- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is it possible to completely defeat an enemy without a ground offensive?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:53 pm
I don’t think so. The Iran conflict cannot be won without either troops on the ground or a civilian uprising. The only other option is to do what Trump threatened earlier and that is to destroy all the bridges and power plants. Do that and you have a huge humanitarian crisis. Power plants can’t be rebuilt over night. It doesn’t seem there are many options. You can continue to blow up military targets but Iran will keep building drones and doing low cost attacks. They will keep their stranglehold on their population while poking the bear (US, Israel, gulf nations). This could go on for years if the strategy doesn’t change.
Edit - before you upvote BeerJeep below, Okinawa became part of Japan in 1879 and was considered a home island. It also took two atomic bombs and fire bombing Tokyo, targeting the civilian population.
Edit - before you upvote BeerJeep below, Okinawa became part of Japan in 1879 and was considered a home island. It also took two atomic bombs and fire bombing Tokyo, targeting the civilian population.
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 9:20 pm
19
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:54 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
it possible to completely defeat an enemy without a ground offensive?
Ask Japan and the nonexistent ground offensive on the home islands.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:55 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
Is it possible to completely defeat an enemy without a ground offensive?
What do you need ak-15's for? The military has planes and tanks!
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:56 pm to Azkiger
quote:
ak-15
Want
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:57 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Ask Japan and the nonexistent ground offensive on the home islands.
So you agree then or if you don’t consider the island hopping a ground offensive, then the option is dropping fire bombs and atomic bombs on their cities.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 5:15 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Ask Japan and the nonexistent ground offensive on the home islands.
Hopefully Iran has a Mullah Hirohito we don't know about.Posted on 6/11/26 at 5:23 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
So you agree then or if you don’t consider the island hopping a ground offensive, then the option is dropping fire bombs and atomic bombs on their cities.
We don’t need to island hop to strike anywhere in the world at any time.
We 100% have the capability to defeat any enemy on this planet without a ground invasion.
We won’t do that, but the card is there in our pocket.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 5:28 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Depends on the desired outcome I guess. If you want to keep a presence in the region or implement/facilitate regime change followed by rebuilding then no
If your goal is to just completely wipe them off the face of the earth and let neighboring countries or those with interest clean up the mess and help them start over then probably.
If your goal is to just completely wipe them off the face of the earth and let neighboring countries or those with interest clean up the mess and help them start over then probably.
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 6/11/26 at 5:37 pm to Ramblin Wreck
The First Opium War, not sure if the British had any ground offensive. Thinking their ships bombarded the forts/cities into submission.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:07 pm to roadGator
quote:
ak-15
Want
As long as it's fully-semi-automatic, can blow the lung right out of the body and has plenty of clips.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:08 pm to beerJeep
quote:outside of use of nuclear weapons that we will never come close to using on Iran?
Ask Japan and the nonexistent ground offensive on the home islands.
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:34 pm to Ramblin Wreck
It’s possible but it requires a lot of civilian casualties and rendering large areas of land inhabitable due to radiation
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:39 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
So you agree then or if you don’t consider the island hopping a ground offensive, then the option is dropping fire bombs and atomic bombs on their cities.
Did you know that simultaneously as we were working on the Manhattan Project we were also working on a project to make bat bombs? For real, bats strapped with little napalm pouches and small charges. We planned to put timers on them and release them from planes, letting them go to roost in the eaves and ceilings of the Japanese wood framed structure. Then......WHOOSH! Bat BBQ by the thousands.
The plan was actually feasible, too. A test run resulted in a general losing his brand new car when one of the locked and loaded test bats sought shelter in a shed area with a large propane tank. When the little booger went off he took the shed, tank, and a few vehicles with him.
True story.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:43 pm to deltaland
It’s definitely possible. But you’d need to winds to cooperate and an adequate amount of mustard gas.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:44 pm to beerJeep
Yea I guess you could firebomb the largest city then follow it up with two nuclear attacks over urban areas. If killing a million people achieves the goal, who gives AF, right?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:45 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
Is it possible to completely defeat an enemy without a ground offensive?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 6:59 pm to Ramblin Wreck
In that Balkan Dustup, we bombed Serbian into a peace treaty. I think the 90s.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:07 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Trump without question is the best 5-D chess player ever. Never underestimate how many moves ahead he has thought.
Sadly, the Iranians are governed by fanatics that have a stranglehold on their people similar to the Nazis over the typical German in the 1930s. To date, few Iranians continue to try to overthrow the 'powers that be' for regime change.
For a period, it may have worked to provide guns to a group like the Kurds. They would in turn find local support, team up, and the revolt could grow. This route would possibly allow for boots on the ground to not be needed. However, in this case, given the absence of the populace uprising, I am afraid that it will have to be bomb, bomb, & BOMB!! Our options are limited, because the damn Europeans have turned their backs on us.
I don't think America is going to support boots on the ground. Especially with the main street media egging on doom. I do believe the Iranian regime believes they benefitted most from the several week lull in bombing. However, I think it worked to our advantage in that it permitted the War Department to consider the next phase or two of operations and to resupply.
Sorry to be long winded. The answer all depends on your definition of 'defeat'. Do I think Iran is defeated? Yes, they have been decimated. Will they continue to fight and be a pain in the arse? Without question most assuredly yes!
Sadly, the Iranians are governed by fanatics that have a stranglehold on their people similar to the Nazis over the typical German in the 1930s. To date, few Iranians continue to try to overthrow the 'powers that be' for regime change.
For a period, it may have worked to provide guns to a group like the Kurds. They would in turn find local support, team up, and the revolt could grow. This route would possibly allow for boots on the ground to not be needed. However, in this case, given the absence of the populace uprising, I am afraid that it will have to be bomb, bomb, & BOMB!! Our options are limited, because the damn Europeans have turned their backs on us.
I don't think America is going to support boots on the ground. Especially with the main street media egging on doom. I do believe the Iranian regime believes they benefitted most from the several week lull in bombing. However, I think it worked to our advantage in that it permitted the War Department to consider the next phase or two of operations and to resupply.
Sorry to be long winded. The answer all depends on your definition of 'defeat'. Do I think Iran is defeated? Yes, they have been decimated. Will they continue to fight and be a pain in the arse? Without question most assuredly yes!
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:16 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Yes but you all dont have the stomach for it.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:16 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Depends on your very vague use of the word "defeat". This has to be defined for for each and every conflict. In the European theatre in WW2, defeat meant killing enough Germans that they surrender, plus capturing or killing Hitler. In Vietnam, it was to help the government of S. Vietnam dive the communist armies of the north out of the country and eliminate communist Russia's influence in Asia. In Iran, who the f**k knows.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News