GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ?
- Thread starter BLACK SHIP
- Start date
The ironic thing, Russia also refer to nuclear Iran as "Lesser of 2 evils". For Russia nuclear Iran is bad, but better than USA-controlled Iran...
From here arise all uncertainness in Russian politic toward Iran..
That isn't true. The US doesn't have the desire or means to occupy Iran with the current conflicts going on and a nuclear Iran is far more dangerous militarily than an Iran occupied by anybody.
-DA
Fritz
New Member
But US economy isnt anywhere close to the economy it has had before. According to the first US accountant, GAO General David Walker, USA will be bankrupt in 30 years if nothing is done, but it may even be a quicker route. Many countries has allready reduced their stock of US dollar, Iran no longer accept payment in US dollar, soon the dollar may well be replaced with EURO or Yuan as a world currency, and thats the end of USA. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpNKO1W4eU"]YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy - English[/ame]DarthAmerica said:
Last edited:
1. Did i said "occupy Iran"?
2. In the current situation USA indeed do not have means or desire to occupy Iran. And Russia try to do everything to preserve exactly that situation...
3. Dangerous to whom? Why? Everyone like to repeat these words, but few actually think about what they repeat... As i see, Iran is no more dangerous than most other nuclear users. Moreover, it is certainly less unstable than some of them - i.e. Pakistan for example, or even Israel for that matter.
Fritz,
The US economy has become stronger and stronger and has grown to an unprecedented size. Please don't make assertions like this. The Dollar is in no danger from the Euro or the Yuan. Iranian financial lunacy is just that. Just remember the number 13 trillion.
-DA
Chrom,
Disagree. Russia would love nothing more than for the US and Iran to entangle themselves in a protracted conflict of any kind. They have done everything to encourage it. And a nuclear Iran would be extremely dangerous to anybody who understand anti-access strategies and logistics. It's good that you mention Pakistan. Perhaps you need to study the differences between how Pakistan has been treated vs Iraq and Afghanistan and ask yourself why. Then you need to look at what resources of global importance would be in danger. You also need to think about the regional consequences if Iran were nuclear armed. Think Saudi Arabia can't afford nukes?
You really need to think these post through because your views are not what the rest of the world sees. No one wants a nuclear Iran. NO ONE. And before you respond, consider logistics and how a nuclear capability in a regional foe complicates things. Think about the Straight of Hormuz irradiated, Saudi Oil Fields destroyed, No Ali Al Salem, No Arifjan, No Doha, No Balad, No Talil, No Tel Aviv, Heavily Damaged Moscow/Paris or worse. Again you really need to think about this from a military point of view without the bias or rhetoric. Think about what $250+ dollar a barrel oil means from a military point of view. Who does that affect the most. Hint, it's not the USA.
-DA
Yes, i know all these excuses. However, they dont deny 1 single most important thing - Iran is not worse than other nuclear powers. Yes. for some of us nuclear Iran is bad. But objectively, from 3rd point of view - Iran is as good / bad as everyone else.
Iranian leaders are not some crazy megamaniacs, and so far they behavior, actions and even public speeches are no worse than these of even most democratic countries.
You, again, mistake West with the "rest of the word". WEST DO NOT EQUAL rest of of the word.
Yet i answer you.
1. Who want nuclear America? I assure you, even most close allies will celebrate if entire USA arsenal go puff.
2. Who want nuclear Russia? Guess, we know it...
3. Who want nuclear India / Pakistan / France / China ... to tell the truth, i dont know any country who really want them to be nuclear. I mean, just for nothing.
I always hear that apocalyptic scenarios. But true thing is, Iraq wasn't nuclear - yet we see it destroyed, and millions of its citizens died. Pakistan, India and China all having "friendly" clashes in the past - yet, with nuclear status, they dont even dare to look at each other. History lessons teach us, what MAD work EXTREMELY well.
Whereas constant threating someone sovereignty for whatever reason - very often end up very bad.
You failed to understand the logistics once again...sigh. Iran IS DIFFERENT because it sets beside one of the most critical SLOC in the world. Iran would also be able to threaten key oil throughout the region THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO FUNCTION. Iran is also neighboring Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar which you must know support U.S. troops and key logistics and C4ISR infrastructure. A functioning deliverable nuclear weapon in Iranian hands is much more of a threat to global interest than say a N Korea, South African or even Pakistani warhead due to economic and logistics associated with geography. Then there is Israel who's densely packed population is dangerously vulnerable to WMD again due to geography. Then there is Europe and Russia who's capital cities could be under duress. This is why I stressed to you to study the logistics so that you might not respond with some ill thought out ideological response.
Please lets leave Iraq out of this. With your demonstrated misunderstanding of logistics and geography it's not likely anything I have to say would get through to you about Iraq and frankly I don't want to digress. In fact I'll ignore anything you say about Iraq hence forth unless it relates to GLORIOUS SPARTAN or it has some sort of coherent military significance to the current topic. Other than that I no longer debate people about the reasons for OIF and I'm happy to let people make their own minds up since that's already done apparently and particularly by certain people. Thank You.
-DA
That would be an orgasm for Russian oil companies. As for hitting Moscow, I'm pretty sure Iran has nothing that can pierce the ABM around Moscow (much less a reason to conduct such a strike). Remember what's bad for American consumers might be wonderful for the Russian government. Don't forget Iran is also a major natural gas source. Which means another spike in gas prices. Not to mention that the instability would increase demand for weapons in CAR and even the Trans-Caucus region, which (in terms of weapon sales) are traditional Russian fiefdoms. 250 dollars a barrel is a dream come true for Russia the worlds second largest oil producer, and with Saudi Arabia nuked, the first.
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
I think it all comes down to to post strike planning as there should be no doubt that any strike if any will be successfull.
I liked the link DearthAmerica mentioned about Osrrak Redux and yes it not perfect but makes a lot of sense.
Not only the strike objectives must be met but also post strike contingency plans and most likely US/Israel and allies are planning just that. The latter, that is.
Either way, it is very likely that Iran will try to block strait of Hormuz unless US plans include landing troops and seize the shores untill the climax comes down.
I liked the link DearthAmerica mentioned about Osrrak Redux and yes it not perfect but makes a lot of sense.
Not only the strike objectives must be met but also post strike contingency plans and most likely US/Israel and allies are planning just that. The latter, that is.
Either way, it is very likely that Iran will try to block strait of Hormuz unless US plans include landing troops and seize the shores untill the climax comes down.
VBIED and civ air can. Think outside the box. 9/11 and Lebanon validated these methods. So did Entebe.
-DA
Last edited:
I don't know how long, but I do know irradiated saltwater is very bad as far as fallout goes. This is one of the worse possible things Iran could do in a scorched earth attack. World oil prices are based on the long held view that oil is reliably available and secured by the U.S. Military ultimately. An attack like this would remove major portions of the supply in a very high demand market for considerable time and destroy the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. It would undermine a lot of regional FDI as well as global FDI in heavily industrialized developing nations like China and India who count on the oil and NG. The worse would not be for the more established nations who could afford to buy oil even at much higher prices. The worse would be for poorer nations who would be effectively priced out of the market due to speculation. This would kill millions during the years it would take for the markets to recover. An absolute disaster of the 1st rate and I only described the best case.
Every financial chief around the world would confirm this and this is why Iran would be fiercely opposed if it were to ever get nuclear weapons. Officially or unofficially the US and Israel would have carte blanche to prevent something like this. Yet at the same time, this would also give Iran a lot of deterrent power to negotiate with even during a conflict. Even more than Pakistan has now.
I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be globally. Even the threat of it.
-DA
What about an attack on Iran, to prevent it from going nuclear? Should shutting down Iran's oil production be treated differently from the world economy?
Yes. The U.S. would be fulfilling it's obligations as global security guarantor as far as financial markets are concerned. Speculators in particular. There would be spikes and opportunism of course but ultimately this would be seen as maintaining the balance and regional status quo. The USN can guarantee the safety of the SLOC and there is enough excess production on the market to make up for the Iranian contribution which is quite a difference from OPEC who would all be affected by a radiological disaster.
Also, Iran exports a very cheap low quality crude that isn't as much in demand. Right now they are storing a lot of it because there is less demand than there is output for their oil. NG is a different story but again this is something the US military can secure.
In financial terms USA vs non-nuclear Iran represents potentially up to ~500 billion dollars a day disruption accounting for every barrel Iran outputs which is wildly high and can be made up for by other suppliers. This is compared to World vs Nuclear Iran ecological/economic attack in choke point that would disrupt 2.2 trillion in oil a day that cannot be made up for immediately. That buys a lot of casus beli.
In some ways wars are ran by bankers and investors as much as they are by generals and admirals and any modern study or discussion of war is incomplete without a consideration of the military-market link.
-DA
Reading:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html
http://tradingadvisor.wordpress.com...out-25m-barrels-of-crude-in-tankers-official/
Last edited:
I am so confused. Please explain further. :unknown
Nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter aren't credible unless they can be reliably delivered to a target. You mentioned Russians ABM. Now, if you had only a few nuclear warheads and wanted to put one in Moscow, would you waste it by strapping it to a primitive V-2 technology rocket and throw it into an active ABM defense system protective that city when you lack the mass to saturate the system? Or would you do something a bit more "stealthy" like Mathius Rust did as an example?
-DA
Russia would not be a target, Europe wouldnt either.
The way i see it
1) Sending it to Israel, among with a lot of conventional ballistic missiles, to assure saturation and a really good chance, stealth is unreliable against mossad.
2) Smuggling it to USA, unreliable against US intelligence recources.
3) Strait of Hormuz, easy no matter what delivery method.
The way i see it
1) Sending it to Israel, among with a lot of conventional ballistic missiles, to assure saturation and a really good chance, stealth is unreliable against mossad.
2) Smuggling it to USA, unreliable against US intelligence recources.
3) Strait of Hormuz, easy no matter what delivery method.
How the hell rest of the word so need it? There are a lot of oil outside Middle East. Besides, about EVERY country and region on the Earth have something what is very important for the rest of the world short-term - be it food, water , oil, microchips or even simply cloth (cough, China!)
Also, i dont see why Iran would like to threat key oil throughput... at least to higher degree than everyone else do to concurrents (cough, USA!)
YES! Finally! Here it is! Threat to USA (hell, let it even be whole WEST) interests! But from OBJECTIVE point of view, why we should take USA interests as more important that Iranian, Chinese, Indian or Russian interests? Yes, i know, for me personally it is better if Iran sell its oil freely and cheap and Germany sells in return its microchips high, embargoing Iran from best tech... but objectively, from the rest of the world point of view - Iranian interests are about is important as American interests.
And? Why should Iran suffer cause of others paranoia? The ironic thing, others have nuclear weapons... who should be paranoid? THIS IS NOT FAIR. Yes, i know, world is not fair. But here, we are discussion abstract view, NOT our personal (as USA, Germany, Indian, Russian, Brasilian citizen) view.
Also, let me remind your - if one dont take other interest in account, dont try to reach some agreement, always take own interest over someone everything else - this sooner or later ends bad, and often with blood.
Dont deny foreign country the right do anything your own country also do.
Yes, i understand you are extremely pro-West (and even pro-USA). But try to understand others point of view. Try to understand, they and they country have exactly same rights as yours.