If Iran closed the Straight of Hormuz?

[M14 Shooter]

Which tells me they have the stomach for a long war and we don't.

We could use our aircraft and navel power to sweep the gulf of Iran's Navy, but the Iranians can still use mines or Surface to Ship missiles to take out passing tankers.

All the belly-buttons in the world will have no effect here.

As I said- action would need to be taken to eliminate all the assets necessary to affect the blockade. That includes their minelyaing and SSM sites.


A blockade of the straits carries a substiantial probability of irrepiarable harm to the economy of the world, including the US. Not taking immediate effective action to protect this particular line of communication is not an option.

Maybe we should let Israel fight it's own damn war for a change.

Absurd thought, that this is just Israel's fight.

Ha ha, I caught the spelling error there after I made it..

Okay, guy, all good and stuff, but honestly, I remember the last few times we were told a conflict was going to be a cakewalk, and it wasn't.

Who said anything about a cakewalk?

The only reason this is a fight at all is because Israel doesn't want Iran to have a nuke,

No one wants Iran to have a nuke.
The threat of such a thing should be readily apparent to everyone.

 

[occupied]

If Iran does anything they will circle their boats a few times, maybe force a tanker to stop and then head back to the dock claiming victory. It's propaganda aimed at the Iranian people, nothing more.

 

[JoeB131]

The only reason this is a fight at all is because Israel doesn't want Iran to have a nuke,

No one wants Iran to have a nuke.
The threat of such a thing should be readily apparent to everyone.

Not really.

Let's say the Iranians announced they were far ahead of where anyone thought they were, set off a test nuke tomorrow, and announced they had 10 more already mounted on their Shahab-5 missiles (capable of a range of 3000 miles.)

So what?

What would they actually be able to do with them? Launch them? Okay, but anyone they'd launch them against has ten times as many AND would have payloads of many more times. Let's not forget, anything the Iranians can build would be a primitive fusion bomb, probably measured in kilotons, not megatons.

These missles couldn't hit the US, and probably couldn't hit Europe. SO really, the only ones who would be threatened are the Israelis.

Hey, anyone still want to argue that our foreign policy isn't being dictated by Tel Aviv? Anyone. Buehler? Buehler?

Nuclear weapons do have the advantage that no one will intentionally screw with you if you have them, but your ability to use them for anything constructive is limited by the fact that using them would be considered a horrible war crime.

Please do not mistake Iran for Iraq or Libya. Mahmoud is a puppet president of the Ayatollahs, who are just saavy enough about public sentiment to not do anything that the people really oppose. It's not a true democracy (and neither are we, really), but go to war with them, we are going to war with all 70 million of them.

It just isn't worth it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only reason this is a fight at all is because Israel doesn't want Iran to have a nuke,

No one wants Iran to have a nuke.
The threat of such a thing should be readily apparent to everyone.

Not really.

Let's say the Iranians announced they were far ahead of where anyone thought they were, set off a test nuke tomorrow, and announced they had 10 more already mounted on their Shahab-5 missiles (capable of a range of 3000 miles.)

So what?

What would they actually be able to do with them? Launch them? Okay, but anyone they'd launch them against has ten times as many AND would have payloads of many more times. Let's not forget, anything the Iranians can build would be a primitive fusion bomb, probably measured in kilotons, not megatons.

These missles couldn't hit the US, and probably couldn't hit Europe. SO really, the only ones who would be threatened are the Israelis.

Hey, anyone still want to argue that our foreign policy isn't being dictated by Tel Aviv? Anyone. Buehler? Buehler?

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

 

[JoeB131]

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

We wouldn't have to listen to them anymore argue about whose sky pixie is more powerful?

Again, it would be sad a lot of people I don't know will be killed, but why is this my problem again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

We wouldn't have to listen to them anymore argue about whose sky pixie is more powerful?
Again, it would be sad a lot of people I don't know will be killed, but why is this my problem again?

You don't think that such a thing would bring significant and lasting world-wide economic turmoil?

 

[JoeB131]

You don't think that an Iran/Israel nuclear exchange isn't a grave threat to the world?
What do you suppose would happen, globally, if the Iranians launched those 10 missiles and Israel replied in like and kind?

We wouldn't have to listen to them anymore argue about whose sky pixie is more powerful?
Again, it would be sad a lot of people I don't know will be killed, but why is this my problem again?

You don't think that such a thing would bring significant and lasting world-wide economic turmoil?

yeah, and so would a Martian invasion, but they are both pretty unlikely.

If Iran gets a nuke, they aren't going to commit mass suicide by using them against Israel.

They might get a little more open about their support of Hamas.

Again, if you want to argue the rest of the world has too much at stake in the open-air insane asylum that is the Middle East, that's fine. I agree, wholeheartedly.

But that doesn't mean we go in and try to play Nurse Ratched. It means we disentangle ourselves from the impact as quickly as possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We wouldn't have to listen to them anymore argue about whose sky pixie is more powerful?
Again, it would be sad a lot of people I don't know will be killed, but why is this my problem again?

You don't think that such a thing would bring significant and lasting world-wide economic turmoil?

yeah, and so would a Martian invasion, but they are both pretty unlikely.

Not if there is an exchange, as my question stipilated.
That's the threat if Iranian nukes. Your bet is that the Iranians arent crazy enough to go after Israel; the threat to the world is too grave to allow it to happen.

But that doesn't mean we go in and try to play Nurse Ratched. It means we disentangle ourselves from the impact as quickly as possible.

In this day and age, that's not possible.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I htink we should wipe the map clean of both iran and israel with our nukes and then claim the land as part of the US.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The very reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

I'm sorry, are you saying that Japan was right to attack us?

It's an aggressive act against the world and should be treated as such.

What a blathering load of BS.

I’m in favor of negotiations to resolve the impasse but if the straight is closed off, I will support its reopening if even by force.

What makes you think that anyone has the right to travel through Iranian waters?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What makes you think that anyone has the right to travel through Iranian waters?

The navigable potion of the straits are in Omanian waters.
Whoops.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nic_Driver
The very reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
I'm sorry, are you saying that Japan was right to attack us?

Define 'right' in your context please.

 

[Nic_Driver]

We wouldn't have to listen to them anymore argue about whose sky pixie is more powerful?
Again, it would be sad a lot of people I don't know will be killed, but why is this my problem again?

You don't think that such a thing would bring significant and lasting world-wide economic turmoil?

yeah, and so would a Martian invasion, but they are both pretty unlikely.

If Iran gets a nuke, they aren't going to commit mass suicide by using them against Israel.

They might get a little more open about their support of Hamas.

Again, if you want to argue the rest of the world has too much at stake in the open-air insane asylum that is the Middle East, that's fine. I agree, wholeheartedly.

But that doesn't mean we go in and try to play Nurse Ratched. It means we disentangle ourselves from the impact as quickly as possible.

The head of the Mossad doesn't seem to think its a big deal either.

Mossad: Iran's nuclear not threat to Israel

The Chief of the Mossad Tamir Pardo that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon does not necessarily constitute an existential threat to Israel.

As Army chief of staff Gabi AshkenaziGabi Ashkenazi, Israel's former are not allowed to be in possession of the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons and that this period should be ready to implement all the options.
Bardo testified before the annual meeting of the ambassadors of Israel in the world, held in Jerusalem on Tuesday, the newspaper quoted one of the ambassadors who attended the lecture Pardo saying that he "found his words clearly he does not believe that Iran nuclear threat to Israel's existence. "

 

[JoeB131]

You don't think that such a thing would bring significant and lasting world-wide economic turmoil?

yeah, and so would a Martian invasion, but they are both pretty unlikely.

Not if there is an exchange, as my question stipilated.
That's the threat if Iranian nukes. Your bet is that the Iranians arent crazy enough to go after Israel; the threat to the world is too grave to allow it to happen.

Well, then it strikes me that the problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel antagonizing the whole region. But we can't talk about that.

But that doesn't mean we go in and try to play Nurse Ratched. It means we disentangle ourselves from the impact as quickly as possible.

In this day and age, that's not possible.

Sure it is. We don't WANT to do it. We don't want to give up our big SUV's. We don't want to invest in more public transportation. We don't want to invest in alternative energy.

NOPE. We want to keep partying like it's 1999 all the way until the last drop of petrol runs out. And if that means giving crazy people the ability to fund terrorists and build nukes, we'll do that, too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

yeah, and so would a Martian invasion, but they are both pretty unlikely.

Not if there is an exchange, as my question stipilated.
That's the threat if Iranian nukes. Your bet is that the Iranians arent crazy enough to go after Israel; the threat to the world is too grave to allow it to happen.

Well, then it strikes me that the problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel antagonizing the whole region. But we can't talk about that.

You're right - because your proposition is without merit.

Sure it is. We don't WANT to do it.

The US cannot extricate itself from the world economy.

 

[JoeB131]

Not if there is an exchange, as my question stipilated.
That's the threat if Iranian nukes. Your bet is that the Iranians arent crazy enough to go after Israel; the threat to the world is too grave to allow it to happen.

Well, then it strikes me that the problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel antagonizing the whole region. But we can't talk about that.

You're right - because your proposition is without merit.

Give me a compelling reason that our sons and daughters should go out and die so the Zionists can live with the fantasy that their sky pixie loves them the very bestest.

Sure it is. We don't WANT to do it.

The US cannot extricate itself from the world economy.

We don't have to, we change the NATURE of the world economy by developing the next thing. That's what we SHOULD have done 40 years ago the first time these jokers screwed with us after the Yom Kippur War.

But to many people invested in teh status quo. Solar panels on the White House? Tear that shit out.

 

[Dr.Drock]

A blockade is an act of war. As such, it opens the door for a military response.

The correct response to any such closure is the removal of the assets that affect said closure. This will require a number of repeated air/missile strikes combined with some limited number of boots on the ground, certainly to include SF personell and, likely, some small-unit raids.

Few can legitimately oppose such action - the only real question is if the necessary people will support it and then act on it.

While I agree with you a lot, that situation you just typed is exactly what happened with the U.S. and Japan.



Which, applying the same logic, would mean that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was justified.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Damn, Nic beat me to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, then it strikes me that the problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel antagonizing the whole region. But we can't talk about that.

You're right - because your proposition is without merit.

Give me a compelling reason that our sons and daughters should go out and die so the Zionists can live with the fantasy that their sky pixie loves them the very bestest.

better yet:
Give me a compelling argument that problem isn't Iran, it's the existence of Israel.

We don't have to, we change the NATURE of the world economy by developing the next thing.

Your understanding of the term "world economy' is far too limited for you to have this conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A blockade is an act of war. As such, it opens the door for a military response.

The correct response to any such closure is the removal of the assets that affect said closure. This will require a number of repeated air/missile strikes combined with some limited number of boots on the ground, certainly to include SF personell and, likely, some small-unit raids.

Few can legitimately oppose such action - the only real question is if the necessary people will support it and then act on it.

While I agree with you a lot, that situation you just typed is exactly what happened with the U.S. and Japan.

Which, applying the same logic, would mean that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was justified.

I don't follow.