreign observers that Iran's army has quietly acknowledged that it stands little chance of defeating the United States in the event of invasion, at least using conventional means.

However, its planning for an unconventional or guerrilla warfare campaign of resistance is far advanced and its confidence that it would prove ultimately successful has been greatly reinforced by the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and the resistance shown by Hezbollah in Lebanon. In recognition of this, the US may be losing interest in the vast commitment needed for an invasion and the strain this would undoubtedly place on its already overstretched armed forces. The suspicion grows that any future US-led attack on Iran may be restricted to a massive series of air and missile strikes on strategic targets, most directly linked to Iran's nuclear program.

The US would certainly wish severely to damage not only nuclear-research facilities, but missile-production centers; chemical and biological warfare installations; the air-defense infrastructure, radar, command and control sites and probably the most significant air bases as well.

It is unlikely, however, that anything short of a ground invasion or the use of small nuclear weapons would do anything more than seriously degrade Iran's advanced weapons programs and at most set the country back some five years. The US must hope that it "gets lucky" and that a serious military humiliation for Iran would fatally undermine the government in Tehran and lead to an eventual change of regime.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH01Ak02.html

the whole article is worth reading. It shows that even airstrikes would be costly for the US. It doesn't discuss
retaliation in Iraq and in the Hormuz detroit (which would severely damage the US economy). Personally I don't think that the US would nuke Iran. If they did they would lose the little sympathy that's left and probably expose themselves to economical reatliation from Russia and China and maybe even Europe. Japan wouldn't appreciate either. Besides nuking Iran is exposing itself to retaliation from Pakistan through terrorist channels. Even Israel should be very afraid : 3-5 50 kt nukes on Israel mean that the country would virtually cease to exist since 70% of the population is concentrated in three cities.

[Pavulon]

27. Here is the Word of truth

spoken with the certainty of what ever higher force you believe in.

IF Iran, Pakistan, or ANY nuclear power deploys nuclear weapons against the us we WILL respond with Trident D5 and Minuteman 3 weapons. We will fire thousands of 500kt warheads into that country.

We will kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours.

That country will cease to exist in any meaningful way. It will be erased.

That is the written policy of the US and it will be carried out by ANY president of any party should that event happen.

This is undisputed fact.

For that reason no sane state would allow its weapons to be used against us.

Russia, the only other nation with a arsenal that is statistically significant has no interest in involving its self in a nuclear war between the US and a third party (where the third party is the aggressor)

As for the article hopefully none of that would be needed. Iran is in control of its status as a NATO target.

[tocqueville]

51. this is not really accurate

actually there are only about 500 Minuteman that can be launched and each have a yield of 1.2 Mt, not 500 Kt, but the difference in destruction isn't THAT big on this scale. Than you have to "reload"... it's not likely that all the Trident and Minuteman would be released at once since it would give another third power immediate second strike capacity. There are 360 Trident warheads, but probably only half of the subs are out at the same time. Of course this would create a major catastrophy even for the US through fallout, probably only a couple of warheads would be triggered even by a maniac like George. BTW he wouldn(t really decide about that.

And I wonder what you mean by "deployed against the US". Most of nukes today are "deployed" against the US already. China has maybe up to 2000 warheads and ballistic capacity to hit the US. "Little France" has a capacity of at least launch 54 Mt in a single strike from any place on earth to any place on earth. The French capacity was built to deter the Soviets. It deters the US as much. Even if destroyed, a country that has nuclear submarines will retaliate and the US hardly survive. That's why I don't believe in your scenario.

Israel is the most sensitive target due to its little size and concentrated population. In a fight Iran/Israel, Iran would lose one third/half of its population, but Israel would completely cease to exist.

And notice that I said in my previous post that the US would expose itself to nuclear retaliation through TERRORIST channels. Pakistan might be the source or North Korea or stolen/purchased Russian stuff but it would come to the US through a boat and a truck and would be a small device. But 3 of them would make 9/11 sound like a sqirmish. And what would the US do ? Nuke Al Quaeda ? naah probably Venezuela and lick its wounds.

[Pavulon]

55. The Math is a bit off

the w87 scavenged from the mirved mx program were used in d5 tridents. The warhead yields 500kt ant each trident carries 8. each sub 192 weapons. 96000kt per sub, 18 in the fleet. One broadside is sufficient to kill a nation. I would bet at least 4 are within range of Iran. Iran does not have slbm capability. No nation that does would choose to die by entering a nuclear war started by an aggressor against the us.

This discounts all air dropped nuclear ordinance. This ordinance can be used as a blind first strike using black jets. We are the only nation who has the ability to drop around 100 nuclear weapons at the same time with zero notice. This event will (should) never happen.

If a pakistani weapon goes off here pakistan is getting the return. Those are the rules. We keep samples of what every body's brew is made up, on an atomic level. Nations dont "lose" nuclear weapons. They aren't car keys.

Deployed is my context meant detonated in conus or in us troops formations around the world.

If iran fires on israel we fire on iran. That was stated eloquently by the president. no nation can withstand several hundred half megaton weapons.

I take this subject seriously. We are discussing policy that determines the death of hundreds of millions of people.

We track the position of every ballistic missile submarine on earth. With the intent of killing it before it can fire its weapons against us. Still.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

53. Yes they would get nuked back automatically but the USA would

also have been nuked. Plus I think you are not taking into account the psychology, when you say that the countries would cease to exist in a meaningful way, you are not realizing that more and more people in these countries already have done that. I mean, it might not be your culture and point of view but in other countries do you think it seems like a meaningful way to just sit around waiting for the USA to bomb you anyway?

Think about how much money has to be given to the leaders the US puts in charge just to keep the people from kicking those leaders out. I mean, it might seem like to some Americans that it would be better to just obey the USA and hope you will not end up like Iraq, but look at the kinds of demonstrations and things they have like in Pakistan, all the time, even though they get money and soldiers and security contractors, etc. to help things from getting out of hand, and it is the same thing in other places.

So yes, a lot of people would die, but I don't think that we should rule out that to some of the countries that do have the weapons, to them it would be worth it, from their point of view, it would be like making a sacrifice just to save a little bit of the world, even if they wouldn't get to be in that little bit.....

[Pavulon]

56. You do not comprehend

the scale of a second strike. If we are fired on first, israel is fired on by iran(etc), or the russians start a nuclear war with nato, the only situation in which would allow the use of nuclear weapons the destruction would be enormous.

I have a good imagination but the consequences of thousands of nuclear explosions over any nation, especially a small one like iran would destroy its language, culture, everything. It is a scary thing to imagine. Sickening.

There has never been an event like that in human history. Hiroshima would be less than a thousandth of the total energy released. Hopefully there never will be an event like this.

Any of those fools who have expressed willingness to absorb a nuclear strike from the US do not understand the totality of the destruction nuclear weapons cause.

69 million people live in iran 60 million would die in less than an hour. of the 9 million left most would have some radiation exposure, no food, water, or man made shelter. All electronic systems would cease function. Many of those would die.

The remaining people would be forced to leave the country because the cesium left by the bomb fallout would poison the ground.

Complete destruction. This is the only context these weapons should ever be discussed in. They are not tactical. They are not bunker busters. They are civilization killers.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

60. I think you are looking at it from a technical view

And also from the way you would feel about so much destruction. What I am saying is that people in the countries that have those weapons might not have your same cultural outlook, or agree on what things are most important, or even on the nature of those things, like meaningful existence, for instance.

The technology can't change it if people in another country don't agree with Americans about what is meant by meaningful existence. That is just one example, but you know what I mean. They are different things. One is about what the weapons will do, and one is about how you feel about that versus how somebody else might feel about that.

[Strelnikov_]

64. Briefing Paper You May Be Interested In

Iran: Consequences Of A War

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/IranConsequences.htm

Conclusion

A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.

Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.

The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.


My view. Iran seems to be goading us into an aerial attack. They know we do not have the stomach or resources for an invasion. Maybe they have accepted it as inevitable. Either way, someone in Washington should be asking why they feel comfortable poking the neo-con administration with a stick.

My opinion is that they intend to claim the moral high ground in the Middle East following the attacks, further weakening the US position.

I see a long campaign of asymmetrical warfare following.

Chindia and Russia are more than happy for us to further piss off the people who have most of the world's remaining oil and natural gas. "Fuck you, we sell to China" will be a familiar refrain. For Russia, the more things that get blowed up in the gulf, the more money for them.

[Make7]

20. China has the largest military based on numbers of troops.

Ranked number 1 in active and total troop strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

There are almost as many males of age eligible and fit to serve in their military as the entire population of the United Stated.

- Make7

[LostInAnomie]

22. In a conventional war, Iran (and probably any other country)...

... wouldn't stand a chance against the US. You don't spend more on the military than the next 15 countries combined without being able to roll over countries like Iran with ease. They could have 22 million and we would still crush them without nukes.

[Hardrada]

25. War is not the answer anyway.

Diplomacy is. And an even handed approach to the problems of the Middle East not just favoring one side.

[LostInAnomie]

30. Not saying that it is.

But hyping the idea that the US is pining to use some nukes because of a drastically overstated number of Iranian troops is irrational. There isn't a country in the world, including China, that we couldn't reduce to ashes without going nuclear.

That is more of a comment on our bloated military budget and an out of control military industrial complex than it is on the righteousness of our actions.

[chill_wind]

43. Pricing the Risk of War in Iran

Interesting and worthwhile read:

Calculating the Risk of War in Iran

by F. William Engdahl
January 29, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca


(...)

The possibility of war against Iran presents a geo-strategic and geopolitical problem of far more complexity than the bombing and occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proven complicated enough for the United States. Below we try to identify some of the main motives of the main actors in the new drama and the outlook for possible war.

The basic facts (...)

CONPLAN 8022

In January 2003 President Bush signed a classified Presidential Directive, CONPLAN 8022-02. Conplan 8022 is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits ‘no ground troops.’ It was specifically drafted to deal with ‘imminent’ threats from states such as North Korea or Iran.

Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent’s response—cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications, hacking computer networks.

Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating ‘mini’ nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran’s. In summer 2005 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved a top secret ‘Interim Global Strike Alert Order’ directing round-the-clock military readiness, to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15, 2005 Washington Post. Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces. In January 2003 Bush signed on to a definition of ‘full spectrum global strike’ which included precision nuclear as well as conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the President’s September 2002 National Security Strategy which laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of ‘pre-emptive’ wars.

The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush White House might ‘think the unthinkable’ and order a nuclear pre-emptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.


full text: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20EN20060129&articleId=1841

Also by this author:

US Outflanked in Eurasia Energy Politics

F. William Engdahl, June 3, 2006


The United States' global energy-control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed "democracy" by Washington. But while it is preoccupied with implanting democracy in the Middle East, the United States is quietly being outflanked in the rush to secure and control major energy sources of the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.

The quest for energy control has informed Washington's support for high-risk "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in West Africa, as well as in Sudan, source of 7% of China's oil imports. It lies behind US policy vis-a-vis President Hugo Chavez' Venezuela and President Evo Morales' Bolivia.

In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance has shown signs of producing just the opposite: a kind of "coalition of the unwilling", states that increasingly see no other prospect, despite traditional animosities, but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control the future security of their energy.

If the trend of recent events continues, it won't be US-style democracy that is spreading, but rather Russian and Chinese influence over major oil and gas supplies.

(...)

full text:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Ouflanked/ouflanked.html

[chill_wind]

44. Ground war in Iran "would be inconceivable". to most mil planners. nt

[Avalux]

23. Wikipedia - not a definitive source.

Your subject line is just a bit sensational considering.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Check the CIA website on Iran's Military

They estimate there are 19 million people who could activate. 11 million is a conservative guess. No one really knows because Iran keeps its secrets better than the U.S. does.

[berni_mccoy]

34. The Number comes from GlobalSecurity.Org, a site others here have used

as reference to counter that number. Read the ENTIRE WIKI ARTICLE. It is based on good research. The 11 million paramilitary number comes from this article: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

[Avalux]

35. Thanks for the extra info -

I will take a look at it. :hi:

[Pavulon]

38. What some posters think, want, expect

in the theoretical event of a conventional OPEN war with iran.

The us whose defense budget is at least 100 times that of iran, which has the ability to systematically gain air, sea, and land superiority through massive violent acts.

Will,

somehow surrender to iran or sue for peace on terms. we will have our air force ,which would be pitted against Soviet era radar and aircraft, destroyed.

Our carriers would be sunk by a super weapon the sunburn missile. A weapon that us defense contractors co developed with russia as a target drone will do us in. A system we designed to test the phalanx replacement systems on most capitol ships.

Our strategic bombers will take no action. Diego will very quiet.

We will invade and try to hold land. We will not use massive destructive force similar to that used in ww2 in france and the pacific theater. We will try to win hearts and minds, not complete physical control of areas, by displacing or killing the inhabitants.

We will lose at the single objective the US military has trained to do. Destroy Soviet systems.

This is not a plausible assessment.

[berni_mccoy]

39. You base most of your position on "we will try to win hearts and minds"

I say BOO. Since WHEN has this admin tried to do that? They did it so well with Gitmo, with Abu Gharab, with Napalming Falujah, with raping and killing of women and children in Iraq, and with BLOCKING CEASE FIRE ATTEMPTS BY THE U.N. and Sending BOMBS to Israel.

Yeah, we're winning minds and hearts all right.

[Pavulon]

41. Fallaja is intact

that is a start. By not bombomg it all until they were bouncing rocks they showed restraint.

I do not defend the idiot civilians who control the military.

[chill_wind]

45. CONPLAN 8022-02.(WAPO May 2005)

"Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."



Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin

Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page B01

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."


In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

read all (3pages)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html

[enid602]

47. 11 million active military?

Per http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

"By 1986 the regular army was estimated to have a strength of 305,000 troops. By 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts)."

[berni_mccoy]

49. Includes paramilitary organizations

See this article: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

[chill_wind]

52. Other misc info-- Branches & Available Manpower

"Military Branches:

Islamic Republic of Iran regular forces (includes Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force and Air Defense Command), Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) (includes Ground Forces, Air Force, Navy) Qods Force (special operations), and Basij (Popular Mobilization Army), Law Enforcement Forces



Military manpower - military age: 21
Manpower - availibility: males age 15-49: 20,937,348 (2004 est.)

Manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 12,434,810 (2004 est.)

Manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 912,569 (2004 est.) "

taken from:
http://www.lexas.us/worldfactbook/military.asp

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. But We've Got Doug Masters!!!!!!!!!

Ok, maybe a bad joke. But the reality is too terrifying for me to deal with.

[joe_shmoe]

58. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

Iran = final straw for start of WWIII and the colapse of the world economy and US Martial law.


It is with grave concern that we observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /


thanks,
J-shmoe

[Posteritatis]

66. Online petitions are invariably worthless. (nt)

[Selatius]

59. China holds the record for largest military

China's reserves are vastly larger than its current active duty army. If China initiated a draft of all able-bodied males, they could easily raise an army numbering in the tens of millions. With a country that numbers 1.3 billion people, you better bet that they can raise the largest army on the planet. The only other country that could match the manpower at China's disposal is India.

[berni_mccoy]

61. China's active duty is larger yes, but not their total military

And if you read the articles, you'll see that those 11 million Iranians are trained soldiers... acting as militia, similar to the National Gaurd in the U.S. And we used our National Guard heavily in Iraq.

[gatorboy]

67. Can you imagine an army of 100,000,000 million soldiers?

Jesus Christ!

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. Jane's says:

they gotta whole lotta ak-47's. And six or seven thousand 50's era battle tanks.

I don't care how many fucking rifles you have, or how many tanks. The ability to project military force by means of naval and air transport is what is the measure of "military capability".

I've seen film of the chinese conducting nuke tests... they were still riding horses, and said horses had FUCKING GASMASKS.

This Vet says unless we intend to invade china (and we DON'T), we have nothing to fear from them.

The way people undestimate the capability of US military power here is breathtaking sometimes...

THAT'S NOT TO SAY that guerilla warfare is the rule of the day and can ever be defeated, but for china to be a factor in any ME war they'd have to GET there first. And that ain't happenin' any time soon.

Can you say "Slow Boat"?

[nickgutierrez]

65. The World's response? China calls in their debt...

..and the US goes bankrupt.

This ain't gonna happen.