There's a rather large, or at least potent, American armada on it's way to the Middle East. I was wondering if this armada is susceptible to destruction via a tsunami created by nuclear weapons, while within the Persian Gulf. I'm not sufficiently interested in this to do any significant research, but maybe somebody has good insight. (I don't even know if "destruction" is the appropriate word. If a tsunami caused a destroyer to capsize, will it right itself, on it's own? Can't say that I know the answer!)
AFAIK, the only country with nuclear weapons in the region are the US and Israel. However, just recently the US and Poland agreed to go through with a deal for Poland to host a NATO missile system, to the Russian's fury. They may decide that appropriate response is nuclear protection of Iran*. Not, I should think, to the extent of declaring war on the US if it attacks Iran, but rather of helping defend Iran by destroying airplanes, ships, and bases involved in any attack on Iran. (I assume that such a Russian-Iranian defense pact would be conditional on Iran not developing nuclear weapons of its own.)
In the event of hostilities, such a defense may take the form, initially, of a "shot across the bow", by way of a nuclear tsunami. The Persian Gulf has an average depth of only 50 meters, compared to an average depth of 3,339 meters of the Atlantic Ocean, including its adjacent seas. A nuclear bomb at the bottom of the Atlantic isn't going to make a big splash (pardon the pun), but the Persian Gulf may be another story. Imagine a series of 6 sequential nuclear explosions in the northwestern gulf, timed such that the highest wave crest is optimally reinforced as it proceeds southeast. What would happen?
If a tsunami sufficient to capsize, say, half of the American armada was the result, it may stop an American attack dead in it's tracks, while still allowing most of crews to survive (assuming the ships don't sink). Assume, also, that topside jets on aircraft carriers end up getting pitched into the gulf. If hostilities continued, another nuclear tsunami might be created, but this one accompanied by one or two tactical nuclear missiles aimed directly at the American fleet, which may more easily find their marks due to chaotic conditions caused by the tsunami. The idea is to gradually ramp up the response, in the hopes of avoiding an all-out exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, while still preventing the US from destroying Iran's infrastructure and military capacity, on the one hand. On the other hand, the nuclear tsunami might be necessary to potentiate a straighforward missile attack, via shaking up the crews in ships that did not capsize, and possibly confusing both hardware and software defense systems that weren't designed to work under conditions of extreme agitation.
I know something of ancient Greek history, and know that the turning point of the invasion of Greece by Persia (nowadays called Iran), was via defeating them in a naval battle called the Battle of Salamis, wherein the Persian fleet had great difficulty maneuvering. The main contingent of the Greek fleet was Athenian. So, you think they'd be uber cautious about having their own fleet caught up in similar conditions? Well, the battle of Salamis was in 480 BC, but in 413 BC the remnants of a large Athenian expeditionary fleet was defeated after getting bottled up in a harbour in Syracuse. The Athenian triremes were so cramped, they couldn't even ram the Syracusan boats broadside, their usual method. Eventually, the entire expeditionary force was destroyed (killed, captured, or sold into slavery), and Athens itself fell in 404 BC.
The current American armada heading towards the Persian gulf is large and potent (see below), but now that the situation in Eastern Europe has decayed, I can't help but wonder if we are looking at the end of the Middle Eastern part of the American empire. Absent Russian nuclear weapons, I don't see that. Thanks to stupidity and hubris on the part of the American leadership, which thinks it can push nuclear-armed Russia around indefinitely (apparently, trying to create a peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative new world order after the Soviet empire fell apart was something they just couldn't wrap their minds around), I can see the American armada getting defeated by Russian nuclear weapons, and even if Iran's infrastructure was destroyed in the process, what would prevent a subsequent uprising against America's military in the Middle East from being successful? The Russians don't have much to lose, since a nuclear response by the US on Russian soil would mean the favor being returned by the Russians. In other words, that's not going to happen - even Dick Cheney & co. are not that crazy. A tactical nuclear duel between the US and Russia that begins in the Middle East will stay there.
While some people were concerned about $300 / barrel oil, they probably assumed that, at the end of the day, the US would still control things, and the Persian Gulf would be re-opened after a month or two. Instead, we may get a wrecked Middle East, more or less complete loss of US influence there, and worldwide depression, except in countries like.... like Russia, which would materially profit! (Since Russia has enough of its own oil and gas, and would reap extraordinary profits while Middle Eastern oil was off the market).
I wonder, if such a scenario played out, whether the pitiful American media would still place the blame elsewhere, and if Nancy Pelosi would still say impeachment is off the table? Probably.
Nuclear weapons change everything, don't they? Well, maybe I read too much ancient history and watch too much science fiction.... Then too, I had pet turtles when I was a kid. Let me assure you, a turtle which is upside down is a different ball of wax from one which is rightside up.
From stopwaroniran.org:
* Looks like the Russians are going to put nuclear weapons back into their Baltic fleet, for the first time since the Cold War ended. Nice job, there, President Bush.
AFAIK, the only country with nuclear weapons in the region are the US and Israel. However, just recently the US and Poland agreed to go through with a deal for Poland to host a NATO missile system, to the Russian's fury. They may decide that appropriate response is nuclear protection of Iran*. Not, I should think, to the extent of declaring war on the US if it attacks Iran, but rather of helping defend Iran by destroying airplanes, ships, and bases involved in any attack on Iran. (I assume that such a Russian-Iranian defense pact would be conditional on Iran not developing nuclear weapons of its own.)
In the event of hostilities, such a defense may take the form, initially, of a "shot across the bow", by way of a nuclear tsunami. The Persian Gulf has an average depth of only 50 meters, compared to an average depth of 3,339 meters of the Atlantic Ocean, including its adjacent seas. A nuclear bomb at the bottom of the Atlantic isn't going to make a big splash (pardon the pun), but the Persian Gulf may be another story. Imagine a series of 6 sequential nuclear explosions in the northwestern gulf, timed such that the highest wave crest is optimally reinforced as it proceeds southeast. What would happen?
If a tsunami sufficient to capsize, say, half of the American armada was the result, it may stop an American attack dead in it's tracks, while still allowing most of crews to survive (assuming the ships don't sink). Assume, also, that topside jets on aircraft carriers end up getting pitched into the gulf. If hostilities continued, another nuclear tsunami might be created, but this one accompanied by one or two tactical nuclear missiles aimed directly at the American fleet, which may more easily find their marks due to chaotic conditions caused by the tsunami. The idea is to gradually ramp up the response, in the hopes of avoiding an all-out exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, while still preventing the US from destroying Iran's infrastructure and military capacity, on the one hand. On the other hand, the nuclear tsunami might be necessary to potentiate a straighforward missile attack, via shaking up the crews in ships that did not capsize, and possibly confusing both hardware and software defense systems that weren't designed to work under conditions of extreme agitation.
I know something of ancient Greek history, and know that the turning point of the invasion of Greece by Persia (nowadays called Iran), was via defeating them in a naval battle called the Battle of Salamis, wherein the Persian fleet had great difficulty maneuvering. The main contingent of the Greek fleet was Athenian. So, you think they'd be uber cautious about having their own fleet caught up in similar conditions? Well, the battle of Salamis was in 480 BC, but in 413 BC the remnants of a large Athenian expeditionary fleet was defeated after getting bottled up in a harbour in Syracuse. The Athenian triremes were so cramped, they couldn't even ram the Syracusan boats broadside, their usual method. Eventually, the entire expeditionary force was destroyed (killed, captured, or sold into slavery), and Athens itself fell in 404 BC.
The current American armada heading towards the Persian gulf is large and potent (see below), but now that the situation in Eastern Europe has decayed, I can't help but wonder if we are looking at the end of the Middle Eastern part of the American empire. Absent Russian nuclear weapons, I don't see that. Thanks to stupidity and hubris on the part of the American leadership, which thinks it can push nuclear-armed Russia around indefinitely (apparently, trying to create a peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative new world order after the Soviet empire fell apart was something they just couldn't wrap their minds around), I can see the American armada getting defeated by Russian nuclear weapons, and even if Iran's infrastructure was destroyed in the process, what would prevent a subsequent uprising against America's military in the Middle East from being successful? The Russians don't have much to lose, since a nuclear response by the US on Russian soil would mean the favor being returned by the Russians. In other words, that's not going to happen - even Dick Cheney & co. are not that crazy. A tactical nuclear duel between the US and Russia that begins in the Middle East will stay there.
While some people were concerned about $300 / barrel oil, they probably assumed that, at the end of the day, the US would still control things, and the Persian Gulf would be re-opened after a month or two. Instead, we may get a wrecked Middle East, more or less complete loss of US influence there, and worldwide depression, except in countries like.... like Russia, which would materially profit! (Since Russia has enough of its own oil and gas, and would reap extraordinary profits while Middle Eastern oil was off the market).
I wonder, if such a scenario played out, whether the pitiful American media would still place the blame elsewhere, and if Nancy Pelosi would still say impeachment is off the table? Probably.
Nuclear weapons change everything, don't they? Well, maybe I read too much ancient history and watch too much science fiction.... Then too, I had pet turtles when I was a kid. Let me assure you, a turtle which is upside down is a different ball of wax from one which is rightside up.
From stopwaroniran.org:
* Looks like the Russians are going to put nuclear weapons back into their Baltic fleet, for the first time since the Cold War ended. Nice job, there, President Bush.
