It's On: Iran Closes Straits Of Hormuz, Oil Explodes

[ORAC]

It's On: Iran Closes Straits Of Hormuz, Oil Explodes (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/its-iran-closes-straits-hormuz-oil-explodes)

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/12/Commods%20hormuz.jpg

And for those curious about more, RanSquawk speculates that the source of the data is a report in the Tehran Times saying that Iran will hold War Games in which it would close the Straits. Unclear if this is what Ran referenced when they said the Straits were already closed.

TEHRAN - MP Parviz Sorouri of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that Iran plans to practice its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important chokepoints, which accounts for about 30% of the world’s seaborne oil shipments.
“Currently, the Middle East region supplies 70 percent of the world’s energy needs, (most of) which are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. We will hold an exercise to close the Strait of Hormuz in the near future. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure,” ISNA quoted Sorouri as saying on Tuesday.

[jamesdevice]

worth repeating in its entirety - from FARS today
issued today

Fars News Agency :: MP: Iran to Stage Military Drill to Close Straits of Hormuz (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277151)

MP: Iran to Stage Military Drill to Close Straits of Hormuz
TEHRAN (FNA)- A member of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission said the military was set to practice its ability to close the Persian Gulf to shipping at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world.



"Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure," Parviz Sorouri said.

Israel and its close ally the United States have recently intensified their war rhetoric against Iran. The two arch foes of the Islamic Republic accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has long stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.

Iran has warned it could close the strategic Strait of Hormoz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.

Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.

Iran's naval power has even been acknowledged by foes. In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy also said that in the two decades since the Iraqi imposed war on Iran, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.

According to the report, Iran's Navy has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.

The ISIS study also cautioned that an attack against Iran would backfire by compelling the country to acquire nuclear weaponry.

A recent study by a fellow at Harvard's Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Caitlin Talmadge, warned that Iran could use mines as well as missiles to block the strait, and that "it could take many weeks, even months, to restore the full flow of commerce, and more time still for the oil markets to be convinced that stability has returned".

[cazatou]

Well, I have got the BBC World News on the TV at the moment and there has been no report of such an incident - nothing on CEEFAX either.

[SASless]

They are waving their Willy....and only threatening to hold a drill....as even the Mullahs know attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping traffic would kick off such a retalitory response that even their eyes would water!

They might use harrassment tactics...sea mines...surface attack by small boats....but a full fledged blocking of the shipping lane....not in their life time.

Well...it would be just prior to the quick end of their life time anyway!

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Seems to be a massive hoax played out by the Iranians as Reuters and co are all claiming the Straits are open. I guess it just emphasizes the weight they have over oil prices. Good warning shot. They did put the price up by $2.5 a barrel in a matter of minutes until people realised what was going on!

[jamesdevice]

I think the key word is "practice"
That can mean anything from a paperwork exercise, a token one hour stoppage, close surveillance to an all-out blockade
It is worth noting the Iranian navy is about to start wargames - "Velayat 90"

"the maneuvers will take place in the Gulf of Oman and northern part of the Indian Ocean"
They're supposedly testing (among other things) new missiles and "submarine systems"

[jamesdevice]

Todays news from Iran

Fars News Agency :: IRGC Starts "Great Prophet 7" Missile Wargames (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9103084640)
"TEHRAN (FNA)- The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) started massive missile wargames, codenamed Payambar-e Azam 7 (The Great Prophet 7), which include heavy missile tests in various places across the country.

"The participating IRGC missile units and bases started the preparatory phase of the wargames earlier today with the transfer of equipments to specified positions.
Given the fact that the IRGC is going to test targeting hypothetical enemy air bases in desert, the IRGC missile units will take short, middle and long range missile ammunitions to different positions around the country to test their capability of hitting such bases.
Different types of Shahab 1, 2 and 3 missiles, Fateh, Tondar, Zahzal, Persian Gulf and Qiyam missiles will be tested in the wargames.
Yesterday, Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh told reporters that the wargames are scheduled to last three days.
The commander said that the IRGC will fire tens of Qiyam ballistic missiles and Persian Gulf ballistic sea missiles in the drills to test and assess their performance.
The Iranian Defense Ministry started supplying large numbers of 'Qiyam (Rise) 1' high-precision ballistic missiles to the Aerospace Force of the IRGC in May.
In early 2011, Iran started the mass-production of the Persian Gulf anti-ship missile which is designed to destroy targets and hostile forces at sea.
The supersonic projectile, which carries a 650-kilogram warhead, is immune to interception and features high-precision systems. "

Especially interesting when taken together with this report yesterday
Fars News Agency :: IRGC Developing Missiles with Radar-Hitting Capability (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9103084560)
about a new 300km range anti-radar ballistic missile

[NutLoose]

Damn, I bet the Royal Navy were already drawing straws to see who would get a new ill fitting suit out of it all.

:E


The supersonic projectile, which carries a 650-kilogram warhead, is immune to interception and features high-precision systems. "

I wonder if they copied that phrase from the US UAV brochure.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Doesn't really matter if it can be intercepted or not
The Iranians say they can afford to fire off "tens" of them during wargames, implying they've a whole lot more
We've one T45 on station. How many air defence missiles does it carry? 48? If the Iranians threw in a few sea skimmers at the same time, and maybe the odd drone or so to act as decoys, how long would those defences last?
OK so the ship will probably be close to an Aegis or two, but the same numbers game still works against it. All the advanced radar in the world isn't going to help if you don't have enough missiles for the radar to guide...

[ICBM]

Perhaps the US will stage an 'opening up of the straits' exercise as soon as Iran starts their show of defiance...

[Heathrow Harry]

Historically the RN has always grossly over estimated the survivability of its ships to air attack

[Tourist]

Go on then Harry.

Justify that statement.

[NutLoose]

Err the Falklands did that.

[Load Toad]

I think he just handed you your arse in a bag matey.

[Navaleye]

I disagree. The RN knew exactly how vulnerable their ships were to air attack. Think Pom Poms or Sea Cat. We were under no illusion hence so much time spent on manoeuvre rather than hard kill.

[Tourist]

Exactly Navaleye.

It was correctly estimated that we would lose ships. Some estimated that we would lose more.
We did.
It is called war.

It is something that military forces have to accept if they put themselves in harms way.
A military force that is unwilling to accept losses is a chocolate fire guard.

Incidentally, since the RN practically invented the airborne destruction of a fleet at Taranto, I think it is moronic to suggest we underestimate the threat.

[Load Toad]

OK - fair comment.

So - how come more 'guns' weren't added &c to attempt to address these issues? Or was this again; no money, no time, no infrastructure...?

[newt]

Get your heating oil tanks filled guys!! Even if it is a bluff the boys in suits will be speculating again:ok:

[Tourist]

Load

Did you imagine that every Tornado in Gulf 1 would come back?
That every tank in WW2 would survive?
Do you think that it would be sensible to train every soldier to SF standards?

There come a point where the cost of making the perfect warship/aircraft/soldier means you can only buy one (F22?), and it may be better to have lots of imperfect.

There is both a law of diminishing returns and an arms race going on, and in 1982 the Exocet was difficult to counter.

[glad rag]

Hmm.

A wise man once told me there was nothing glorious about war.

Took me 23 years to find out he was right.......

[Courtney Mil]

There's something in that, Tourist. 'Quantity has a quality all its own'. Attributed, I believe, to Jo Stalin.

[Milo Minderbinder]

back during the Falklands we had an active fleet of around 50 frigates and destroyers, with a quite a few more laid up which could have been reactivated. In the event of a loss other ships could take up the vacuum created
Now we have a total frigate & destroyer fleet of 19 including those in refit - and very few laid up and capable of reactivation.
If that single T45 in the Gulf is lost there is nothing available to replace it.
And what if that ship was guarding our hypothetical carrier?

[Load Toad]

Tourist; no I have never suggested that at all.

[Heathrow Harry]

Tourist

You asked me to justify my statement

the record is clear - Norway, Crete, Malaya, Ceylon (where the navy had to retreat to East Africa they were so concerned about air attack from the Japanese), the Med campaign, the Murmansk convoys.....................

then no real action for 35 years

In the Falklands a small air force flying second hand aircraft sank 4 of our naval ships and damaged a shed load more - with decent fuses they'd have doubled the numbers sunk

Most of these were specifically armed against air attack (see British Destroyers & Frigates - the Second World War & After by Friedmann)

I think the Type 45's are just what we needed in the Falklands - but of course they only have a pop-gun and no serious surface to surface missiles ,... the Naval Constructors Office is fighting the last war , not the next, as usual

[Tourist]

Harry

That is a cretinous argument.

Retreat shows that we did not under estimate the threat.:confused:

The idea that loss of ships means that we are making some kind of a mistake is fairly idiotic.


Did the RAF in WW2 make a mistake in losing all those spitfires?

Ships, planes and tanks get lost in war.

Trying to characterise the Falklands as some kind of spat against a second rate opponent says a lot about your character and spits on the memories of those who died.

The argentinian pilots and aircraft were first rate, and carrying a new weapon which nobody had learned to deal with yet.
It is all part of the joys of the military arms race.

Will an exocet manage to sink one of our ships again?
I would like to think not.
Will some new weapon manage?
Almost certainly.

Will someone manage to shoot down a Typhoon, assuming they actually go sausage side at some point?
Probably.
Would it mean that the RAF was institutionaly backward in its planning...?
No, it would be war.

To conclude.

The RN does not in any way under-estimate our vulnerability to air attack.
We know that we will lose ships to a concerted air attack by an able opponent.
We attempt to minimise those losses by good tactics and training.

The idea that any losses mean an error of judgment has been made is, I repeat, cretinous.

[Navaleye]

Heathrow,

The T22 I served on in GW1 had a Bofors 40/60 made in Canada in 1941. Its operator was less than half its age. We used to joke that the noise was there for morale purposes only. If Seawolf went down, the 18 yr old manning it was the last line of defence!

[Heathrow Harry]

nonsense dear boy

personally I find the idea that we send people out to die because "its going to happen" is not where we should start from - there is no such thing as an "accepteable loss" in my book

It's a very cheap shot (and a poor argument) to state that by saying the Argentinians were a second rate airforce that I am getting at the guys who died on our side

the Argentinians were flying Mirage versions and Skyhawks _ you really aren't saying they were first class aircraft in 1982 are you? Man, they were using commercial 707's for marine reconnaissance and bombing ships by throwing bombs out of the back of a Hercules!

Even their navy was all sorts of mainly second hand stuff

as for Exocet being an "new unknown weapon" most of the RN Amazon class Type 21's that served in the Falklands were equipped with them - maybe they forgot??

Sea Dart was designed as an area defence weapon to replace the Sea Slug in open water over the N Atlantic and was originally meant as a building block for the UK CBG escort role- but even under trials it would occasionally lock-up - sending them out as radar pickets was known at the time to be a hell of a risk and so it proved

Sea Wolf is a point defence system that worked pretty well considering.

You have to say that more Goalkeeper type systems would have been relatively cheap and easy to fit and would have probably improved matters a great deal

[Navaleye]

Heathrow,

Respectfully disagree. The RN was configured to fight the Sovs who liked flying big weapons at medium altitudes. Our weapons were configured for that threat. They had no sea skimmers at the time.

The Mirage 3 and 5 were very modern aircraft at the time. Ask the Israelis!

We had no Phalanx or Goalkeeper available, indeed Phalanx was only just being introduced in to the USN.

The Arg navy was largely made up of old ex-USN stuff but had 2 operational T42 and knew exactly how to use them. I was the liaison officer for one of them when she was undergoing FOST in November 1981. They knew that in open water, it takes more than a 4 ship to take out a T42. Close to land they are virtually blind. They knew that too and how to exploit that vulnerability.

If you are going to make a point at least do your homework first.

[ORAC]

They had no sea skimmers at the time.

P-270 MOSKIT (SS-N-22 SUNBURN) (http://vectorsite.net/twaship_3.html#m4)

..........The standard Moskit has a range of 120 kilometers (75 miles) in a HI-LO flight profile or 80 kilometers (50 miles) in a LO-LO flight profile, with midcourse flight directed by an INS. Its high-altitude speed is from Mach 2.6 to Mach 3 and its low-altitude speed is Mach 1.5. It was designed for salvo launch, with the missiles maneuvering over differing flight paths to confuse target defenses. It could be fitted with a 320 kilogram (705 pound) SAP conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead with a yield of hundreds of kilotonnes.

Work on the Moskit was initiated in 1973, leading to service introduction in 1981.

[Heathrow Harry]

WE had Exocet for heavens sake and we didn't know about it????

I still don't see Mirage's, Kfirs & Skyhawks as anything other than second or third rate in 1982...................... TBF the Argentinian pilots did a great job with what they had

Sea Dart was tested against low flying aircraft - I know because some people I know where on the trials on HMS Bristol in the seventies

[oldgrubber]

shy talk,

I think that comes under "why bother with AEW" when,
a) The replacement fixed wing carriers were binned (along with their planned AEW replacements).
b) The RAF had convinced everyone they could cover anywhere, with anything (remember the mythical (or was it) moving of Australia).
c) The Navy top brass couldn't have planned a cocktail party without a killick steward to help them (I think they got the cost of the carriers wrong by £75,000,000), it was a lesson in procurement c0ck ups.
d) Don't forget, no-one got their shiny new toys (TSR2, F111 etc, etc), cheers Dennis!
We were aware of the "capability gap", but remember the Invince was all but sold and the political opinion was against carriers up until 1982!

Cheers now

[glad rag]

WE had Exocet for heavens sake and we didn't know about it????

Now you know they were "different" and don't count...:ugh:

[Willard Whyte]

Anyhoo, are we still chatting about Persia?

This Shamshir rattling doesn't really help matters.

Yet there are those who still think it acceptable for them to seek a nuclear capability.

[Tourist]

Harry

If you are going to quote somebody, at least quote them correctly rather than misquoting them and then getting het up about what you rather than they said.

I said that the exocet was new.

Not "new and unknown" as you suggest.

Of course the RN knew it was a threat. We had them!

That was why so much effort to mitigate the threat was made, from denial of new exocet to movement of the fleet to air defence.

At the time there was no good way to combat the threat.

That is the nature of warfare.

A weapon is invented.
Countermeasures are produced.
A new weapon is invented ad infinitum.

The only options available were accept and mitigate the threat, or don't go.

Not going is not really an option to anyone with a spine.

I find it astonishing to have to explain to a military man any of this frankly.

Perhaps it is a sign of the current times that some among us expect to be able to go to a conflict and not take losses, rather than expecting to take some hits, and perhaps that is because since the Falklands we don't go anywhere without the umbrella of the US assets.

[Navaleye]

Tourist, Harry et al,

May I suggest you take a look at the 3rd edition of 100 Days by Adm Woodward. He has published his diary of the time in very full detail and it is most informative.

My recollections of the time are:

1. Yes we knew what Exocet could do, but it was just the shipboard version. We were well trained in its use.

2. We had made no preparation for airborne AM39 attacks, even though the Argentine version had an "export" seeker which was a less sensitive centroid homing version of the ones we had in our ships. The only possible answer was Chaff Charlie and Chaff Delta.

3. Radar range at 9 feet above sea level is about 10 miles for something moving at mach 0.9

4. The Corvus chaff launchers we had could barely respond at that time even in the right conditions.

5. Sea Dart at that time had NO capability at low flying targets, this only came much later with the addition of an IR fuse which also took years to perfect. The trials with Bristol in the 70s were against two foil covered met balloons both released at the same time. Both engaged, one at lowish level one at medium level and hit. Hardly representative of even a 1st gen attack jet.

6. Trials of Sea Dart by HMS Newcastle against Sea Slug 1 targets fired by HMS Kent at Aberporth not all that reasurring!

7. Sea Cat. Totally useless. Even the Bofors on the T22 had been converted from manual to electrical operation did not work properly.

8. Atlantic Conveyor and most of the RFA was Chaff Sierra and lots of folks paid dearly for this.

It was a complete buggers muddle but we managed to get through, more by luck than judgement.

All this is in the public domain before anyone says anything.

[Heathrow Harry]

Naval Eye

thanks for that - I have the greatest admiration for those who were sent out with insufficient equipmet and training to fight for us all - especially when it all (RN, RAF & the PBI) had to be cobbled together in a few days.

Just how someone up the line could not/would not compare a ship launched Exocet threat with an airborne Exocet threat just astounds me even now...........

Unfortunately I suspect that many of the same attitudes are still to be found in Whitehall

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Historically the RN has always grossly over estimated the survivability of its ships to air attack

The RN or the politicians?

ORAC

I think that I am right in thinking that Sea Wolf was designed to counter Soviet submarine launched sea skimmers. Also if the task force had had more than just two Sea Wolf armed frigates then it would have reduced ship losses.

HH

I think the key difference between ship launched and air launched Exocets was/is the the former is launched from a ship with a limited speed, the latter from an aircraft with the ability to fly low and hide from shipborne radars. I remember reading that some Admirals had proposed developing an AEW version of the Sea King (before the Falklands), but it was rejected on cost grounds. The assumption was that the RN would operate in the NATO theatre, and Nimrod AEW3 would come along soon. The politicians changed their minds on 4 May 82 - the same day HMS Sheffield got hit. I think the same mentality exists in Whitehall.

Remember too the Argentines could work out how to evade the Type 42's radar, as they had T42s.

Here is a documentary from 1986: In The Wake of HMS Sheffield

Going back to possible Iranian events, if a Type 45 fired all her missiles it would be a very serious conflict - the type that SDSR said we will not need to worry about until after 2020. :sad:

[sevenstrokeroll]

The thing we both should learn ( US and UK) is that we must be prepared for war in order to avoid war.

And we must remember that today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy.

The trouble is we have learned the lessons, and our politicians want to save a few bucks/crowns and cut back.

It is terrible to tlearn tha the Royal navy only has 19 frigates/destroyers as of today. It wasn't so long ago that we traded 50 four pipers for 99 year leases on bases.

And the new big threat is little rubber boats loaded with explosives and men crazy enough to make a Kamakazie attack with them...THE NEW EXOCET MISSILE>

The Iranians still have a few F14s...which we sold them...are they second rate?

And if a second rate A4, launched from a war surplus aircraft carrier can sink your tin can...who cares if its second rate?

in world war one, JAPAN was on England's side and so was the US...19 years later the Japanese bombed the US Panay and sank her. 19 years and the sides change.

in WW2, Russia and China were on our side....five years later we were fighting them in KOREA

WAKE UP!!!!!!

19 ships...shame on the RN

[Milo Minderbinder]

This is interesting
Fars News Agency :: Iranian Mines, Missiles Can Easily Shut Hormuz (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9103085062)

Normally all defence news on the FARS website consist of bulletin reports of what some senior lawman / parliamentarian / military man has allegedly said in a speech, and are full of rhetoric.
This is different: its an uncredited editorial analysis. I'm not sure how to take it, but at face value it looks like a threat to sink a supertanker in the Hormuz Straight, blocking the channel. Along with the other comments as to their options its interesting reading. It feels like its been written by a western journalist, not one of Tehran's usual parrots. At one stage it quotes the "New York Times" - is the whole article listed from there?


News number: 9103085062 17:38 | 2012-07-04
"TEHRAN (FNA)- As Iranian lawmakers are preparing a bill requiring the government to close the Strait of Hormuz, some in the West are asking how Tehran can do so, except for drowning an oil tanker in the midst of the waterway which is the easiest way of cutting the world oil lifeline for months.
In addition to its short, mid, and long missiles, Tehran has a range of other weapons it can use to close down the vital oil artery.
These include the hard-to-detect "rocket mine" that's triggered by the distinctive magnetic our acoustic signature of a ship, such as a US aircraft carrier, and then launches a propelled 600-popund warhead at the target.
Then there's the Russian MDM6, equally difficult to detect, that can tackle multiple targets. It lies on the seabed that fires a torpedo-like warhead when it senses a vessel.
Both these mines can be laid by Iran's Kilo-class submarines.
As the United States builds up its forces in the Persian Gulf, including the recent arrival of four new mines countermeasures ships to boost US-British minesweeping strength to 12, the New York Times quoted a senior Defense Department official as saying:
"The message to Iran is, 'Don't even think about it'. Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines.
"Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the gulf."
Iran isn't planning to fight a conventional war with the US and its allies. Rather it plans to employ what's known as asymmetric warfare, in which the weaker forces uses unconventional means to overcome the power of a strong opponent.
Asymmetric warfare is specially appropriate for the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz which are too narrow for the huge US warships to maneuver.
That means mines, anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by small heavily armed boats.
By some accounts, Iran is believed to have as many as 3,000 sea mines. Some estimates go as high as 5,000, but no one knows the exact number as Iran never discloses all its capabilities and arsenals.
Whatever, it's the fourth largest sea mine arsenal in the world after the United States, Russia and China.
The EM-52 is probably the most dangerous mine Iran has. But the bottom-influence EM-11 and the EM-31 moored mine can also play havoc with surface craft.
So the United States and its allied naval forces face a formidable foe.
"Iran's ability to lay a large number of mines in a short period of time remains a critical aspect of the stated capability to deny US forces access to the Persian Gulf and impede or halt shipping through the strait," cautioned US analyst Anthony Cordesman in a March analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Iran has hundreds of anti-ship missiles, including 300 C-201 Seersucker weapons and 200 C-801 indigenous Noor systems, deployed along its long Persian Gulf coastline, as well as air-launched weapons and cruise missiles.
"It's notable that the US never successfully targeted Iraq's anti-ship missile assets during the Kuwait war, although they were deployed along a far smaller coastal area," Cordesman observed.
Iran's army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, a combined force of some 400,000 troops, vastly outnumber US and allied ground forces. You may also add millions of Basij (volunteer) forces.
But it's from the sea the Iranians will out up their main fight. How long the shooting will last is anyone's guess.
Hormuz could be closed to tanker traffic for several weeks, and the disruption in oil supplies will trigger severe global economic problems.

[ORAC]

Content lifted and bastardised from a UPI report (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/07/03/Iran-to-use-mines-missiles-to-shut-Hormuz/UPI-73381341331939/).

[Milo Minderbinder]

thanks ORAC
but it looks like the comment about using a tanker as a blockship is their own....could that be a direct warning?

[NutLoose]

They plan to employ what's known as asymmetric warfare, in which the weaker forces using unconventional means to overcome the power of a strong opponent.


Ahhh! so that is our Governments Defence policy, try to beat them to being the weaker force.


.

[green granite]

Perhaps a counter threat might make them back off, one along the lines of a warning to all civilians in Tehran and the other cities to flee immediately their leaders close the straights as the cities will be promptly annihilated. Very few Arab countries would mourn their loss.

[NutLoose]

How long did the Iraq Iran war run for?

9 years?..

and at the end of that one there was still no winner and Millions of casualties......

How long did the Iraq war take from kick off to finish

2 months?

I realise the topography of both countries are different, but call me old fashioned, are these people just plainly stupid starting something there will only be one conclusion too.

.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As I said here on the other Iran/Hormuz thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/472724-iran-threatens-close-strait-hormuz-2.html#post6932224):

I doubt that Iran would close the Strait, any Iranian response to tougher sanctions or an attack would be far more subtle. I would suggest that:

1. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be a highly provocative act, it would destroy any goodwill towards Iran by other Middle Eastern nations, particularly the Gulf states. Similarly Russia and China are unlikely to have anything other than an extremely dim view.

2. This type of extreme action would force the West to act. Strikes against targets on the Iranian mainland might become an option. Prudence will demand that Iranian naval, air, and missiles forces are hunted and destroyed.

3. Concentrating large proportions of Iranian forces around or in the Strait will make the task of finding and destroying them easier.

4. The Iranian coast is over 1200 miles long, so why make things easy for the US/West? Why not attack over a larger area? The Kilo submarines, for instance, would be more likely to survive in the Gulf of Oman or Iranian sea. Dispersed attacks would make things harder to counter.

5. More targeted actions, using weapons aimed an individual ships (tankers going to/from a certain nation, or with a certain nation of registration/flag, or the naval forces of the US or allies). Whilst still an act of war, international opinion will resist an all out assault against Iranian forces. The non reaction to North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan demonstrates this.

6. If international opinion prevents offensive responses against Iranian forces, Western forces will be on the back foot in defensive roles with restricted ROE.

7. The amount of Host Nation Support provided to the West may be limited, either due to politics (Israeli/US strike first) or for fear of Iranian reprisals - Iran has lots of surface to surface missiles, and has various terrorists as proxies.

There are a lot of open source articles regarding these issues:

Closing Time (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf)

US-Iranian Confrontation at Sea (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/US-Iranian_Confrontation_at_Sea.pdf)

Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz – Plausibility and Key Considerations (http://www.inegma.com/reports/special%20report%204/Iranian%20Mining%20of%20the%20Strait%20of%20Hormuz.pdf)

A list of vessels attacked during the tanker war (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_209.shtml)

THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT (http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap14.pdf)

Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies.... (http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap09.pdf)

[Tourist]

WEBF

Whilst by no means your only bad habit, constant self quoting is one of your most egregious.

If you think your opinion is worth airing, then type it in again.

If you can't be arsed, or the clarity of your genius was not recognised the first time, then a requote is unlikely to tip the balance without revisiting the wording.

[racedo]

Perhaps a counter threat might make them back off, one along the lines of a warning to all civilians in Tehran and the other cities to flee immediately their leaders close the straights as the cities will be promptly annihilated.

Lets just clarify it..........you are advocating mass murder based on military and political decisions by some leaders.

Assume then you don't have a problem with Russia and China carrying out similar when US / Nato park its military on another countrys borders...

[Jagdfalke]

Attacking civilian populaces isn't a course of action foreign to the west, is it? Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a few (of many) noteworthy examples - if committed by anyone other than the winning side they'd be considered war crimes.

While the circumstances were slightly different, the underlying rationale was the same.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Attacking civilian populaces"

They weren't exactly civilan populations though were they? Hitler declared "total war" - effectively everyone was part of his war machine
Bombing the cities disrupted the military supply and distribution chain. A very legitimate target

[Willard Whyte]

They weren't exactly 'first strike' events either.

[Jagdfalke]

They weren't exactly civilan populations though were they? Hitler declared "total war" - effectively everyone was part of his war machine
Bombing the cities disrupted the military supply and distribution chain. A very legitimate target

2/3rd's of Germany voted AGAINST Hitler - these people were just unfortunate to be caught between madmen. As for attacking legitimate targets, bear in mind that Churchill himself referred to it as 'terror bombing'. Most of the civilians that the British and Americans dropped incendiaries and white phosphorus (now banned under the Geneva convention) on were woman, children and those too old to fight. The majority wanted nothing to do with Hitler.

Then there are the nukes. Not nearly as bad as the terror bombing campaign, but still an extremely cruel thing to do.

It saddens me that i should need to explain why there are no good excuses for attacking civilians, ever. Do we really suck that bad as a species?

[LongTimeInCX]

Then there are the nukes. Not nearly as bad as the terror bombing campaign, but still an extremely cruel thing to do.
Seriously??
So even though as a race, and let's not forget they started it, they deserved what they ended up with, would you rather a conventional forces attack on the mainland have been carried out?
As the lives that would have been lost would no doubt have been very large on both sides, the bucket of sunshine option seems to be a vindicated course of action, by at least saving untold numbers on our side. That the sushi munchers copped a hiding was sad from a civilian loss point of view, but in the big scheme of things, quite necessary and a wise and courageous decision by those in power at the time.

Do we really suck that bad as a species?
As a whole no, however certain sections of our world, and mad fundamentalists sometimes need eliminating. I'm grateful that on occasions, our politicians who are inept at so many things, do sometimes have a big enough pair to tackle such problem children and give them the spanking they deserve when suggestions to behave are ignored.

[Literground]

I get rather sick of the apologists, who seemingly allow the Luftwaffe and the Imperial Japanese Air corp. the right to skip away from all that they did.
You know contrary to the revisionists, the Luft. did quite a bit of damage to the UK during the war, and the same applies in spades to sections of the far east, via the Japanese.

Dowding would turn in his bloody grave.

[green granite]

racedo do you not understand the meaning of the word 'threat'? You need to issue such edicts so that when the crunch comes and you need to take out the military installations that these regimes have deliberately placed in the middle of civilian areas, you hopefully will minimise civilian deaths.

Assume then you don't have a problem with Russia and China carrying out similar when US / Nato park its military on another countrys borders...

Do you really think that either Russia or China would give a ***** about civilian deaths in a war against the west? I don't, nukes are not selective.

[Jagdfalke]

You are American?

How about this then;

In using nuclear weapons on the Japanese, the allied forces were sending a message (Potsdam Proclamation - Surrender immediately, or face complete destruction). When Japan failed to heed the message, they were nuked again.

In firebombing large sections of Germany the allied forces were not only looking to break the morale of the German people, and also pressure the German government into an early surrender, but also sending a message to the advancing Soviet forces (look at what we are capable of).

According to some, legitimate targets. There were alternatives to both of these courses of action as the allied forces of course had standing armies of significant size and capability.

Therefore, can we then conclude that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on legitimate targets? After all, terrorism is a form of communication and groups such as Al Qaeda don't have the means to wage conventional warfare anyhow.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Therefore, can we then conclude that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on legitimate targets? "

1) the attacks were not carried out by a legitimate government defending itself
2) no state of war existed, and certainly no "total" war
3) the attacks were selective against a building which had no importance to military effort. Unlike the bombing of Germany of Japan
So no, not legitimate.

[Jagdfalke]

I get rather sick of the apologists, who seemingly allow the Luftwaffe and the Imperial Japanese Air corp. the right to skip away from all that they did.
You know contrary to the revisionists, the Luft. did quite a bit of damage to the UK during the war, and the same applies in spades to sections of the far east, via the Japanese.

Dowding would turn in his bloody grave.

Before going any further, i suggest you take a look at how many civilian casualties were inflicted by the LW in the UK, then take a look at what the RAF did to Germany.

In a nutshell - compared to the allied bombing campaigns over Germany, 'the blitz' was farting at thunder. It's not being an 'apologist', it's simply the facts as they are, and nothing to get upset about.

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH the early Bomber Command raids on Germany were as (in-)effective as the Luftwaffe raids on the UK - we just kept working on it......................

[Jagdfalke]

1) the attacks were not carried out by a legitimate government defending itself
2) no state of war existed, and certainly no "total" war
3) the attacks were selective against a building which had no importance to military effort. Unlike the bombing of Germany of Japan
So no, not legitimate.

A government isn't a requirement for a war.

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties

War on terror, anyone?

A state of war isn't a requirement for a target to be legitimate, although if you do a bit of research you'll discover that Osama bin Laden had declared war on the west long before the 9/11 attacks.

So attacking a building full of civilians that has no significance to a war effort is different to attacking lots of buildings full of civilians that have no significance to a war effort? Thats a lovely set of rose tinted glasses you have there. I suggest you look to something other than Hollywood for your history education.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"i suggest you take a look at how many civilian casualties were inflicted by the LW in the UK, then take a look at what the RAF did to Germany. "


Thats partly because we were better at disrupting (i.e. bombing) their production and supply than they were ours. Our targeting was better, our production was better dispersed, and our intelligence was better.Oh - and our bombers were better designed

Besides which the Germans made some strange bombing decisions .....the raid on Milborne Port in Somerset for one. with Lord Hawhaw announcing that the ships there had been sunk. Anyone seen where Milborne Port is on the map? Anyone care to guess how many ships were tied up there at the time?

[ORAC]

Before going any further, i suggest you take a look at how many civilian casualties were inflicted by the LW in the UK, then take a look at what the RAF did to Germany. Let's not pick out the RAF air campaign from the other casualties of war, they bore the brunt of the UK effort until D-Day because they were the only weapon able to do so. The Luftwaffe didn't have a heavy bomber force but the German ground troops more than made up for their lack.

Ask Poland, Ukraine and Russia about their feelings concerning the Germans.

And let's not forget the millions of civilians who died in the concentration camps.

The attempts to make out that the majority of the Germany population where as much victims as every one else is one of the more despicable pieces of revisionism of the last 60 years.

Anyway, if people want to revisit the air war in WWII they can open a new thread, it's not the subject of this one and shouldn't be used to hijack it.

[His dudeness]

The attempts to make out that the majority of the Germany population where as much victims as every one else is one of the more despicable pieces of revisionism of the last 60 years.


revionism eh?

My mother was attacked by a Thunderbolt (P-47) whilst herding goats... she was 7 years old when that happened.

Now, explain exactly how she was a offender rather than a victim?

BTW, this question does not mean in any way that I would belittle or play down what the Luftwaffe did to the UK or the Nazis to the Jews or other victims of their gruel and terror ruling...

[Jagdfalke]

History - 'knowledge from inquiry'

Those who are quick to label people as revisionists or apologists should give that some consideration next time they read something that differs from the official party line.

Noone is making apologies for the Nazis. What they did was horrific. But that doesn't make it ok to wage terror campaigns against people who had nothing to do with those atrocities.

As i said earlier, there is never a good reason to target civilians, regardless of whatever 'side' they happen to be on.

Thats partly because we were better at disrupting (i.e. bombing) their production and supply than they were ours. Our targeting was better, our production was better dispersed, and our intelligence was better.Oh - and our bombers were better designed

I don't think anybody is arguing the capability of the RAF? But yes, correct on all counts. The allied bombing capability far exceeded that of the axis powers, and that is exactly why they were able to inflict such heavy losses on their civilian targets (which if i'm not mistaken, was the original argument anyway).

Slightly off-topic question - but are any of you boys in the forces?

[ORAC]

Yes, the painting of the German civilian population as much as victims as others is revisionism (http://onthepast.blog.co.uk/2011/02/05/revisionism-heckner-niven-and-the-gustloff-10520351/).

[Jagdfalke]

According to some guy's blog. Legit as.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Jagdfalke

So your comments are more legitimate?

I'm reminded of the comments my father made about meeting surerndered Germans in their houses. First thing they all start shouting "Ich nein Nazi" or something like that.....then when the troops search the house and find a hidden black uniform belonging to father/son/husband it all goes quiet....

[sevenstrokeroll]

wow...what arguments.

how easy it is to say using nukes was wrong...the men who made the decision in 1945 to drop the nukes are all gone and can't speak for themselves. but I support their decision without hesitation.

terrorism has a definition. it is the adroit manipulation of fear. the 911 attack was to strike fear, not to disrupt supply chains of ball bearings.

if al qaeda's fighting men had uniforms with funny helmets and funny markings, the US and her allies could simply find them and shoot them.

but when the fighting men of al qaeda wear skirts like women and hide among women...sadly, innocents will die too.


burning tokyo from the air with thousands of fire bombs shortened the war. at some point, either your enemy realizes the futility and sues for peace, or as Gen. Curtiss Lemay said: you keep killing them till they can't fight anymore.

THE US has spent a fortune trying not to kill innocents. How simple (and cost effective) it would have been to say: afghanistan, we don't want to send our troops, so we will just kill you all.

but we didn't.

I notice the new zealander whose view is so different from others. I can't even believe New Zealand has no air force (fighters) . Issolation...works wonders.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Essentially the question posed by these events is:

Are you a moral relativist?

If you are, then you probably agree withe the bombing campaigns, on a "it may have been bad but that doesn't make it wrong" basis

And if you aren't, then the morals of the society become relevant. Most people in Britain and the US at the time supported what was done = it was moral at the time.
We now live in different times.

My personal view is that losing is the bigger immorality to "winning ugly", especially when the other side has a hegemony and/or race extermination policy.

[Tourist]

Plus, of course, historical actions need to be judged in context.

What various Ceasars, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart etc did may not meet todays sensitivities, but right or wrong can only by judged by comparisions with the prevailing morals, not todays.

[racedo]

racedo do you not understand the meaning of the word 'threat'? You need to issue such edicts so that when the crunch comes and you need to take out the military installations that these regimes have deliberately placed in the middle of civilian areas, you hopefully will minimise civilian deaths.


Let see you park your nuclear armed ships on someones doorstep and demand they do as you say...............is that not a threat ?

As for regimes deliberately placing military installations in civilian areas !!!!
Well I see lots of TA bases surrounded by houses..................is that not the same ?

[phil9560]

His Dudeness please don't think I mean to trivialise your Mothers experience-I don't.

But she must have had exceptional aircraft recognition skills for a 7 year old.

[Jagdfalke]

So your comments are more legitimate?


Given that my assertions are supported by facts and not opinions, yes, they certainly are more legitimate. University 101.

terrorism has a definition. it is the adroit manipulation of fear.

Interestingly, there is no absolutely accepted definition of terrorism. Despite that, here is how the following parties define it-

US Department of State
“Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents, usually to influence an audience.

FBI
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Encyclopaedia Britannica
“The systematic use of terror (such as bombings, killings, and kidnappings) as a means of forcing some political objective. When used by a government, it may signal efforts to stifle dissent; used by insurrectionists or guerrillas*, it many be part of an overall effort to effect desired political change.”


What can we deduce from that? Acts of terrorism all have 3 common components-

1. Motive
2. Violence
3. Message/Communication/Influence

Simply, terrorism is a method of communication.


Now tell me, what do you think the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aimed at? Before you go looking for military targets, i suggest you do some research on the 'Potsdam Proclamation' to find out exactly what the US was promising Japan. How different is that from what Al Qaeda demands of the West?

[Navaleye]

This thread has drfited about as far as the Jetstream which has caused our delightful Summer. The topic of this thread was...?

[con-pilot]

Jagdfalke, in your attempt to revise history, it fails completely as you have seemed to have forgotten about the treatment (slaughter) of Russian (USSR) common citizens by the Germans and such incidents as the Rape of Nanking by the Japaneses forces.

The Germans and the Japaneses were well established in the art of needlessly killing unarmed citizens that they were at war with, well before the first Allied bomb was ever dropped on Germany or Japan.

[chuks]

I was amused to hear about how it's immoral to use 'disproportionate force' when conducting combat operations. That from a fellow liberal arts student. So that is us told, I guess.

Sorry to hear about Mum's goats and all. I bet she had pretty good aircraft recognition skills, given the number of low-level attack missions the German population had to endure late in the war. It's easy to believe in some fighter jock flying around shooting at anything that moved, even a flock of presumed-to-be-Nazi goats and their child goat-herdess. Hitler did ask for 'total war,' did he not? Of course something like 5% of total German cement production went into bunkers for der Führer, while folks like Mum just had to take their chances. War can be like that.

Here in Germany we had a distant family member who died in one of those camps... got drunk at the guards' Christmas party and fell out of a machine-gun tower.... Everyone has some sad story to tell from that period.

The crazy thing seems to be that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are really up for this ass-kicking contest, speedboats against the US Navy. They are going to lose, one assumes, but they shall go out in a blaze of glory! What are they smoking, and, what are the odds that cooler heads shall prevail? Perhaps we shall see Ahmedhinejad go and then see tensions subside a bit, but if not.... This could be interesting, seeing a swarm of speedboats making a simultaneous attack, when only one or two have to get through.

[Jagdfalke]

agdfalke, in your attempt to revise history, it fails completely as you have seemed to have forgotten about the treatment (slaughter) of Russian (USSR) common citizens by the Germans and such incidents as the Rape of Nanking by the Japaneses forces.

That argument must exist solely in your own head, because i haven't seen anyone here debating that at all.

[porch monkey]

No, it doesn't, because there is no debate. The "facts", as you so like to proclaim, in this case at least, speak for themselves.

[Jagdfalke]

Which facts do you have a problem with? You are more than welcome to dispute them (if they are not facts, then you shouldn't have a problem proving so, right?). Failing that you could always start peddling the 'revisionist' line...

[chuks]

General Sherman said that war is hell, which about sums it up, I think. Much later, someone said that opening up a can of whoop-ass is great, but you have to be careful not to get any on you. That's simply rephrasing Sherman, I think.

The people at the top play geopolitics and the people at the bottom pay the price, even some child herding goats, for instance. The question there seems to be, 'What is a seven year-old child guilty of? Is growing up in Nazi Germany enough to legitimize being attacked?' If you are a 'revisionist' then the answer seems to be 'No,' but if you are some sort of absolutist then the answer must be, 'Yes, of course, because of what the SS was doing to the Jews, Russians, Gipsies, etc, etcetera.' I guess that must make me a revisionist, then, because only one answer makes much sense.

Here and now, if we go to war with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, can anyone promise that no goats or children shall be harmed in the process? Not that the IRG seems to care very much about that, should we? Asking that stupid question should not pose any impediment to an outbreak of hostilities between ourselves and some gang of tooled-up fanatics driving speedboats; if they want a fight then I am sure we will be happy to have one, unless we suddenly decide to power our way of life on a combination of sunbeams, wind, and vegetable oil and turn into relativists.

[500N]

"The question there seems to be, 'What is a seven year-old child guilty of? Is growing up in Nazi Germany enough to legitimize being attacked?'"

Growing up in England and walking along a street in Croydon was enough for my Grand mother and Aunt to be shot up by a Stuka. That's fact.

Aunt would have been aged about 6 - 9 at the time.

[green granite]

Oh dear chuks, for once we're in perfect agreement. :):ok:

[chuks]

There's a school of thought that goes, 'All Germans should bear some guilt forever for whatever went on during the Hitler period!' That's kind of interesting, but stupid. (It's okay for me to say that, because my kids are only half-German. That means they are only half as guilty as their friends. On the other hand, half-German, half-American... should one part be in a permanent state of conflict with the other half?)

So it's okay to strafe some kid herding goats because some other kids were shot up by a Stuka? I am sorry, but I just can not follow that line of thought.

Not that we should allow the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to shut off our sacred supply of motion lotion or anything like that; we must have some God-given right to that crude, but... oh, I don't know! The more you think about this business of war and guilt and all, the less sense it seems to make.

Here, I guess we should just stick to the way of fighting, not whether that is really right or moral or how many goats and children must die once it sparks off, as it very well may. No bickering here about morality, if you please! That would be like fighting in the War Room.

It's really an interesting question: How do you defeat a low-tech 'swarm attack' by a flotilla of speedboats? Those things can hit 60 knots and they are highly manouevrable. I suppose that some sort of Kamikaze-style mission, each boat crammed with Semtex and would-be martyrs, would be a tough one to beat. It's sort of the nautical version of the arguments you read here about one F-35 against ten MiG-29s.

About the only way I can see to really deal with such a threat would be by a pre-emptive strike, using air power to take out the speedboats before they can launch. Of course, that would then give the Iranians the green light for mine warfare or whatever else they have planned.

[500N]

"So it's okay to strafe some kid herding goats because some other kids were shot up by a Stuka? I am sorry, but I just can not follow that line of thought."

I didn't say that, I was just pointing out that it occurred on both sides, not agreeing with the action.

[chuks]

I once gave a lift to a young German about my age who was trying to reach 'Mont-pel-ee-ay,' Vermont. First thing, I had to tell him that it was 'Mont-peel-ee-err' he wanted to ask for, and then we got to chatting. Of course 'ze warr' came up, when he ended up telling me that his mum had told him that, during the war, we Americans would drop 'poisoned sweeties' for unsuspecting German children to pick up and eat.

What was I going to say to that? 'Umm, I think your mum was telling porkies there!' probably wouldn't have done much for international friendship, so that I just said that this was news to me, that there was a famous pilot who would drop perfectly good 'sweeties' during the Berlin Airlift, the so-called 'Candy Bomber,' Gail Halvorsen, but that was about it as far as I knew.

I suppose this was the best Mum could do for her little boy, trying to put we Yanks on the same level as the Nazis, as if to say that we were all about the same when it came to doing bad things. Same here, I guess, when a Stuka strafes some kids in the UK and a P-47 strafes a girl in Germany. Is there a deeper meaning in that? Perhaps only that war is just not such a safe activity, which really does seem obvious. It can be fun, sure, blowing up some deserving s.o.b., or else all this gun camera film wouldn't be floating around on the internet, but it's certainly not safe.

If this Straits of Hormuz business does get going then I expect we will get hours of 15- or 30-second clips of some speedboat getting blown out of the water, showing our high-tech weaponry at its best. That should give the video gamers a thrill!

[500N]

" Is there a deeper meaning in that?"

No, from the way it was described to me, it was opportunistic on the Nazi pilots part when he saw them as he obviously hadn't done his homework because he flew straight over an AA gun on the top of the hill at the dn of the road and was shot down. As my grand mother said, "that wiped the grin off his face".

Re the Iranians, I am sure the US would have repelling swarms of speed boats but the phrase "they only have to be lucky once" comes to mind. I hope the Iranians don't do anything rash but it seems the sanctions are biting more and more.

.

[ORAC]

Fars News Agency: MP: Iran Closes Persian Gulf If Threatened (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9103085730)

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian lawmaker stressed Tehran's preparedness to confront all types of sanctions and restrictions, but meantime said that if the country feels any insecurity, it will not allow oil shipment through the Persian Gulf.

"If we eventually feel that our economy, specially in the Persian Gulf, is faced with insecurity and we cannot use this economic zone for oil exports, we have the power and capacity to create insecurity for other countries' exports and will not allow any oil cargo to be exported," member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Seyed Hossein Naqavi Hosseini said on Monday.............

[Navaleye]

So much waffle. Just destroy their oil production and distribution capability and they won't be able to export anything. A reasonable proportionate response to any attempted closure of the strait.

[randyrippley]

1) the american pilot wasn't shooting childrn, he was shooting goats. Probably couldn't even see your mother, but could see a goat flock

2) how to take down a modern air defence destroyer.. 20 kamikaze speedboats to keep the gun busy, 20 kamikaze Cessnas, another 20-30 toy radio controlled aircraft with radar emitters, 10 land bases sea skimming missiles, and 2 or 3 ballistic missiles.
All timed to arrive within sensor range together. If you time it so that a civilian aircraft is overhead at the tume., all the better

[pr00ne]

500N,

A Stuka? As far north as Croydon? Are you sure? I thought they only had the range for coastal targets? Assuming that you do mean a JU87 when you say Stuka?

randyrippley,

Really? ALL that effort, for one Destroyer? What if there's two, or three, or more...

[500N]

I'll ask my mother who may remember or she can at least ask here sister.

What else was capable of diving down to tree top height to shoot up civilians
AND the pilot was clearly visible as my grand mother looked at the plane, pilot was looking at here as he went past.


"Really? ALL that effort, for one Destroyer? What if there's two, or three, or more..."

The Iranians want to make a statement, then why wouldn't they. If more than one then they might have a bit more of a problem.

[pr00ne]

500N,

I have relations who tell of a JU88 dive bombing the Standard Motor works in Coventry in 1940, in broad daylight. It then departed the scene at low level with the rather embarrassed AA defences reacting rather belatedly as they all thought that it was a Blenheim.
The JU88 gunners responded to the AA fire, leading to wild reports of a 'murderous Nazi dive bomber' strafing innocent civilians on Hearsall Common.



Hell of a lot of effort for a 'statement'. Why WOULD they?

There's an entire fleet in the straights right now. A pretty large multi-national one.

[randyrippley]

pr00ne
you don't get it do you
life in Iran is cheap, so are light aircraft and toys
and the T45 only has 46 or so missles. What happens if the 47th target is a balistic missile with a 650kg warhead?
what I suggested isn't much effort to a country which believes in suicide as a legitimate attack technique

If you have more ships, just simply add the numbers
Assymetric warfare. Multi-faceted swarm attacks

[pr00ne]

randyrippley,

Put the Tom Clancy down and walk away...

[Milo Minderbinder]

wasn't it Clancy who predicted the use of hijacked aircraft as bombs?

[Jagdfalke]

1) the american pilot wasn't shooting childrn, he was shooting goats. Probably couldn't even see your mother, but could see a goat flock

Sounds like a complete misunderstanding. Clearly the target was the goats. The Vietnamese made that same mistake at Mai Lai - William Calley and his boys were actually shooting and uhh, raping, goats. He probably couldn't even see all the woman and children.

[Milo Minderbinder]

read post 9 in this thread
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/486599-military-graves-they-normally-re-interred-into-commonwealth-graveyard.html

Goats are targets

[henra]

20 kamikaze Cessnas,


Do they have 20 Cessna's in Iran ? :E


another 20-30 toy radio controlled aircraft with radar emitters,


Last time I checked I saw R/C model pilots sweating when their model plane was 1 mile away because it went out of range :}


and 2 or 3 ballistic missiles.


Hitting a small, mobile target with a ballistic missile when the Iraqi's merely could hit the country they aimed them at in GW I, ehh?


All timed to arrive within sensor range together. If you time it so that a civilian aircraft is overhead at the tume., all the better

Easy timing and small risk of being detected prematurely, when the 20 Iranian Cessna's are flying in formation towards the Gulf being preceded by hordes of Model planes gone wild ánd dozens of speed boats coming from nowhere.....

At least quite entertaining this contribution :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Do they have 20 Cessna's in Iran ?

According to wikipedia, for what it's worth, yes, they do - about 45.

List of aircraft of the Iranian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Iranian_Air_Force)

[racedo]

life in Iran is cheap,

Hmmm

Prisoners in Jail
US - 2.1 Million (POP 313 MILLION)
Iran - 165,000 (POP 78 MILLION)


US Murder rate is 5 per 100,000 people while Iranian murder rate is 3 per 100,000 people.....

Life cheap alright not so sure its Iran where its the issue....

[Willard Whyte]

Might want to look at executions, although it wouldn't suit your agenda.

The Americans are mere amateurs compared to iranians, particularly child executions.

[Milo Minderbinder]

The Iranians tend to dispense with the need for prisons, either through such judicial practices such as stoning, or by ensuring that prison survivability is low.
Besides which there are such things as undocumented prisoners and a lack of habeus corpus.
But that isn't the issue is it? Iran is a country which uses children as human waves to clear minefields. As was said earlier, life is cheap.

[GreenKnight121]

wasn't it Clancy who predicted the use of hijacked aircraft as bombs?

No... Clancy was simply assuming that the already-tried technique would continue to be attempted until successful. Mass-media also portrayed this technique long before Clancy used it in Debt of Honor in 1994.

It is particularly curious that at the same time Clancy was writing this novel, the same basic scenario was being discussed as part of the panel that produced the report Terror 2000: The Future Face of Terror. The suicide hijacking scenario did not appear in the final report, but it was part of the discussions that led to it.

Samuel Byck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck)
Samuel Joseph Byck (January 30, 1930 – February 22, 1974) was an unemployed former tire salesman who attempted to hijack a plane flying out of Baltimore/Washington International Airport on February 22, 1974. He intended to crash into the White House in the hope of killing U.S. President Richard Nixon.
Also discussed here: A Brief History of Suicide Hijackings - Part I (http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/A_Brief_History_of_Suicide_Hijackings___Part_I.htm)


The 1981 film Escape from New York contained similar memes. This time, a lone white female terrorist hijacks Air Force One on behalf of a workers terrorist organisation, the National Liberation Front of America. She crashes the plane into a skyscraper in lower Manhattan in a cinema moment that would be repeated for real 20 years later.
This and other incidents are discussed here:
A Brief History of Suicide Hijackings - Part II (http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/A_Brief_History_of_Suicide_Hijackings_Part_II.htm)


Then, in the 1990s, Islamic militants picked up the idea of suicide hijackings... attempting at least 2 such actions before 2001. A Brief History of Suicide Hijackings - Part III (http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/A_Brief_History_of_Suicide_Hijackings_Part_III.htm)

[skydiver69]

The Iranians tend to dispense with the need for prisons, either through such judicial practices such as stoning, or by ensuring that prison survivability is low.
Besides which there are such things as undocumented prisoners and a lack of habeus corpus.
But that isn't the issue is it? Iran is a country which uses children as human waves to clear minefields. As was said earlier, life is cheap.

Plenty of people seemed to disappear after the pro democracy demos following Dinnerjackets last election, whilst a lot of people such as Mousavi and Karroubi have been held without trial under house arrest. Even Europeans are not immune from disappearing without their embassy's being informed as happened to a former work colleague.

The vast majority of the conscript army are no better than cannon fodder, just like they were during the Iran Iraq war. My brother in law had to spend two years as a conscript after getting his engineering degree. Sickness was rampant in his barracks whilst conscripts only had one change of clothing per week. After basic training was over many of the conscripts went on to guard museums and banks, whilst he went on to do basic admin tasks in an office. That doesn't mean to say that the Revolutionary Guards etc are in the same boat though.