Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

reply to post by Sailor Sam


yep, and when we did it ended world war 2. had we not done so, many more people than the combined deaths of hiroshiima and nagasaki would've been killed. read your history

None of this even matters because all of it is speculation based off war games.

It doesn't take into account, the Airforce or the human element.

Nothing in this thread matters at all...it's all been untested in a real life situtation. Why are you people arguing over something so extremely meaningless. As soon as war breaks out, Iran will tuck their tail between their legs and hide behind big bad Russia.

I'm U.S. and I agree that we wouldn't nuke. For one thing, we don't have to because there are many other options besides armed conflict of any sort, even now, with all the saber rattling. For another, there is the built in "proportionality" concept in the laws of war for modern, UN sanctioned warfare. The U.S. went to some trouble to get UN approval in Afghanistan to connect non-state actors (AQ) to state actors (Taliban) and attack them both. They were even using the rules of preemptive attack before that to attack AQ. If the Iranians attempt to close the Strait, then we can respond proportional to the threat, clear it, and try to keep it open - I doubt seriously that it could be used as a pre-text for open warfare with Iran unless preemption, e.g. destroying threatening missile batteries comes into play. You can see the runaway logic in this, "Gotta open the strait, can't do it without ships in there, ships are threatened by missiles, gotta kill the missile launchers, they're protected by ground to air, gotta kill that...etc. etc."

There is a gigantic corpus of international law that governs how these things play out in a modern world. The bigger threat I believe is the possibility of ungoverned cyber warfare between non-state Iranian actors, sympathetic quasi-non-state attackers all over the world, and retaliatory strikes by sympathetic Western actors. It really is the wild west out there. There are many posts on ATS about the capabilities of various national cyber forces, suffice it to say, if it's connected to the internet, it is vulnerable whether it's something big or something small. However, these are not the most likely "first responders" on the cyber battlefield nor would they be because their entry into a conflict would constitute an "armed attack" and consequently allow for a broader application of the laws of war. Rather, non-state cyber attacks, possibly aided by information from state actors, are the more likely scenario. These attacks could have dramatic impact. For instance, if a state actor wants to put the U.S. in its place without direct conflict, they could pass information to non-state actors, e.g. organized crime hackers, who could then apply their craft in a surprise attack on U.S. forces. Who does the U.S. attack in response? How do they find out who did it or who received the critical information? If a carrier is sunk because of something like this, and the U.S. bombs Iran when non-Iranian, non-state actors are involved, that will be a tragedy on both sides. So, this is a very, very tricky situation and the precedent of involvement from non-state actors has already happened.

Don't trust me though, verify and read the refs below:

en.wikipedia.org...
blogs.mcafee.com...

Botnets and C&C for hire make a cyber conflict the most likely IMHO. The degree to which non-state actors can perform autonomously will determine its success. If they're linked to state actors, then "armed attack" comes into play and then it's probably bombs away time. I hope we don't get there.

Anyone want to place a bet there's not a scratch on a major USN surface ship? I'll take that.

Remember Operation Preying Mantis? lol, defenseless Boghamar speedboats vs A6 Intruders loaded w/Rockeye cluster bombs. lol, place your bets.

USN will stay far out of reach until missile batteries are suppressed.

Russia can't do anything overt to help the Mullahs, and both are on the wrong side of the issue to begin with.

reply to post by buster2010

Bullsh## Iran has be fighting a proxy war ever since they took the US Embassy in 79,now they want to give those proxy forces nukes and they don't think they'll be blamed.
Iran isn't going to use them themselves.
They can't counter western military forces so they resorted to world wide guerilla tactics in order to expel western influence from the middle east.

Operation Preying Mantis

en.wikipedia.org...


Frigate IS Sahand burning stem to stern


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by orangetom1999
EarthCitizen07,

What doe it mean when you see paintings of Napolean Bonaparte with his hand inside his tunic. Same thing with Civil War Officers with their hand in their tunic as is so many surviving photos?? Ever notice that
EarthCitizen07?? Once you do you will spot it more often..much more often.

Some of the most interesting things about history happen to be missing from most textbooks.

Thanks,
Orangetom

edit on 14-1-2012 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)

Great post. It seems pretty obvious that placing the hand concealed behind the garter is so the actor can flash their gang sign, covertly.