- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #61
I stand correct on the reference to the Collins.
Incident in the Gulf or is this a completely unlikely scenario?
- Thread starter 1805
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #62
Ah, that quirky little "Middle East" definition where they include about half of Africa.
Russia, Norway, Kazakhstan, Lybia, Nigeria and Algeria alone account for over 60% of EU oil imports. None of which are in the Middle East.
My biggest fear about a conflict between US/Israel and Iran is the continual sense that it will pretty easy and take just a couple of days. I am sure most of you have read articles, reports from think tanks, etc just like me and agree that is generally the consensus. Not too hard and 3 to 7 days and everything is nice and dandy. I haven't seen anybody talk about severe losses (except 1805) and never more than a week.Why can't it last more than a week? A month? Why can't Iranians riposte be a couple of months later when everything calms down and have the element of surprise? This was what I was trying to convey on my first post, the Iranians have some options if they think outside the box. I have seen so called experts go on Fox News and say it would take less than 48 hours! It was the same idiot who said we should use ICBMs. Didn't seem to know that we don't have conventionally tipped ICBMs. I am afraid people like that could convince a majority of Americans that it isn't that hard and then we find ourselves stuck in another war again.
Obviously I don't have inside knowledge but something tells me if it were so easy,Bush/Cheney would have gone for it, well, they didn't. They could have gone for it in 06/07 and it's not like they cared all that much about public polls.
Iranians aren't stupid,they are nationalistic, they will rally around their government if we attack first. They have used suicide waves during Iraq/Iran war, I don't think it would be hard to find volunteers to die fighting Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, if we attack them first.
Just call it a gut feeling but the Iranians we throw a curve ball at us and I hope I never have to say: "I told you so." then it will be to late.
Obviously I don't have inside knowledge but something tells me if it were so easy,Bush/Cheney would have gone for it, well, they didn't. They could have gone for it in 06/07 and it's not like they cared all that much about public polls.
Iranians aren't stupid,they are nationalistic, they will rally around their government if we attack first. They have used suicide waves during Iraq/Iran war, I don't think it would be hard to find volunteers to die fighting Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, if we attack them first.
Just call it a gut feeling but the Iranians we throw a curve ball at us and I hope I never have to say: "I told you so." then it will be to late.
Really? Let me see -
% of consumption 2008
Domestic production - 15.2
Net imports - 84.8
Including -
Russia - 28
Norway - 13.6
Oh dear! We've already got 56.8%, just from domestic production, Norway & Russia. There's only 43.2% left. Once you allow for the 'Middle East' definition wrongly including all of North Africa, & take them out, it comes down fast.
North Africa (shipped via the Mediterranean - goes nowhere near the Persian Gulf )-
10%
Only 33% left - and we still have most of Africa, Central Asia, & Latin American exporters to take out of that, before we get down to the Persian Gulf.
Source - Eurostat
AMERICANMAN
Banned Member
Its about 2.69 US here for low test.The USN does not need the help of the rest of the World to bomb Iran back to the dark ages, morale support maybe? Sowing a few mines to catch a warship, would lead to a heavy response but very unlikely to lead to all out war, neither side want this.
If they wanted to be really provocative they could say they were merely banning Western naval vessels?
Oh and I think we are already paying c$8 a gallon for petrol in the UK
AMERICANMAN
Banned Member
Geopolitics of EU energy supply | EurActiv
Oil: 45% of EU oil imports originate from the Middle East;; by 2030, 90% of EU oil consumption will have to be covered by imports. Gas: ...
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...om/en/energy/geopolitics-eu.../article-142665
Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market, by Gal Luft
Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. ... While the U.S. and EU were forging a diplomatic strategy to halt Iran's nuclear program, China signed in October 2004 ...
Wonder how China would take to haveing their oil imports cut by half, and they are lot closer to Iran then the USA,, might be a good idea if your Iranian to learn to speak Chinese.
Your original claim was that the EU gets 45% of its oil (not imports - and the difference is very significant) from the Middle East.
You've also ignored the other main point put to you, that the definition of 'Middle East' used to derive that 45% figure is geographically & strategically meaningless (look at a map . . . ). This discussion began with consideration of the effect of closing the Straits of Hormuz. That has no effect on exports from Algeria, Libya or Egypt.
Will you at least acknowledge these arguments?
BTW, I suggest you read your own sources. The article you reference is citing a study dating from 2000, on possible trends out to 2030. It is not the current situation.
Juramentado
New Member
May I suggest that you stop watching FOX News for starters?
None of the information that is useful to open source intel communities will ever be found on the 30-Second Media Echo Chambers that dominate our televisions. The real work can be found in thoughtful analysis, commentary and white-papers on known ThinkTanks/Naval Institutions (including official military) webpages and certain milblogs, as well as first-hand accounts by folks on those gray ships. The reality that we can best gander is that a protracted conflict could not occur because of a simple matter of logistics. You cannot sustain a heavy operational tempo against a larger and better-equipped opponent unless you have prepared in advance to do so. That means not only munitions, fuel and troops, but movement of same towards the intended point of attack or conflict. Movement that can be detected and interpreted correctly as a war-footing.
Note that COULD NOT isn't being made equivalent to WILL NOT. Is the Iranian leadership irrational? Will they defy the basic rules of military science and throw caution to the winds by taking on the Great Satan here and now? They might. But that's not how the sausage is made. In the real world, operational intelligence analysis is dominated by two factors: Intentions and Capabilities. What you want to do (Intentions) is directly influenced by what you can do (Capabilities). If your intentions mean to go beyond your capabilities, then you find a way to change or enhance them. But if you're under a lot of scrunity, it's hard to modernize a program without sending up alerts to interested parties. Usually the two go hand-in-hand, and that's the best way to approach framing a hypothetical question. This is why 1805's original position is unsupportable in many ways - it attributes capabilities that have not been in line with Iranian intentions. Beyond the hyperbole - what would Iran really like to do? They would like to become a major regional player. The way to that is what they are doing now - fomenting the continued insurgency in Iraq (and indirectly in Palestine) - ironically making themselves the neccessary intermediary that could mediate between disputing parties - and attempting to get a chair, by whatever means neccessary, at the nuclear table. Oil is important - that much is clear - but it doesn't fit into the current expenditures of where Iran is making headway.
You talk about solutions out-of-the-box that Iran might play. I submit that they already are. What is the Western strategy to successfully counter their support of the insurgency and the new Intifadah? More embargos? Bah! They don't need, or want, to confront an opponent right now where they will literally be throwing away the scarce naval resources they have. They're doing quite well causing casualties and problems by providing technical and direct support to the insurgency in Iraq alone. Why change a working process? They need trump cards or a shift in the political winds to consider more openly confronting the West. That isn't on the board right now.
BronzePlaque
New Member
and which parties might they be?
Last edited:
Juramentado
New Member
For Iraq, that would be the still shaky new government, warlord parties (separate from AQ-I) and yes, even the Kurds.
Most everyone knows that Iran supplies arms and amunition for about half the terrorist in the middleast if not more.
Hezzbollah, hamas and the others are mearly fronts for Iran.
Ona bring down the terrorism in the middleast? Take out Iran and Saudi arabia everyone else would lack the oil money.
Thank you Juramentado, I agree with you on Fox News.May I suggest that you stop watching FOX News for starters?
The reality that we can best gander is that a protracted conflict could not occur because of a simple matter of logistics. You cannot sustain a heavy operational tempo against a larger and better-equipped opponent unless you have prepared in advance to do so. That means not only munitions, fuel and troops, but movement of same towards the intended point of attack or conflict. Movement that can be detected and interpreted correctly as a war-footing.
Note that COULD NOT isn't being made equivalent to WILL NOT. Is the Iranian leadership irrational? Will they defy the basic rules of military science and throw caution to the winds by taking on the Great Satan here and now? They might. But that's not how the sausage is made. In the real world, operational intelligence analysis is dominated by two factors: Intentions and Capabilities. What you want to do (Intentions) is directly influenced by what you can do (Capabilities). If your intentions mean to go beyond your capabilities, then you find a way to change or enhance them. But if you're under a lot of scrunity, it's hard to modernize a program without sending up alerts to interested parties. Usually the two go hand-in-hand, and that's the best way to approach framing a hypothetical question. This is why 1805's original position is unsupportable in many ways - it attributes capabilities that have not been in line with Iranian intentions. Beyond the hyperbole - what would Iran really like to do? They would like to become a major regional player. The way to that is what they are doing now - fomenting the continued insurgency in Iraq (and indirectly in Palestine) - ironically making themselves the neccessary intermediary that could mediate between disputing parties - and attempting to get a chair, by whatever means neccessary, at the nuclear table. Oil is important - that much is clear - but it doesn't fit into the current expenditures of where Iran is making headway.
You talk about solutions out-of-the-box that Iran might play. I submit that they already are. What is the Western strategy to successfully counter their support of the insurgency and the new Intifadah? More embargos? Bah! They don't need, or want, to confront an opponent right now where they will literally be throwing away the scarce naval resources they have. They're doing quite well causing casualties and problems by providing technical and direct support to the insurgency in Iraq alone. Why change a working process? They need trump cards or a shift in the political winds to consider more openly confronting the West. That isn't on the board right now.
I am just not convinced on the thesis of many that this will be a short war. Wasn't Iraq supposed to be over by now, Mission Accomplished anyone? AlQueda and Taliban don't have a lot resources but they sure are giving us a hard time. I know it's not the same thing but I just can't seem to agree with you,it's really a bad feeling kind of thing. Like I said before, I would hate for us to start a war, Irans does something unexpected and we end up wondering:"wish someone would have warned us!"Of course this isnt going to be the short war. The short war involves ohios flushing there tubes and fireballs engulfing several arab and afghani cities. But we went the nice route.Thank you Juramentado, I agree with you on Fox News.
This is the Long War.
No. Their agendas coincide with Iranian aims enough for Iran to be happy to support them, but they are more than just fronts. They have their own objectives, distinct from those of Iran. If Iran ceased to exist, they would seek new sponsors.
Hezbollah was formed in the early 1980s from various Shia extremist groups which pre-dated the Iranian revolution. It replaced Amal as the main Lebanese Shia militia largely because or Iranian aid. But there would be something like Hezbollah, albeit smaller & weaker, even if there had been no Iranian help.
Hamas is Sunni. That automatically prevents it from being a mere front for Iran. It would be like a militant Calvinist group being a front for the Vatican. Their alliance is one of convenience, & subject to constant tension because of their deep underlying antipathy.
I don't know what you mean by 'the others'.
Take out Saudi Arabia!!!!!! You do know that if you tried every single Muslim country-Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. will become involved. Saudi Arabia is home to the holiest of Holy Islamic Shrines the Mecca Sharif and Medina, Declaring war on Saudi Arabia is going to be like declaring War on Islam. Saudi Arabia also happens to be one of the U.S's most important Allies in the region, no country in their right minds would try to take out Saudi Arabia and that includes Israel.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #77
The whole idea that the output of the intelligence community is an exact science is ridiculously optimistic. Information is often tainted with local and political bias and the end result can be about as reliable as studying horse racing form. You only have to look at the case for the Iraq War to see its failings. It’s difficult to think of a situation where both the strategic approach and tactical implementation of the position has been so hopelessly mismanaged. The use of intelligence is obviously important but the current over reliance is symptomatic of a research based culture to the detriment of the application of sound judgement.May I suggest that you stop watching FOX News for starters?
The reality that we can best gander is that a protracted conflict could not occur because of a simple matter of logistics. You cannot sustain a heavy operational tempo against a larger and better-equipped opponent unless you have prepared in advance to do so. That means not only munitions, fuel and troops, but movement of same towards the intended point of attack or conflict. Movement that can be detected and interpreted correctly as a war-footing.
Note that COULD NOT isn't being made equivalent to WILL NOT. Is the Iranian leadership irrational? Will they defy the basic rules of military science and throw caution to the winds by taking on the Great Satan here and now? They might. But that's not how the sausage is made. In the real world, operational intelligence analysis is dominated by two factors: Intentions and Capabilities. What you want to do (Intentions) is directly influenced by what you can do (Capabilities). If your intentions mean to go beyond your capabilities, then you find a way to change or enhance them. But if you're under a lot of scrunity, it's hard to modernize a program without sending up alerts to interested parties. Usually the two go hand-in-hand, and that's the best way to approach framing a hypothetical question. This is why 1805's original position is unsupportable in many ways - it attributes capabilities that have not been in line with Iranian intentions. Beyond the hyperbole - what would Iran really like to do? They would like to become a major regional player. The way to that is what they are doing now - fomenting the continued insurgency in Iraq (and indirectly in Palestine) - ironically making themselves the neccessary intermediary that could mediate between disputing parties - and attempting to get a chair, by whatever means neccessary, at the nuclear table. Oil is important - that much is clear - but it doesn't fit into the current expenditures of where Iran is making headway.
You talk about solutions out-of-the-box that Iran might play. I submit that they already are. What is the Western strategy to successfully counter their support of the insurgency and the new Intifadah? More embargos? Bah! They don't need, or want, to confront an opponent right now where they will literally be throwing away the scarce naval resources they have. They're doing quite well causing casualties and problems by providing technical and direct support to the insurgency in Iraq alone. Why change a working process? They need trump cards or a shift in the political winds to consider more openly confronting the West. That isn't on the board right now.
Hypothetical scenarios are always unlikely to happen in the exact sense, however I think the situations individually are not unrealistic risks to plan for; as most people recognise, with the exception of the Kilo attack, all were actual events (agreed completely out of context).
I agree with you Iran would not attack the USN at random, it does not suit its interests. However if provoked, as in this case, past form indicates they would not let the incident go without retaliation, even though they would be well away they would face heavy but localised retribution.
What does surprise me is the general overconfidence that people seem to have around the invincibility of hi tech western naval weaponry. Past experience would show this to be unfounded. That is not to say we should not develop hi tech equipment.
Last edited:
Juramentado
New Member
And what constitutes "sound judgement?" Are you not using a framework of assumptions and logical reasoning to form certain conclusions to get to such? Or are you talking about "gut feelings?" You're dismissive of a research-based culture, but the fact is that without that research, you're starting from less than zero - that's called guessing. The latter is more fraught with peril. Like many folks who went into the field with less than perfect intelligence, I found some of it was off, and sometimes it was just plain wrong. And that's because there is no perfect method of collecting accurate intel, and all of it subject to biases and unknown factors. But I'd rather have the intelligence in hand and knowing it was based on the best knowledge possible. What's worse than going in with wrong intelligence is going in with guesses. That's just plain criminal.
No one is saying that Western technology is paramount. Note that I never said the West would get by without a scratch in several of your scenarios. Rather, it's the underlying assumption that the West would prevail overall that I think is bothering you. Which is fine. There are many scenarios that are overtly Blue Side Biased, and they can be unbalanced if we interpret the known facts incorrectly. The important part is that if you expend the effort to come up with a scenario that is worth pursuing, that you learn something new about it - whether it's tactics, strategy or identifying contributing factors that could aggravate or mitigate it. I think the various contributors to this thread have certainly brought different factors to light that you or I did not take into account, and that's what makes it very valuable.
You hit it on the nail it for me,guys. I have been reading Defence Talk for about 2 or 3 years at least and I have never bothered signing up until now. When I saw this thread, I thought :"here we go again!". Usually, what you get is the US will bury Iran under 5 inches of glass from one side and you hear from the other side: "Iran Navy will sink the entire US Navy." Well, I don't care much for either. You don't get anywhere with scenarios or peoples comments of that nature.
Do I believe 1805 scenario will play out? No, I think it's unlikely but I like that he takes the other side and opens it up.I agree with him that the West is being overconfident, tech is nice but for Iran, could they nullify our tech by other means? And I mean taking heavy casualties by suicide bombers or something similar, yes,it's more than likely. Are we ready to loss 100, 1000 GIs or seaman? What happens to public opinion then? Especially if all the talking heads on TV say Iran's not a tough nut to crack and suddenly we are taking big losses.
AMERICANMAN
Banned Member
Heard the same thing with Saddam,,, rivers of fire, or blood or something. Iraqis willing to die for Iraq,,,,,Iraqs not afraid of dieing,,, american cant take casulties.......
Twice, gulf war and Iraq war.