If Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz

tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
Would that be an act of war?
«13

Replies

  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    Nope, no difference than all previous actions that were never declared. Haven't declared war since 1941, why change now.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,327 AG
    tag wrote: »
    Would that be an act of war?

    It would be no less an act of war than the embargo on Iran.
  • Michael RepperMichael Repper Posts: 4,897 Officer
    tag wrote: »
    Would that be an act of war?

    Isn't it an act of war to embargo Iran and support revolutionaries within the borders of their sovereign nation?
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    Where are all the other countries that get this oil. Are they going to pony up equal troops and money if Iran tries to block the strait.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • razorreilly09razorreilly09 Posts: 8,401 Officer
    China may, just not in our favor
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    So if Iran blocked their territorial waters can we legally attack them.


    Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.

    To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    dstockwell wrote: »
    Nope, no difference than all previous actions that were never declared. Haven't declared war since 1941, why change now.

    Apples and Oranges.

    Not talking about declaring war. Would that action be an act of war?
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,672 AG
    Ain't going to happen.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    tag wrote: »
    Would that action be an act of war?

    No see post #7.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    dstockwell wrote: »
    So if Iran blocked their territorial waters can we legally attack them.


    Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.

    To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.

    The Strait of Hormuz is 54 miles wide.

    Coastal waters extend at most 12 nautical miles.

    Not all of the strait is Iran's coastal waters.
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    tag wrote: »
    The Strait of Hormuz is 54 miles wide.

    Coastal waters extend at most 12 nautical miles.

    Not all of the strait is Iran's coastal waters.

    The narrowest part of the strait is (54 km) 34 miles. Subtract 14 miles (12nm) for Iran and 14 miles (12nm) for Oman, that leaves 6 miles. Exactly the amount that is left to go through give or take a couple hundred feet. So Iran could sit right on the edge of the lanes that are supposed to traverse the strait and be completely within their water.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    Sail through the coastal waters of Oman.......


    Iran has the right to control their waters. They don't have the right to control international waters or the waters of another country.
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    tag wrote: »
    Sail through the coastal waters of Oman.......

    That would be up to Oman.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • beach_tradebeach_trade Posts: 2,040 Captain
    http://www.eia.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html

    On average, 13 crude oil tankers per day passed eastbound through the Strait in 2009 (compared with an average of 18 in 2007-2008), with a corresponding amount of empty tankers entering westbound to pick up new cargos. More than 75 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations.

    At its narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles, separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.

    Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require the use of longer alternate routes at increased transportation costs. Alternate routes include the 745 mile long Petroline, also known as the East-West Pipeline, across Saudi Arabia from Abqaiq to the Red Sea. The East-West Pipeline has a nameplate capacity of 4.8 million bbl/d. The Abqaiq-Yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, which runs parallel to the Petroline to the Red Sea, has a 290,000-bbl/d capacity.

    A new bypass is currently being constructed across the United Arab Emirates that is expected to be completed in 2011. The 1.5 million bbl/d Habshan-Fujairah pipeline will cross the emirate of Abu Dhabi and end at the port of Fujairah just south of the Strait. Other alternate routes could include the deactivated 1.65-million bbl/d Iraqi Pipeline across Saudi Arabia (IPSA), and the deactivated 0.5 million-bbl/d Tapline to Lebanon.

    Additional oil could also be pumped north via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline to the port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea, but volumes have been limited by the closure of the Strategic pipeline linking north and south Iraq.
  • CoolchangeCoolchange Posts: 377 Officer
    Inbound on even days, outbound on odd....next problem
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    tag wrote: »
    Sail through the coastal waters of Oman.......


    Iran has the right to control their waters. They don't have the right to control international waters or the waters of another country.

    neither do we, but we do

    we have done far worse to iran than than they have to us or ever could
    No political signature
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    At its narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles, separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.

    Then this further complicates some issues. At 21 miles Iran and Oman split the strait, no international waters. Iran could close off their portion (10.5) miles and force re-routing into the other lanes, just enough turmoil to make the price of oil go up more and more.
    Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations.

    Well, well.. Look who needs to step up and handle some issue's.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    It would be stupid of Iran to close the straits. But then again Iran does a lot of stupid things. Back in 1988 they mined the straits. Remember that the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) hit a mine ands was severely damaged and 10 sailors hurt. The US responded and sank a coupe of their ships.

    Add:

    USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS strikes a mine while operating in the Persian Gulf. Detonation of the mine results in major structural damage to the hull and superstructure, flooding and fires. There are no personnel casualties but 69 injuries reported as a result of the explosion. Damage aboard the frigate was that extensive that she had to be returned to the United States for repairs by a heavy lift ship (photo below). SAMUEL B. ROBERTS was repaired at Bath Iron Works in Maine and the repairs took at least one year.

    Three days after the mine blast, forces of the Joint Task Force Middle East executed the American response - Operation Praying Manits. During a two-day period, the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force units of Joint Task Force Middle East destroyed two oil platforms being used by Iran to coordinate attacks on merchant shipping, sank or destroyed three Iranian warships and neutralized at least six Iranian speedboats
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,327 AG
    tag wrote: »
    It would be stupid of Iran to close the straits. But then again Iran does a lot of stupid things. Back in 1988 they mined the straits. Remember that the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) hit a mine ands was severely damaged and 10 sailors hurt. The US responded and sank a coupe of their ships.

    Add:

    USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS strikes a mine while operating in the Persian Gulf. Detonation of the mine results in major structural damage to the hull and superstructure, flooding and fires. There are no personnel casualties but 69 injuries reported as a result of the explosion. Damage aboard the frigate was that extensive that she had to be returned to the United States for repairs by a heavy lift ship (photo below). SAMUEL B. ROBERTS was repaired at Bath Iron Works in Maine and the repairs took at least one year.

    Three days after the mine blast, forces of the Joint Task Force Middle East executed the American response - Operation Praying Manits. During a two-day period, the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force units of Joint Task Force Middle East destroyed two oil platforms being used by Iran to coordinate attacks on merchant shipping, sank or destroyed three Iranian warships and neutralized at least six Iranian speedboats

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran–Iraq War. The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2-203 operated by Iran Air, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf on its usual flight path when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard,
  • OldredsledOldredsled Posts: 189 Deckhand
    tag wrote: »
    Apples and Oranges.

    Not talking about declaring war. Would that action be an act of war?

    no stop trying to make everything a war.. its their border not ours.. they can close it if they want to. the only other country that should have issue is the Sadui's since they share it
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    Oldredsled wrote: »
    no stop trying to make everything a war.. its their border not ours.. they can close it if they want to. the only other country that should have issue is the Sadui's since they share it

    Say what...

    hormuz.gif
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran–Iraq War. The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2-203 operated by Iran Air, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf on its usual flight path when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard,

    I'm sure Iran appreciates your support.

    Tell more of the story: (from wikipedia)

    On 3 July 1988, Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. According to Captain Rogers, they were being attacked by eight Iranian gun boats. Vincennes was defending themselves from this attack when the plane was shot at with two standard missiles. Crucially, the Vincennes then misidentified the Iranian Airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. A radio warning had been sent to the aircraft on the military aircraft warning wavelength.

    A subsequent US report by Rear Admiral William Fogarty, titled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988,[8] noted that Captain Rogers received some faulty information that he used to make the decision to fire. Specifically, he was told the aircraft was identified as an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat descending in an attack profile, and that it was identifying itself with secondary surveillance radar / IFF mode-II codes exclusively used by military aircraft. The investigation noted that Rogers was focused on the ongoing surface engagement and was only aware of the inbound aircraft for less than four minutes. It also pointed out that Rogers thought that he had increased burden to act since he was also assigned to protect the frigate USS Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082). The investigation also concluded that Rogers acted in a prudent manner based on the information available to him, and the short time frame involved. He also acted within the prescribed rules of engagement for USN warship captains in that situation.[8]

    There is no excuse for shooting down a civilian aircraft but you need to put things in context.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    Oldredsled wrote: »
    no stop trying to make everything a war.. its their border not ours.. they can close it if they want to. the only other country that should have issue is the Sadui's since they share it



    Please point out where I'm trying to make this a war.
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    put it in context
    at the time we had our navy all over the area and were constantly buzzing their defense installations with our gunships
    this was at the time we were supplying iraq, who we encouraged to invade iran, with money, weapons, and intelligence to wage war against iran in which over a million iranians died many from chemical weapons we facilitated in the sale of
    context

    edit: Rogers's crew stated they were not being attacked at the time in depositions and he had a reputation for instigating conflicts
    No political signature
  • Michael RepperMichael Repper Posts: 4,897 Officer
    tag wrote: »
    I'm sure Iran appreciates your support.

    Tell more of the story:

    There is no excuse for shooting down a civilian aircraft but you need to put things in context.

    Where do you get this stuff? The Captain was known for his recklessness even by his own crew. Captain Rogers had been in the area for weeks following and shooting at Iranian ships in their own territorial waters before this even occured.

    "U.S. government accounts

    According to the U.S. government, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military fighter. The officers misidentified the flight profile being flown by the Airbus A300B2 as being similar to that of an F-14A Tomcat during an attack run; however, the ship's own Aegis combat system recorded the flight plan of the Iranian airliner as ascending (not descending as in an attack run) at the time of the incident.[14] The commercial flight had originated at Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as a base for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights.[2] According to the same reports, the Vincennes tried unsuccessfully to contact the approaching aircraft, seven times on the military emergency frequency and three times on the civilian emergency frequency, but never on air traffic control frequencies. However, this civilian aircraft was not equipped to pick up military frequencies while the messages on the civilian emergency channel could have been directed at any aircraft. More confusion arose as the hailed speed was the ground speed, while the pilot's instruments displayed airspeed, which happened to be 50-knot (93 km/h) different.[19]

    At 10:24 am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles (20 km) away, the Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles, both of which hit Flight 655. After the attack, the Vincennes' crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner.

    This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.[20] Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988 and part II in 1993). The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."

    When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft.[21]

    The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, however the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. In August 1988 Newsweek quoted Vice President George H. W. Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are." [22]"

    "National Geographic Channel broadcast a documentary on this incident titled "Mistaken Identity"[19] as an episode of its Mayday (aka: Air Crash Investigation) series (Season 3, Episode 5); the documentary confirmed that the airliner was transmitting an Identification friend or foe code for a civilian aircraft"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#U.S._government_accounts
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,791 AG
    tag wrote: »
    the Vincennes then misidentified the Iranian Airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. A radio warning had been sent to the aircraft on the military aircraft warning wavelength.

    Not to bright.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • OldredsledOldredsled Posts: 189 Deckhand
    Tag wrote: Please point out where I'm trying to make this a war
    tag wrote: »
    Would that be an act of war?

    .... you know your previous posts get saved right ..
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    Where do you get this stuff? The Captain was known for his recklessness even by his own crew. Captain Rogers had been in the area for weeks following and shooting at Iranian ships in their own territorial waters before this even occured.

    I'm sure Iran appreciates your support.

    The investigation also concluded that Rogers acted in a prudent manner based on the information available to him, and the short time frame involved. He also acted within the prescribed rules of engagement for USN warship captains in that situation.

    But the thread subject is not - Do you support terroist nations.

    The thread subject is:

    If Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz would that be an act of war?
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    Oldredsled wrote: »
    Tag wrote: Please point out where I'm trying to make this a war



    .... you know your previous posts get saved right ..

    Really? That's what you have? That is a question intending to stimulate cconversation. Again, I'll give you a second chance, Please point out where I'm trying to make this a war.
  • tagtag Posts: 8,822 Admiral
    dstockwell wrote: »
    Not to bright.

    I agree
Sign In or Register to comment.