- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
It's a Smart Move to Not Try to Use US Navy to Open the Strait
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:12 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:12 am
Iran would like nothing more than to see massive US ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, within striking range..... They would launch 50 drones and missiles at the same time to sink a US ship. In addition, the Strait is within range of conventional land-based artillery. Which cannot be intercepted or shot down at all.
That would be winning the Super Bowl for them.
IMO that's the real reason we aren't opening the Strait ourselves.
That would be winning the Super Bowl for them.
IMO that's the real reason we aren't opening the Strait ourselves.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:12 am
17
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:51 am to Techdave
They fired a hundred missiles including hypersonics at the Lincoln and we shot them all down. Tactically, we could take the strait easily. Strategically is another story. You buy that one you have to keep it and that makes your permanent bases on the straits targets till the end of time if you don't also change the regime.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:54 am to Techdave
I think Trumps point is we don’t rely on oil that comes through there. The only benefit to us patrolling it to keep it open is lower oil prices
Is that worth spending billions more in taxpayer dollars and risking naval assets? Not really. It’s why Trump wants allies to send assets to open it because they benefit more than we do
Is that worth spending billions more in taxpayer dollars and risking naval assets? Not really. It’s why Trump wants allies to send assets to open it because they benefit more than we do
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:56 am to deltaland
quote:
I think Trumps point is we don’t rely on oil that comes through there. The only benefit to us patrolling it to keep it open is lower oil prices
Is that worth spending billions more in taxpayer dollars and risking naval assets? Not really. It’s why Trump wants allies to send assets to open it because they benefit more than we do
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:56 am to deltaland
quote:
I think Trumps point is we don’t rely on oil that comes through there. The only benefit to us patrolling it to keep it open is lower oil prices
Is that worth spending billions more in taxpayer dollars and risking naval assets? Not really. It’s why Trump wants allies to send assets to open it because they benefit more than we do
I agree. To sum up:
The juice ain't worth the squeeze!
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:57 am to Powerman
Who do they get their oil from?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:58 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
The juice ain't worth the squeeze!
Oh, it most certainly is...
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:03 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:00 am to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
They fired a hundred missiles including hypersonics at the Lincoln and we shot them all down. Tactically, we could take the strait easily. Strategically is another story. You buy that one you have to keep it and that makes your permanent bases on the straits targets till the end of time if you don't also change the regime.
Not that simple man. They fired a hundred over a course of weeks at a carrier group that was 100's of miles offshore. And that carrier has a half dozen ships defending it. Also, a carrier group would not be the ships used to open the strait.
The Strait is about 20 miles wide. So, you would have very little reaction time from land launched munitions. And you would never be able to shoot down the volume of attacks they would launch simultaneously. Strait is probably mined also.
In addition you are now within range of conventional artillery. Which cannot be intercepted or shot down at all.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:02 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
They can figure out how to get their own damn oil then. Maybe they should shite-can the Ukraine war and buy from Russia.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:02 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
Ummm because that half of the world needs it open a lot more than we do.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:10 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
The entire world benefits from the actions we undertook. Are you really incapable of understanding Iran may be the worst regime on the world stage.
And the countries who receive oil from the region should assist in security of the Hormuz strait. Europeans have shirked their defensesive duties at the expense of the US taxpayer since the end of WW2. It is time they re-engage, it will be better for everyone in the long run. Who knows Europe may re-discover their manhood?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:17 am to deltaland
quote:
I think Trumps point is we don’t rely on oil that comes through there. The only benefit to us patrolling it to keep it open is lower oil prices
Elaborate on how these 2 statements can both be true.
If we don’t rely on that oil, then why do our oil prices depend on global oil prices?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:19 am to Techdave
quote:
Ummm because that half of the world needs it open a lot more than we do.
That doesn't mean they'll get their naval assets involved
It's likely this thing turns into a toll booth
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:22 am to Powerman
quote:
That doesn't mean they'll get their naval assets involved
It's likely this thing turns into a toll booth
Meh...the "toll booth" will be bombed.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:23 am to Techdave
quote:
Meh...the "toll booth" will be bombed.
I don't mean in the literal sense of a physical toll booth....thought that would be obvious
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:29 am to Techdave
The part of the world that relies on the Strait for oil transport/supply can either:
A) Open it themselves and maintain its security
B) Buy oil from the U.S. instead
If we play it right, we can benefit from the Strait being open and/or we can benefit from it remaining constrained.
No reason at all for us to incur the risk of the operation.
A) Open it themselves and maintain its security
B) Buy oil from the U.S. instead
If we play it right, we can benefit from the Strait being open and/or we can benefit from it remaining constrained.
No reason at all for us to incur the risk of the operation.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:37 am to Techdave
China is the ones that will suffer from this. Eventually they will get it open.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:43 am to deltaland
Trump's position that the countries who need the oil that passes thru the Strait should keep it open, is brilliant. 4D chess, shite.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:46 am to Longhorn Actual
quote:
No reason at all for us to incur the risk of the operation.
It’s not that simple, this situation is going to result in an economic disaster on a worldwide scale if the strait isn't reopened to normal shipping traffic, the US economy will absolutely be affected.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:47 am to GTnerd
quote:
It’s not that simple, this situation is going to result in an economic disaster on a worldwide scale if the strait isn't reopened to normal shipping traffic, the US economy will absolutely be affected.
Correct
This isn't quite as simple as walking away and saying frick it as if it can't affect us
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News