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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I agree with the few on here that state we wouldn't put a foot in Iran.
Iran Builds Nukes, We go to war and Blow up all those facilities by air.

That's it. Everything else will be political.

Granted we're looking at all sorts of other problems if It actually comes to that, like increasing insurgent flow from iran, Oil wars and things.

But there is no way anyone should be comparing Iraq and Iran, it would be a totally different game.

And on a personal note, It's probably not going to happen. Iran will push push push, Possibly get sanctioned, everyone screams as Irans economy drops and the US's gas prices increase. Oil competetors fill the gaps and/or start changing technology away from oil and the world moves on.

-DT



FNF

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo
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.


Probably because other countries respect international law.

As for NATO - what about Kosovo?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Some thoughts to those claiming air strikes will suffice and we then work the political side of this issue........

Iran has approximately 400 sites that we would consider sensative to bombing........40 are definately nuclear and of them as many as 20 are buried deep in underground fortifications of which only "tactic nuclear" weapons can destroy.

Think of the following.................

Are all air campaigns 100% effective?.............can we assure that we don't miss a thing from the air so that Iran cannot continue this process??

Is Iran ready to retailate with everything it has against the US naval positions, Israel with rockets and blocking the strait of Hormez to create oil transport havoc?

and how would an air campaign change their oil trading bource to switch back to dollars from euros?............that is the real reason why we are looking down that barrel at them to begin with. Before Iran becomes a real atomic threat.........they are far more an economic threat to the US pertrodollar homogeny......(we'd have to topple their government and take occupation to make that switch back to the dollar.......exactly the real reason for what was done in Iraq........)


and will Russia and China stand aside and watch what we do without any consideration to its effects?

and if Iran has any hot locations that are nuclear....then what of the radiation from them?........or from our "tactical nukes" drifting into Russia, Pakistan, China, India etc?

....how would world opinion respond to the US again being the only nation to use "nuclear weapons" to take out those bunker locations......??

There are many aspects to an air attack that make the whole process much more complicated that what you think.........



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by futuretense
as many as 20 are buried deep in underground fortifications of which only "tactic nuclear" weapons can destroy.



Thats a highly speculative claim there are just not enough facts available to the public to make any such claim and talk about it like fact.

Its likely multiple convential bunker busters would be more then enough to destroy any "hardened" nuclear facilities. Bunker busters were created for just that very thing.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Derek Trance


And on a personal note, It's probably not going to happen. Iran will push push push, Possibly get sanctioned, everyone screams as Irans economy drops and the US's gas prices increase. Oil competetors fill the gaps and/or start changing technology away from oil and the world moves on.

-DT





Derek Trance is, in the most simplistic fashion, "right on the money". But what has been skirted over has been the world's economic condition during this , ahem, period of difficulty.

If the United States and Iron were to enter into a shooting conflict, I am certain that the US would not want it to become one that would be fought on the ground. This would strictly be an air war where critical Iranian command and control targets are sought out and destroyed. And, of course, specialized production facilities, missile sites and research facilities would be targeted. I have no doubt that the U.S. has kept their "war game" files up to date, especially where it concerns Iran.

What does concern me is the time period during what could be a lengthy war as well as during the post war recovery period. Remember, in the fog of war, anything and everything is possible. It would seem that the maxim, "anything is possible" holds true in wartime.

What is almost certain is that, in a shooting war, oil supplies will be disrupted as will shipping. I can foresee Iran spearheading a boycott of the United States by some of the other O.P.E.C. membership which would cause , most likely the break up of this energy cartel. Saudi Arabia would, probably side with the U.S> whereas Venezuela, for one, would eagerly join such a boycott.

As we have seen, and has been mentioned, the mere suggestion of oil disruptions have caused, in recent months, wild fluctuations in the per barrel price of oil. And we all have seen the painful reality of this at the pumps. A "real" disruption in oil supplies, one whose end cannot be accurately or assuredly predicted. The oil , per barrel, prices will sky rocket and we would face absurdly high prices at the local Esso or Shell gas station -- if you can actually buy gasoline. Disrupted supplies will mean shortages and the commodity that is scarce happens to be the "lifeblood" of the U.S. -- oil.

Certainly, there will be a mad scramble for alternate energy sources. Pollution controls will be dropped, rationing will be in effect. Essential services will be the priority and the U.S. population will, only slightly, begin to understand what war is like in terms of historical eras like WWI and II. Economically, business and transportation will be devastated. An example are the airlines. Shortages and high prices could be their death knell and the government would be in no position to bail them out.

The trucking industry would grind to a halt and I haven't even brought up the Big Three Auto makers just in the United States. And that raises the question of hybrid autos. Certainly we have them, every so often we give them a 'double take' when you see them on the road. And that's a point in itself...could we produce enough of these hybrid, energy alternative vehicles where it would/could preserve the American economy, much less the rest of the worlds?

Osama Bin Laden isn't the only one who realized how to "hurt" America. Iran knows that it can greatly effect of the pulse of the economy too. And if it means bringing the industrial world to it's knees and, in effect, turning off the lights, they will do it. This all could happen.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant[/I] If the United States and Iran enter into a shooting conflict, I am certain that the US would not want it to be one fought on the ground. This would strictly be an air war where critical Iranian command and control targets are destroyed . . specialized production facilities, missile sites and research facilities would be targeted.


Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq - 626,000 sq mi vs. 164,000 sq mi - and 2.6 as many people at 68 million. My point is, if w can’t monitor Iraq how can we expect to monitor Iran?


I have no doubt that the U.S. has kept their "war game" files up to date, especially where it concerns Iran.


I have already asked why the US did not have 2 or 3 KH12s or KH13s “parked” over Iraq since 1991. Super secret USVs and so on. Someone here suggested “not enough are available.” They added, “ . . can’t see in the dark” and while capable of monitoring traffic, they cannot “see” the cargo in the trucks, etc. I have heard that Iran’s has many of their more secret facilities located deep into the earth, like our own Cheyenne Mountain. I’m thinking they are “nuke” proof.


What does concern me is the time period during what could be a lengthy war as well as the post war recovery period. Remember, in the fog of war, anything and everything is possible. What is almost certain is, in a shooting war, oil supplies will be disrupted. I can foresee Iran spearheading a boycott of the United States by some of the OPEC members which would cause the break up of this energy cartel. Saudi Arabia would side with the US, whereas Venezuela would eagerly join such a boycott.


Then B/T, this argues most persuasively for a NON violent (war) solution.


We have seen the mere suggestion of oil disruptions have caused wild fluctuations in the price per barrel. One whose end cannot be accurately predicted . . prices will sky rocket . . we would face absurdly high prices at the local Esso or Shell gas station -- if you can actually buy gasoline.


Rationing. In WW2, an “A” sticker got you THREE gallons a month. “B” and “C” stickers got you more gasoline based on what your demonstrated and essential needs were, as determined by a local Rationing Board.


There will be a mad scramble for alternate energy sources. Pollution controls will be dropped, rationing will be in effect. Essential services will be the priority and the U.S. population will, only slightly, begin to understand what war is like in terms of historical eras like WWI and II. Economically, business and transportation will be devastated.


I remember pictures of people in Europe, in WW2, driving cars pulled by horses. I also recall cars in Europe that had been converted to wood fired steam engines. They survived, we can survive. “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley might replace the Holy Bible as #1 in sales?.


Osama Bin Laden isn't the only one who [knows] how to "hurt" America. Iran knows it can greatly effect of the pulse of the economy too. And if it means bringing the industrial world to it's knees and, in effect, turning off the lights, they will do it. This all could happen.


All the more reason COMMON SENSE, equal and fair play and dealing with the real world’s REAL issues and not living in a ‘make believe’ world as seen through rose colored glasses of the Right Wing Religious Wackos in the U.S.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ahhhhh, but what if there were a war? Frankly, it would not take much to start one. You can bet, from the United State's side, that a war with Iran is certainly not a "preferred path". The U.S. realizes that they are extremely vulnerable to exactly the scenario that I have described in the sense that Iran and, possibly Venezuela, could disrupt oil production and supply. Would this be enough to push America "to the brink"?

Or...what if Iran's leadership, often described as 'erratic', decides to pursue their Jihad against Israel? Would it really be that surprising after their most undiplomatic statement of intent to do so? Would a nuclear attack against Israel warrant a war (and the economic implications)? Well, in this case, I would have to say YES. However, what if it were merely missile attacks using conventional warheads in a manner reminiscent of Hitler's V-2 "buzz bomb" attacks against London? Would this be the 'trigger'? And let us not forget Israel. Would Israel be within her 'rights' to launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that has already clearly and concisely called for Israels' destruction? Naturally, such an attack would only be a prelude to a world wide collapse.

A war is an easy thing to start in this instance. The region is a tinderbox fueled by fanaticism, inter-sectarian discord and anti American sentiments which run deeply throughout Iran as it does throughout the Muslim World. Incidentally, it would seem that a world wide economic collapse might not affect a nation or a region, for that matter, that has such a strong sentiment to "return to the simple ways" and to reject progress and modernism.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
[edit on 3/3/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Question: Would a US/Iran "war" mean a global econumic collapse?


reply:
i would suggest we (the USA & western world) are already at "war",
there are strategies underway & groundwork being prepared for
most any contingency..
including another round of 'Shock and Awe', this time in Iran instead of Iraq.

? isn't that the scenario you are alluding to...when you say War??

* what tactics, strategies, are we ( the USA) engaged in with this confrontation/conflict/war of dominance with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

#1. for several years now, the US has been sending UAVs over Iran
for background see here and Here

#2. ever since the March 2003, 'Shock and Awe', bombardment of Iraq,
all the builders, contractors, of all the different types of cruise missiles have been busy restocking the arsenal....evidently the administration & military planners are not yet satisified with the stocks of cruise missiles available at the present time....and it is very difficult for anyone without a clearance to data mine the suppliers; Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing (to cite a few)

#3. another point of attack by US and western ideology will be the new Iran Oil Bourse, set to commence this March, the Fed & administration= PNAC'ers/neocons have already approved the concealment of the M3 money supply from public record....which will allow the bankers and money wizards which will be working with the BushRegime to funnel vast sums of monies thru various hedge funds and derivitive markets to play havoc with the new Iranian Oil Bourse. It actually matters little if the Bourse deals in Euros instead of Petro-Dollars...the 'transfer-of-wealth' is the real prize,
check out this article

#4. 'We' will continue to suggest to the world, that the insurgents that are causing strife and bloodshed, & possibly bombing Mosques in Iraq...
are being sent & funded by Iran. That act is contrary to civilized peace and diplomacy, and the response should be for the US & NATO forces to strike at the military, government, nuclear installations of Iran...which is the central cause for the regional conflicts by Irans' illegal attacks against the democratically elected State in Iraq.

i guess there's 5-10 more points that could be made, which demonstrate that 'We' are in a state of conflict, war, with Iran right now...
but will we get to the stage that another successful 'Shock and Awe' campaign is deemed necessary
...battlefields and theatres of war are 'last resort options'....at least that's what 'they' want us to believe



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
my name is Shahram and I live in Iran
I think some things are wrong in this topic!
First :
In such a war,Iranian Peolpe will be American troops allies.I think they will help US forces,If not, They will not help Iranian Army or revoltion guards too!
second:
Every one In western states think Iranian people are religious .It is wrong too,We love drinkng wine,dancing and we really hate Arabs.

Tehran is biggest city in middle east,It is true ,but tehran people also are most west culture lover in middle east too
This war wuill be so easy for US.but USA governmet can not even Inagen how this is easy!
In Iran majority of people have no problem with US or Israel.Iran ppl are US friends and GOvernment is us enemy,
In other middle east countries,even turkey,ppl are US eneies and governments are US allies.
Iran War will not have any serius effect on global economy.look at waht happend!US and europ government now are controlling banks and bourses!
Why?really for economic crise? or for preventing a crise that will be happen later with Iran war???May be!
It is becuase we have no denocray in middle east.
Sorry for My bad english



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowXIX
 


Good post, Shadow. Aside from the most obvious thing being that there is no reason to invade with boots on the ground -

Every single time the Persians have fought the West, they've gotten their butts kicked beyond embarrassment. I mean historically, every single time. You would think that they would temper their desire to return to the glory days of the Persian Empire with the facts of what happened when that "super" Persian Empire met the West.

In fact, if it weren't for Western nations selling them weapons, and them copying Western technology, they'd still be chewing a mutton sandwich, scratching their asses left handed while betting on the goat races, and relying on wicker shields and composite bows.

Darius I with his vast Persian Empire took on the pitiful Greeks and right off the bat lost 300 ships and 20,000 men at Cape Athos. At Marathon, 44,000-60,000 Persians lined up agains 10,000-16,000 Greeks, and there wer 6,400 Persian bodies left on the beach compared to 192 Greeks. Let's call it a 33:1 kill ratio for the Greeks.

His son Xerxes returned with 250,000 of the cream of the cream of the Persian Empire, and only 7,000 Greeks held off these 250,000 for two days. One the third day one thousand remaining Greeks were killed and the 25,000 Persians were stacked up. That's a 25:1 kill ratio for the Greeks. In offshore action, between the small Greek fleet and storms, the Persians lost another 200 ships and 40,000 men.

A year later at the naval battle of Salamis, Xerxes watched his vastly superior navy get sunk by the much smaller Greek navy of free men who sunk 200 of his ships and 40,000 sailors. Greek losses are difficult to obtain, but less than a thousand. That's a kill ratio of 40:1 for the Greeks.

The following Spring, 300,000 Persians met 60,000 Greeks at Platea, and on that battlefield, all but 43,000 Persians were slaughtered, and these 43,000 were slaughtered at the Strymon river estuary. That resulted in a kill ratio for the Greeks of 220:1.

Granicus - 4,000-5,000 Persians killed for 150 Macedonians. 26:1

Issus 94,000 Persians against 42,000 Macedonians, and 30,000 Persians died while Macedon lost 7,000. The kill ratio of 4:1 would have been greater, but the battle was fought just before sundown, and the Persians ran faster than the Macedonians could follow.

Guagemela. 250,000 Persians on a prepared battlefield met 47,000 Macedonians. Outnumbered five to one, the Macedonians slaughtered 50,000 while losing 500. That's a Macedonian kill ratio of 100:1

Later, it was Greek harlots that burned the capital of the Persian empire, Persepolis.

You see, no one fights like Westerners. The most destructive battles in history are Westerners against Westerners. For every Western defeat at the hands of non-Westerners, we find the non-Westerners using massive numbers of Western weapons.

For every Dien Bien Phu, there is a Khe Sanh. For every Islandhlwana, there's a Rourke's Drift. For every Pearl Harbor, there's a Midway. For every Wake Island, there's an Okinawa. For every Thermopylae, there's a Platea.

Consider what the nation of western immigrants - Israel - has accomplished while surrounded with enemies. In the years 1947-48, 1956, 1867, 1973, and 1982, the tiny nation of Israel, surrounded by immensely superior numbers and hostile peoples conclusively and soundly defeated multiple coalitions who fielded vastly superior numbers and were supplied sophisticated weapons systems by France, Russia, and China. And if anyone has a question, yes, the Chinese AK is a copy of the Western Russian AK.

Consider the modern day territories of the Great Persian Empire of Xerxes. Modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, portions of Jordan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, and portions of Libya. All compelled by a god-king. Likewise, even today these same peoples are not free to make their own determinations in terms of economic freedom, political freedom, or religions freedom. All subjects under the yoke of Islam. Exactly, as in the millennia prior, as like-subjugated peoples, they lock-step or face execution.

No, it is the West and it's freedom loving people who are beholding to no god-king or restrictive religion.

No one on earth can fight like Westerners.

A lesson that Iran and former Persian Empire nations should take to heart.

Or not.

Just one problem with stupid peoples.

They take so much more convincing to prove them wrong.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join