|
thanks ORAC
but it looks like the comment about using a tanker as a blockship is their own....could that be a direct warning? |
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. . |
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.
|
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. . |
As I said here on the other Iran/Hormuz thread:
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 US-Iranian Confrontation at Sea Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz – Plausibility and Key Considerations A list of vessels attacked during the tanker war THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies.... |
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. |
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. 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... |
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. |
"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 |
They weren't exactly 'first strike' events either.
|
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 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? |
Then there are the nukes. Not nearly as bad as the terror bombing campaign, but still an extremely cruel thing to do. 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? |
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. |
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... |
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. |
"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. |
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. 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. |
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......................
|
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. 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. |
"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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.