Iran plans massive oil spil in the Persian Gulf

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by damingus
 


I'm wondering...could they set this slick on fire?

Would that effectively seperate, destroy or trap a opposing fleet?

Would it be just a bunch of little fires or a sea of fire?




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS
It's not an act of war if it's their own tanker.


Looks like some light must be thrown. The problem is not whose tanker is, the problem is that when the water is full of oil, ships can't move as they do in clean waters. So, its almost like closing the straight in a manner that its not easy to open it back, because, you know, oil is very hard to clean up in the ocean, specially in huge amounts.
If they put mines in the sea, US has ships that can remove them. If they try to stand a military block, they got no chance to stand for more than a few hours. So, this way, they can block it effectively, without spending too much and without risking their soldiers lives. But, this will certainly be seen as an "act of war" and the perfect excuse to make TSHTF.
They got more to lose doing that, because of environmental matters. Well, I don't think that at this point they care too much about it.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I highly doubt if the Iranian leader would do this. I believe that the holy leader of Iran may do that though.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
How it will stop commerce in the area? Modern ships suddenly cannot sail over oil?
And i seriously doubt Iran will do it unless during war - they will ruin their own fish industry and health of Iranians much more then that of other nations in the area due to shore length and population density.


this should get more stars ^



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Iran will do anything to stop the world from attacking it . It is exausted with the sanctions . Iran knows well that it will loose the battle . Strait of Hormuz is the only reason West is hesitating to attack Iran .



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
edit on 16-10-2012 by apushforenlightment because: Nevermind



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
To be honest this all seems like the same old crap we hear about a potential enemy over and over again. Just like, All black people are savages so it is ok to keep them as slaves, the french eat frogs legs so they must be weird and be stopped, The germans are monsters and if you dont support the war you must support the Kaiser, The communists are the biggest threat to world safety ever, Those afghan farmers are terrorists and need to be bombed for the sake of the world and now we have That Iranian leader is crazy just like his people and crazy people cant have nuclear power for the safety of the world!!

I just wonder when the world is going to stop falling for the exact same trick just worded in a slightly different way?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by damingus
 


Explanation: S&F!

Scorched Earth Policy [wiki]


A scorched earth policy is a military strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. It is a military strategy where all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area. The practice is carried out by an army in enemy territory, or its own home territory. It may overlap with, but is not the same as, punitive destruction of an enemy's resources, which is done for purely strategic/political reasons rather than strategic/operational reasons. It was most famously used by Sherman against the South in the American Civil War, by Lord Kitchener against the Boers, and by both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler during the Winter Campaign of 1941–1942.

The strategy of destroying the food supply of the civilian population in an area of conflict has been banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions. The relevant passage says:

It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

Despite being prohibited, it is still a common military practice. The protocol only applies to those countries that have ratified it, notable states that have not ratified it are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.


And who supposely dreamed it up was ...


The idea, said to have been drawn up by the leader of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, was to wreck or sabotage an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the seaway used by more than a third of the world's oil tankers to enter the Persian Gulf, the Independent reports.


Personal Disclosure: I have no doubt that the story is highly credible!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
How it will stop commerce in the area? Modern ships suddenly cannot sail over oil?
And i seriously doubt Iran will do it unless during war - they will ruin their own fish industry and health of Iranians much more then that of other nations in the area due to shore length and population density.


Ships sailing through oil have to get cleaned. I went on a cruise, and they changed to port from New Orleans to Mobile due to just a little oil in the bay. They said cleanup was very expensive and also reduced the ability of the ship, i.e. lots of extra drag and weight because the oil sticks to the vessel.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I highly doubt if the Iranian leader would do this. I believe that the holy leader of Iran may do that though.



There is only one real true leader of Iran and then there is his publicly seen mouthpiece that spews rhetoric at the UN and on TV.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by GLaDOS
It's not an act of war if it's their own tanker.


It's an act of war on the environment.

meh....

So is testing nukes and missiles. America has no moral high ground here.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


I agree. It doesn't make sense



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
not to mention iran uses the straight as well.

they'd literally be dumping valuable hard currency they desperately need for nothing in return.

if war breaks out, then its a different story.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
There is only one real true leader of Iran and then there is his publicly seen mouthpiece that spews rhetoric at the UN and on TV.

I see someone knows the Iran's political system well



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavalryscout
It's actually a pretty clever plan, I'm surprised they or another country hasn't done this.


Come on, think it through. It's a stupid plan on many levels.

1. The livelihood of many would be compromised e.g. fishermen. Thus would cause angst of Iran's neighbours. Not clever.
2. It would be an environmental catastrophe. This would alienate many who support Iran's position e.g. Western liberals who are on auto-like anything US/Western. Not clever.
3. It would mess up their back yard. Why crap in your own kitchen? Not clever.
4. It is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

On the basis that this is a really silly idea, I have to entertain the fact the Iranian authorities have considered it!

Regards



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS
It's not an act of war if it's their own tanker.


LOL! How wrong you be!. It's not about who owns the property or whose waters the incident occurred in. If the incident effects your country (regardless of what it may be) it could be considered an act of war.

In this case interrupting the flow of oil (rightly or wrongly ....... not the issue) is considered an act of war by many countries. One of the many reasons that Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbour was their belief the US was blocking their supply of oil.

LOL!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
" Iran is reportedly considering a top-secret plan " ...cant be very top-secret if the news got it. I dont think it will happen.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
the us exported as much as it imported in 2011

our major suppliers are canada , SA, and venzuela

iran can go blow

this would disrupt big oil profits. there are some real estate agents in houston who care about this

big deal



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I really doubt that an oil spill would derail the US/Israel/NATO from attacking Iran. If anything, they can still just fly into Iran airspace bombing the sh*t out of them... I guess it takes away a strategic point of entry, but it wouldn't change the end result. How would Iran's buddies China and Russia be able to support them then? They wouldn't be able to send in their battleships to the region. They would have one strategic partner in the region, Syria, and they would get destroyed from that point if they tried to attack any of the other countries...



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
It's one way to keep China at bay, since a large amount of Iranian oil output goes "their way".

If the PLA interfere with the West's warplans, they will be the first to feel the pinch. USN can pretty much make sure of that.





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join