News Stories

[Ithekro]

Can they stop at least six Carrier Strike Groups? Because that is what is suppose to be able to be active pretty much anyplace within 30 days, with two more possible within 90 days out of 11 total (though realistically only 10 since one carrier is almost always out of commission for refit or refueling).

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Though I think they might have the ability if they are launching ballistic missiles against the fleet.

But wouldn't deploying a few hundreds of naval mine and their Kilo submarines in the straits a good and almost passive way to block it and to make the tast to re-open it a hellish one?

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

But wouldn't deploying a few hundreds of naval mine and their Kilo submarines in the straits a good and almost passive way to block it and to make the tast to re-open it a hellish one?

Kilo submarines? Here is the depth chart of the Persian gulf:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St...ormuz_full.jpg

Deploying submarines in such shallow waters without air superiority is pretty much suicidal. I highly doubt they are going to do that unless they are really desperate.

As for mines, how are they going to deploy them? They don't have any advantage in the air, on the surface or below. They might have some success once or twice, but that leads to a situation in which their ships or planes are never going to enter the gulf again.

They actually have an easier alternative, which are anti-ship cruise missiles. The oil tankers are massive targets without any defense. If they have mobile launch vehicles then such attacks are hard to prevent.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

As for mines, how are they going to deploy them? They don't have any advantage in the air, on the surface or below. They might have some success once or twice, but that leads to a situation in which their ships or planes are never going to enter the gulf again.

Do the same thing during Operation Praying Mantis : cargo ships dropping mines at night.

They actually have an easier alternative, which are anti-ship cruise missiles. The oil tankers are massive targets without any defense. If they have mobile launch vehicles then such attacks are hard to prevent.

Normal ASMs will do. Just launch them from land.

[Dhomochevsky]

You are all assuming there is a war already.
Shooting at submarines, gaining air superiority, that is just that.

If that area developes into a warzone, then that alone would greatly hinder civilian traders.

Also, if you look closely at the map, there is no international water in that passage. It either belongs to Iran, or Oman. So it would be interesting to ask first, if any foreign entity besides those two has any grounds in forcing a passage with means of violence.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

You are all assuming there is a war already.
Shooting at submarines, gaining air superiority, that is just that.

If that area developes into a warzone, then that alone would greatly hinder civilian traders.

Also, if you look closely at the map, there is no international water in that passage. It either belongs to Iran, or Oman. So it would be interesting to ask first, if any foreign entity besides those two has any grounds in forcing a passage with means of violence.

Humanitarian mission under one of the U.N rules?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There's no magic wall between countries... you see someone beating the crap out of their family member next door and do nothing? No, you at least call authorities - or shame them publicly, or get the village together and lynch the guy Countries are no different (Chinese assertions aside).

Even if the guy is just making his family wear funny hats, he should expect others on the street to raise their eyebrow and comment.

To an extent yes, but there's also a general principle of minding one's own business. We wouldn't like those countries meddling in our affairs, they don't like us meddling in their affairs.

Minding your own business is an important thing to do, the tricky thing is to know when to set that idea aside.

To use the family analogy, you might not agree with how that family raises their kids, as a conservative you may feel it's an atrocity that their neighbour is not bringing god into their children's lives, as a more pacifist individual you might be horrified that your neighbour slaps his children. However, your neighbour isn't going to appreciate a busybody neighbour telling him how to raise his kids, so it's best to live and let live in such a circumstance. Of course, if there's a clear abuse, as agreed by some outside authority (IE the law), then it's a good idea to call the cops.

Unfortunately, there are very few "outside authorities" in terms of nations. There is the United Nations, but we are all aware of it's weaknesses. There's also the International Criminal Court, or the declaration of Human rights, but not all countries signed up to that. Ultimately we have to leave them alone and bite our tongues. But at least they're not trying to inflict their ways on us either.

[Noctis Lucis]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Humanitarian mission under one of the U.N rules?

Watch Russia veto it. Remember, the USSR aided the Arabs in the 6-day war, and allied with the Arab League to condemn Israel repeatedly in the UN.
Also, Putin returns to power in 2012.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

You are all assuming there is a war already.
Shooting at submarines, gaining air superiority, that is just that.

If that area developes into a warzone, then that alone would greatly hinder civilian traders.

Also, if you look closely at the map, there is no international water in that passage. It either belongs to Iran, or Oman. So it would be interesting to ask first, if any foreign entity besides those two has any grounds in forcing a passage with means of violence.

I'm pretty sure they're hiding WMD underwater. In the straits.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Can they stop at least six Carrier Strike Groups? Because that is what is suppose to be able to be active pretty much anyplace within 30 days, with two more possible within 90 days out of 11 total (though realistically only 10 since one carrier is almost always out of commission for refit or refueling).

The problem is they only need to sink one of them to earn a victory. No matter the political/tactical gain, starting the day with the news of recent death of hundreds or thousands of troops in an ongoing war won't be acceptable in the States no matter what.

And frankly, Iran's army is showed to be quite decent. Not to win against Israel , US and the allies, but should be capable to deal some great damage.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

The problem is they only need to sink one of them to earn a victory. No matter the political/tactical gain, starting the day with the news of recent death of hundreds or thousands of troops in an ongoing war won't be acceptable in the States no matter what.

And frankly, Iran's army is showed to be quite decent. Not to win against Israel , US and the allies, but should be capable to deal some great damage.

This seems to be a massive misunderstanding of the American psyche. How did starting the day with news of thousands of deaths in Pearl Harbor, or 9-11 go over? What the American people don't like is troops dying pointlessly in insurgencies to a roadside bomb or ambush in the same place as troops a week ago. Sinking a carrier, which Iran can only do if they catch one in the Gulf, and the USN knows this full well, so their first priority if things look like they're going south is to get any carriers in the Gulf out of it, is not going to earn Iran a victory, it's going to ensure the American people will support a war to topple Iran. Things like that give a how dare they response, not an oh shit we're fucked response.

I honestly don't know why this is a difficult concept, considering there are two very obvious counter examples. I'd say it's based on learning the wrong lessons from Vietnam, but Japan's thinking behind attacking the US shows it predates Vietnam by decades. Is it because, even including the Civil War, the US has never really had a war on its soil as bloody as those in Europe and Asia? The Philippine insurgency following the Spanish American war maybe?

Edit: I'll also add that the Iranians on the other hand seem to realize this and their planning is centered around making sure they'll be able to conduct an insurgency with maximum effectiveness after an American invasion rather than stopping said invasion.

[ganbaru]

Can crowdsourcing shake up education?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...llBusinessNews

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

You are all assuming there is a war already.
Shooting at submarines, gaining air superiority, that is just that.

If that area developes into a warzone, then that alone would greatly hinder civilian traders.

No, not really. We were merely talking about military feasibility: what can or can not be done. In confrontations like this, knowing these actually reduce the chances of a war breaking out. For nations, it is utterly stupid to make moves that leads to nothing but its own defeat.

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

---Art of War, Tactical Dispositions.

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

No, not really. We were merely talking about military feasibility: what can or can not be done. In confrontations like this, knowing these actually reduce the chances of a war breaking out. For nations, it is utterly stupid to make moves that leads to nothing but its own defeat.

My point is, that starting a war to break the blockade will not really help civillian traders.
Operating trade routes through a warzone would make insurance costs sky rocket, which would likely eat up all profit. This is, if you are actually willing to risk your tankers, because they are easy targets.

So none of those "we shoot stuff" options are really a solution to the problem at hand. Which is: oil prices rising due to Irans actions.

[ganbaru]

Russia submerges nuclear submarine to douse blaze
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BS0MJ20111229
Strange than we didn't hear much of this ,considering than it's about a ''boomer'' not a ''hunter killer'' sub .

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

My point is, that starting a war to break the blockade will not really help civillian traders.
Operating trade routes through a warzone would make insurance costs sky rocket, which would likely eat up all profit. This is, if you are actually willing to risk your tankers, because they are easy targets.

So none of those "we shoot stuff" options are really a solution to the problem at hand. Which is: oil prices rising due to Irans actions.

Oh, yes, on that you are absolutely correct. If a war breaks out we can pretty much kiss the recovery goodbye. Obviously that's the reason why the Iranian are so defiant against a much powerful US. But it seems their line of thought is more in the direction to "scare off" a possible US military action than to start a war by themselves. Of course, if some very tough sanctions are placed on them, world recovery means nothing to them.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Oh, yes, on that you are absolutely correct. If a war breaks out we can pretty much kiss the recovery goodbye. Obviously that's the reason why the Iranian are so defiant against a much powerful US. But it seems their line of thought is more in the direction to "scare off" a possible US military action than to start a war by themselves. Of course, if some very tough sanctions are placed on them, world recovery means nothing to them.

the Iranians come from the middle east, where threats and intimidation are culturally viewed as ways to PREVENT conflict rather then promote it.
I threaten you, you threaten me, we both deter one another and thus war is prevented.

the problem is that in the west, threats are viewed as... well, threats.
declarations of intent.
and often enough, this leads to the very conflict that the original threats were meant to prevent.

[Haak]

I thought the whole point of threats was to deter conflict. Just not a very good one, especially if the other guy has a particulary strong sense of superiority or is incredibly twitchy.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Haak

I thought the whole point of threats was to deter conflict. Just not a very good one, especially if the other guy has a particulary strong sense of superiority or is incredibly twitchy.

Except the strong guy faces an coming election and must direct more attention inward. A sudden hike in gas price is more likely to cause an uproar than Iran having a crude nuke.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

I thought the whole point of threats was to deter conflict. Just not a very good one, especially if the other guy has a particulary strong sense of superiority or is incredibly twitchy.

but you don't quite grasp how deeply seeded it is in the middle eastern cultural psyche.

there's a type of dagger called a Khanjar that you often see being worn as part of a "formal" grab by many arab gulf political figures.
it dates back a very long time, going all the way back when such weapons were actively used for combat among the various tribes in the middle east.
its part of the "system" that had developed during the centuries of war and is symbolic of the "rules" established during that time to prevent warfare.
wearing it came to represent and state a very clear message.
"I can kill you, but for now i choose not to"
"don't place me in a situation where i might choose otherwise"

that, in a nutshell, is the middle eastern political mindset when it comes to preventing conflicts.
its not based on rationality alone, but always includes an element of deterrence.
its the reason why Egypt for decades after the peace treaty with Israel, still kept conducting military drills that seem as if they are aimed at repelling an Israeli invasion for example.
its a way of keeping the peace treaty "relevant" by showing the other party that they have good reason for keeping it.
its also the reason why the military "parade" culture in the mid east is so well developed while its mostly laughed at by much of the western world.

deterrence, in the middle east, is far more important then you think.