Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/8/2005 2:51:21 PM EDT
I think a naval blockade would be a good way to squeeze Iran.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:53:51 PM EDT
In addition to removing all of the present government zealots.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:57:00 PM EDT
It has definately worked in the past.
It gets my vote.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:59:08 PM EDT
Hell, why stop there? Go with a land blockade as well - we're already on both sides
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:04:02 PM EDT
It would probably be ineffectual.

First of all, we couldn't stop the flow of oil out of Iraq, and Iraq has something like 36 miles of coastline and only two waterways capable of handling sea-going traffic. Iran has a huge coastline, but more importantly its coastline has many areas where it's close to the UAE. Once the oil is in the UAE, it's gone. I don't know their status on pipelines; I imagine they have more ways than just supertankers to export oil. Also one of their biggest oil customers is China. Are we going to stop and board Chinese and even Russian vessels? That is an act of war, not only against Iran, but in this case against China and Russia as well.

I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked. The only thing that was close was our submarine operations against Japan, but the blockade wasn't a single piece strategy.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:07:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:


I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked.



Cuban Missile Crisis
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:09:26 PM EDT
Wouldn't work. Totally impractical

1. Blockades are only legal against belligerents or co-belligerents. Currently Iran is neither.

2. What would you be stopping or trying to stop? Oil coming out or misc stuff coming in?

3. You realize there are railroad links between Iran and Russia? (Guess who built or at least improved and restord them in WW2?)
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:12:16 PM EDT
Iran imports 80% of their gasoline by boat. We could cause them a MAJOR headache in gas alone.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:13:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:

Originally Posted By dport:


I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked.



Cuban Missile Crisis


That wasn't really a blockade on its own. That was nuclear brinksmanship, and Kennedy negotiated Pershing missiles out of Turkey.



Some more food for thought. Do we really want to restict the world's access to oil right now with oil at $60+ dollars a barrel? If we do manage to cut the flow of oil out of Iran, Iran's customers are going to look for other sources for their oil. That means competing with the US for oil, thus raising the price. So do we want to blockade Iran at the possible cost of our own economy?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:59:43 PM EDT
IBTSZ



In Before The Sunburn Zealots
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:06:00 PM EDT
If you're going to dick with Iran you want to do something that will end the regime once and for all, and hopefully do it fast. They've got pretty significant missile forces and probably chemical weapons, and are of course big fans of terrorism. The longer you drag it out the more opportunities you give them.

In the end their critical weakness is that the population despises the government.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:09:03 PM EDT
A naval blockade is an act of war under international law. Iran would be justified in lobbing a nuke on Washington D.C. in retaliation. Is that really how you want to go with this scenario?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:09:17 PM EDT
Won't work. Nor will a total commodities embargo work. I can't think of a single country save possibly Britain and Australia who would honor such a blockade.

It worked on Cuba and it would have worked on Japan because both are island nations totally dependent on seaborne commerce for their continued existance. Not so with Iran.

I fear the only answers to preventing a nuclear attack in the future by a terrorist organization with a Persian bomb is great force at the appropriate time or diplomacy, and I have yet to see diplomacy work with any Islamofacist organization. They understand only one form of diplomacy and that is the Big Stick.

Sooner than later we will be forced to reduce much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure to rubble.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:11:54 PM EDT
They've already declared war by supporting the terrorists....we need to shut them down-for good.

HH
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:19:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 6:37:00 PM EDT by glockguy40]
Naval blockade hurts us more than it will hurt them..... with the high oil prices, Iran is running a budget surplus, and the year isnt even over yet. It will cause oil prices to sore, hurting the world economy.

It will piss China and Japan off because they get a significant amount of oil from Iran.

Russia wouldnt like it either.

You are better off with air strikes if you want to go the confrontation route. Though, air strikes might not accomplish anything.

Iran has restarted their uranium conversion facility in Isfahan. If they successfully create enough UF6 gas for feedstock, they then essentially have the bomb. Once they have the feedstock for a bomb, they can enrich that material anywhere in the Country. They dont need Natanz to do enrichment.

They can make centerfuges in any workshop in Iran. Hell, they started out at Kayleie Electric company, which was a watch factory.

They can make new centerfuges, put them anywhere they choose in the country, and begin enrichment with the feedstock that they have created.

Before Iran suspended its program, it created 37 tons of UF4 gas. They need only to convert this gas to UF6 to make it into feedstock for their centerfuges.

37 tons of UF6 would be enough to produce about 5 bombs worth of fissile material.

If you want to stop them, you better launch an airstrike on Isfahan now and prevent further conversion from taking place, or else they become a defacto nuclear state from here on out

ETA: Will the UN or GW launch air strike before Iran finishes its conversion of this material to UF6? Well since it will only take about 2 weeks to finish this process..... I say no

Which means... get ready for a nuclear Iran no matter what we bomb from here on out. Whatever we do now could only at best slow them down... but I even doubt that.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:32:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:34:37 PM EDT by LWilde]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:

Originally Posted By dport:


I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked.



Cuban Missile Crisis


That wasn't really a blockade on its own. That was nuclear brinksmanship, and Kennedy negotiated Pershing missiles out of Turkey.



Some more food for thought. Do we really want to restict the world's access to oil right now with oil at $60+ dollars a barrel? If we do manage to cut the flow of oil out of Iran, Iran's customers are going to look for other sources for their oil. That means competing with the US for oil, thus raising the price. So do we want to blockade Iran at the possible cost of our own economy?



WADR Youngster, the missiles in Turkey were Jupiter IRBMs. The Pershing I did not achieve IOC until August 1963...which I believe was after the Cuban Missile crisis.

Here is a linky for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

And here are some pics of the Jupiter:






And of the Pershing:



What I now find terrifying is the recently divulged information that the Soviets had a battery of nuclear armed Frog tactical artillery missiles (6 or 8 birds IIRC), PLUS nearly four divisions of troops in Cuba, totally over 40,000 men. Further, the on scene commander had written and oral instructions from Kruschev to PREVENT an invasion by the Americans. Should his communications be down, he was authorized to release his nukes! And we're talking about the shitty HF radio comms of 1962.

If we had attempted a landing as the JCS wanted to do it would have been a disaster and surely have resulted in the end of our world as we know it.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:04:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
issiles in Turkey were Jupiter IRBMs. The Pershing I did not achieve IOC until August 1963...which I believe was after the Cuban Missile crisis.


Well some of us weren't around when the Pershings went operational.

Mea Culpa. I got the missile wrong.

I believe, however, that my points are still valid.

And yes it's scary to think what could have happened. I think Kennedy made all the right calls in a very difficult, actually impossible but he didn't know that, situation.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:06:54 PM EDT
Do the Iraninas have the Sunburn or any other anti-ship missles?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:10:13 PM EDT
Should we blockade Iran? No, it would be ineffectual. They would get too much help overland.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:11:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 5:11:43 PM EDT by TodaysTomSawyer]

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
A naval blockade is an act of war under international law. Iran would be justified in lobbing a nuke on Washington D.C. in retaliation. Is that really how you want to go with this scenario?



Isn't taking over a nation's embassy an act of war. We should have been justified in lobbing a nuke over there - and we'd have had no problem doing it either.

I'm not sure if it's the way to go or not - I don't have access to all the info. But I do know the mullahs over there need to have their legs swept out from under them - HARD
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:40:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 5:56:54 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By enemy:
Do the Iraninas have the Sunburn or any other anti-ship missles?



They have the sunburn and silkworms. (801's and 802's)

Iran and the Sunburn
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:14:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By enemy:
Do the Iraninas have the Sunburn or any other anti-ship missles?



They have the sunburn and silkworms. (801's and 802's)

Iran and the Sunburn


801s and 802s are not Sunburns. That's not to say they don't have them, but C801 and C802s are Chinese made, while the Sunburn, SS-N-22, is Russian mande.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:30:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 1:14:38 AM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By enemy:
Do the Iraninas have the Sunburn or any other anti-ship missles?



They have the sunburn and silkworms. (801's and 802's)<---- this was meant to show they have both versions of the silkworm. Notice I used Silkworms, plural.

Iran and the Sunburn


801s and 802s are not Sunburns. That's not to say they don't have them, but C801 and C802s are Chinese made, while the Sunburn, SS-N-22, is Russian mande.



I know that. I was saying that they have both
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:32:02 PM EDT
No. We should bomb those motherfuckers until the wings on our fighters get tired.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:58:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
issiles in Turkey were Jupiter IRBMs. The Pershing I did not achieve IOC until August 1963...which I believe was after the Cuban Missile crisis.


Well some of us weren't around when the Pershings went operational.

Mea Culpa. I got the missile wrong.

I believe, however, that my points are still valid.

And yes it's scary to think what could have happened. I think Kennedy made all the right calls in a very difficult, actually impossible but he didn't know that, situation.



Ok.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:34:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 7:37:58 PM EDT by crazyhorse705]
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:39:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
ok i found some recent stats on their military and ours so here you go


IRAN MILITARY STRENGTH DETAIL
AMERICAN MILITARY STRENGTH DETAIL
UNITED KINGDOM ( BRITISH) MILITARY STRENGTH DETAIL ALLIES



A much more detailed and definitive study of Iran's military.

www.csis.org/burke/mb/041208_IranDevMilCap.pdf
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:47:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 8:53:17 PM EDT by petagunner]

Originally Posted By dport:
It would probably be ineffectual.

I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked. The only thing that was close was our submarine operations against Japan, but the blockade wasn't a single piece strategy.



Cuba? (I know,already said)

I think there are better options, unfortunatly the better ones will not be popular and or supported by the majority and this will be left untouched. Swift, decisive action seems to be the best, but had better plan to deal with the rest of the reporcussions.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:15:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By petagunner:

Originally Posted By dport:
It would probably be ineffectual.

I'm trying to think of a situation where a naval blockade on its own worked. The only thing that was close was our submarine operations against Japan, but the blockade wasn't a single piece strategy.



Cuba? (I know,already said)

I think there are better options, unfortunatly the better ones will not be popular and or supported by the majority and this will be left untouched. Swift, decisive action seems to be the best, but had better plan to deal with the rest of the reporcussions.


Cuba wasn't really a blockade. We weren't trying to bring Cuba to their knees. We were simply trying to stop Russian weapons shipments. We knew approximately where the ships were; we knew the timeframe of their approach. It's a blockade, but only in a very strict sense. Cuba and what is proposed here are very different. If we had blockaded Cuba, stopping all shipments in or out of the country, for an indefinite period of time, then I would agree. However, that is not what was done.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:16:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By enemy:
Do the Iraninas have the Sunburn or any other anti-ship missles?



They have the sunburn and silkworms. (801's and 802's)<---- this was meant to show they have both versions of the silkworm. Notice I used Silkworms, plural.

Iran and the Sunburn


801s and 802s are not Sunburns. That's not to say they don't have them, but C801 and C802s are Chinese made, while the Sunburn, SS-N-22, is Russian mande.



Iran know that. I was saying that they have both


I see what you were trying to say. However, your original post wasn't very clear. Neither is "Iran know that."
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:26:32 AM EDT
The only way is to get the mighty United Nations involved. They will take care of everything.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:40:46 AM EDT
Sunburn has a completely pimp name (NATO designation). That much I will give it. Can it avoid Phalanx? Nope. That is a stupid myth that is probably perpetrated by the Navy in hopes of getting funding for their RAM.

The article also mentions that the RAM is not tested against the Sunburn. Actually, it has intercepted dummy missiles built to mimic Sunburn (same speed, evasion, size characteristics).

Some people are WAY too impressed with russian tech which has proven to be superior to that of the United States in battle all of maybe once during the Korean War for a couple of months until the latest US fighter got there.

MiGs/Sus are completely overrated and are consistently dominated in every aerial engagement involving their Western counterparts.
Ditto with the T-72 and most certainly with the T-90 (T-72 with lipstick).
Their anti-tank stuff is unproven aswell. When an Abrams tank got knocked out in Iraq during the initial invasion the pro-russia-tech-koolaid-drinkers were raving about how the uber-l33t "Kornet" missile pwn3d the Abrams...when it was infact revealed after the investigation that it was a friendly Bradley that pumped rounds through the exhaust ports into the vulnerable engine which started an engine fire that could not be extinguished. No threat to the crew ever materialized (they abandoned the tank casually) but the E-Commando Russia Tech Lovers still sing praises of "Kornet" because it has a 1337 name.

RUSSIAN TECH SUCKS HUGE FUCKING BALLS. SERIOUSLY.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:05:22 AM EDT
bothersome
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:45:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
Sunburn has a completely pimp name (NATO designation). That much I will give it. Can it avoid Phalanx? Nope. That is a stupid myth that is probably perpetrated by the Navy in hopes of getting funding for their RAM.

The article also mentions that the RAM is not tested against the Sunburn. Actually, it has intercepted dummy missiles built to mimic Sunburn (same speed, evasion, size characteristics).



So what do you know there in Ohio that I sitting here in the cradle of the Atlantic Fleet and LWilde, a combat systems god, don't know?

Is Sunburn invincible? No. It IS very bothersome. It was designed to "get into Aegis' knickers." And it does it quite well. It was designed to be hard to kill. (I'll let LWilde get into the specifics. I don't want to venture into classified material by accident.) Whether or not the missiles are reliable after being maintained by a 3rd world navy is another issue.

Of course, it's all academic sitting there in Ohio. Why don't you join the Navy and make a deployment to the Persian Gulf to acquaint yourself with the tactical issues involved?
Top Top