NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

I chanced a glance at the stupid box some time ago and some of the talking heads mentioned the possibility that Iran might mine or scuttle ships to bloxk off the straight of Hormuz. I personally think it is very unlikely that they would now, but I would be interested to see what people would think would happen.

It's a three letter word...

the oil is transported by a different method at first this causes a rise in prices but it gradually falls

Iran however becomes bankrupted and as internationally isolated as North Korea

I read an article about shipping's vulnerability to terrorism. A boat sunk in the Straight of Hormuz, The Suez Canal, The Straights of Malacca or the Panama Canal could cause major economic disruptions.

It would be a blatant act of war and we would be forced to retaliate in order to ensure the continuation of free trade and international stability.

Anything that Iran would do to physically block the straights would be quickly removed with most likely lots of explosives. Iran would then be pummeled into the stone age.

It would be a blatant act of war.

the Straight belongs to Iran if I’m not mistaken they can do with it as they please

It's a three letter word...Which one:

Sex
Fat
Map
Tap
Rap
Sap
Sat
Art
Cat
Mom
Dad
Dog
God
Die
Hat
Rat
Mat
War
orc
lol
elf
man

It's a three letter word...

LOL?

the Straight belongs to Iran if I’m not mistaken they can do with it as they please

Apparently most of the shipping lanes are in Oman's territorial waters.

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/22/18800

Well?

I chanced a glance at the stupid box some time ago and some of the talking heads mentioned the possibility that Iran might mine or scuttle ships to bloxk off the straight of Hormuz. I personally think it is very unlikely that they would now, but I would be interested to see what people would think would happen.
the US would probably invade straight away. can't have other countries trying to be like them.

Apparently most of the shipping lanes are in Oman's territorial waters.

depends on who you ask really but Iran does have the advantage here what with various Islands under its control

All in all there would be one hell of a spout over who owns what

Apparently most of the shipping lanes are in Oman's territorial waters.

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/22/18800

Then the answer to the OP in that case is, not much.

and we would be forced to retaliate
You and whos army?

You and whos army?

The American army and the army of all other freedom-loving countries who possess a substantial amount of armed forces. Closing the Straits of Hormuz would be an unjustifiable act of war against an ally of the US; it would hamper international free trade efforts; it would cause economic mayhem; it cannot be allowed to go uncontested. When Nazi Germany embarked upon a highly belligerent, illegal course of action, democratic nations stopped him; there is no reason why the same principle should not apply here.

They would successfully manage to unite every single other Middle Eastern oil exporter and ever single oil importer that relies on the oil that passes through there against them.

Not to mention they'd cut their own imports and be slapped with an embargo, which means they'd go broke and run out of fuel quite rapidly.

the oil is transported by a different method at first this causes a rise in prices but it gradually falls

How uncompleted pipelines are supposed to take over for all the tankers that head to the U.S. and China every day, I have no idea.

Iran however becomes bankrupted and as internationally isolated as North Korea

Sounds about right.

the Straight belongs to Iran if I’m not mistaken they can do with it as they please

Except that Iran (and surprisingly enough, the UAE), have not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a result, I do not believe Iran has any claim to the Straight that would be legitimate in the eyes of any national or international governing body.

I read an article about shipping's vulnerability to terrorism. A boat sunk in the Straight of Hormuz, The Suez Canal, The Straights of Malacca or the Panama Canal could cause major economic disruptions.

That makes sense to me, except for the Straights of Malacca...can't they just go around Sumatra? Might take longer, and cost a little more, but nothing major like a canal or Hormuz. Routing that much commercial traffic closer to Jakarta and farther from Singapore would be nice for the Indonesian economy as well, though Singapore would be screwed.

Are you saying Singapore is that vital to the global economy? I really don't see it... :confused:

How uncompleted pipelines are supposed to take over for all the tankers that head to the U.S. and China every day, I have no idea.

odds are if there was a great international effort the pipelines could get built extremely quickly especially when so much money is at stake

It would be a blatant act of war.No. it is NOT.

On the other hand capturing the 15 British soldiers is an act of War..
assuming Tony Blair was telling the truth.

I wonder.. what would be the vegas-ods of Tony Blair telling the truth to the British public??

What is the Straight of Hormuz?

odds are if there was a great international effort the pipelines could get built extremely quickly especially when so much money is at stake

That pipeline from Qatar to Texas is going to take a while...

...the one from Tehran to Shanghai has some mountains to get through...

A giant international effort to bomb Iran back to the stone-age and clear the straight would be faster, cheaper, and easier to accomplish than what you describe.

...can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?

The American army and the army of all other Oil addicted countries who possess a substantial amount of armed forces. Closing the Straits of Hormuz would be an unjustifiable act of war against an ally of the US; it would hamper international free trade efforts; it would cause economic mayhem; it cannot be allowed to go uncontested. When Nazi Germany embarked upon a highly belligerent, illegal course of action, democratic nations stopped him; there is no reason why the same principle should not apply here.

Corrected. Yes, it would cause economic mayhem. The US would go to war. We shall have accomplished the whole "War for Oil" slogan. We will be ashamed 10 years later.

Even the Iranians aren't that stupid. They won't provoke the entire developed world by fucking with the oil supply coming from other nations.

What is the Straight of Hormuz?

Straight of Hormuz? Ha! That Hormuz is gayer than Liza Minelli on extasy.

Now, if the other people are talking about closing the Strait of Hormuz then, I don't know, maybe the water in the Persian Gulf would start to evaporate or something.

When Nazi Germany embarked upon a highly belligerent, illegal course of action, democratic nations stopped him; there is no reason why the same principle should not apply here.

Wow. The USSR was a democratic nation? :eek: Learn something new everyday.

Oh, and that was a very speedy Goodwin BTW.

That makes sense to me, except for the Straights of Malacca...can't they just go around Sumatra?

Same with the Panama Canal. Most ships (including all the oil tankers) are already too big to go through it and go around the Cape Horn instead.

Iran would then be pummeled into the stone age.
Overused and passe, but i should still point out that really isn't even saying much either.

I wonder.. what would be the vegas-ods of Tony Blair telling the truth to the British public??

Perhaps some stats need to come up about Blair and his communiques to the public?

What would happen? The US, being overstretched in ground forces, and realizing that nothing they do will get good press anyway, would reduce Iran to soft powder from the air. Arclights on Teheran...

Well?

I chanced a glance at the stupid box some time ago and some of the talking heads mentioned the possibility that Iran might mine or scuttle ships to bloxk off the straight of Hormuz. I personally think it is very unlikely that they would now, but I would be interested to see what people would think would happen.


We'd re-open it.

That makes sense to me, except for the Straights of Malacca...can't they just go around Sumatra? Might take longer, and cost a little more, but nothing major like a canal or Hormuz. Routing that much commercial traffic closer to Jakarta and farther from Singapore would be nice for the Indonesian economy as well, though Singapore would be screwed.

Are you saying Singapore is that vital to the global economy? I really don't see it... :confused:

Pirates.

Perhaps some stats need to come up about Blair and his communiques to the public?

You realise not everything the govt says comes from Blair and therfore is not always a Blair lie- the govt ain't ALWAYS lieing- just alot.

All of you guys seem to conveniently forget that Iran =/= Iraq.

Iran has a sizeable armed forces, significant anti-air and anti-ship artillery, and has been buying arms from Russia and China. They also have an air force. Any thoughts of just flying over Iran unopposed is pretty much delusional dreams. If the US air force, or any other of their allies' air force tries to bombard Iran, they will do so only at a terrible price in both expensive aircraft and experienced pilot lives.

Likewise, land war is impossible to contemplate realistically. The US army is unable to control the Iraq situation. To think they could attack Iran and not only win against their army, which is lightyears superior to what Saddam's ragtag armed forces were, but also occupy the Iranian territory is plain ludicrous. Iran boasts three times Iraq's population.

For those of you thinking the west can just walk into Iran or fly over it as it wishes, I'd advise you to think again.

The best course of action would be to stop guzzling gasoline like mad like we do. Reduce the west's unhealthy dependency on Middle-Easter oil, and Iran is not a problem anymore. Refuse to change your way of thinking and try to go all imperialistic on their ass? You're gonna be facing the worst military catastrophy since Hitler's three front war.

All of you guys seem to conveniently forget that Iran =/= Iraq.

Let's not forget that in 1991 Iraq had the 4th largest armed forces in the world, with Soviet T-72s and all this other rubbish.

Iran has a sizeable armed forces, significant anti-air and anti-ship artillery, and has been buying arms from Russia and China. They also have an air force. Any thoughts of just flying over Iran unopposed is pretty much delusional dreams. If the US air force, or any other of their allies' air force tries to bombard Iran, they will do so only at a terrible price in both expensive aircraft and experienced pilot lives.

Unfortunately for Iran, their air force is not contemporary to that of the United States, even if they claim it. Iranian pilots are not as well trained as American pilots, and they do not have the material advantage that the United States has. It would be a completely unfair war that would be fought completely in the air. The majority of the Iranian Air Force would probably be destroyed on the ground during the beginning of the war from a distance - including, even, American ships and submarines.

The majority of the SAMs purchased from Russia have only been purchased recently, and they were Panzir-II short-range SAMs. I don't very many TOR missiles have been exported yet, and that said, not enough S-300s to really make an impact.

I have a strong feeling that much of the Iranian army is a paper tiger.

The US army is unable to control the Iraq situation. To think they could attack Iran and not only win against their army, which is lightyears superior to what Saddam's ragtag armed forces were, but also occupy the Iranian territory is plain ludicrous. Iran boasts three times Iraq's population.

Since when does the United States have to occupy Iran? It does not take an occupation to force Iran to a peace. It would take a long, harsh bombing campaign where the majority of the Iranian Armed Forces would be destroyed from the air.

You're gonna be facing the worst military catastrophy since Hitler's three front war.

A bombing campaign is not the same as an occupation. A war would not necessarily require an occupation. An occupation was 'required' in Iraq because Bush wanted a regime change. That doesn't have to be the end-result of a war with Iran - just the opening of the Straits of Tarmuz.

I'm not saying Iran's air force is on par with whatever the US has. However, they still have more than enough power to do a lot of damage to all the precious aircraft gets thrown their way.

Also, don't forget Iran has bought a couple of them nasty anti-carrier missiles. Even if there was a successful bombing raid against Iran, is it worth losing several billion dollar's worth in aircraft and carriers?

No, it's not, when a simpler, easier way out is to just stop caring about all that oil and go with energy conservation instead of wasting it in all those SUVs and polluting power stations. Go with cleaner fuel and energy, it'll save the environment on top of getting you out of this potential mess in the middle east of fighting over oil resources.

Then the answer to the OP in that case is, not much.Not really. Part of the reason why the US is currently showing force in the Gulf with manoevers is to signal that the US can keep shipping safe. If Iran were to block off the straight, the US would have to react to show its allies in the region that it can protect their oil trade.

I'm not saying Iran's air force is on par with whatever the US has. However, they still have more than enough power to do a lot of damage to all the precious aircraft gets thrown their way.

Well, I'm sure that on paper they do. However, war is rarely fought between two armies on paper, as opposed to how the armies conduct themselves on the field. It's all a question of how much damage the United States can do at the beginning of the war, Iranian morale, and how the United States conducts itself during the duration of the air war.

I don't think casualties would be terribly high, because most of the Iranian aerial defenses would most likely be destroyed by literally hundreds of tons of explosives.

Also, don't forget Iran has bought a couple of them nasty anti-carrier missiles.

And how do they plan to get through US carrier defenses? It requires more than a missile and paper statistics to do damage.

Even if there was a successful bombing raid against Iran, is it worth losing several billion dollar's worth in aircraft and carriers?

I rather risk a $2 billion B-2 than popular support in the United States, and money lost otherwise.

No, it's not, when a simpler, easier way out is to just stop caring about all that oil and go with energy conservation instead of wasting it in all those SUVs and polluting power stations.

Well, assuming that oil was not important then this thread would be irrelevant. This thread assumes Iran can hurt us through blocking the oil trade.

Well?

I chanced a glance at the stupid box some time ago and some of the talking heads mentioned the possibility that Iran might mine or scuttle ships to bloxk off the straight of Hormuz. I personally think it is very unlikely that they would now, but I would be interested to see what people would think would happen.

They will be totally screwed over.

No. it is NOT.

On the other hand capturing the 15 British soldiers is an act of War..
assuming Tony Blair was telling the truth.

I wonder.. what would be the vegas-ods of Tony Blair telling the truth to the British public??

And the Brits would not let their navy fire on the Iranians to make sure those sailors were not taken.

And how do they plan to get through US carrier defenses? It requires more than a missile and paper statistics to do damage.

We're talking about the Russian missile whose name I forget that is able to completely ignore all US carrier defenses. It's such a big threat that the US department of defense is threatening to cancel funding for other projects as long as this issue hasn't been adressed.

I read about this in a yahoo news article, I think. I know I should dig it up, or at least look up the name of the missile so you know what I'm talking about, but I'm a lazy bum. :-p

Also, about your other comments, I can't help but be reminded about the gleeful optimism about how Iraq was going to be a walk in the park. War never turns out as you planned it. I for one consider there is much too strong a belief in the US military's invincibility. We've been proven in many occasions in the last decades that even though US military power is very high, it's far from able to impose its rule wherever it wants. See Afghanistan and Iraq, or Vietnam. Getting yourselves into an Iranian catastrophic campaing really isn't gonna help your reputation.

I'm not saying Iran's air force is on par with whatever the US has. However, they still have more than enough power to do a lot of damage to all the precious aircraft gets thrown their way.

B-2, F-117s, F-22s. Stealth Aircraft is your friend.

Also, don't forget Iran has bought a couple of them nasty anti-carrier missiles. Even if there was a successful bombing raid against Iran, is it worth losing several billion dollar's worth in aircraft and carriers?

The missiles have to get through first. Not to mention, they have to be able to fire them as well. On top of that, do those missiles have the range to actually get through to an Aircraft Carrier considering where an Aircraft Carrier sits in relation to the rest of the group.

We're talking about the Russian missile whose name I forget that is able to completely ignore all US carrier defenses. It's such a big threat that the US department of defense is threatening to cancel funding for other projects as long as this issue hasn't been adressed.

I read about this in a yahoo news article, I think. I know I should dig it up, or at least look up the name of the missile so you know what I'm talking about, but I'm a lazy bum. :-p

The Russians can claim all the want. That does not make it true.

The Russians can claim all the want. That does not make it true.

Your department of defense certainly doesn't seem to be dismissing it as you do.

Heh, you guys can go to war with Iran all you like. I'm just saying what I think. I know Canada is certainly not gonna follow you to war over there as long as I get a say in it. Our minority conservative government knows better than try to get us in a mess like that if it wants to stay in power.

Just don't say I didn't warn you when it turns out to be the worst strategic move in the history of modern US foreign policy.

Your department of defense certainly doesn't seem to be dismissing it as you do.

That's their jobs.

Heh, you guys can go to war with Iran all you like. I'm just saying what I think. I know Canada is certainly not gonna follow you to war over there as long as I get a say in it. Our minority conservative government knows better than try to get us in a mess like that if it wants to stay in power.

And what makes you think they won't get involved? If Iran starts something, I bet they'll get involved in this case.

Just don't say I didn't warn you when it turns out to be the worst strategic move in the history of modern US foreign policy.

Whatever.

And the Brits would not let their navy fire on the Iranians to make sure those sailors were not taken.

They were taken and gone well before the ship even knew there was a problem.

Unless you'd like 15 lightly armed (read sidearms and submachine guns) personnel to put up a fight against larger boats, frigates with heavy machine guns, helicopters while being completely outnumbered.....

And what makes you think they won't get involved? If Iran starts something, I bet they'll get involved in this case.

Key words being "minority" here. If the conservatives wanna follow you guys around on a wild goose chase and get our soldiers killed and military hardware busted, they'll get voted down by the opposition. Elections will then follow, and they will be voted out. Probably in favor of the liberals, which doesn't please me much, but will at least ensure we don't get ourselves in a pointless war over foreign oil when we have more than enough here in Alberta to not only supply our interior demand, but enough spare to export a lot your way.

And unlike you guys, here the Prime Minister can't decide to go to war without the backing of the legislative assembly. Your checks and balances system needs some rebalancing, judging from Bush's obstination on getting your men and women killed despite decisions to leave battlegrounds by the american people and their elected representatives.

And the Brits would not let their navy fire on the Iranians to make sure those sailors were not taken.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. The world, allies and enemies included, may see us as a soft touch (and we aren't a superpower any more, in any case) but we aren't so soft as to actually allow our forces to be captured without any resistance. In fact, considering they were in little more than a dinghy with a machine gun which was ambushed by a much larger and well-armed Iranian force, if they had put up a fight, we wouldn't be talking about captured sailors but dead sailors.

And that, in all honesty, is too ghastly to contemplate.

Key words being "minority" here. If the conservatives wanna follow you guys around on a wild goose chase and get our soldiers killed and military hardware busted, they'll get voted down by the opposition. Elections will then follow, and they will be voted out. Probably in favor of the liberals, which doesn't please me much, but will at least ensure we don't get ourselves in a pointless war over foreign oil when we have more than enough here in Alberta to not only supply our interior demand, but enough spare to export a lot your way.

And unlike you guys, here the Prime Minister can't decide to go to war without the backing of the legislative assembly. Your checks and balances system needs some rebalancing, judging from Bush's obstination on getting your men and women killed despite decisions to leave battlegrounds by the american people and their elected representatives.
Bush can't got to war without the permission of Congress.

Congress shall have the power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

And surely, the Canadian PM could go to war with the sole authority of the Governor-General and without the Commons/Senate, no?

Bush can't got to war without the permission of Congress.

I agree that you're right, in theory. However, in practice, he doesn't seem to act like he does need the Congress' permission for anything.


And surely, the Canadian PM could go to war with the sole authority of the Governor-General and without the Commons/Senate, no?
Let's go ahead and see just how long we'll be keeping a Governor-General around in such a scenario. Our head of state is pretty much the British Monarchy; a relic of ages past we keep around for tradition, but who doesn't have any real power.

If a Canadian PM tried to go to war without the chamber of Commons agreeing, the opposition party will simply call for a vote of no-confidence on the question. If the party in power cannot win this vote, they will have no choice but to call elections. And no PM is going to get himself re-elected over wanting to go wage a war that has nothing to do with us.

Bullshit. Complete bullshit. The world, allies and enemies included, may see us as a soft touch (and we aren't a superpower any more, in any case) but we aren't so soft as to actually allow our forces to be captured without any resistance. In fact, considering they were in little more than a dinghy with a machine gun which was ambushed by a much larger and well-armed Iranian force, if they had put up a fight, we wouldn't be talking about captured sailors but dead sailors.

And that, in all honesty, is too ghastly to contemplate.

http://www.aina.org/news/2007032992841.htm

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

You were saying?

That's their jobs.

And what makes you think they won't get involved? If Iran starts something, I bet they'll get involved in this case.

Whatever.


Are you getting a war-boner already? Dear baby jesus you Amerikan right wing people are insatiable...

Are you getting a war-boner already? Dear baby jesus you Amerikan right wing people are insatiable...

And where the hell do I support a war with Iran? Grow up :rolleyes:

And where the hell do I support a war with Iran? Grow up :rolleyes:

Just a feelin....Don't panic, its not like I invaded you over it....

We're talking about the Russian missile whose name I forget that is able to completely ignore all US carrier defenses.

So it's not only invisible to radar, and immune to jamming...but also completely impossible to shoot down.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical.