this question goes to war scholars?

Question

can anyone tell me please how the number of troops can hold out if we must go at it with Iran?i was just a ground pounder in Germany e-4 nuke tech.this is a non political question so please dont bash me here?i would assume Isreal may be close to an air assault on Iran thats just common sense,lets assume it is non nuclear,do we have the man power alone to fight on a third front?

Answer 1

Actually, it more than likely would not be a 3rd front. Since we already have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is just a matter of converging into Iran. However, they would have to stabalize the environments in those two countries before they could advance and not risk being cut off from a faill back route.

Answer 2

I don't see a numbers problem first you need to look at the number of troops we have deployed world wide and what they are doing. There's Germany (approx 70,000) over 100,000 total in Europe doing basically nothing constructive. Then Korea we have over 30,000 maybe a few more making the South Korean's feel safe. Next we have 30 to 50,000 in Japan. Hey, WWII is over we don't need occupation troops in Japan. So we have more troops deployed overseas that are not in either Iraq or Afgahnistan.

An attack on Iran would not create another front. Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are all connected so that is a single theater and doesn't create another front.

I guess the third point is we don't need to invade Iran to disarm them, but we are going to have to use nukes to take out the bunkers containing Iran's nuke facilities. I think we'll do that and wait and see if they are going to try to strike back. If they do we'll follow up with a 2nd strike to take out their military capacity. Once the nuke threshold has been crossed, I could see us using tactical nukes to finish off their military. So I don't see an invasion.

Answer 3

In a manner of speaking, we are already at war with Iran. Those "Insurents" we're battling in Iraq are from Iran. Sorry I don't just look at the numbers, I look more at the geopolitics. In WW II, it was a battle for realestate. Currently, its a battle for religiosity and ideology. So, look at it from this perspective. If a foreign invader came here and made war with us, forcing us to submit to their belief system. How hard would you fight? I strongly suspect that if we were to shift the fight over the Iranian border, we'd probably need about the same numbers as were made available (by draft) in WW II. When Patton drove the U.S. 3d Army through France in 1944, he lost on average, no less than 87 men a day. At it's worse (08Nov - 07Dec 1944), he lost an average of 218 men a day. And that was going up against an easily recognizable, uniformed military. We are not afforded such luxury today. Our enemy wears civilian attire, hides behind women and children, and is protected by those around him. Half the time, he is also protected by the government we are supposed to be defending. And in that part of the world, religion trumps politics hands down, but both are inseparably intertwined. Yes, should we go against Iran (openly), it would require the same numbers as those of WW II. You won't be going up against just Iran, but against most all of the Arab nations and the left leaning nations as well -- remember, we were given no help from France. No use of their air space for the build up to the Iraq war. You could reasonably expect the same in going to war with Iran. Italy too, they have been subverting the coalition efforts and working with the insurgents.

Answer 4

No, we don't. In fact, we haven't had the "manpower" to do what we intended to do in the first place. Consider we had around half a million in the region in 89-90...what can they be thinking?

Not that I would be considered a scholar of war but common sense tells me that if we turn tail as many were whining about today in Washington, they are going to look even more foolish when we have to send even more into harms way when the sh*tstorm starts blowing between Iran & Israel. Jeeze, we're already there...the biggest problem with public opinion setting policy is that much of the public has never been in a furball like this and has no clue as to the best options to follow to a successful conclusion.

I wanted to thank you for your service as well as give my answer.

Answer 5

Well, if the draft is reinstated, America has about 70 million or so troops. In the mean time, we have between 2-4 million in our standing army. Though I doubt we would go after Iran, pretty much only the government hates the US, the civilians actually like us. So technically, yes we would be able to. I also agree with Scottee25, about converging, though we may need re-enforcements.

Answer 6

Scotte has a good point... pushing into Iran removes SOME of the trouble from Iran by dragging many of the insurgents back to Iran...

But, for the USA our issue with Iran would be their nuclear program... that can be taken care of almost entirely with airpower... we're certainly not looking to HOLD ground or occupy... just wipe out the nuclear facilities

Their Navy is gone with a dozen Harpoons and follow up... We then have to secure the Straits... and take out their shore-based missiles (thanks China)... A repeat of Operation Praying Mantis.

Yep, our "enemies" refuse to wear a uniform and conform to the Rules of Ground Warfare... but PLEASE do NOT refer to an Iranian as an "arab"... Iranians are PERSIANS... a caucasian race.

Answer 7

It depends upon if you mean to conquer and hold ground, which is the traditional measure of "victory". I don't think we have the trained troops on hand to do that and would need a draft. However, if all you're trying to do is mess a country up and destroy their infrastructure, I think it would be within our capabilities to just bomb the crap out of them, without going nuke. Of course, I'm not suggesting either course, just saying what I think could be done. Don't forget that all those bombs, missiles, aircraft, satellites, aircraft carriers, and subs do cost some substantial amounts of money.

Answer 8

not for a prolonged period of time. if we were to act agenst Iran we need a quick strike into the country from iraq and then pull back. we dont have the man power to sustain both the iraq war and iran at the same time.

Answer 9

We don't have nearly enough. We can't even take Iraq all the way.