Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Now that Iran has enough enriched


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#31 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:23 PM

How do you argue with someone who thinks Iran is the most powerful country in the world?

#32 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:38 PM

How do you argue with someone who thinks Iran is the most powerful country in the world?

iran could destroy the entire world's economy by simply making it untenable to get oil out of the strait of hormuz. they don't even have to do anything militarily, just drive up the price of insurance so that it's too expensive for anyone to do it. this is an amazing bargaining chip that no one with the exception of russia can really measure up to.

in asymmetrical warfare, america has shown itself to be incredibly lacking, and all of our high tech equipment nothing but a paper tiger.

if you're stuck in a cold war mindset that whoever has the most weapons is the most important than yeah it's kinda ridiculous. however things have changed a lot in the last two decades, and thinking about global power should reflect that.

#33 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,793 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:43 PM

i don't think that will last much longer. i have a hunch in the next decade oil is going to become next to obsolete. i think we're about to see a 90sish tech boom that pulls us out of the recession and steers us away from antiquated oil tech. the relationship era of our economy (emphasizing brand over product/innovation) is due to end.

#34 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,727 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:43 PM

If Iran decided to try and shut down the Straits of Hormuz, that would last about a week, maybe two. Thats about the length of time it would take the US Navy to sweep the straits for mines, and destroy all Iranian missile's within range of the Straits.

#35 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,727 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:45 PM

i don't think that will last much longer. i have a hunch in the next decade oil is going to become next to obsolete. i think we're about to see a 90sish tech boom that pulls us out of the recession and steers us away from antiquated oil tech.



I think your timeline is off. It will take more like 25 years. Can't remember where it was, but I seem to remember reading something that said that even if we stop driving cars altogether, we would still need to import oil. Its used in to many products, and will take a while to wean us from it.

But I do agree it can and will happen eventually.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 20 February 2009 - 02:51 PM.


#36 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:48 PM

If Iran decided to try and shut down the Straits of Hormuz, that would last about a week, maybe two. Thats about the length of time it would take the US Navy to sweep the straits for mines, and destroy all Iranian missile's within range of the Straits.


i know that this is a tender subject for you but even if there were a few battle groups they'd still not be able to do much, especially if they openly provoked iran.

http://en.wikipedia...._Challenge_2002

the falklands showed that huge naval groups are kinda obsolete, and the cole showed that it doesn't take much to knock out even the biggest ship. that said, two weeks of no oil would be absolutely catastrophic. and even if the US navy could without a doubt secure the straits (which the operation above shows it probably couldn't) it's not like the the presence of battle ships would necessarily lower insurance prices.

"nope nothing to see here totally safe."

Edited by Fiz, 20 February 2009 - 02:51 PM.


#37 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:59 PM

i know that this is a tender subject for you but even if there were a few battle groups they'd still not be able to do much, especially if they openly provoked iran.

http://en.wikipedia...._Challenge_2002

the falklands showed that huge naval groups are kinda obsolete, and the cole showed that it doesn't take much to knock out even the biggest ship. that said, two weeks of no oil would be absolutely catastrophic. and even if the US navy could without a doubt secure the straits (which the operation above shows it probably couldn't) it's not like the the presence of battle ships would necessarily lower insurance prices.

"nope nothing to see here totally safe."



It still doesn't make Iran the most powerful country in the world, Fiz. Most dangerous maybe.

#38 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,727 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:49 PM

Funny Fiz should use the Falklands, considering the brits won that little engagement precisely because Argentina's Navy could not compete with the Royal Navy, even with the RN's lack of large deck carriers.

The USS Cole was hardly a large ship. And she was in port, at anchor. Had she been at sea, with General Quarters stations manned, she would not have been hurt. Our little ships can move pretty quick, and the crewmen have 50 cal mounts around them.

And here is the key point.

The USN is not going to sit around and wait for the Iranians to shoot a bunch of cruise missiles at us. As soon as they begin trying to interfere with shipping, our carriers, which will be well out of cruise missile range, are going to start taking out their launch facilities. Iranian Cruise missiles only have a range of about a 100 miles, and to be honest, the odds of them actually hitting a target more than 30-40 miles away is slim. But our carriers could hit targets from a 1000 miles out. And Millenium Challenge was an exercise designed to deal with future conditions, not current capabilities.

Fiz, you are out of your league here. I lived and breathed this stuff for years. Iran versus the US in any military capacity would be a mismatch. They know it, and we know it. They might get in a few lucky blows, but they know their military would not be able to stand up very long.

Their one shot at closing the straits of hormuz would be some type of off the wall activity, such as sinking ships the way the Egyptians did in the Suez. Or with mines, and as soon as they do either activity, they are going to suffer some extreme consequences.

#39 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:53 PM

It still doesn't make Iran the most powerful country in the world, Fiz. Most dangerous maybe.


then what is the most powerful country in the world, since you seem determined to play semantics.

one could conceivably wipe out the entire world's economy and the entire ability of the united states to function VERY easily.

the other can send all of its troops anywhere in the world in 2 days, then accomplish nothing and get sucked into an unwinnable conflict against a bunch of poorly trained militia using decades old rifles and rocks to hide behind.

hasn't the past 7 years taught you that perhaps, just maybe, the american military isn't all it's cracked up to be? that it's designed for wars that will never happen again? that its nuclear arsenal means nothing because they can't be used?

are you just trying to rephrase this argument so that it sounds better in regards to the absurd omnipotent american hegemony that neoconservatives fap themselves over? Iran isn't powerful, it's dangerous. They're not smart, they're unpredictable. They don't hate us because we're a belligerent military presence within the reasons, it's because they hate our freedoms. Our religious leader is spiritual and principled, theirs are radical.

#40 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:59 PM

Funny Fiz should use the Falklands, considering the brits won that little engagement precisely because Argentina's Navy could not compete with the Royal Navy, even with the RN's lack of large deck carriers.

i was referring more to the fact that a vastly inferior military managed to sink ships that were thought to be invincible.

The USS Cole was hardly a large ship. And she was in port, at anchor. Had she been at sea, with General Quarters stations manned, she would not have been hurt. Our little ships can move pretty quick, and the crewmen have 50 cal mounts around them.

would the blast that took out the cole, carried by the same time of boats that wiped out the USN in the millenium exercise, be able to sink larger vessels? how about thousands of those little boats, all coming at once, which is exactly what that wargame showed would take out the USN?

And Millenium Challenge was an exercise designed to deal with future conditions, not current capabilities.

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops, evading Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. They also used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's ships without being detected. In the early days of the exercise, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces' electronic sensors, destroying sixteen warships. The equivalent of this success in a real conflict would have resulted in the death of over 20,000 servicemen and servicewomen. Soon after that offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

so which part are future capabilities? people on motorcycles carrying messages? people committing suicide attacks in small boats which has happened, or the launching of cruise missiles that wouldn't be hard to attain?

Fiz, you are out of your league here. I lived and breathed this stuff for years. Iran versus the US in any military capacity would be a mismatch. They know it, and we know it. They might get in a few lucky blows, but they know their military would not be able to stand up very long.

Iran doesn't need to maintain military control of the Strait to effect a 'shutdown'. They need to increase the insurance costs of any company running a tanker through the Strait to unfeasible levels, and that would be really f*cking easy.

#41 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:02 PM

then what is the most powerful country in the world, since you seem determined to play semantics.

one could conceivably wipe out the entire world's economy and the entire ability of the united states to function VERY easily.

the other can send all of its troops anywhere in the world in 2 days, then accomplish nothing and get sucked into an unwinnable conflict against a bunch of poorly trained militia using decades old rifles and rocks to hide behind.

hasn't the past 7 years taught you that perhaps, just maybe, the american military isn't all it's cracked up to be? that it's designed for wars that will never happen again? that its nuclear arsenal means nothing because they can't be used?

are you just trying to rephrase this argument so that it sounds better in regards to the absurd omnipotent american hegemony that neoconservatives fap themselves over? Iran isn't powerful, it's dangerous. They're not smart, they're unpredictable. They don't hate us because we're a belligerent military presence within the reasons, it's because they hate our freedoms. Our religious leader is spiritual and principled, theirs are radical.


You like to throw around 50-cent words, but your argument doesn't add up to squat. America is the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically. Your argument is that Iran is because it could cripple our ability to import oil. Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned. What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government? Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

I don't understand you people who seem determined to play Devil's Advocate to the nth degree. What's in it for you?

#42 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:07 PM

Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned.

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.

What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government?

considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.

Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.

#43 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:13 PM

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.


I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.
considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.


Clearly you are a master baiter.

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.


See above.

#44 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,997 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:19 PM

I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?


nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.

#45 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:24 PM

nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.


If a frog had wings it could fly. If the Panthers had stuck to the ground game vs. Arizona they'd be picking out Super Bowl rings. If is a pretty useful word if you like to argue, isn't it?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com