It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would a US/Iran war mean a global economic collapse?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If the U.S. went to war with Iran, would this have far reaching global implications? Well of course it would, but what would they be?

One implication would be in the world's economy. With Iranian oil fields being a legitimate target for destruction, this would immediately escalate the price of oil to astronomical levels. Iranian action against global shipping in the Gulf region would also escalate prices. In the past, fluctuations of oil prices have been temporary, an example being Hurricane Katrina and the disruption of American petroleum refining. However, if a long term threat or disruption of global oil production occurs, the price will surely rise.....$200 /barrel prices are not imaginary. Such action could/would threaten the global economy to the point where a global economic collapse could surely result. If this happens, it would make the 'depression" of the 1920's seem like a pic-nic.




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Global collapse? I don’t think so. Iran’s oil is important, but not critical to the economic functioning of the planet.

And don’t forget not a durned thing would happen to that oil, attack or not. Not one power interested in attacking Iran would dare destroy its oil producing ability. And Iran wouldn’t sabotage it either as it represents their entire economy.

Things would certainly get complicated and expensive, but no collapse, not even close. Id say an inconvenient hiccup at best. Remember: Iran has petroleum competitors as well, I'm sure they wouldn’t mind a peace of Iran’s customers.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Skippy, US forces are both stuck in Afghnanistan and Iraq and look how hard it is over there seriously everyday US troops are getting killed by large numbers and it's always increasing.... now your saying if you go to Iran it wouldn't do anything to US not even economicaly? Iran is so huge and our capital Tehran is so big which is the biggest middle east city and insurgents can always get away with anything they do... look for yourself.











posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Well Iran might blow the refineries and wells up if the US got to close to them, its kind of like your ship is being boarded and they are right outside the bridge, the engine room is taken, you only have 2 people left with you and there is about 200 of them right outside that one door. Yeah you put the ship on self destruct and take them out with you rather than die and them get the ship. The economic impact would be certain if that happened, or if they manage to wipe out a good hunk of the US navy with anti-ship missiles or do severe damage to ground invasion. The only other implications would be nuclear retaliation (if they have one) that manages to nail DC head on or if someone else fires off in responce to the US firing them off first, this would make China happy because then they would be resolute in their power hold.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Skippy I'm still waiting for your answer and how you think Invading Iran is so easy since our country is twice the size and the terrain with Tehran being the biggest middle east city... how can you invade Iran with such ease?.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a conflict with Iran as the earmarks of a lighted fuse that could escalate into other conflicts..........all Iran has to do is block up the strait of Hormez and you can say goodbye to cheap oil prices.......

Do you realize how much of the middle east's oil passes through that narrow 2 mile strait everyday??

More importantly.........if we start with Iran we will be staring down the barrel of Russia and China that have hooked their oil cart to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars in weapons trade and infrastructure build up in trade for oil......

Iran plans to defy the US in USdollar pertro trade starting with the opening of their oil bource trading euro dollars on 3-20..............there are some reports claiming that the Iranians are mining the straits right now to be ready to pull out the blockage during that week...........

Folks.......The US government either knows a heck of a lot more of what's going on here.............or else they have reached the level of distructive arrogance to think that an Iranian invasion will be the short cut to switching oil trade back to dollars and insuring the smooth flow of oil without effecting Russia and China.....

One missed fired between the US/Israel and Iran could get out of control economically or military wise very easily here........

I believe by mid March on the world will be needing to walk with soft shoes to avoid a major problem through 2006.

and I really hope I'm dead (no pun intended) about all of this..........but sometimes it seems a blind man can see the trouble coming here........



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
A conflict with Iran would not involve invasion, period. It would be airstrikes at critical nuclear sites. Why do you all htink the US would invade? No point. All we want to do is stop their nuke program. Diplomatic options are completely useless, lets face that fact now. But there will be no invasion, mark my words, just airstrikes.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Skippy I'm still waiting for your answer and how you think Invading Iran is so easy since our country is twice the size and the terrain with Tehran being the biggest middle east city... how can you invade Iran with such ease?.


He never said it would be easy, stop looking for things that are not there, stop be such a drama queen.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Skippy, US forces are both stuck in Afghnanistan and Iraq and look how hard it is over there seriously everyday US troops are getting killed by large numbers and it's always increasing.... now your saying if you go to Iran it wouldn't do anything to US not even economicaly? Iran is so huge and our capital Tehran is so big which is the biggest middle east city and insurgents can always get away with anything they do... look for yourself.



When are you going to figure out nobody has any plans to occupy Iran? The sole purpose would be to destroy its ofensive miltary abilities and Nuclear facilities. And that would be cake. Occupation and assault are totally diferent things.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Mehran
Skippy, US forces are both stuck in Afghnanistan and Iraq and look how hard it is over there seriously everyday US troops are getting killed by large numbers and it's always increasing.... now your saying if you go to Iran it wouldn't do anything to US not even economicaly? Iran is so huge and our capital Tehran is so big which is the biggest middle east city and insurgents can always get away with anything they do... look for yourself.



When are you going to figure out nobody has any plans to occupy Iran? The sole purpose would be to destroy its ofensive miltary abilities and Nuclear facilities. And that would be cake. Occupation and assault are totally diferent things.


than how come you always said invading Iran wouldn't hurt the US not even economiclly and I in your other threads you would write down see you soon in Tehran...Iran....



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
First of all, thanks for the pictures I think Tehran looks like a lovely city. Airstrikes on another nation, even if its against their nuclear facilities, are a declaration of war, and you will not have to invade Iran for them to strike back. They have some formidable Anti-Air defenses and a well trained Air Force. After those airstrikes expect military targets in Iraq to be hit. I seriosuly doubt they will strike anything in Afghanistan they would not want to mistakenly destroy or kill UN and NATO peacekeepers.

There will be some Naval engagements in the Gulf in order to stop the bombardments. I wouldnt be surprised if they flatened the Green Zone in retaliation for airstrikes. This is all of course if the US were to strike, which unfortunately for you war-mongers out there, is seriously doubtful.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
If the mere rumours of additional conflict are enough to send the oil and gas markets into a spin what on earth kind of fantasy is it that imagines attacks on Iran would make little or no difference?

This is a fine example of exactly the kind of detached from reality dream world the pro-war lobby are living in.

A new ME war - and anyone thinking it would stop at a couple of one-sided easy 'strikes' with no come-backs is just kidding themselves - would be a disaster, yet again making a difficult and troubled situation a hell of a lot worse than it already was for us all IMO.

Mind you, I don't expect those planning such a venture to give a monkeys, they already have claimed the relatively 'cheap' energy of the past is something gone for good (see Cheney's remarks to that effect) and they can well afford the prices, it is the less well off that will suffer disproportionately, as usual.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Also lets not forget that if they do start ww3 i doubt they would be too concerned all holed up in their cushy bunkers. Its us peasants up on the surface that would be left to deal with their colossal failures as our "leaders".

As far as airstrikes on iran are concerned, it would be catastrophic for oil prices, at least in the US. Even though we dont buy that much oil or any for all i know from Iran, just the mere hint of a supply disruption these days is enough to add a dollar or more to the price of a gallon of gas. It may not be that way in europe or elsewhere for all i know but here in the US i guarantee that if we launch strikes against iran that gas will be in the 5-6 dollar a gallon range overnight...at least until things were stabilized....thats assuming they ever did stabilize after such a boneheaded move.

The american people wont stand for attacks on iran until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actively acquiring or posess WMD's. Perhaps this is just what we need to give us the excuse we need to throw this administration out of DC once and for all and get back to the business of mending fences, taking care of our own people, and waging an effective war on terror that doesnt involve invasion or mingling in other countries affairs.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Tehran looks like it has very few roads or highways.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Benevolent Tyrant Asks: “If the U.S. went to war with Iran, would this have far reaching global implications? What would they be? One implication would be to immediately escalate the price of oil to astronomical levels. Past fluctuations of oil prices have been temporary . . a long term disruption . . the price will surely rise . . $200 a barrel prices are not imaginary. Such could threaten the global economy . . economic collapse could result. If this happens, it would make the 'depression" of the 1930's seem like a picnic.” [Edited by Don W]

B/T, I thought this was the SciFi board. Even our AWOL president and his minions - VP Cheney and Herr Rumsfeld, the Oberfuhrer - would disavow themselves from this scheme. Geo W still imagines himself with a LEGACY equal to or greater than Ronnie Reagan. Did you catch his “speech” in Kabul this PM? Is this guy back on the white powder? The news tonight said 50% of the first 75,000 Gis returning from the Afghan and Iraq Punitive Expeditions sought mental health services. Killing up close is hard on the psyche of a normal person. Geo W did it 154 times as governor of Texas so I guess he is experienced? One execution every two weeks, on average. Ugh. I don’t think the US could invade Granada again!



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Why does the US have the be the country that attacks if Iran tries to make nukes? Why cant NATO for once do something. NATO shouldnt even exist, there is no Soviet Union anymore.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Bushists are now too weak politically and perhaps militarily to strike at Iran but no one should ever underestimate the foolishness, recklessness, avarice, greed and callousness of the Bush Faction.


RESPECT

[edit on 3-3-2006 by proprog]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
. Ugh. I don’t think the US could invade Granada again!


If your talking about Grenada
Keep thinking that, Nothing like underestimating a global Super Power
I hope countries like Iran shares your views even though they are set up for a classic pincer attack.

All this talk of invading Iran is funny IMHO anyway. Worst case scenario with Iran and all the US current issues with Iran can be accomplished with air power alone mainly the destruction of Irans nuclear facilities. This could be done with weapons like Cruise missiles and B-2 bombers which Iran has little defense against no need for a single boot on the ground to cripple Irans nuclear program.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Text

[I] Originally posted by ShadowXIX [/I] If your talking about Grenada : Keep thinking that, Nothing like underestimating a global Super Power
I hope countries like Iran shares your views even though they are set up for a classic pincer attack.

Worst case scenario with the US current issues with Iran can be accomplished with air power alone mainly the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. This could be done with weapons like Cruise missiles and B-2 bombers which Iran has little defense against no need for a single boot on the ground to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.


Until the fiasco in Iraq, ShadowXIX, you were right about others under estimating a super power. Now everyone knows our limits. I’ve seen estimates the “insurgents” number no more than 15,000. I heard someone say yesterday, that was enough, and the group which calls itself “al Qaeda in Iraq” to keep Americans confused, is actually exporting “fighters.”

As of 3/2, the US has lost 2,297 KIA and the Brits 103. Other CF have lost 101. I believe the US “admits” to having killed between 10,000 and 15,000 people in Iraq. NOTE: It is insulting to and demeaning of Iraqis by continue to think and speak of those people as “collateral damage.” American ambivalence towards them will not go far in wining the “hearts and minds” of the locals.

The days of unilateral PRE-EMPTIVE strikes are over. The world will not tolerate more of that. Compare Geo W in India, yesterday. Upon what moral or ethical grounds can Geo W say “India GOOD, Iran BAD.” For that matter, WHAT did the US get from India, anyway?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Until the fiasco in Iraq, ShadowXIX, you were right about others under estimating a super power. Now everyone knows our limits.


That aint even close to our limits. Alot of what the military can do remains secret from the public. If it really comes done to it nothing bolsters the ranks like a Draft. The US has a pool of 108 million people available for military service. Thats more then the entire population of Iran. Convential armies have been swept aside with a tiny tiny fraction of that.

BTW where did you get the number 10,000 and 15,000 people in Iraq? In 2005 Bush came out and said flat out about 30,000.

As for India I dont know maybe being the worlds largest Democracy has something to do with it.

link




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join