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.

 

Iranian missile spin closes Hormuz for five hours: report claims

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
We would just nuke Pakistan and Iran right off the map.



Originally posted by stirling
The Iranis may be calling this meeting to announce they really do have the bomb.....
What if they nuked the straights with the fleet inside it?
Sure we could nuke em back but that would hardly solve things in the long run....just open many more wormy cans.....
Pakistan and India also have nukes and get oil from Iran......
What if Pakistan sides with the Iranis?
Surely we couldnt take em all on without getting at least a bloody nose.....




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Let's play a "what if" game.

What if tankers and cargo ships went ahead and moved through the straight. What if the Iranians test fired a live missile and it locked on to and killed crew members, crippled, sank, destroyed a tanker or cargo ship owned by (place your favorite nation here).

What do you think the response from the World would be? (not the US, but the World)

You have no way of knowing if it was intentional or accidental other than the words of Iranian leaders who also said they will close the straights if sanctions were levied against them.

Catch 22.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



one by one until the remainder flees the area??


Geography is obviously not one of your strong points. That IS their home territory. Why should they flee it?
edit on 31/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 



Iranian waters only stretch out 8 miles off the coast of iran


Really? Says who. Can you back that up? Does Americas territory only extend 8 miles from it's coast? For virtually every single country in the world with a coastline 12 nautical miles is the limit, beyond which there are economic limits (normally 200 nautical miles)


Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 



We would just nuke Pakistan and Iran right off the map


An interesting statement from someone who's handle is princeofpeace. I hope that is not an allusion to Jesus.

Do you actually understand what you are saying? Nuclear weapons are not a game and when they are dropped they don't just affect where you drop them.

Maybe when you are a little older you will understand.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Iran is full of radical Islamists who wish to impose their way of life on the world….


A bit like America then no?

Full of radical Christians who want to impose their way of life on the world. Yay! Freedom and democracy from 30,000 ft.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You can only have stuffing scared out of you if you submit to fear in the first place.

Whatever happens over there isn't scaring me in the slightest, just as the terrorist bogeyman fails to make a dent. Should I ever run across a genuine terrorist, an extremely unlikely event, I will treat him the same as any other threat I've faced in my life and deal with it pragmatically.

Try replacing fear with annoyance instead.

9/11 didn't scare me, terrorists don't scare me, and this situation doesn't particularly scare me either.

If you want something genuinely scary to worry about, there's always Fukushima and the poisoned Gulf. Those are real scary things, real as in concrete, and real as in very bad, and either/both far more likely to directly effect you and your future.

Saber rattling doesn't scare me, but it sure as hell annoys me.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Sure thing there bud:

International Maritime Law and the Strait of Hormuz Historically, a nation’s territorial waters were said to extend for 3 miles from shore. After the Second World War this was reviewed and the current distance accepted by most countries is 12 nautical miles. The waters inside this 12 mile limit are broadly considered to be an extension of the nation that forms its coastline. However, foreign ships can pass through these waters as long as they don’t linger unnecessarily or cause aggravation while there. This is termed the right of ‘innocent passage’. Foreign warships are usually required to minimise their military profile in order to reduce their potential threat to the coastal state.

TextInternational Maritime Law and the Strait of Hormuz Historically, a nation’s territorial waters were said to extend for 3 miles from shore. After the Second World War this was reviewed and the current distance accepted by most countries is 12 nautical miles. The waters inside this 12 mile limit are broadly considered to be an extension of the nation that forms its coastline. However, foreign ships can pass through these waters as long as they don’t linger unnecessarily or cause aggravation while there. This is termed the right of ‘innocent passage’. Foreign warships are usually required to minimise their military profile in order to reduce their potential threat to the coastal state.

strait-of-hormuz.com...

While passing through straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, that run through territorial waters, ships in transit have more rights. In particular, warships can maintain an appropriate degree of combat-readiness.


Seems reasonable? Unfortunately in the Strait of Hormuz and the waters to the west of it, shipping lanes run close to and in some areas through Iranian territorial waters. Under international maritime law the Iranians are entitled to monitor this traffic but the traffic, including warships, is entitled to unimpeded transit. As the US and Iran view each other with great mistrust, the potential for conflict is high.

You will have to excuse me I off memory thought it was eight miles instead of 3, however im still searching for more because I still think it is 8 mi iranian, 22, miles int. waters?
edit on 31-12-2011 by AllUrChips because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


It would be unusual. I shall be interested to see if you can find anything on that.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Did you not see this?:

a nation’s territorial waters were said to extend for 3 miles from shore. After the Second World War this was reviewed and the current distance accepted by most countries is 12 nautical miles


accepted by most countries

Most countries

edit on 31-12-2011 by AllUrChips because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Yes indeed as I said to you 12 miles. What I was referring to was this:


I still think it is 8 mi iranian, 22, miles int. waters


Sorry, I thought you were saying you were investigating that.

ETA

You edited that while I was replying!!!!!!



edit on 31/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop

Funny. In much of the world we think the same of Capital punishment in America, lack of gay rights, child mutilation based on religious principles, animal mutilation based on nothing but convenience - we also fancy you as being religious fundamentalists too.

By most standards the United States is the most archaic and barbaric society in the Western world. Perhaps then Europe should bomb America?

Americans don't seem to understand that they have much more in common with their supposed enemies than you can begin to imagine. I suppose when you do it there's nothing wrong with it though, you're the good guys after all! Nothing wrong with declawing your cat, circumcising your child, stopping gays from getting married, stopping raped women from having abortions, putting people to death, giving people 20 year sentences for robbing a pack of chips(3 strike principle), bombing other nations, being Christian fundamentalists.

You're advanced and moral people eh. At least the Iranian people themselves by in large want change and want to be a democracy with good morals - same can't be said for many of your American brothers who seem to get off on war and theocracy.

I like though how you say "stoning women to death FOR", as if there is ever a justification for stoning or killing a person
You're a moralist of dinosaur proportions aren't you
]


Blah…Blah…Blah…

Your distain for American has blinded you. What a LAME argument!! If you want to equate Iran stoning people to death for adultery to American gay rights issues and circumcisions then you’re REALLY stretching, bud!


That entire post was ridiculous drivel!


But the equation is fair. America thinks Iran is backwards and that therefore you have a right to bomb them, because you view them as neanderthals. In Europe we think America is backwards, so perhaps we bomb you? Your argument is that you have a right to bomb people for barbaric practices... okay, then my country has a right to bomb yours under the same argument!

What have I stretched? I've not said that American homophobia is as bad as stoning a woman, what I've said is that you can't take the moral high ground because your cultural practices are also barbaric and outdated. That if you want to take the moral high ground and drop nukes on people from your ivory tower, be careful, there's plenty of people with a moral elevation much higher than yours.

Everyone but an American barbarian can understand my argument. While circumcising children, bombing nations, trying to stop raped women having abortions, being religious fundamentalists etc etc might be seen as normal or acceptable in America, to many it's a big deal and it's downright disgusting and vile and barbaric and reprehensible.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by seabag
 



Iran is full of radical Islamists who wish to impose their way of life on the world….


A bit like America then no?

Full of radical Christians who want to impose their way of life on the world. Yay! Freedom and democracy from 30,000 ft.


I was going to say much the same thing.
It's a shame that there are so many people wishing destruction on others, or wish to impose their ways on others.



new topics




 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join