Iran threatens to block straights of Hormuz - Again

Beating the war drums against Iran for more than 60 years (without provocation) is the reason Iran is threatening to block the straights in the first place.

 

When it comes to clandestine nuclear facilities, it's hard to say whether or not Iran has been "compliant". Were they producing weapons covertly and using the nuclear deal to cover up their program or were they being compliant? It's hard to say.

If you want some reading to help put you to sleep at night, here ya go:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34544.pdf

It does have some interesting parts and if fully digested, it should leave you with a feeling of uneasiness in regards to their program. Keep count of how many times they were caught lying.

 

Don't care. The US cancelled the treaty with no evidence. That makes us the biggest liar. Even our allies don't support cancelling the treaty

 

You don't know that. You have no idea what the CIA was finding out.

I didn't like the agreement we had anyway so I was in favor of blowing it up. I suspect they were cheating, as they did in the past.

 

Really? Got some sort of credible source for that? Seems ridiculously high given that there is no evidence of Russian units being involved in ground combat. For comparison, Sth Korea sent 320,000 troops and lost 5000; Australia sent 50,000 and lost 500. Both those nations were extensively involved in ground combat. Russia sent over 600,000 troops to Afghanistan over a decade and lost around 15,000. The scale of the Russian deployment required to get 3000 dead would be so big as to be highly visible. Some advisers or specialists from Eastern Europe? sure. Anywhere near 3000 dead? Not without some impressive sources.

China, on the other hand, sent 320,000 troops to Nth Vietnam. Few did anything much related to combat, but they were sure to make themselves very visible. Sending a message.

 

Since the US government certified Iranian compliance with the treaty it is rather logical to assume that the CIA found that Iran wasn't cheating.

 

This is one of the reoccurring factors which may eventually be the straw that breaks the back of NATO ...and further down the line the fall of U.S. domination or even the destruction of the U.S. altogether.

It is either people like you and me who are crazy to believe the U.S. is screwing itself or it's the American government that has misjudged its indestructibility. Whichever, things are not looking very good for the future of the U.S. and although the powerful will duck out the rear exit with a sack full money when the average American citizen will be left to scrounge the gutters for scraps of food and a piece of cardboard for shelter.

 

As a Vietnam War Veteran myself, I can say that it sounds like a load of codswallop. I am certainly not saying that I knew what happened to EVERYONE in EVERYPLACE during the war but with all of the rumours that came down the pike, one would think "Russians in Vietnam" (particularly against our guns) would have been a topic whispered among us ..... at the very least. So if 3,000 Russians had been lost one would have had to ask, "by whose hand?" We didn't shoot them. No, I don't believe a word of it.

 

It does seem high. 3K would be very high. I think I made a typo.

Global Security:

“On 17 November 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to send increased support to North Vietnam. This aid included they also sent Soviet military personnel to North Vietnam-the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). Some 15,000 Soviet personnel served in Indo-China as advisers and occasionally as combatants. Exact deaths are unknown but vary between 24 - 300”

Other sources say only 16 deaths.

Hmmm, when I get more time, I'll look deeper at this. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

I can believe that some advisers/specialist troops were killed either in combat or by air power. Maybe a few dozen. Maybe they even cracked triple figures if they got really, really unlucky. However, to lose 3000 you would need whole units of Russians in combat. Not the kind of thing that could be missed by people doing the fighting or by their governments.

 

OK, that sounds a LOT more credible and in the range I expected.

To put that commitment in perspective, Thailand sent 40,000 troops (351 dead) and even tiny New Zealand sent almost 4000 troops (37 dead).

 

I understand your method of deduction, but here's the catch:
1). NOT ONE RUSSIAN death was ever mentioned during the Vietnam war.
2). We, as ground troops, never even had a rumour of Russians in Vietnam. For God's sake, we had rumours of all kinds of outrageous untrue "facts", so if there was anything remotely relevant we would have had one or two of them about Russians, don't ya' think?

I am confident then with your sensible deductions and my personal experience we can put the "3,000 Russians lost in Vietnam" straight into the rubbish bin.

 

Americans - Australians - Canadians - Thais - South Koreans (many) - N.Z's - Philipinos (if I am not mistaken)

 

There are a few eyewitness accounts of Europeans being seen with Vietnamese units & occasionally killed. This wouldn't shock me. The learning opportunities for Russian SPECOPS troops would have been hard to resist. There might also have been a few advisers for specialist tasks. The numbers, however, would have been truly tiny. Most of the Russians would have been above the DMZ doing whatever they did.

As the OP has come back and corrected himself I think we can put this one to bed.

 

I don't think Canada committed troops, though thousands of Canadians signed up and served. The New Zealanders served as part of the Australian contingent - another chapter in the proud ANZAC tradition.

The Filipinos sent a few thousand people in non-combat roles. They were busy at home, first attempting to break up the newly created Malaysia and then dealing with a Muslim insurgency sparked as a result of that attempt (when it was decided to give up destabilising Malaysia a group trained to infiltrate Malaysia was massacred by the Philippines Army, kicking off the insurgency. A low level civil war, martial law and dictatorship followed).

 

Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty. If there were any Russian advisers I would have to agree with you in the highest possible sense that they would have been above the DMZ otherwise there would have been some heavy reporting up the command and rampant rumours in the common ranks. Adding to my scepticism that there were any Russians at all is the fact that there was a lot of rustling of feathers about the Chinese contribution yet not a word about Russia. In addition (as I recall anyway) Russia and China were not on very good terms with one another back then. I don't know how they would have managed any coordinated joint or parallel operations.

 

Promise to sink the Iranians ships. You and I know that.....not so much with our Anti American members.

 

They must not be selling a lot of oil. Otherwise things wouldn't be as bad as they are for them.

Blocking the Saud wouldn't be a good move for them. As you can see by the Map of the Gulf. the Saud and all those Sunni airbases. Will cause Iran severe damage.....and they would loss Farsi island without any doubt.

 

And, there isn't anything about Trump saying that he would prevent Iranian ships from leaving their ports.

Were you seeing something not there again?

 

Blowing up one ship would not block the straits. Moreover they aren't capable of blowing up any US ship.

 

You keep blubbering on about the Korean and Vietnam war as if these conflicts have some significant relevance to the question of a military conflict between the major powers today - and they don't.

 

I did not give a preference so no clue what you are talking about. Obviously we would take out "facilities" - anti ship missiles - artillery and so on - if it came to military conflict.

 

We have never gone this far however - the threat of a complete oil embargo.

 

If iran attacks shipping its war

 

Not sure how much of a hit Iran has taken but it is significant .. 1/2 maybe ? It is bad in any case.

Farsi Island can not be held - (sans an absurdly high cost). Obviously a war between Saud and Iran would result in severe damage to Iran. It is not like El Saud would come out unscathed though either.

These are complicated calculations even if we assume no other powers get involved.