Let's simplify it then: were there a British ship seized by Iranian special forces in identical circumstances based on their own arbitrary sanctions would you approve?
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Let's simplify it then: were there a British ship seized by Iranian special forces in identical circumstances based on their own arbitrary sanctions would you approve?
Both of those are very different situations to a direct military confrontation with Iran.
I don't disagree about the state of the US military - there has been vast wastage and mismanagement and they are poorly prepared for a proper war - but Iran doesn't really stand a chance against them.
I used 'genocidal' deliberately as that was the view of the UN official, Dennis Halliday, who oversaw that very same sanctions regime which led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children in the 90s.
That you don't know that is understandable as our corporate press and state broadcaster, the BBC, did not report on it.
"We are now in there responsible for killing people, destroying their families, their children, allowing their older parents to die for lack of basic medicines," Halliday said during a lecture titled "Sanctions Against Iraq: Consequences and Alternatives," Sept. 24, in Goldwin Smith Hall's Hollis E. Cornell Auditorium. "We're in there allowing children to die who were not born yet when Saddam Hussein made the mistake of invading Kuwait."
"For me what is tragic, in addition to the tragedy of Iraq itself, is the fact that the United Nations Security Council member states ... are maintaining a program of economic sanctions deliberately, knowingly killing thousands of Iraqis each month. And that definition fits genocide," Halliday said.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/19...l-says-sanctions-against-iraq-amount-genocide
As for the whole US vs the Iranian military it's unwinnable. Iran will immediately close the Straits of Hormuz where a huge amount of the world's oil passes through and there will be an economic meltdown. Nuts.
Which is why even me, someone very critical of the US, doesn't think they will be mad enough to do it.
Just pointing out the US ain't what it used to be. They can't even topple Maduro in their own back yard yet expect to take on Iran.
You don't seem to understand conventional vs nonconventional warfare.
Look at a map. They have home advantage and have invested heavily in anti-shipping missiles which can sink a few super carriers that will block the narrow straits to other ships. Could mine it too.
An aircraft carrier? Is this the second world war? Useless unless you are going against a completely toothless third world country...Iran isn't. Aniti-shpping missiles...say goodbye carrier.
Well the situation isn't identical, there is a difference in geography for a start. See the previous answer - currently it is maybe.
If you don't understand the previous answer then I'm happy to clarify... it really isn't all that complicated.
Remember the 80s? The US toppled south American governments at their leisure. Not anymore.
They were blocked in Syria too by a small contingent of the Russian army. This isn't the US of several decades ago.
I can't see how they could close the Strait even against the UK alone - assuming a ready supply of Brimstones (Sea Spear) and 20mm they wouldn't be able to get a plane or a surface craft within 100+ miles of the area if we parked a couple of Type 45s and an amphibious assault ship (shame we sold Ocean as it would have been a nice platform) supported by a couple of fleet subs.
No one currently has proven anti-shipping missiles that can reliably counter the defences of UK or US destroyers. There is a lot of BS about hypersonics, etc. but so far tests of them have been less than resounding successes.
Blocked in order not to start ww3! Anyways, still waiting for your source to show that Iran have a superior military.
They couldn't. He's living in la la land.
I agree, it really isn't all that complicated which is why I don't understand why you can't answer a simple question like the one I posed.
When I say idenitcal circumstances I mean idenitcal legal circumstances - geography is irrelevant. Does Iran have the right to seize British ships passing through Iranian waters based on their own arbitrary sanctions in the same way that the UK did recently?
Yes or no?
Why is this so hard to answer?
I have, I've answered it quite clearly, What part of my answer do you not understand - why do you keep ignoring that I've already stated I'm happy to clarify if needed?
The legal circumstances aren't necessarily identical, it isn't hard to answer - I refer you again to the answer I've already provided. Please re-read if you're having trouble here and again, if you don't understand, then please do ask for clarification.
Seriously, what don't you understand here????
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920
Park a few destroyers in the Gulf? Wouldn't they be sitting ducks against anti-shipping missiles?
What defence is there against hypersonic missiles?
Whatever. It's clear by now that you refuse to recognise that Iran has the same right to seize British ships as the UK does with Iranian ships.
Hypocrite.
CIWS says hello.
What hypersonic missiles? as I said though there is a lot of talk from Russia and China, etc. so far no one has demonstrated an actually reliable working one, most of the tests have been only partial successes that would need a nuclear payload to actually take a carrier out, let alone Iran having it.
Nope, like I said it depends on the situation. I've been quite clear with my answer and I've offered to clarify, you keep on ignoring what I've already posted and just repeat the question which leads me to wonder if you're having trouble with understanding it or if you're perhaps a bit autistic or something?
Depending on where they attempt to seize them Iran doesn't necessarily have the same right as there are rules governing the passage of ships through the strait.
Blocked all the same by a few dozen Russian planes. What a superpower...
I never said they had a superior military, they obviously don't. But what they do have is enough to make the US take significant casualties if they were stupid enough to attack them.
Eh? The Russian Khinzal hypersonic missile is already operational. The US is years behind in missile technology and is trying to catch up. No idea about the Chinese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
Carriers are sitting ducks against weapons like that. They are only useful against third world militaries...floating coffins against peer adversaries.