We could each spell out various scenarios where either side "may" dominate .. so it becomes moot .. 3.8 million troops versus 128,000, half of those being reserves .. technology would even it out some but if we learned anything from Iraq, it is that once you need to put people on the ground and in harms way, it changes the dynamic completely .. it is like fighting forest fires .. you can bomb fires infinitum, but you need boots-on-the-ground to put the fire out .. obvious scenario is that we would have to invade them, since we initiated this "action", and we would lose ..
As far as dreams, where would a man be without his dreams .. it was my attempt to end my part of this pointless discussion ..
Of course it's moot.....that's why it was being put forth as a 'thought experiment'. You know, a place where you can play out scenarios that wouldn't play out in reality, because in reality, NATO would crush Iran if there was ever an attack on Canada or Canadians perpetrated by the Iranian military.
It wasn't a pointless discussion, in that you made some assertions that the Iranian military would essentially run roughshod over the Canadian military. That may very well be, but you didn't really support that with anything, and then when countered on the fact that they have more boots on the ground, I clearly laid out why that doesn't matter in the least in a battlefield scenario or in a theater of war.
And i'm glad you brought up Iraq....because that should tell you how quickly superior air power can decimate a standing army, its equipment and any air assets and anti-aircraft capabilities through superior technology. No one suggested that Canada would attempt to occupy Iran, even if that's where the battle took place, which is why the Americans had so many casualties. We were talking about a straight up fight......'mano a mano'.....not about a fight and then an occupation and a counter-insurgency and nation building and all that crap. Usually when two actors have a street fight, the victor doesn't go and try to set up shop at the other guy's house.
I think i've made the case about Canada's air superiority advantage, but if you have a rebuttal, please feel free to let me know.
This was the closest thing to what I had in mind so I'll just quote it.
Canada would lose a war with Iran if it were to attack based on the real geographical locations. Just like Iran would lose if they were to attack Canada.
Iran's military, as repeatedly stated by the Iranian government is meant as a deterrent to foreign attack. (Whether that is a lie, and they are trying to expand to the point where they can launch full scale attacks is irrelevant.)
If Canada were to send carriers there (not sure if, or how many they have), Iran would launch surface to sea missiles, which it has plenty of. If they were to invade with ground forces, they would get absolutely destroyed.
Now if they were put on a magical map, I believe Canada's air supremacy as you put it doesn't out class Iran's enough to be an easy victory, but they would win in the end. The hard part would be when Iran invades Canada via the ground. Not to mention Iran actually has a pretty large missile arsenal which would do a lot of damage.
But in that magical scenario, Iran vs Canada is a lot like Iran vs Israel.
Iran would lose just because Canada is so much larger. Just like Israel would (unless they use nukes).
Either way, it's a moot point, in reality, neither is capable of waging a successful war against the one. Especially when you consider NATO would get involved.
On the first bolded part.....I agree, if Canada wanted to wage a battle all the way in Iran, it would be a real challenge....however, if you meant the geography as in terrain would be an impediment, then I have to ask you, what kind of terrain does Iran possess that Canada doesn't and hasn't trained her military members in?
The second bolded part....the answer is none. And i'm ok with that, those suckers are too expensive and I wouldn't want to get into the carrier business with our tax dollars.
On the third bolded part, which air asset does Iran have that would be a match for our upgraded CF-18A Hornets, let alone one armed with some of the most advanced missile, radar, communications and other avionic technology?
Edited by Sharpshooter, 08 September 2012 - 11:57 AM.