• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Strait talk

When the scary stuff happens, who we have as commander in chief matters:

The United States is in no position to advise Iran against cutting global oil supply in case of sanctions against its petroleum industry, a top Iranian commander said on Thursday.

The comment by deputy chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami came after the U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway in the distribution of worldwide oil supply.

[. . .]

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on Nov. 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.

We could argue all day about Obama's foreign policy. My own view is that he's been much better than we might have expected on anti-terrorism stuff but pretty much a Jimmy Carter-like failure in most other areas. Keeping the strait open and the oil flowing is so vital to U.S. interests that it's hard to imagine any president not taking it seriously, so we can only hope that the Navy's tough talk reflects the administration's resolve.

UPDATE. From a Wall Street Journal editorial:

The Hormuz threat is another opportunity to set boundaries on Iran's rogue behavior. Washington, along with London, Paris and Riyadh, should say plainly that any attempt to close or disrupt traffic through the strait would be considered an act of war that would be met with a military response. That response would be robust and immediate, and it would target Iran's military and nuclear assets, perhaps even its regime. Iran's mullahs need to understand that an act of aggression would jeopardize their own survival.

The Hormuz flap should also underscore the strategic damage that would result if Iran does get the bomb. Fortified by a nuclear threat, the mullahs would be more willing to blackmail their neighbors and press for regional dominance. Would the U.S. dare resist Iranian aggression if it meant putting American forces at risk of a nuclear reprisal? Better to act now to stop Iran before we have to answer that terrible question.

When and why to use military force is always an open debate in this country, which means trying to have a current understanding of what constitutes an "act of war." Every presidential candidate should be asked for his or her definition, and, come to think of it, I don't know Obama's, either.

Comments

William Larsen
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:18pm

It is a shame we no longer have any battleships left in service. The 16 inch guns can travel over 30 miles and they do destroy what they hit far more than a harpoon, tomahawk cruise missile. Though they are much like a gravity bomb, the sound they make when approaching causes a lot of emotional problems to those on the receiving end. At the same time their 16 inch steel hauls make them darn difficult to sink with today's weapons.

I would hope that their are sufficient assets in the area to take out their radar sites, airfields and command structures in a first wave. I would support a 4x shock and awe response.

Tim Zank
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:37pm

William, what's even more of a shame is that we need not ever worry about these friggin' yahoos again if we'd simply tap our own resources right under our feet. THAT's a shame.

William Larsen
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:05pm

Tim, I agree for every barrel we bring up in the US, fewer dollars are sent abroad. The trade deficit could be reduced substantially.

In addition, we do not get much if any oil from the middle east, it is too far to ship it for us. What closing the straights does is reduce market oil, driving up market prices, market prices would drive up US prices, just as gold value around the world is influenced by demand. Oil is a commodity.

littlejohn
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:21pm

Battleships were obsolete by the second year of World War II. Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't a single U.S. aircraft carrier group destroy the entire Iranian "navy" in two or three hours? I looked it up on Wikipedia, and Iran just has a handful of surface ships, all smaller than destroyers, no carriers, and a couple dozen submarines - all diesel-electrics that have to surface every few hours to recharge batteries. Hell, you could put an idiot like me in an admiral's uniform and I'd have everything they've got sunk in time for cocktails. In fact, I hereby volunteer. Cheers.

William Larsen
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:29am

Battleships were used to sink other battle ships in WWI. The IOWA class was begun prior to Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor debacle made it clear that WWI battleships were not good at guarding against air attack. This lead to finishing only four of many IOWA class battleships that had extremely thick hauls. During WWII the aircraft carrier was used to overwhelm the enemy.

The Aircraft carrier is a thin haul ship. It's only protection are a few Phalinx systems mounted on port and starboard, destroyer and cruiser escorts and planes. If the flight deck is damaged, planes cannot land.

The battleship is basically made to take hits. As weapons improved (radar), the damage done by heavy cruisers and cruiser with 8 inch guns took their toll on battleships (attacked by many smaller ships from different directions). This lead to a lighter weight ship, faster and more manuverable to get out of harms way before the enemy shell could hit. To counter this, the surface to surface missile was developed. The punching power of the missile is small and easily penetrates most ships super structures today and then explodes; causing deadly fires. The Falkland Islands showed just how deadly a highly manuverable missile can be. These missiles are made of very thin material and unlike the penetrating projectiles from 5, 8, 16 inch guns that are dialed in based on material to penetrate before detonating.

So now we have the Sea Sparrow (very fast) followed by the phalinx that puts up ~8,000 rounds a minute in front of the incoming warhead.

Today the offensive weapons are made to kill thin hauled ships. Basically he who gets hit first looses. Now bring back the battleship. As the captain of one was asked back in the first gulf war; are you concerned about an exoset hitting his ship; "it may burn the paint a bit." The Iranian navy has missiles that if they hit a ship will cause significant damage if not sink it. If these same missiles were to hit a battleship, as the captain said, "it may burn the paint."

The Iranian Navy is based along the shore. The straights are narrow. If they start something, you want to be able to stop their navy; one way is to use the 16" inch guns that have enough TNT to blast nearly one acre in size.

The Iranians have a lot of artillery that can shel from land the ships that pass through it. It is not the ships that concern me, but the thousands of surface to surface missiles, planes and artillery delivery systems our military has to contend with. A battleship with 9 - 16" barrels can pound these artillery systems and shore lines for a very long time; delivery more tonnage than jets. Use the jets to take care of their air force and protect our ships.

As for a diesel electric boat in shallow waters, hard to find, but not impossible. Electric boats are very quiet. The Germans in the late 90's were building diesel boats that were very quiet and sold them all over the world.

Harl Delos
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:33pm

The Straits of Hormuz are only 34 miles wide. I don't think it's unreasonable for Iran to keep an eye on what's parked off-shore; we got upset about ICBMs being staged 90 miles off the shore of Florida five decades ago.

Exxon isn't paying one red cent in US income tax. If they want a war with Iran, they can darned well hire their own army and navy; I don't want them using mine until they start filling up my gas tank for free.

And remembering the Berlin Airlift, let us all remember that there are alternatives. They can always haul crude oil in tanker trucks, as they do with so many Indiana oil wells. It may not be convenient, but it terms of American blood, it is a lot cheaper than Yet Another Vietnam That Insists It Won't Be Yet Another Vietnam.

Tim Zank
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 5:32pm

The Exxon reference is a little disingenuous Harl.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

from that article:

""That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas."

So while you are technically correct in that Exxon paid no "income" tax they did kick in $7.7 billion in other taxes which go to federal state and local coffers.

Also, make note of the last paragraph as well:

"Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years."

Almost half to taxes in countries all over the world. Doesn't exactly fit the "greedy" oil company meme now does it??

Harl Delos
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:28pm

Exxon doesn't PAY sales taxes and excise taxes, they COLLECT those taxes from their customers. And even then, they don't always stay collected; a farmer will file for a rebate on the taxes on ag use fuel. And those taxes go to the highway trust fund, not to pay for the military. The link you provided says Exxon paid negative income tax to the US, not zero.

Did I call Exxon greedy? No. Just as I wouldn't call Don Hall greedy for charging a customer for a greek salad at The Factory after they'd paid for "all you can eat" at Ryan's. It's just that Exxon, a company with stockholders all over the world, isn't paying for the US military and since they aren't shariing everything THEY have, I don't feel like sharing everything I have.

Even if you assumed that Exxon actually paid $7.7 billion in taxes to the US, that's less than 10% of what they pay. Why don't they have Nigeria pay for the trillion-dollar war they want?

Tim Zank
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 3:43pm

"Even if you assumed that Exxon actually paid $7.7 billion in taxes to the US, that

Christopher Swing
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 7:28pm

If you know anything at all about how the internet works, beyond a "series of tubes, not a truck" level anyway, you know just how terrible that attempt at an analogy is.

Harl Delos
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:23am

No, Tim, I wouldn't want the military to attack Google.

Those are Iran's territorial waters. If Iran wanted to send their ships up US rivers to get to Canada at Niagara, don't you suppose we should have the right to block them?

Quantcast