It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. Navy won't tolerate 'disruption' through Strait of Hormuz

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by CranialSponge

We didnt starve out or kill anyone with sanctions. The government of Iraq did that.

Secondly, countries can choose who they do business with and who they don't. It goes back to that international obligation issue people like to selectively enforce. There is nothing stopping Iran from developing a Nuclear weapons program.

Amazing how people ignore the UN when it comes to sanctions, singling out just the US. Before anyone tries the argument that the UN does the bidding of the US, save it. If that were truly the case we would have had a rubber stamped war for Iraq as well as Syria and Iran, and we don't.

People always want to know the difference between Iran and North Korea. If people did research they would have seen that N. Korea ended their involvement with the IAEA as well as withdrew from the NPT. No obligation not to develop those weapons. Iran on the other hand is a signatory to both.

Come to think of it, so was N. Korea... go figure....
edit on 28-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:52 PM
As to the new crisis, this seems more of the same as always.

I doubt much will come of it beyond saber rattling, although new sparks never help.

Iran is between a rock and a hard place, but so is everyone else. The reality is no one can afford a war right now: not them, not us, not anyone.

War may come, but not because of some Illuminati plot, or because Obama wants to secure and election...if it comes you can be almost certain that it will be accidental, some nobody deciding to get an itchy trigger finger and things just spiraling out of control from there.

The world is too fragile for most governments to think of new major wars, in such an event most governments would probably fall within months for a variety of reasons.

Iran might threaten, but ultimately Iran is nearly alone; Persian among Arabs, Shia among Sunni, an odd duck no matter which way you look.

Tis brinksmanship, not much more.

The only way for them to close the straights would get them annihilated on the Persian Gulf shores. We'd lose most of our fleet to anti-ship missiles, but what then? The counterstrike would be massive and permanently change the dynamic, not in their favor. So it makes sense to threaten, but not to do. US is in the same boat: we could attack them for threatening, but then the roles are reversed and again, no good outcome.

So pretty much all that is happening is saber-rattling, and that is all that will happen.
edit on 28-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:59 PM
Iran will never block the straights. Not in a million years. It's just a nice threat they can make. They are not going to do anything that will give the US/Israel/TPTB exactly the excuse they need.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by apacheman
Iran is between a rock and a hard place, but so is everyone else. The reality is no one can afford a war right now: not them, not us, not anyone.

Is that not what pulled the world out of the great depression? I mean it started with the policies of the Nazis and the attitude of appeasement, but at the time no one could afford bread let alone war.

In this case im not sure of the resiliency of the human race is a good or bad thing.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I love this...

Who do you think will enforce martial law?

I know I won't be, and neither will the officers of my department. The military people we speak to and work with are of the same mind set. So who will enforce martial law?


I could have you and the Military boys enforcing ML and blowing away citizens in 30 seconds.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CranialSponge

We didnt starve out or kill anyone with sanctions. The government of Iraq did that.

How so ?

Because they invaded Kuwait ?

They've been out of Kuwait for what... a decade now ?

So what's the justification for the continued sanctions then ? The sanctions are still in place based on the idea that Iraq has the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. Yes, that's right... the capability to make chem and bio warfare.

Well, based on that justification, any damn country that can produce pharmaceuticals has the same capabilities.

I just googled some more info on the effects of economic sanctions, and it's now estimated that approximately 235,000 children under the age of five have died in Iraq directly related to these sanctions to date since 1991.

But we don't hear of these things on CNN... hell no.

Anyone considered to be the "bad guys" gets starved and impoverished out of existence, with international agreements signed on the dotted line to justify doing so. I had no idea women, children, and the elderly were such "bad guys".


posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

yes, really

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I could have you and the Military boys enforcing ML and blowing away citizens in 30 seconds.

Wouldn't that make you, and not the military or the police, the problem? If a person decides on his own the point an unloaded gun at me, knowing the result of ignoring the command to drop the weapon is going to be me defending myself with deadly force, then we both made our bed. If you mislead that person into thinking that not only is his gun loaded, but his actions are valid and socially acceptable in order to push and support your agenda, what makes your actions right and those of the people defending themselves wrong?

Secondly, contrary to your viewpoint you have expressed in your post, we are capable of making life or death decisions on a daily basis, a lot of those times in split second decisions. We dont always get it right, and when we dont, we allow the system to work, whether or not we or you agree with the outcomes.

Why? because thats how a system with checks and balances work. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and we can view the Nazis nightmare that confirms that fact.

My point is any tactic you would need to use in order to fool the police / military into opening fire on the people, wouldn't be coming from the police or military then would it?

Im not sure whats worse -
Suggesting the fact the police and military are so stupid that they could be manipulated into opening fire en mass against citizens.

Or you suggesting that you and the people would be ok blaming the police / military for that action when clearly and knowingly understanding and accepting the fact it was done through manipulation.

In that instance the quote from starwars comes to mind -

Whose the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows?

In the end it comes down to personal responsibility and intelligent thought before action. If you dont have all the facts, then the fact of the matter is you dont have all the facts. It doesnt mean the game is afoot or the time has come to usher in military law.

If anything, it means the people should exercise due diligence before taking drastic action, or in cases like these reactions. I say people, because we are ALL people, regardless of title.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:19 PM
Does Iran Believe the US will let Iranian oil out for China if Iran disrupts ALL oil flowing in that region?

Just wondering.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by sonnny1
Does Iran Believe the US will let Iranian oil out for China if Iran disrupts ALL oil flowing in that region?

Just wondering.

If the straight of Hormuz were shut down, it would affect approximately 30% +/- of total global oil trade.

The question is quickly becoming, in the absence of new technology to replace oil, is exactly how far the planet is willing to go in reference to tolerating the disruption in supply. This is nothing new, its been around and its not going away anytime soon. What I have seen are countries diversifying where they get oil from, as well as having alternative methods available to account for supply disruptions. From foregoing luxury items to using alternative, albeit more expensive, methods to maintain basic supply.

With the advances in advanced extraction techniques, the Middle East is losing its influence as a trend setter when it comes to oil. One day, they are going to wake up to the realization they don't matter as much as they think they do, and will need to find alternative methods to keep the world's interest - maybe like playing around with nuke programs?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:57 PM
Iran could easily close the Straits of Hormuz. It is a bottleneck, it wouldn't take much. The US Navy thinks it is all powerful, but every empire, no matter how huge and powerful their armies were, has always been smashed eventually.

In a naval exercise called Millenium Challenge, the Navy's Blue team, representing an unspecified Mideast "rogue regime", using motorcycle couriers and carrier pigeons instead of radios, speedboats and unguided rockets instead of computer guided missiles and GPS guided aerial drones, in simulation, basically sank two entire battle groups in the Persian Gulf, the Navy's Red team, in 30 minutes. The Navy immediately stopped the exercise, regrouped, and changed the rules so that this couldn't happen again. There's no way dumb ragheads could defeat the mighty US Navy! The commander of the Blue team quit immediately in disgust.

The mighty US Navy has become so reliant on high tech gear, and likewise the entire military, and are overcome by hubris of thinking they are undefeatable. This is what the British army thought against the Zulus, and lots of other incidents like that. Custer's last words were, "They couldn't hit the side of a barn from all the way over th...."

Some type of EMP weapon knocking out the GPS satellites would effectively blind and subdue almost our entire military these days. Those hideously effective drones with rockets? No GPS, effectively useless. Much of everything else is so reliant on the high tech that it would also be useless. This is how each American soldier killed in Iraq first killed about 100,000 Iraqis. Take away all the toys and it's a different game. Crazed Bedouins on horseback with rifles need no GPS.

Iran could certainly close the Strait. The retaliation would be so severe that it would amount to a suicidal move to do so. However, most of you fail to understand real men. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. This is where suicide bombers can come from. It gets to a point where you know you aren't going to win, so you are gonna take as many of those guys with you as you can. Iran is being slowly pushed into a corner like that.

In 1945 Japan was strangled with sanctions, to the point where they basically HAD to attack the US, or just surrender right then. Didn't work out too well for them in the long run, trying to take on Mordor like that, but they were not going to just roll over and die, they'd rather go out fighting. Real men are like that. Wimps just roll over, go along to get along, go with the flow, etc. In the long run that never works out either.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by CaptChaos

The episode of JAG where that war game played out was a good episode.

Japan attacked the US in 1941, not 1945, and it had nothing at all to do with sanctions.

If your going to take the US to task and suggest it would be easy to keep the straights of Hormuz, a 21 mile section of water closed, to international shipping without evoking an international response, then you are as misinformed as your facts are.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:15 PM
Sorry, 1941, my bad. I guess cutting them off from oil doesn't count as sanctions, eh?

And they certainly could easily cut off a 21 mile stretch of water. When did I ever say it would not provoke a huge response? I believe the word I used was "suicidal". I forget where I was "taking the US to task".

Still doesn't mean they CAN'T do it.

And, episodes of JAG on TV are not real life.
edit on 28-12-2011 by CaptChaos because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Ever wonder if the good guys really won WWII?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0

The rhythm of the war drums continues to increase as we take another step closer to World War III.

I personally think we need to take a few steps back and worry about the homeland instead of policing the world, and enriching defense contractors and politicians in the name of death... i mean "peace."
(visit the link for the full news article)

Is it not problematic and a violation of international law when freedom of navigation is denied in international waters? Correct me if i'm wrong but people scream every time the US holds maneuvers / war-games, and we have not gone to the extent Iran has in the straights of Hormuz or the threat to shut it down if sanctions are put in place on Iran.

Im guessing since it deals with a country other than the US its ok?

I just loved freedom of navigation runs.
What Iran does not understand is it will not just be the US they have to block. But every country that has ships that pass through the Straights of Hormuz.

Plus Iran only holds one side if the straight so the other countries can set up missile batteries to take out anything from Iran that gets close.

Plus the Saudis have there east west gas and oil pipeline(3.2 million barrels (510000 m3) per day) to the red sea to pump oil and the UEA and Oman have there pipelines around the straights

Iran will provide nice targets for military training for a lot of countries militarises

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by CaptChaos

You make some good points.

If I remember right, the Strait of Hormuz is 60 miles wide at it's narrowist...but only 20 miles of that is navigable shipping lane for tankers.

Choosing an ideal location and time combined with solid tactics can offest a numerically and technilogically superior foe - sometimes. However, the U.S. military is one of the best and most adaptable there is and I am sure they are well aware of Iran's capabilities and what challanges they will face in keeping the strait open.

I certainly don't see us putting a battle group in the strait, I think we would take a lot of casualties. As advanced as our subs are, it is still not a good idea to put them in a narrow and shallow stretch of water.

I have often thought that in the next major war, GPS and surveillance satellites will be taken out. We could still function without them, but it would degrade our technilogical advantage quite a bit.

You mention Japan WWII, the world map would be different now if Japan had not attacked Perl Harbor. They may have been able to keep some of their conquered territories had they not done that.

I fear the U.S. attacking Iran is similar to that - one aggression too far. I don't think either the Russians or Chinese will accept that and I think, with them involved, we will lose many satellites and with them our ability to so effectively project power across the world. Does attacking our satellites justify a nuclear response? No, the world will not accept that.

Besides, what if China tells North Korea to Attack at the same time? Then we'd have to defend SK and Japan at the same time.

Germany, Japan and countless others were defeated because they were stubborn and became over-extended. Their military leaders warned them to no avail.

At what point do we become over-extended and thus defeatable?

edit on 28-12-2011 by AP-Chris because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:01 AM

Nothing left to do but count bodies like sheep.

To the rhythm of the war drums.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:11 AM
All Iran really has to do is dump a bunch of mines into the strait.

it would totally disrupt shipping without them having to do much of anything with their military other than duck and cover.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:10 AM
Humans, believe what you wish... countries say what you want. The Xen'Gal await your destruction. We do not care about your political decisions.. we just want your world. You are close to total destruction. There is only two ways this could end. PEACE, or WAR. Many species await your moves. Some already know the outcome of Humanity. You WILL destroy yourselves. OR you could change the course of hundreds of species -FOR THE BETTER. Bickering about which nation did what is wrong is pointless, or whom is better... The USA has the military power to destroy ANY COUNTRY. Maybe they should. Russia & China are growing far more dangerous than ever for the USA. It will only be a matter of time before Nuclear Weapons are launched. In two days after conventional weapons are used, Nuclear weapons will be used. China & Russia will move into the battle. Global Thermal Nuclear War will be complete. By March 2012 your civilization will be in RUINS. We do not care. Our technology will remove your radiation & TAKE your world. And you were worried about the Reptillians & Insectoids! We enslaved them thousands of years ago..........

Don't make the mistake of other weak civilizations. Save yourselves & put this to rest.
But you won't. You are on a course of destruction. You cannot change your biology.

< take this as a view from the OUTSIDE. You need to hear the outsider point of view.
It has always helped ADVANCED civilizations in crucial decisions... >

Xen'gal Enforcer

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

If you want to worry about the homeland then you would completely agree with the US position, since allowing that to happen would cripple our economy and possibly plunge us into a depression. Have fun filling up your gas tank.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by DarknessMatters

you realise that people claimed that clinton and bush were going to assume dictatorial powers

And they were dictators at least in a different fashion.

Elites after Elites dont forget The clintons shared the bloodlines with the bush family.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in