I've been reading quite a few interesting articles here and there over the past couple of years, none of which give rise to any hope for the US in a situation of major global conflict that escalates into all-out nuclear war. Even the US has no clear tactical outline of how they would be successful. Instead, they believe in their illusions of invulnerability and fail to take into account how the rest of the world just might act if they were involved in actions against the US. This article is an attempt by me to highlight American vulnerabilities. And if you believe it's all a crock of shite, you're one of those who believe in the illusion of invulnerability.

First, for those particular people, have a think about the following conflicts the US has been involved in: Vietnam, Bosnia, and Iraq. History has shown that the US has not been successful in any long-term military-against-military campaign. Its successes lie only in small, fast strikes against small, weak targets.

Since the end of the Cold War, US military resources were reduced by 50% by the Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration has been working within these restrictions by doing their best to focus military efforts with reduced resources. There is only one ammunition plant in the US, and body armour is in very short supply as well. The US has a huge number of problems fighting a battle in Iraq, with most of its active forces assigned there. How would it cope fighting battles on multiple fronts?

The manpower and resources of WWII are long gone. The US is much weaker today than it's ever been before. People are likely to say that strength is in the nuclear deterrent, however, that realistically only deters nuclear attack. Conventional attack is another story. If the US gets an enemy attacking on multiple fronts within strategic areas of importance, how likely is it that a nuclear defence is going to be used on those areas of battle that it itself is inhabiting? Not likely at all.

Also since the end of the Cold War, Russia has had the opportunity to increase its military and economic strength. New and advanced technology has allowed them to develop high speed torpedos, supersonic anti-ship missiles, and new aircraft. The anti-ship (Sunburst) missiles are probably the greatest threat to US naval superiority, as they employ highly advanced evasion techniques during the final few seconds of flight, avoiding anti-missile defences onboard ships. These missiles are powerful enough to take out carrier groups, and to date there has been no effective defence against them.

Russia sold these missiles in the 90's to Iran, Nth Korea and China.

The new fighter bomber that Russia built, the SU-27, was able to buzz the flight deck of the USS Kittyhawk only a few years ago. It achieved the element of surprise and was able to get close enough without being detected. During a time of war, a small group of SU-27's could easily destroy an entire fleet of US ships before anyone knew they were there.

Iran has Sunburst missiles, and likely have them deployed in their mountains, on the edge of the Persian Gulf. All of the US naval ships in the Gulf are vulnerable. Iran's defences are its terrain. It's next to impossible for the US to find, attack and destroy all of the Iranian missile emplacements and strategic military resources before Iran is able to cause serious damage to US ships.

And then there's the US military. If they can't succeed at bringing order to Iraq after 3 years of fighting civilians, how are they going to succeed in Iran against a determined and battle-hardened Iranian military? And then there's the fact that Iraq has deserts instead of the mountainous terrain of Iran, which can hide large numbers of Iranian forces and resources.

How effective is the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, with the mountainous terrain that the Taliban are hiding in? Completely ineffective. And that's just against a small number of Taliban. How do you think the US is going to cope engaging in mountain combat against the entire Iranian armed forces?

Iran's weak points are naturally their cities. Thus, it would be stupid of them to focus their own resources in and around those cities, allowing them to be targeted and destroyed. Any bombing attacks on Tehran and other Iranian cities are only going to cause massive civilian casualties, and encourage Iranians to, like the Iraqis, increase their resistance against the US. Iranian citizens will become 'insurgents', helping the Iranian military, and taking up arms themselves to fight off the US.

It's not a war that can be won.

Iraq is a war that's currently being lost by the US, and yet it's now considering attacking another country. Any attack on Iran is going to be like whacking the hornet's nest with a great big stick. All hell will break loose, and Muslims everywhere are going to go on the rampage.

Iran has done nothing to attack any other country. It has complied with all international requirements for the development of nuclear energy, which it's allowed as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There has been absolutely no evidence to support any US claims against it. And, to top it all off, the Iranian President was democratically elected by the Iranian people. He's not a dictator that they would be happy for the US to get rid of.

If Iran is attacked, Muslims everywhere will see it as an attack against Islam, against the religious principles that the western world seems to fear. The riots that we've seen over the cartoons of Mohammed will be nothing compared to what we'll see in the near future.

The more the US tries to engage in military conquests around the world, the more obvious it is been that their strategies are not working. They are encouraging anti-US hatred amongst many countries around the world. This has to have an effect on not only economic relations, but also the balance of global power. Those that don't like what the US is doing are going to ally with those who would like the US to stop.

Terrorism in the world is against the US and those that support the US. The terrorists make that very obvious. If the rest of the world decides it is against the US, it's likely that the US will declare the war against terror is a war between itself and the rest of the entire world.

Under these circumstances, who are the terrorists? It's a term used by the US simply to deter attention to itself. By labelling others as terrorists, the American people are prevented from seeing how the US actions around the world are the real terrorist actions against othher countries and their people.

A very large and serious wake up call is going to be heard if the US attacks Iran. If the US gets their arses handed to them, the American people are going to wake up to the idiocy that their leaders are engaged in. If the US decides to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the rest of the world is going to wake up to the idiocy that the American leaders are engaged in.

Big changes are coming.