Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

  1. #1

    Default Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Maybe this should go in my personal thread, but there might as well be a separate topic. To inaugurate the thread I made a Polandball comic reflecting current events between America and Iran (see if you can spot the bonus).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  2. #2
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,330

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Bonus being little baby Venezuela under the table!

    I appreciate your comic and your use of analogy but I do have to nit pick.

    The British and French fail in 56 because their power is already gone. The Suez is not a climax but rather an epilogue. America tells the UK-French-Isreali triumvirate to cease and they must. Sure they can win a shooting match but they can not exert their will upon it. Who could stop America from exerting its will? We operate worldwide with near impunity.

    Having said all that intervention should be opposed because these call for intervention are nakedly imperialist. We had a deal with Iran, a good deal, and they tore it up for the sole purpose of setting the groundwork.

    Maduro is an authoritarian but I hardly think an American backed coup will do anything except set off a dirty war and cause even more hunger to befall the people.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Members thankful for this post (4):



  3. #3
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,212

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    America has shown it can exert influence around the globe. It is pretty poor at judging when it should. America can operate nearly everywhere but the cost is a long way from "impunity". In cases such as Afghanistan America even relies on Pakistan for the logistical train. Far from ideal and adds a massive cost.

    Many other places America even struggles to project its will these days - such as Central and South America. Mainly because it is less a leader than a bully.

    What the USA really should be doing is spending large sums of money on updating infrastructure at home rather than building then destroying it abroad.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  4. #4

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

    However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).

    Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.

    I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

    And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

    In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

    So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.


    Edit: BTW, deliciously apropos that a the very model of a modern British major general is rebuking American warmongering.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-15-2019 at 23:19.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  5. #5
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,381

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    America has shown it can exert influence around the globe. It is pretty poor at judging when it should. America can operate nearly everywhere but the cost is a long way from "impunity". In cases such as Afghanistan America even relies on Pakistan for the logistical train. Far from ideal and adds a massive cost.

    Many other places America even struggles to project its will these days - such as Central and South America. Mainly because it is less a leader than a bully.

    What the USA really should be doing is spending large sums of money on updating infrastructure at home rather than building then destroying it abroad.

    I think America is all together too confident in its ability to win protracted wars. When you look at its record since the post WWII era it's really not that great. The Korean war was a stalemate. Vietnam was a loss. The Iraq war was a pyrrhic victory and Iranian influence is strong in the country, and in Afghanistan the Taliban still holds large swathes of territory.
    Last edited by Tuuvi; 05-15-2019 at 23:29.

  6. #6
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,381

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

    However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).

    Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.

    I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

    And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

    In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

    So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.


    Edit: BTW, deliciously apropos that a the very model of a modern British major general is rebuking American warmongering.
    Here's something fun: back in 2002 the US did a war game exercise that simulated a war with Iran and the general playing on the Iranian side managed to destroy the American fleet in just a couple of days. Of course the general in charge of the exercise didn't like the results and he ordered that the whole thing be restarted and scripted so that the US would be ensured victory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

  7. #7
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,330

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.

    However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of 'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).
    I think Bolton truly believes that a military action will topple the regime in Iran. IMO, Any line of thinking that supposes the people will rise with the foreign invader borders on the criminally stupid but here we are. The line of thinking is that by crippling the oil that the people will be starved into revoultion, this is what the war hawks actually think. Iran would be a quagmire of the highest order and the American people will not stand for any sort of real total mobilization.

    Being stupid is one thing, being impetuous is one thing, Being stupid and impetuous is a recipe for disaster. One has to remember that both Pompeo and Bolton subscribe to the theory that we didn't try hard enough in Vietnam. That they were stabbed in the back by the politicians at home. Remind you of anything?

    Though not objectively the worst-case scenario, if only because it spares the most lives, my greatest fear is subtly that limited-objective scenario where the US tries to seize ports or oil terminals with Marines and carriers, just to wave its dick around. So close to the coast we would finally be putting to the test the theory that aircraft carriers are now expensive obsolete relics, floating coffins. If Iran can sink or even badly damage a carrier with missiles or small craft, killing hundreds of sailors, then the world sees America swaggering in like a drunk cowboy stereotype and receiving a justifiable black eye in turn. Even worse if the Marines cannot achieve through combined arms the securing of even a limited territorial objective.
    So war is chaos and anything could happen. Maybe I channeling my inner Jellicoe but I just don't see how anyone could sink a carrier without a similar blue water CG in the area. Sinking the carrier would at the very least entail sinking the destroyers and the scoring enough direct hits to actually make the thing go under. There is no Arizona style Magazine explosion that can happen.

    Even if it did happen. The drunk Cowboy has 8 more and a sunk carrier would give them reason to use them.
    I think that's a real and serious possibility with this administration and this scenario. And it would be something analogous to Britain's Suez overreach - but much worse for everyone. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

    And think about this: what if the administration intends substantive military action toward Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? They could honestly be that stupid/delusional.

    In those scenarios, we may already be in that imperial epilogue, and the consequences of not realizing it are much greater than a mostly loss of prestige for a has-been. It has reverberations on a civilizational scale for the struggles of this century.

    So my comic is an extended excuse for a "hold my beer" joke, pretty much.
    We agree here man, I fully expect this whole thing to collapse in on itself like a dying star. We have learned nothing since 2003.

    Here's something fun: back in 2002 the US did a war game exercise that simulated a war with Iran and the general playing on the Iranian side managed to destroy the American fleet in just a couple of days. Of course the general in charge of the exercise didn't like the results and he ordered that the whole thing be restarted and scripted so that the US would be ensured victory.
    Von Ripper sending all his small civilian craft to ram the Navy vessels is something that would be noticed. Publications liken this to a suprise Cole style attack, which would be true if it were 1 or 2 not the 000s he had. Not that he didn't expose anything, just worth pointing out,
    Last edited by Strike For The South; 05-16-2019 at 15:06.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  8. #8
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,581

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    One has to remember that both Pompeo and Bolton subscribe to the theory that we didn't try hard enough in Vietnam. That they were stabbed in the back by the politicians at home. Remind you of anything?
    Hitler!

    Your analysis appears correct though. Your current administration seems even more foolish than ours.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  9. #9
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,330

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Hitler!

    Your analysis appears correct though. Your current administration seems even more foolish than ours.
    Obviously a bit flippant but the idea that "we just need to commit more" is pervase in the Western geopolitics.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  10. #10
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,865

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    "We need to commit more" folks do not tend to really understand what an effective "more" would require. Think in terms of more troops than we have, with far more civil engineering/education resources, and then deploy them for a generation.

    Short of that, "more" ups the costs without altering the basic equation.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  11. #11

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    So war is chaos and anything could happen. Maybe I channeling my inner Jellicoe but I just don't see how anyone could sink a carrier without a similar blue water CG in the area. Sinking the carrier would at the very least entail sinking the destroyers and the scoring enough direct hits to actually make the thing go under. There is no Arizona style Magazine explosion that can happen.
    I don't know enough to argue whether Iran's missile complement has a plausible attack vector from the shore. This article contends:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Experts and outside observers believe that Iran has given considerable thought to vanquishing an American aircraft carrier. In January 2015, Adm. Ali Fadavi of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy claimed his force was capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.
    [...]
    There are many reasons to be skeptical about Admiral Fadavi’s claim. The first is that Iranian forces have a range problem. U.S. forces, particularly those on aircraft carriers, have a much greater operational range than Iranian forces. The longest-range Iranian coastal defense missile, the Ghader antiship cruise missile, has a range of 186 miles—less than half that of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The same goes for Iranian air power, where Iranian warplanes and their weapons are outranged by American defenses. Major U.S. warships such as aircraft carriers can stay well out of range of Iranian forces and operate with impunity. The second Iranian problem is a firepower problem. Although Iran has scores of ships armed with antiship missiles, few if any have a warhead powerful enough to seriously damage an American carrier. The Chinese C-802 antiship cruise missile, from which Iranian antiship missiles are derived, has a warhead weighing just under four hundred pounds. During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy and Air Forces designed for the anticarrier role typically had a warhead size of 1,600 to 2,200 pounds. Most Soviet missiles designed for the anticarrier role, such as the AS-4 Kitchen, were optionally armed with nuclear warheads, which speaks volumes about how difficult the Soviets thought it would be to reliably sink a carrier. Fortunately, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The third problem is an opportunity problem. Even if Iran were to somehow acquire the resources to sink a carrier, the United States could simply avoid it and choose another means of attack. The United States will never place an aircraft carrier with 5,500 American servicemen and servicewomen within range of an enemy force at risk unless there was little to no alternative—and the Pentagon has plenty of alternatives to a carrier’s firepower, including cruise missiles launched from warships and long-range strategic bombers. The fourth problem is the overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the defense. U.S. aircraft carriers are typically escorted by one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser and one or two Arleigh Burke–class guided missile destroyers, all of which have the Aegis combat system. These ships were specifically designed for protecting aircraft carriers against mass air and missile attacks. Combat air patrols flown by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets will be able to take out aircraft and warships at long ranges. Finally, Phalanx close-in Gatling guns, five-inch, twenty-five-millimeter and .50 caliber guns scattered throughout a carrier strike group can make short work of any drones, helicopters, or fast attack boats that somehow make it through the carrier’s wall of air power. A fifth and final problem? The overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the offense. Any campaign against Iran would almost certainly see the United States striking first, and striking hard against any and all Iranian ships and aircraft that are a threat to American forces. Naval bases, air bases, air defenses, IRIN and IRGCN ships at sea, port facilities, antiship missile batteries and bases would all come under attack from land- and carrier-based aircraft, long-distance bombers operating from bases such as Diego Garcia, and ships and submarines firing cruise missiles. Iranian naval forces would suffer heavy attrition from the strikes, which would be unrelenting until intelligence indicated they were no longer a threat.

    All of that having been said, there are bright spots in the Iranian arsenal. Taking a cue from China and its DF-21D antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), Iran recently claimed to have tested ASBMs of its own. The radar-guided Hormuz 1 and 2 antiship ballistic missiles have allegedly hit targets at ranges of up to 155 miles. While that’s not far enough to outrange an aircraft carrier, the Iranians are on the right track. Another substantial threat are the three Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarines purchased from Russia in the early 1990s. Built for shallow water and coastal operations, the Kilo class are theoretically highly capable submarines. The Iranian boats, according to the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, suffered from battery problems, poor training and inadequate maintenance. Still, properly crewed and equipped, the submarines and their torpedoes could inflict great damage on an aircraft carrier.

    Iran is currently incapable of sinking a U.S. Navy carrier, but that is not an advantage the Pentagon can count on enjoying forever.
    It sounds like if the aircraft carriers stay far away from the shore, they should be safe. On the other hand, there are many points in the Gulf once you move past the peninsular coast, as well as the Hormuz Strait chokepoint, that might see carriers within a vulnerable range. Then, here's a recent article on Iran's recent developments in advanced ballistic missiles that easily have the range to strike American fleets. Altogether hard for me to judge as a non-expert.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFTS
    Even if it did happen. The drunk Cowboy has 8 more and a sunk carrier would give them reason to use them.
    Christ, that's just an intensification of disaster. Can you imagine? 'For the first time since World War II America has lost an aircraft carrier in action. We will redouble our efforts. We will not rest until the enemy is crushed. We have reserves, SEND IN EVERYTHING!!!' To borrow a moment of flippancy, that is the trope, the exact progression toward downfall the Evil Empire typically follows in film and literature isn't it?


    Anyway, here's a report on Trump telling his admin he doesn't want war with Iran. As usual, it's not clear what he wants, or if he knows what he wants, other than "looking tough". Yes, Trump will go to great lengths to act in a way that he perceives as "looking tough". Such as apparently recognizing his China trade war is damaging the economy and especially hurting his supporters in farm country, but none of that matters as long as the base thinks he is tough against China. Then you get remarkable quotes from people like Steve Bannon and Senator Tom Cotton, who appear to be going to Stalinist extremes of dogma:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bannon
    The days of being soft on China are over ... Politics now drives the economics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sen. Cotton
    There will be some sacrifice on the part of Americans, I grant you that. But also that sacrifice is pretty minimal compared to the sacrifices that our soldiers make overseas that are fallen heroes or laid to rest.

    [Ed. This sounds exactly like a politruk's propaganda spiel.]
    It's stupefying that 'we must make sacrifices for the greater good' is not a message any leftist is permitted to say vis-a-vis, for example, climate change, but it's common sense for nationalists who just want to fuck with other countries.

    I leave you with Senator Cotton singing us a rousing tune.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-17-2019 at 00:37.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  12. #12
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,381

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    I think Bolton truly believes that a military action will topple the regime in Iran. IMO, Any line of thinking that supposes the people will rise with the foreign invader borders on the criminally stupid but here we are. The line of thinking is that by crippling the oil that the people will be starved into revoultion, this is what the war hawks actually think. Iran would be a quagmire of the highest order and the American people will not stand for any sort of real total mobilization.
    Economic hardship is one of the primary motivators for revolution but what Bolton et al don't understand is that when a foreign power is responsible for said hardship it tends to stoke nationalist sentiment and it becomes all to easy for the government to scapegoat whoever is doing the sanctions and rally people behind the military. This is what Maduro does and while he may not be particularly popular it's been enough for him to stave off Guiado's coup attempts.

    Iranians are exposed to way more Iranian propaganda than they are American propaganda; they don't know or care why the US wants to overthrow their government they just know that the US are the ones making it harder for them to make a decent living.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  13. #13
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,581

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    I don't know what the point of sinking a US carrier would be.
    You might celebrate it as a huge victory until you realize it's just like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and they're going to bomb the poop out of you in response from Saudi Airbases that the Saudis opened for them because the entire world is shocked that you killed 2000 sailors in one attack.

    The argies sunk several UK ships and still don't have the Malvinas. The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory. A dedicated US effort to destroy Iran can probably not be stopped anyway.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  14. #14

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory.
    It depends on what the US mission is, but the point that nonless-violent resistance in the face of naked US aggression would be one of the best strategies available to Iran, a sort of diplo-attrition, is a good one.

    Second, the United States lacks broad international support for a campaign of regime change. Even allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely blanch at the long-term costs that the war would create. Neither Russia nor China would support the war at all, and both would likely intervene in ways designed to ease the pressure on Tehran. Europeans would react with heavy public disapproval, eventually forcing even sympathetic leaders in France and the U.K. to distance themselves from Washington.

    Third, it is unclear how such a military intervention would end. The U.S. lacks the international support to undertake the sort of militarized containment that is used against Iraq during the 1990s. International sympathy for Iran would only increase over time, a fact that Iran’s leaders surely understand. If the Islamic Republic didn’t not collapse, the U.S. would eventually have to either admit defeat or open the door to dangerous escalation.
    Of course, forbearance under attack requires a lot of discipline and governmental unity that Iran may not be able to hold together in the circumstances.


    If my posts tend to visit a theme of frustration it's because of how silly everything is.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-17-2019 at 17:29.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  15. #15
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,865

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I don't know what the point of sinking a US carrier would be.
    You might celebrate it as a huge victory until you realize it's just like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and they're going to bomb the poop out of you in response from Saudi Airbases that the Saudis opened for them because the entire world is shocked that you killed 2000 sailors in one attack.

    The argies sunk several UK ships and still don't have the Malvinas. The effort to sink a US carrier would probably be better spent trying to kill the aircraft (and cruise missiles) it (and other ships) launches. By being purely defensive and minimizing the effect of attacks you might win a PR and war exhaustion victory. A dedicated US effort to destroy Iran can probably not be stopped anyway.
    With the air wing aboard, there are more than 6k on a Nimitz class.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  16. #16
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,332
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Obviously a bit flippant but the idea that "we just need to commit more" is pervase in the Western geopolitics.
    It's pervasive in Western culture across many aspects.
    "They wanted it more." is the type of bullshit analysis you hear constantly in any sport.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  17. #17
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,581

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    With the air wing aboard, there are more than 6k on a Nimitz class.
    One would hope that not all aboard would die if the ship sinks, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    It's pervasive in Western culture across many aspects.
    "They wanted it more." is the type of bullshit analysis you hear constantly in any sport.
    If we combine that, only the people who don't want to live strongly enough die in a war? The others just repel bullets and explosive force with the power of their mind/skin.
    Last edited by Husar; 05-18-2019 at 14:30.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  18. #18
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,865

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    One would hope that not all aboard would die if the ship sinks, no?

    Of course. But the tale of modern naval warfare suggests that most things catastrophic enough to sink a major warship tend to do so surprisingly quickly and with a high loss of life among those aboard.



    The Iranian threat is, of course, their diesel submarines (kilo class). Kilo class subs can, with a dash of luck, be quiet enough to penetrate a carrier screen and take a shot at the carrier. Odds are against this working, of course, but diesel is quieter than nuke.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  19. #19
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,581

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Of course. But the tale of modern naval warfare suggests that most things catastrophic enough to sink a major warship tend to do so surprisingly quickly and with a high loss of life among those aboard.
    How many of these huge, modern carriers have been sunk already? I'm not really well-informed about naval engagements of such modern vessels, but I would assume most of these were between somewhat older models of Destroyers and Frigates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    The Iranian threat is, of course, their diesel submarines (kilo class). Kilo class subs can, with a dash of luck, be quiet enough to penetrate a carrier screen and take a shot at the carrier. Odds are against this working, of course, but diesel is quieter than nuke.
    Yes, Diesel subs ain't bad, but IIRC they come close to carriers in exercises when the carrier escorts don't use active sonar or something like that. So I guess that's relatively unlikely if there is no major mistake by the escorts.

    Of course the best solution would be that Khomeini and Trump/Bolton have a saber duel over who gets his way.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  20. #20
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,330

    Default Re: Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I don't know enough to argue whether Iran's missile complement has a plausible attack vector from the shore. This article contends:

    It sounds like if the aircraft carriers stay far away from the shore, they should be safe. On the other hand, there are many points in the Gulf once you move past the peninsular coast, as well as the Hormuz Strait chokepoint, that might see carriers within a vulnerable range. Then, here's a recent article on Iran's recent developments in advanced ballistic missiles that easily have the range to strike American fleets. Altogether hard for me to judge as a non-expert.
    Multiple missiles in a kill box getting by all the destroyers and scoring enough hits to render the carrier inoperable. Not impossible but improbable. All the plans go out the window when things actually start happening but it does appear that the USA is in the stronger position as of the moment.

    Christ, that's just an intensification of disaster. Can you imagine? 'For the first time since World War II America has lost an aircraft carrier in action. We will redouble our efforts. We will not rest until the enemy is crushed. We have reserves, SEND IN EVERYTHING!!!' To borrow a moment of flippancy, that is the trope, the exact progression toward downfall the Evil Empire typically follows in film and literature isn't it?
    A sunk carrier would absolutely result in the closest thing to total mobilization that we would ever see. If there is one unifying theme of American history, it is protecting its navy. It will simply not allow that kind of black eye to go unanswered. Whatever kind of propaganda is needed, will be drummed up, tropey as it may be. Fear is a powerful motivator and these imagined communities are not immune to it.

    You seem to be on a soviet kick lately, so I'll join you. The revolution does not start in 1917, it starts in 1881. What we are witnessing here does not start in 2019 but rather 2001. We are witnessing that fear (possibly) come to fruition.


    Anyway, here's a report on Trump telling his admin he doesn't want war with Iran. As usual, it's not clear what he wants, or if he knows what he wants, other than "looking tough". Yes, Trump will go to great lengths to act in a way that he perceives as "looking tough". Such as apparently recognizing his China trade war is damaging the economy and especially hurting his supporters in farm country, but none of that matters as long as the base thinks he is tough against China.
    Reading the Trump tea leaves is useless. He is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled by the id.


    Then you get remarkable quotes from people like Steve Bannon and Senator Tom Cotton, who appear to be going to Stalinist extremes of dogma:

    It's stupefying that 'we must make sacrifices for the greater good' is not a message any leftist is permitted to say vis-a-vis, for example, climate change, but it's common sense for nationalists who just want to fuck with other countries.

    I leave you with Senator Cotton singing us a rousing tune.
    Bannon is a self proclaimed acclerationist in the style of Lenin. He wishes to strike a blow while America seemingly still has the upper hand. Cotton is a law and order Jingoist who sees any attack upon his politics as an attack upon his person. Such men can not be reasoned with.
    Last edited by Strike For The South; 05-20-2019 at 14:28.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Member thankful for this post:



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO