Iran: We'll Shut Down Straits of Hormuz

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

July 03, 2009, 07:44:33 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

   

Please contribute to the college fund benefiting Nathan Wager's two children, Little Nate and Madalena.

[Today]

• Any gyms need a sauna and... by ITSALLCRAP [Today at 06:39:25 PM]
• ATT Ricardo Liborio BJJ G... by ruptureclothing [Today at 06:29:45 PM]
• Superfights at UFC 100 GQ by StallionRGA [Today at 05:49:49 PM]
• BJJ and child molestation... by JustScrap [Today at 05:36:15 PM]
• Jordan gets his Black Bel... by JIU JITSU JOE [Today at 05:22:31 PM]

Change Color Black Red Yellow Pink Green Orange Purple Blue Beige Brown Teal Navy Maroon LimeGreen

[more]

Members

• Total Members: 8156
• Latest: Frate Trane

Stats

• Total Posts: 1150187
• Total Topics: 73272
• Online Today: 92
• Online Ever: 291
• (August 06, 2008, 10:00:28 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 12
• Guests: 35
• Total: 47
• McDoublejoint
  Endezeit
  gdjiujitsu
  bigwel21
  andy ruffner
  irishspirit
  Eaton Beaver
  Jmin10
  donegalpunk
  

NHB GEAR NEWS

Email:

[Barra-CK]

A senior Iranian official is threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz using military force, which would effectively shut down the Persian Gulf oil supply - if European supports economic sanctions against Iran in a bid to halt Tehran's nuclear program.

"If Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the U.N. Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz," said Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

According to the Israeli News service Haaretz, which first reported the threat on Tuesday based on an Iranian news account - this is the first time an Iranian official has publicly issued a military threat.

Twenty-five percent of the world's oil production passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. If Iran were to carry out such a threat, other big oil producers in the region, such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, would be unable to export oil.

Raduki also warned that his country might resign its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



I guess we better just let them have their Nukes. Useing Diplomacy is going to cause Oil Prices to go up and that will no doubt be Bush's fault. Our only other option would be Imperialistic Warmongering and that would result in the possible loss of life of American forces. We can't have that either.

Guess we just better get used to a Nuclear Iran.

Since Iran is not a sponsor of terrorist, we should be OK.

Ive gotta go stick my head back in the sand now, OK, bye bye

[AZChokester]

Sure they will.

[ALBY]

paraphrased and lifted from another forum... mostly travis mcgee at frugals (author EFD)

******
My fear is that the USA is about to experience one of those shocking moments in history when paradigms shift. Like when the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse sailed out of Singapore in December of 1941 and were sunk by Japanese torpedo planes and bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

Until then, everyone 'knew' that their shipboard AA defenses were enough to protect battleships from enemy air attack.   Everyone 'knew' that Large ships were far safer in open sea.  But, when the Repulse and the Prince of Wales went down, it was the only time these huge ships, with all of their weapons, had actually gone down fighting, in open sea.
 
This was a turning point in naval history.

We may be about to see anotherturning point, if our Navy is forced to 'open' the Straights of Hormuz, in the face of 100s of Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles. 

This is what Iran bought those missilesfor. Iran has over 600 miles of coastline that is in point-blank missile range of the Persian gulf and Gulf of Oman shipping lanes. Iranian Sunburns, Silkworms and Exocets are on mobile launchers, hidden in caves and warehouses throughout a million square miles of mountainous cliffy terrain.  The mobile missiles only need a spotter with eyes on the Hormuz, and a wire phone link to the cave. They will have "standing orders" to remain concealed and will still be launching salvos of missiles at our ships and oil tankers in that narrow space.

Think about this: the Argentines had only 6 Exocets, some crappy Super Entendards and had to fly hundreds of miles to their launching point, and they still sank 2 British ships.

The Iranians have 100s of Sunburns, Silkworms and Exocets hidden in caves on mobile launchers ready to launch with almost no warning or preparation time.

During Desert Storm, after action reports proved that despite all of our efforts, we never stopped on single giant SCUD from being launched. And they had to be moved, erected to vertical, and fueled. All of our satellites, recon planes, SAS, Delta etc, and we never stopped one huge SCUD from being launched. They were launched on every day of the Desert Storm air war.

The anti ship cruise missiles are smaller, quicker, and fire from horizontal. They don't need the long set up time of a SCUD. They will bust out of a cliff, and fire, in salvos.


The sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse we're the death knell of both the age of BattleShips, and the age of Pax Britannia.  Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill later said after the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Whales, "In all of the war I have never received a more direct shock." 

As the Falkands, the testing arena of modern weapons, showed; it does not take the resources of a super power to sink ships.  Here is a photo of the Sheffield, after one Exocet and before sinking. The warhead failed to explode, the damage was done by the kinetic energy, and the fire from the unused propellant.



Sunburns and Silkworms are much larger, and the Sunburn is twice as fast.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

"The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

"The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

"The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat."




Those missiles could prove as deadly to the world economy as unrestricted U-Boat raids were to the British Economy during WW II. 

Are we facing a paradigm shift ?  Could we see the dominance of our carriers challenged and our ability to project power reduced ?