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.
Originally posted by GLaDOS
It's not an act of war if it's their own tanker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
Originally posted by cavalryscout
It's actually a pretty clever plan, I'm surprised they or another country hasn't done this.
Originally posted by GLaDOS
It's not an act of war if it's their own tanker.