Posted on 07/08/2008 5:19:37 AM PDT by Perdogg
ping
for it to initiate the next phase of the Islamic War, the campaign that finally finishes Iran.
It is more likely that the Iranians will attempt to sink one or more supertankers in the main shipping channels. That would severely impact oil shipments.
It would be a nice task for the new Zumwalt destroyers, but those won’t be available for a few more years. But I’m sure we will do fine with the resources on hand.
I dont believe in letting things get worse so they will finally get better. But can’t think of a better kick in the head to make us develop our own energy than if those Straits really shut for a while.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
It doesn’t take too many sunk ships to block transit.
Some of the missiles, like the C-201 Silkworm, are not so great, but others, like the Noor, are copies of supersonic Chinese C-802 ASM. All of them have enough range to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Our military would be looking a protracted search and destroy mission to find the mobile launchers and destroy them. The “Scud Hunts” of the first Gulf War demonstrate how difficult this could be. This would have to be done before commercial shipping and high-value assets could transit the Strait. The Strait of Hormuz could be closed for days or even weeks with unpredictable consequences.
We would also have issues with Iranian gunboats and diesel electric submarines. The SSs are capable of launching ASMs as well as torpedoes. Some of the gunboats are large enough to launch ASMs as well. Potentially, there could be a lot of them. These could also make transiting the Strait dangerous.
no, a little longer
Iranian moves of their missile and artillary in small numbers to hand dug sand bagged bunkers
prepositioning of missile equipment over a month long period, done in one’s and two’s.
Their drones positioned at nearby fields, all 10 of them :)
and when they choose, the small, barely life sustaining positions with only an outhouse and a falafal cooler and 20 gallons of water a week, fires SILKWORM and other missiles at ONE SINGLE SHIP
A tanker most likely. Followed by speed boat attacks on that same ship that is hit.
Followed by speed boat attacks on anything else in the area.
American ships wouldn’t be in the area for 30 minutes or more, air cover would only see ships speeding about, not attacking at this point, not sure who to hit or who is innocent.
Suicide submarine operations likely this time, but not until they see American or British/French ships in the straits.
Expect a swarming attack against the first solo American warship escorting a tanker as a possible first strike, also, to overwhelm the systems with multiple missiles and speedboats to try to distract.
The only question is: who fired the first shot? Did Iran close the straits first or did we take out their nukes first?...not that it would matter this time...
The only sure analysis of a pre-war scenario this time is: If Iran fires first, Iran is back in the stone age from us or the Israelis.
Your analysis is good, and the last line is a keeper. The only thing you are missing is the fact that what will ultimately make it extremely dangerous for everyone is the United States' refusal to go all out in the effort.
If the US pulled out all the stops, the victory would be so one sided that it would almost make one feel sorry for the Iranians. Fact is, the US will not make an all out effort, and there will be needless US, and allied, casualties. In actuality, there would be a block of people in the US actively seeking to force a US loss. People in our own government will be trying to sink our efforts, and citizens of the US will be promoting the deaths of US servicemen, and NOTHING will be done about it.
It's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it will happen in future efforts. That is until the people who truly love this country step up and kick the bums out.
It’s pretty deep water, so I don’t think even 6 or 8 ships sunk, would make any difference.
The problem is that somehow, Congress and Judicial Branch got the idea they have a say in how war is conducted.
Other than funding our military, Congress should have no say.
The Judicial branch should have no say, whatsoever.
The President should run roughshod over them with executive orders and cart the worst of them (Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, et al) off to Ft. Leavenworth for treason. You don't have try ‘em - just hold incommunicado, while their political career slowly tanks.
Worse, the American people have become VERY sensitive to casualties. We took more casualties in a single battle (like the Battle of the Bulge) in WWII, but somehow our losses in Iraq and Afghanstan are too high.
Part of the problem is that we don't get the public to invest in the war. No rationing, no scrap drives, just some folks getting stuff together for the troops. No stars in the windows for sons and husbands (and wives and daughters) in foreign lands. No real war correspondents (except Michael Yon). Hell, most of our media is on the other side (and should be treated that way...).
Oh, well.
The real map shows Iran wedged between US forces in three places, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf.
I’m not sure that the Iranians would need to actually block the channel to severly impact oil shipments. Just the threat of sinking a supertanker would probably raise insurance costs to the point where it would severly impact both the shipment and the cost of oil.
I agree. I suspect that the US government doesn't have the stomach for it, but I think it's the right way.
To expand: After WWII, both the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear capability. Through the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine, both sides stayed away from a nuclear exchange and just fought small proxy wars in third-world countries. Today, our chief enemies are rag-tag armies in third world countries. We've shown that we can beat them, but it's a long, hard, expensive way to go. And it's hard to discourage another country from starting up another terrorist campaign right next door. I Sincerely believe that the US needs to use nucelar weapons in the near future. Iran fires a missile at a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz and we flatten Tehran and then we say, "We have a new way to deal with terrorism. Say, would you like to negotiate a peace settlement now?"
I suggest you do more homework.
It’s not appropriate for me to provide more facts here.
Head of the snake comes to mind.
Thinking that strategists are thinking about silencing Command and Control.
Short of a prez ossamma obbama getting in the way, you got to know we have an answer for this, although probably difficult to be 100%.
Am I wrong or do not the Iranians ALSO ship all their oil through Hormuz?
It is deep water, the shipping channel is about 3mi wide, and there is nothing classified about any of it. It’s been that way for a long time, and it’s public knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.