Poll
Question:
Will Trump put boots on the ground in Iranian territory in the next three months?
Option 1: No. The troop movement is purely posturing. He will not use ground troops in Iranian territory.
votes: 2
Option 2: Yes, but only special forces quick strikes before withdrawing and similar. No ground will be held.
votes: 8
Option 3: Yes, he will take and hold Iranian territory with limited objectives. He'll stick to those objectives and not be drawn further in.
votes: 4
Option 4: Yes. He'll strike with a limited force and limited objectives, but one thing will lead to another and the American commitment will continue to grow into large, messy deployment.
votes: 14
Option 5: Yes, but he'll somehow rustle up the forces for a major deployment to take and hold ground at a large scale.
votes: 1
Option 6: No, because the conflict will come to an end before such a scenario becomes necessary.
votes: 1
Poll is open only for five days.
What does languish think? Is Trump going to put boots on the ground in Iran, and if so how is it going to go in terms of escalation.
I voted spec ops, but I was torn between that and limited objectives that stay that way. What pushed be towards the latter is the noise about taking a couple of the mid-Gulf islands that Iran owns but the UAE claims (Taub and Abu Musa). They're far enough away from Iran proper to be able to defend effectively without more forces, are somewhat strategic in that they're two small airfields in the middle of the Gulf, and would satisfy the Robber Baron in Chief's anachronistic desire to possess something.
Hegseth & Trump think that every problem is a nail and the USA has many many hammers in it's military toolbox.
Escalation4ever
We'll strike something to show how big our dicks are and get drawn in.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 27, 2026, 08:22:51 AMI voted spec ops, but I was torn between that and limited objectives that stay that way. What pushed be towards the latter is the noise about taking a couple of the mid-Gulf islands that Iran owns but the UAE claims (Taub and Abu Musa). They're far enough away from Iran proper to be able to defend effectively without more forces, are somewhat strategic in that they're two small airfields in the middle of the Gulf, and would satisfy the Robber Baron in Chief's anachronistic desire to possess something.
Oh interesting. I guess that's an alternative to the "take Kharg Island" potential scenario for how the HEU / Airborne might be used.
* wanders off to look up Taub and Abu Musa *
It'll be messy and escalate.
Giggity.
<_<
It's going to be what - mid April before the MEU units are in theatre? I voted option 1, but also the last option is viable.
Really hard to guess, since there is no plan at all, but I'll be surprised if the US decides to put huge ground forces into Iran. But if they do, a greatly weakened America will make Nato allies sleep better at night.
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2026, 02:05:38 PMReally hard to guess, since there is no plan at all, but I'll be surprised if the US decides to put huge ground forces into Iran. But if they do, a greatly weakened America will make Nato allies sleep better at night.
Oh we will. Our boys are going in.
I voted quagmire. I think the most likely outcome is that Trump is going to put boots on ground somewhere at some point, and think once he does that it'll inevitably turn into a larger deployment.
The Straits of Hormuz is next to the city Bandar Abbas, with a population of 500,000. Just taking that city alone would surely take a massive invasion force. But if you don't take it, how do you reopen the Straits?
I doubt that there will be boots on the ground on the Iranian mainland. Maybe those aforementioned isles. But that will not change the strategic situation.
It's all fun and games until Trump realizes he can't beat them and nukes an Iranian city.
I think right now he's looking for a way to declare victory and pull out, so I voted last.
It took me a while to vote on this one; in the end I went for the most stupid option ie escalation till it becomes a real quagmire like Vietnam.....still hope that the muddle-headed fool will end up being influenced by someone with strategic nous and back off, but fear that is just wishful thinking.
It's really hard to assess because I have so little experience with writing scenario lines for TV shows, which appears to be the best way to predict administration actions.
So will do my best . . . Sending that number of Marines doesn't send spec force only vibes. That suggests either 1 or 4. Either they are being sent as a precaution to respond against an unexpected move, or they are being tasked to grab one or more islands. If they invade it can't be limited because the Iranians get a vote.
Common sense says 1.
Therefore I pick 4.
Only the answer to one question will dictate which scenario happens, Q: 'Which one provides the best photo-ops?'
Half way through the time period set out in the poll, it looks like two of us got it right.
I was wrong. Ah well. I just thought his ego couldn't take a humiliating military defeat.
But it came pretty clear shortly after this poll that we were just too lazy to do anything difficult.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2026, 12:47:32 PMHalf way through the time period set out in the poll, it looks like two of us got it right.
I believe I voted for the first option.
But whatever happened to those troops? Where are they now?
I don't know, but so few were sent, it was pure theatre.
I think it's still too early to say one way or another.
Why? The American's have already declared the war is over.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2026, 04:25:10 PMWhy? The American's have already declared the war is over.
Trump has just said the ceasefire is on life support. So it's far from over.
There were special forces on the ground to rescue that still unnamed pilot (near a nuclear facility), no?
Quote from: Zanza on May 11, 2026, 04:39:16 PMThere were special forces on the ground to rescue that still unnamed pilot (near a nuclear facility), no?
True! I don't want to win in a technicality though. I really thought we were going to try to seize the straits by force Gallipoli style. I just didn't think Trump could stand the humiliation of a defeat this catastrophic...but I was clearly wrong.
Quote from: Zanza on May 11, 2026, 04:39:16 PMThere were special forces on the ground to rescue that still unnamed pilot (near a nuclear facility), no?
The Israelis manned a secret temp base in Iraq with teams ready to rescue downed pilots.
QuoteOn May 9, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had established a secret military base in the Iraqi desert to provide logistical support for its air strikes against Iran. According to US officials and others familiar with the situation, WSJ said Israel also carried out air strikes against Iraqi forces who had nearly uncovered the facility during the early stages of the US-Israel war on Iran.
It's looking like I am wrong but I still hold on the belief that the USA is going to Vietnam this thing.
Quote from: PJL on May 11, 2026, 04:26:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2026, 04:25:10 PMWhy? The American's have already declared the war is over.
Trump has just said the ceasefire is on life support. So it's far from over.
So a different question, why do you take anything? Trump says that face value? The Americans had to say the war was over because support for the war is nonexistent. How are the Americans going to send troops into battle to die right before a midterm election?
Stop falling for the sabre rattling. It's the same problem that started this poll in the first place.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2026, 07:57:16 PMIt's looking like I am wrong but I still hold on the belief that the USA is going to Vietnam this thing.
Why do you hold to that belief?
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 07:06:32 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2026, 07:57:16 PMIt's looking like I am wrong but I still hold on the belief that the USA is going to Vietnam this thing.
Why do you hold to that belief?
Peter Hegseth, really. He wants so much to prove that the Christian White man is still a great warrior that invading brown seems logical. There's also the chance to kickstart the 2nd coming that he probably likes.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/21/politics/us-military-missile-stockpile
QuoteThe US military has significantly depleted its stockpile of key missiles during the war with Iran and created a "near-term risk" of running out of ammunition in a future conflict should one arise in the next few years, according to experts and three people familiar with recent internal Defense Department stockpile assessments.
Over the last seven weeks of war, the US military has expended at least 45% of its stockpile of Precision Strike Missiles; at least half of its inventory of THAAD missiles, which are designed to intercept ballistic missiles; and nearly 50% of its stockpile of Patriot air defense interceptor missiles, according to a new analysis conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Those numbers closely align with classified Pentagon data about US stockpiles, according to the sources familiar with the assessment.
Earlier this year the Pentagon signed a series of contracts that would help expand missile production, but the delivery timeline to replace these systems is three to five years even with the increased capacity, the CSIS experts and the sources said.
In the short term, the US likely maintains enough bombs and missiles to continue combat operations against Iran, in any scenario, should the shaky ceasefire fail to hold. But the number of critical munitions remaining in US stockpiles is no longer sufficient to confront a near-peer adversary, like China, and it will likely take years before the inventory of those weapons returns to pre-war levels, the CSIS analysis concludes.
"The high munitions expenditures have created a window of increased vulnerability in the western Pacific," Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine Corps Colonel and one of the authors of the CSIS report, told CNN. "It will take one to four years to replenish these inventories and several years after that to expand them to where they need to be."
In a statement to CNN, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said that the military "has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President's choosing."
"Since President Trump took office, we have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests," he said.
The US military has also expended approximately 30% of its Tomahawk missile stockpile; more than 20% of its stockpile of long-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles; and approximately 20% of its SM-3 and SM-6 missiles, according to the analysis and the sources. It would take around four to five years to replace those systems.
The missile math tracking the depleted stockpile stands in stark contrast to President Donald Trump's recent claim that that the US is not running short of any weaponry – even as he requested additional funding for missiles due to the Iran war's impact on existing stockpiles.
"We're asking for a lot of reasons, beyond even what we're talking about in Iran," Trump said last month, referring to the request for additional Pentagon funding. "Munitions in particular, at the high end we have a lot, but we're preserving it."
"It's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top," he added.
The Trump administration's recent agreements with private companies should boost production, but near-term deliveries of these key munitions are relatively low because of small orders in the past, the CSIS report notes.
Before the war began, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and other military leaders warned Trump that a protracted military campaign could impact US weapons stockpiles – particularly those that support Israel and Ukraine, CNN previously reported.
And since the start of the conflict, Democrats on Capitol Hill have voiced unease about the amount of munitions used and what it could mean for US defense in the Middle East and beyond.
"The Iranians do have the ability to make a lot of Shahed drones, ballistic missiles, medium range, short range and they've got a huge stockpile," Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly said last month. "So at some point ... this becomes a math problem and how can we resupply air defense munitions. Where are they going to come from?"
The captain is insane and the helmsman is pass out drunk. Who can predict what course the ship will follow?
Quote from: Grey Fox on Today at 08:02:50 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on Today at 07:06:32 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2026, 07:57:16 PMIt's looking like I am wrong but I still hold on the belief that the USA is going to Vietnam this thing.
Why do you hold to that belief?
Peter Hegseth, really. He wants so much to prove that the Christian White man is still a great warrior that invading brown seems logical. There's also the chance to kickstart the 2nd coming that he probably likes.
I see, that makes sense. And I would be more worried if he had any actual authority.
I think that Western Pacific vulnerability is much worse than stated. China can probably outproduce the rest of the world in drones or any other low to mid complexity weapon system. Their supply chains and industrial base are super efficient.
Agreed, except I am not sure the vulnerability is only in that region. The Americans are not just in decline, they are in a free fall. The void will be filled by something else. Will the void be filled by China, or Europe and friends? I am hoping for the latter, but that is not a sure thing.
I am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 12:26:45 PMI am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
It doesn't need to. That is an American concern. I am speaking about the larger void the Americans are leaving in the world - one the Europeans can fill.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 12:34:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 12:26:45 PMI am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
It doesn't need to. That is an American concern. I am speaking about the larger void the Americans are leaving in the world - one the Europeans can fill.
Well France needs to. Or give up its Pacific territories.
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 01:27:00 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on Today at 12:34:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 12:26:45 PMI am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
It doesn't need to. That is an American concern. I am speaking about the larger void the Americans are leaving in the world - one the Europeans can fill.
Well France needs to. Or give up its Pacific territories.
Why is that the choice? France does not now meaningfully project any power there, and yet still has those territories.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 12:26:45 PMI am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
I'm still not convinced the Europeans will be able to project sufficient power into Europe any time soon
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 01:34:45 PMQuote from: Valmy on Today at 01:27:00 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on Today at 12:34:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 12:26:45 PMI am a Europe bull relatively speaking, but there is no hope for Europe projecting meaningful power into the Pacific.
It doesn't need to. That is an American concern. I am speaking about the larger void the Americans are leaving in the world - one the Europeans can fill.
Well France needs to. Or give up its Pacific territories.
Why is that the choice? France does not now meaningfully project any power there, and yet still has those territories.
The US will attack them.
Fair point
Quote from: Syt on Today at 08:14:23 AMCSIS..snip..
I already posted that three weeks ago in the Iran thread:
Quote from: mongers on April 21, 2026, 07:47:32 PMQuoteUS missile stockpiles seriously depleted due to Iran war
The Washington DC-based The Hill news platform reports that the US military has exhausted nearly half of its Patriot air defence interceptor stockpile and heavily expended six other key missile categories during its war on Iran.
According to a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the scale of "Operation Epic Fury" air and missile campaign has created significant gaps in American munitions reserves, The Hill report said.
The CSIS report, released on Tuesday, details the following depletion levels:
Patriot Missiles: Almost 50 percent of the total stockpile depleted.
THAAD Interceptors: More than half of the inventory expended.
Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs): Over 45 percent of the stockpile used.
QuoteA UK intelligence assessment report, seen by the Mirror, summarises the remaining Iran threat by writing:
"US intelligence assessments have suggested that Iran likely still has access to around 70 percent of its pre-conflict ballistic missile stockpiles, and around 60 percent of its missile launchers.
"It also still retains around 40% of its drone arsenal.
:hmm:
Quote from: Zanza on Today at 10:59:37 AMI think that Western Pacific vulnerability is much worse than stated. China can probably outproduce the rest of the world in drones or any other low to mid complexity weapon system. Their supply chains and industrial base are super efficient.
Indeed. Iran wasn't much of a drone threat to US aircraft carries, but you can bet your ass that the PRC would be. And even if Taiwan were to develop a substantial drone industry, I expect China could smash it rather quickly.
And it would be nigh on impossible for us to impact the PRC industrial base short of nuclear weapons.