it doesn't matter to an American government approval polls from US public > international opinion because international opinion doesn't cast ballots in the next electoral cycleAnyone who says we would do anything more than a limited bombing campaign or maybe send more military supplies to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War obviously doesn't know much about foreign policy. I mean really, do you think that the world is going to stand idly by and say its fine if we drop a nuclear weapon on Tehran? That we raze it to the ground? Any sympathy we might have had would go immediately out the window.
Reagan would not have being any more aggressive than Carter, otl Reagan did Iran-Contra after Iran kept kidnapping/murdering us citizens in the muddle-east he didn't especially care about punishing Iran. his policy was to placate iran and not to fight them.Do not think Carter would ha 've taken military action,but Reagan would ha e lite the tan and the whole country of iran like the 4thof julyan hour after taking office.
Why does the US need air bases, can't they just sail some carriers in?Couldn't Saddam's Iraq provide air bases? I'd hope so, because the descriptions I keep seeing about the American military in 1980 make us seem like we'd get our teeth kicked in invading the Bahamas. Probably better to keep our distance.
Why does the US need air bases, can't they just sail some carriers in?
I don't think 1979 Iran had anything that can sink a carrier
can't they just bomb with carrier borne bombers, do they really need b-52s?Can't launch B-52's off a carrier.
can't they just bomb with carrier borne bombers, do they really need b-52s?
basically what I'm saying is that for better or worse the blood of foreigners is an effective way of consecrating an American president's leadership qualities and if Iran killed the hostages Carter might get his chance to get his.
Hell if he gives good enough of a speech he might win 1980.
Well let's see here: would it have happened if Carter were president? Cause if they executed them whilst he was still running things, then he'd have probably just tried talking to them and all.....which would have been the preferable action, since Carter was not a war president. He wasn't really a good president. period. Now if it had been during Reagan's era, then there's a good chance that one of two solutions would have come about (I say two, because it depends if the moral anchor of Bush senior is his VP or not) option A or Bush being the good cop is that we deploy a few fleets to the mid east and a few bombers. Strategic bombings and strikes within a time frame and Iran is given a choice of either becoming a hole in the ground or a chance to surrender and become a client state watched over by a joint coalition. Option B or Reagan going all "The Gipper" is that he calls for a nuke strike and takes out Iran......thereby starting WW3
According to a prior discussion which included excellent posts by user Yes, there would be a squadron of B-52 or around 15 B-52s which could bomb from Diego Garcia. But how useful they would be when going against the Iranians who had decent aircraft as well as air-defense systems is another problem entirely.No Tomahawks in 1979, and smart bombs much less developed. Therefore pinpoint precision wouldn't go as far toward offsetting lack of quantity.
Which is why not having B-52s available would be pretty significant, I presume.
I can't see US ground troops in Iran except SOF or a raid. The USSR may (or not) make noises like "let's settle this diplomatically" but they will not try and intervene. At this point in time the USSR has zero leverage in Iran - the Iranians aren't using Soviet equipment, don't have Soviet reactors etc. Khomeini hates the Soviets and communism, they would accept Soviet equipment to rebuild their military when the dust settles (for which they will have to pay cash I am sure), but frankly assuming a relatively short US campaign they won't be able to learn to use any in time even if delivered on day one. The Russians won't be invited in to provide "advisors" and they wouldn't want to risk it.
Sloreck is right about the USSR not sticking their neck out for Iran, though.Apart from the BTR 40, 50, 60, and152 APCs, you are right: they aren't using Soviet equipment.![]()
You're not kidding with that username, eh?Should have armed the Germans and went and wiped out Russia when ww2 was over.
Truman was too much of a pussy to do that,all it would taken was 1 nuke in Moscow and the user would be out of service forever.