• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran sends warships to Gulf of Aden - navy

Maxientius said:
So you now agree with me and lerx?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. My original comment was assuming a full invasion and occupation. My original thought was it would have to appear as retaliation, but I agree now that it would not matter with occupation.
 
BUT​
If the US did occupy, what would be the consquences?

;) Notice i kept the debate alive here though if we agree i shall allow it to die.
 
Maxientius said:
BUT​
If the US did occupy, what would be the consquences?

;) Notice i kept the debate alive here though if we agree i shall allow it to die.
Click to expand...

I think the very first result would be that Russia and China would verbally condemn and threaten the U.S., followed by refusing us air space and blocking water-ways for U.S. Navy, then go to the UN to swing the rest of the world, or at least as much as possible against the United States. Following that each would attempt to negotiate that a Sino-Soviet unit protect and maintain the oil fields as good faith that the U.S. was not indeed making a hegomonic move. If this were to fail, then I believe each would attempt economic sanctions and possibly military intervention as a last resort. Russia would then immediately move on former Soviet Nations that have Western democracies, and China would attack Taiwan and retake the island as retribution.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I think the very first result would be that Russia and China would verbally condemn and threaten the U.S., followed by refusing us air space and blocking water-ways for U.S. Navy, then go to the UN to swing the rest of the world, or at least as much as possible against the United States. Following that each would attempt to negotiate that a Sino-Soviet unit protect and maintain the oil fields as good faith that the U.S. was not indeed making a hegomonic move. If this were to fail, then I believe each would attempt economic sanctions and possibly military intervention as a last resort. Russia would then immediately move on former Soviet Nations that have Western democracies, and China would attack Taiwan and retake the island as retribution.
Click to expand...

With ya til you got to the bold at which point i think one of two things happened:

1) Your little brother snuck on and decided to create a cool war scenario

OR

2) You smoked a WHOLE LOT of drugs.
 
Maxientius said:
With ya til you got to the bold at which point i think one of two things happened:

1) Your little brother snuck on and decided to create a cool war scenario

OR

2) You smoked a WHOLE LOT of drugs.
Click to expand...

You do not think that the two nations would attempt to have soldiers in the country to look after their interests? And as we have seen Russia do before, they will strike out at U.S. friendly nations for retribution to U.S. actions. Look at the entire Georgia fiasco.

The military intervention scheme may be far fetched, as well as the economic sanctions, but remember that both nations realize the economic influence that the U.S. has and both have worked to create economic zones of pooling with ASEAN and ASEAN+3, as well as the Shanghai Corporation Organization, with the sole purpose to diminish the economic as well as military influence that the United States enjoys in the world. Such actions as last resort may very well be taken to show the U.S. it is not the only player. China has more to lose than Russia, as China is holding on to $4.9trillion U.S. debt, but as consumer markets are cultivated in the rest of Asia and elsewhere China could decide to call in those loans and bankrupt the Hegemon.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You do not think that the two nations would attempt to have soldiers in the country to look after their interests? And as we have seen Russia do before, they will strike out at U.S. friendly nations for retribution to U.S. actions. Look at the entire Georgia fiasco.

The military intervention scheme may be far fetched, as well as the economic sanctions, but remember that both nations realize the economic influence that the U.S. has and both have worked to create economic zones of pooling with ASEAN and ASEAN+3, as well as the Shanghai Corporation Organization, with the sole purpose to diminish the economic as well as military influence that the United States enjoys in the world. Such actions as last resort may very well be taken to show the U.S. it is not the only player. China has more to lose than Russia, as China is holding on to $4.9trillion U.S. debt, but as consumer markets are cultivated in the rest of Asia and elsewhere China could decide to call in those loans and bankrupt the Hegemon.
Click to expand...

Russia isnt stupid. They know that the world is opposed to Iran gaining a nuclear arsenal. The US would be majorly supported in almost any anti-Iranian action.
 
Maxientius said:
Russia isnt stupid. They know that the world is opposed to Iran gaining a nuclear arsenal. The US would be majorly supported in almost any anti-Iranian action.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we thought that we would have world support for Iraq and not so much. Negotiations and sanctions, yes we will have it. Invasion and occupation, no.
 
Lerxst said:
That would give us carte blanche to move and secure the straits militarily. They would get one real shot and then we would dismantle their ability to do things like cook with gas, turn on the lights, use a phone, export oil to their customers, cross certain bridges, produce nuclear energy, etc.
Click to expand...

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." -- Jimmy Carter, 23 Jan 80
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
In this case, it's perfectly stupid to be leaving perfectly good American oil in American soil when lunatics are trying to hold us hostage with their own oil.
Click to expand...

Eh. That does not include how oil is priced and sold on the world markets. Just because we drill more here (which we can't do in significant quantities to change the total quantity on the market) does not mean we are not effected by global activities related to oil. The whole oil market scheme is tilted towards Petrodictators. Their actions affect our prices even when the oil we use does not come from them. The only way around this is nationalization of US oil to insulate it from the global market. That's how Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela do it.They insulate their oil from the world prices so that activities in far away lands do not affect how much their people pay.

As I've said before, we need to leave the entire scheme as the power is clearly in their court.
 
obvious Child said:
Not quite.

Think about it. Strait of Hormuz. Place the four large cargo ships in the strait. Scuttle them. Congratulations, You just shutdown all shipments of oil out of the Gulf. Any predictors of what that will do to world oil and gas prices? Iran's navy damage capacity is a peashooter compared to what it can do with four old cargo ships.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that argument but I just don't buy it. Twenty-four hours. Forty-eight, tops.
 
jallman said:
I keep hearing that argument but I just don't buy it. Twenty-four hours. Forty-eight, tops.
Click to expand...

I agree, if Iran appears an unstable oil supplier it will lose business and the state is too reliant on the revenues to risk disruption.
 
jallman said:
I keep hearing that argument but I just don't buy it. Twenty-four hours. Forty-eight, tops.
Click to expand...

And that's the point I was trying to make as well, they would be cutting off their head to spite their face. If they were shut down the straits they would suffer more than anyone else. We would get them back open in fairly short order and wreck their ability to service their primary customers. Iran would be the big loser in that game.
 
jallman said:
I keep hearing that argument but I just don't buy it. Twenty-four hours. Forty-eight, tops.
Click to expand...

How are you going to clear the strait of large nautical hazards within two days especially in war zone? Remember it's not like you can just blow the stuff up easily. The strait at its deepest point is a mere 150 feet. That calls for hauling stuff out. Besides, the economic impact would be immediate upon prices...which is the whole point of doing it.

As for the arguments about who it hurts most, if the Regime think it's going down, then such analysis does not matter as the Regime has nothing to lose at that point.
 
obvious Child said:
How are you going to clear the strait of large nautical hazards within two days especially in war zone? Remember it's not like you can just blow the stuff up easily. The strait at its deepest point is a mere 150 feet. That calls for hauling stuff out. Besides, the economic impact would be immediate upon prices...which is the whole point of doing it.

As for the arguments about who it hurts most, if the Regime think it's going down, then such analysis does not matter as the Regime has nothing to lose at that point.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Iranians are that crazy. Crazy, yes, but not that crazy.

And I believe we could haul it out within two days. I don't think that is beyond our capability. 48 hours. Tops.
 
jallman said:
I don't think the Iranians are that crazy. Crazy, yes, but not that crazy.
Click to expand...

Dictatorships that are going down have been known to do some pretty insane stuff.

And I believe we could haul it out within two days. I don't think that is beyond our capability. 48 hours. Tops.
Click to expand...

I dunno. In the middle of a war zone? Especially in range of short range anti-ship missiles from Iran's coast? You'd have to essentially control the entire region to be able to do it that quickly. You'd have to map the floor and pull it all out. And that's just half of it. Who the hell wants to send super tankers through a war zone?
 
obvious Child said:
Dictatorships that are going down have been known to do some pretty insane stuff.



I dunno. In the middle of a war zone? Especially in range of short range anti-ship missiles from Iran's coast? You'd have to essentially control the entire region to be able to do it that quickly. You'd have to map the floor and pull it all out. And that's just half of it. Who the hell wants to send super tankers through a war zone?
Click to expand...

I don't really believe that it would be much of a war zone in the actual gulf because I think Iran's navy would be destroyed within hours.
 
Assuming we still are keeping a carrier battle group in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, there would be no real naval battle. Missiles along the shore is a bigger threat, but in the case of a shooting war, could be pretty well neutralized. We do have 3 Aegis cruisers and 15 Aegis destroyers which could provide moderate protections from missiles, along with carrier aircraft patrolling and attacking any missile launch sites. Any site launching missiles would be surely destroyed, with some risk to the ships involved. Not an ideal situation, but certainly doable.

Note: 3 cruisers and 15 destroyers refer to fleet totals, not how many are available to deploy. There are probably 1 to 2 with a battle group in the gulf area currently, though I am not positive on this.
 
Maybe, but merely because we have some tenuous control over the strait doesn't mean that it will materially reduce risk to shipping (in the shipper's view) as well as insurance rates. Oil prices are going to fly through the roof on any abnormal activity happening in that region.
 
obvious Child said:
Maybe, but merely because we have some tenuous control over the strait doesn't mean that it will materially reduce risk to shipping (in the shipper's view) as well as insurance rates. Oil prices are going to fly through the roof on any abnormal activity happening in that region.
Click to expand...

Which is why any Iranian naval vessels in that area need to be sunk on sight. Then ALL Iranian sea ports need to be destroyed. If Iran has no Navy or ports, they cannot cause any grief in the Strait of Hormuz.
 
Vader said:
Which is why any Iranian naval vessels in that area need to be sunk on sight. Then ALL Iranian sea ports need to be destroyed. If Iran has no Navy or ports, they cannot cause any grief in the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...

Iran borders the straits. They do not need a navy(and look up what their navy consists of, they almost do not have one) to harass shipping. That harassment would be fairly short lived though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom