Thread: Can the U.S support a war in Iran aswell as in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Will the U.S be able to deal with Iran when it turns belligerent? Already the armed forces are stretched and a war on Iran looks unsustainable if it were to be necessary. In that case could there be a likelihood of the re-introduction of the draft as recruitment numbers are declining? It is atroublesome question and I wonder if anyone has any feasible solutions as to overcome the need for conscription.

Options look limited at the moment. I imagine a complete withdrawal from Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) would have to occur first. And a lot of US troops stationed worldwide would almost certainly be called upon. In a nutshell, I think there's not enough available troops to attempt any sort of land invasion, and any sort of draft would be politically suicidal.

Originally Posted by Juche

Options look limited at the moment. I imagine a complete withdrawal from Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) would have to occur first. And a lot of US troops stationed worldwide would almost certainly be called upon. In a nutshell, I think there's not enough available troops to attempt any sort of land invasion, and any sort of draft would be politically suicidal.

The U.S has the capability of fighting a war almost remotely i.e. through aerial attack, ballistic missiles etc. If only the U.S administration would be allowed politically to conduct a war in this manner. It would save U.S money and U.S lives

Originally Posted by commiekiller

The U.S has the capability of fighting a war almost remotely i.e. through aerial attack, ballistic missiles etc. If only the U.S administration would be allowed politically to conduct a war in this manner. It would save U.S money and U.S lives

US lives aren't the only lives worth considering in such a conflict. For the US to use ballistic missiles to destroy active nuclear facilities would be enormously damaging to the population in much the same way that Chernobyl was, and is therefore out of the question.

Economic warfare is the best. For this we need Russia, who does lots of trade with Iran and the region.

Originally Posted by commiekiller

Will the U.S be able to deal with Iran when it turns belligerent? Already the armed forces are stretched and a war on Iran looks unsustainable if it were to be necessary. In that case could there be a likelihood of the re-introduction of the draft as recruitment numbers are declining? It is atroublesome question and I wonder if anyone has any feasible solutions as to overcome the need for conscription.

The draft will never be re-introduced.

Originally Posted by Juche

Options look limited at the moment. I imagine a complete withdrawal from Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) would have to occur first. And a lot of US troops stationed worldwide would almost certainly be called upon. In a nutshell, I think there's not enough available troops to attempt any sort of land invasion, and any sort of draft would be politically suicidal.

Is that Chairman Mao as your avatar?

To be honest, one of the reasons why the US army is stretched is because the troops are posted on spots that ever since the end of the Cold War, are deemed unnecessary. Do we really need tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea? For one, the Cold War is over so there really is no Red Army to fight off in Germany; Japan is a staunch ally and does not need US bases on there, and South Korea is also a good ally with a strong military/economy. So again, why do we need soldiers there? They should just be removed from those spots, just like the Philippines did with Subic Bay in 1992; it'll help relieve the "stretch" problem.

I am trying to figure out what went wrong over history. Before today's technology, there were some very horrific wars. When you lose about 1/5 - 1/3 of your male population, I can see the point of wanting to give-in. Those were the days of old.

Then, when we found the ability to annihilate cities with a single bomb, we ended WWII very quickly.

After that, we engaged in wars where neither (1) the warring sides lost so much as 1/5 - 1/3 of their male population, nor (2) neither annihilated the other's cities with single, catstrophic blasts.

So, where are we going? Vietnam and Korea were more like wars of "fatigue" where one side woke up and said "I'm tired of cheeseburgers. Every day, it's cheeseburgers. Want to do something different? I quit."

Is that where we are going? Can anyone really "beat" anyone anymore, or is it just a matter of getting tired of "cheeseburgers?"

Originally Posted by commiekiller

The U.S has the capability of fighting a war almost remotely i.e. through aerial attack, ballistic missiles etc. If only the U.S administration would be allowed politically to conduct a war in this manner. It would save U.S money and U.S lives

This would not save any money. In fact, aerial combat is much more costly then a ground attack. Think of fuel concumption, the price of bombs, shot down planes, etc. etc. etc.