Gaeilge said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Gaeilge said:

---

China is going to have to self-insure the oil going through the Hormuz, which I don't think will be an issue for them. But marine traffic through the Hormuz will slow dramatically more until the war risk coverage is extended back to the area.

---

Yep. Transportation insurance isn't going to stop China from receiving 40% of their oil imports via Hormuz. China also has a navy very capable of escorting tankers ... something the US absolutely wouldn't want to see. So there's also that.

---

China will not move ships to the Persian Gulf with all of our units there.

---

bonfarr said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

Not for taking out ballistic missiles but for drone defense it matters.

---

It doesn't. APKWS Laser guided Hydra 70 rockets aren't for air defense, but cheap replacements for the hellfire that is used for armor or troop concentrations.

---

Not true, go back and read what I and others posted earlier. There is video of a US jet taking out a drone with APKWS. This is now one of the primary anti-drone weapons we are using.

---

AgLA06 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

Not for taking out ballistic missiles but for drone defense it matters.

---

It doesn't. APKWS Laser guided Hydra 70 rockets aren't for air defense, but cheap replacements for the hellfire that is used for armor or troop concentrations.

---

Agador Spartacus said:

---

I would imagine there are multiple countries that would be interested in sending naval assets to the Strait of Hormuz to keep it open. Not sure why it wasn't a part of the plan from the start.

---

BBRex said:

---

How badly do we want to rely on other countries to keep it open? And imagine trying to coordinate a multi-national naval force to do the job. The UN of the sea …

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

My take is that you don't drop weapons yet. There's still more degradation of the leadership and military stockpiles to do.

If the objective is just regime change, you only drop creates of weapons when it becomes clear its going to be a protracted battle that needs ground forces. This means you're playing to stop some other faction from gaining hold and you are losing.

If you're playing to install a friendly government and it looks like you're going to succeed, no need to drop weapons to the masses. That just makes more chaos.

This thread points to America and Israel being able to pound leadership until there is no one left and they can walk their made man back into Iran. Then the future leader can decide how it wants their people equipped.

---

Along this same vein, how much of the IRGC needs to be degraded, too? I would think severely depleting their fighting capabilities would be a priority so any attempt at regime change doesn't devolve into a protracted civil war.

---

jagsdad said:

---

Ok, just wondering if there is a downside to completely wiping out their military. Nukes, yes, but , and lots of you guys that do this as a living would know better than me, in the 80s we had the Iran-Iraq war. Last I heard, Al Qaeda was still in charge in Iraq. Is there any chance that Iraq might think woohoo, they have no defensive capabilities, USA has expended bukus of their armaments, lets get some more territory? Just an idle thought that wandered through my mind this morning.

---

Agador Spartacus said:

---

I would imagine there are multiple countries that would be interested in sending naval assets to the Strait of Hormuz to keep it open. Not sure why it wasn't a part of the plan from the start.

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

BBRex said:

---

How badly do we want to rely on other countries to keep it open? And imagine trying to coordinate a multi-national naval force to do the job. The UN of the sea …

---

We have been the police of the sea for a long time, our only ask has been for every country that matters to deal in USD. I don't think there was a plan that could have been hatched to keep the strait open.

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Just googled "how many mullahs in Iran?" answer = 180,000


!!!!!

---

jagsdad said:

---

I know the Kurds are a formidable group, but can they hold off Al qaeda, especially since our previous admin left 80 billion of equipment there?

---

BBRex said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

BBRex said:

---

How badly do we want to rely on other countries to keep it open? And imagine trying to coordinate a multi-national naval force to do the job. The UN of the sea …

---

We have been the police of the sea for a long time, our only ask has been for every country that matters to deal in USD. I don't think there was a plan that could have been hatched to keep the strait open.

---

I get ya. I was think more of in general.

Yeah, keeping the strait open right now is almost impossible because it isn't just a naval/seapower issue. Land-based missiles would be difficult to stop with no shipping damage.

---

909Ag2006 said:

---

I think there are hundreds of them.

---

BBRex said:

---

If the conditions are such that ships can't safely pass, it's effectively closed, no matter what anyone says. There's enough pressure to move oil that if passage was safe, ships would be sailing through.

---