Are we stupid enough to think TPTB aren't in control?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 19 Jul 2008, 21:32

The UK Government is certainly aware of PO, as their representative at the last two Energy Institute Oil Depletion events made clear.

However the Civil Service sees PO as a longer term issue than natural gas supply worries, or terrorism along the tanker routes.

Accordingly we seem to be preparing "a robust military response" to deal with attempts top block tanker routes. That leaves little time to prepare for more general Peak Oil issues.

"Captain to Turret 2. When I say ROBUST I mean ROBUST. Now do it all again, but with a bit more zing this time."

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 19 Jul 2008, 21:47

Vortex wrote:The UK Government is certainly aware of PO, as their representative at the last two Energy Institute Oil Depletion events made clear.

However the Civil Service sees PO as a longer term issue than natural gas supply worries, or terrorism along the tanker routes.

Accordingly we seem to be preparing "a robust military response" to deal with attempts top block tanker routes. That leaves little time to prepare for more general Peak Oil issues.

"Captain to Turret 2. When I say ROBUST I mean ROBUST. Now do it all again, but with a bit more zing this time."

a) There are many aspects of "awareness". Gov types are spoiled, take a lot for granted and have very little understanding of real physical issues. Most of them could not pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

b) Those big cannons can do very little against Nigerians in small boats, but the Nigerians can create quite some mess. Large surface vessels can only be protected by political means nowadays. Everybody and his dog might try to blackmail the tanker traffic very soon.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 19 Jul 2008, 22:30

"Captain to Turret 2. When I say ROBUST I mean ROBUST. Now do it all again, but with a bit more zing this time."

What we see there is a 21st century re-enactment of a WW2 naval engagement. In any major conflict Generals and Admirals always start out by re-enacting the previous major conflict, usually with disastrous results. A fast speed boat on the horizon equipped with modern anti-ship missiles could probably take out that old clunker on its own. Fifty or so using a swarming attack definitely would.

"In any future conflict there will only be two types of navies - submarine and sunk"

High value surface fleets are an anachronism in the era of the stand off smart missile and the supersonic smart torpedo. Why we are spending billions on two new sitting ducks aka aircraft carriers is beyond me.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 19 Jul 2008, 23:36

Don't forget, we live in a blame society. No-one wants to take responsibility for mistakes or shortcomings.

If the government can find a scapegoat or if some group can carry the can, the cat(s) can be let out of the bag(s) and the blame game continued.

Goats and cats, eh?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Jul 2008, 08:03

danza wrote:Good post Snow.

I suppose the question would be who are TPTB?...

Insofar as there are any single PTB....

The Central Banks

However, they are floundering with regards to what to do next no less than any other VI

Insofar as global players like the CBs are concerned, all you have to do in order to predict with some degree of confidence, their actions, is to assume that whatever they elect to do will be in their own narrow self interest and will have absoloutely nothing to do with what is good for humanity as a whole.

If you use the above yardstick, you wont go far wrong.

landyowner · Post by **landyowner** » 21 Jul 2008, 10:03

stevecook172001 wrote:Insofar as there are any single PTB....

The Central Banks

I think I would be likely to agree.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 21 Jul 2008, 10:28

skeptik wrote:
"Captain to Turret 2. When I say ROBUST I mean ROBUST. Now do it all again, but with a bit more zing this time."
What we see there is a 21st century re-enactment of a WW2 naval engagement. In any major conflict Generals and Admirals always start out by re-enacting the previous major conflict, usually with disastrous results. A fast speed boat on the horizon equipped with modern anti-ship missiles could probably take out that old clunker on its own. Fifty or so using a swarming attack definitely would.

"In any future conflict there will only be two types of navies - submarine and sunk"

High value surface fleets are an anachronism in the era of the stand off smart missile and the supersonic smart torpedo. Why we are spending billions on two new sitting ducks aka aircraft carriers is beyond me.

As illustrated here http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35
I've also been wondering about the two new aircraft carriers, maybe they're for oil tanker escort duties?

gug · Post by **gug** » 21 Jul 2008, 10:30

stevecook172001 wrote: Insofar as there are any single PTB....

The Central Banks

However, they are floundering with regards to what to do next no less than any other VI

Insofar as global players like the CBs are concerned, all you have to do in order to predict with some degree of confidence, their actions, is to assume that whatever they elect to do will be in their own narrow self interest and will have absoloutely nothing to do with what is good for humanity as a whole.

If you use the above yardstick, you wont go far wrong.

I was going to say "who says they're floundering ?"

As you say below, they'll serve their best interests.

They've now got a lot of people in debt who'll be forced to hand over assets that they swapped for useless fiat currency that cost the central banks sod all to print.

The bankers (at the top level) never lose.

I've heard it said before that the 30's depression could more accurately be described as a "transfer of wealth" - and guess who it transferred to.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 21 Jul 2008, 11:42

A fast speed boat on the horizon equipped with modern anti-ship missiles could probably take out that old clunker on its own.

Clunker?? That's the USS New Jersey.

The Captain was asked what would happen if his ship was hit by an Exocet.
"I'd send a rating out with a broom to sweep the remains overboard."

Modern anti-shipping missiles are designed for going through aluminium hulls, not heavy armour plate.

I recently watched a documentary about the kamikaze attacks on the US & Pacific flats off Japan in WW2.

A British carrier suffered a direct hit. The damage? A dent in the four inches of armour steel deck.

Perhaps the WW2 'clunkers' would do better today than you would imagine.

As for modern US carriers, they have active defence such as aircraft, missiles & gun systems.

They are also protected by other ships and also subs.

Sure, one or more carriers could be lost in an instant ... BUT ... I don't really think that armchair generals can assume that all US carriers will be toast in a few seconds just because the Iranians get antsy.

To return to the kamikaze theme: if we had had the Web back in WW2 the US would have surrended to the Japs as soon as the kamikazes were used. The UK would have surrended to the Germans in the face of the V1 and V2.
Just imagine the blogs: "We don't have a chance against those sort of tactics and weapons. We had better surrender immediately."

"Admiral to all battle group Captains. The Iranians have a Silkworm missile mounted on a truck near the coast. Two hundred journalists and 100,000 bloggers say we are doomed. We must turn back now!"

gug · Post by **gug** » 21 Jul 2008, 12:33

why would the iranians bother torpedoing a warship.

Just a few oil tankers in the straits of Hormuz should do it.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Jul 2008, 12:52

If the Iranians are serious about sinking the West they would bomb Saudi Arabian oil processing plant and docks. One small nuke would remove most SA oil production more or less indefinitely.

Maybe that's why we don't want them to get a nuke...

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 21 Jul 2008, 13:26

It's not often I disagree with you Vortex...but...

Vortex wrote:
A fast speed boat on the horizon equipped with modern anti-ship missiles could probably take out that old clunker on its own.
Clunker?? That's the USS New Jersey.

The Captain was asked what would happen if his ship was hit by an Exocet.
"I'd send a rating out with a broom to sweep the remains overboard."

The USS New Jersey is fantastically obsolete. Unfortunately for the Exocet, they have/had a tendency of not going off once they'd hit. It's the only thing that saved the USS Stark when she was hit by 2 of them in 1987. Accidentilly by an Iranian pilot (who was then executed) who mistook her for an Iraqi warship. But in war, it's not necessarily important to actually sink the target, putting a vessel out of action is enough.

Modern anti-shipping missiles are designed for going through aluminium hulls, not heavy armour plate.

Incorrect. They're designed to crack steel hulls, just above/below the water line and usually leave a gash in the side of target ships 3m wide.

I recently watched a documentary about the kamikaze attacks on the US & Pacific flats off Japan in WW2.

A British carrier suffered a direct hit. The damage? A dent in the four inches of armour steel deck.

And the US aircraft carriers that were/ damaged severely had wooden decks, unlike their Royal Navy counter parts.

Perhaps the WW2 'clunkers' would do better today than you would imagine.

Tell that to the crew of the General Belgrano (admittedly, she was hit by torpedoes, but the point remains the same).

As for modern US carriers, they have active defence such as aircraft, missiles & gun systems.

Aircraft are useless for intercepting incoming missiles. As for the Sunburn and Silkworm anti-shipping missiles, they are specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis defense systems, and further more, those systems can be overwhelmed by multiple incoming targets, only hold 6 missiles per launcher and have a slow reload time. As for the gun systems, they're the last line of defense and are woefully inadequate when trying to hit a small, super sonic target.

The Chinese CAS-1 Kraken, which outperforms both Russian and Western missiles of similar design and carries a 300kg HE warhead, has probably been sold to the Iranians.

Then there's the Russian made Yakhont, a home made [Iranian] variant was recently tested by the Iranians. Successfully.

They are also protected by other ships and also subs.

The job of the surface boats is to be hit instead of the carrier. Subs are useless at stopping incoming missiles.

Sure, one or more carriers could be lost in an instant ... BUT ... I don't really think that armchair generals can assume that all US carriers will be toast in a few seconds just because the Iranians get antsy.

Well, there I agree...up to a point. The loss or crippling of one or more carriers, along with their escort ships, will have a huge psychological impact on the US. Of course, it may not get them to back down, but escalate further with a really big bomb.

To return to the kamikaze theme: if we had had the Web back in WW2 the US would have surrended to the Japs as soon as the kamikazes were used. The UK would have surrended to the Germans in the face of the V1 and V2.
Just imagine the blogs: "We don't have a chance against those sort of tactics and weapons. We had better surrender immediately."

I'll agree with that

The other problem, is that the targets are located in the Persian Gulf. It's somewhat akin to a shooting gallery.

Of course, the only way to know for sure what would happen, is for things to actually kick off. Regardless of what happens militarily, we can be pretty sure what's going to happen economically.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 21 Jul 2008, 14:05

Vortex wrote:Sure, one or more carriers could be lost in an instant ... BUT ... I don't really think that armchair generals can assume that all US carriers will be toast in a few seconds just because the Iranians get antsy.

Well, from a technical perspective, you could call Paul van Riper an "armchair general", but he DID sink 70% of the US fleet in the Gulf. Only a wargame, but the most expensive wargame that far.

Edit: You Britons lost Singapore because of this particular kind of hubris! Battleships were VERY vulnerable to airplanes. As you discovered the hard way. Guess its considered as rude to mention Singapore, but it don't change the facts. You had been better off with some bloggers who could have warned you...

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 21 Jul 2008, 14:45

Well, I'm still convinced that anyone tangling with a US carrier group would get a good kicking ... one way or another.

Don't forget the US ships are supported by satellite intelligence, drones, electronic intelligence, cruise missiles, GPS.

This is not really WW2 or the Falklands replayed.

It could be that the majority of Iranian anti-shipping missiles etc simply would not exist by the time the US fleet was in range.

In the event of salvo attacks I don't think the US would be too reluctant to use nuclear weapons for defence.

And I'm not sure that it is even necessary for such a group to get too near to land anyway.

Finally, if the battle group was badly mauled, then the US would get out the big sticks ...

What WILL kill such a fleet is over confidence ... I hope they learned from the war games!

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 21 Jul 2008, 15:06

Vortex wrote:Well, I'm still convinced that anyone tangling with a US carrier group would get a good kicking ... one way or another.

Don't forget the US ships are supported by satellite intelligence, drones, electronic intelligence, cruise missiles, GPS.

This is not really WW2 or the Falklands replayed.

It could be that the majority of Iranian anti-shipping missiles etc simply would not exist by the time the US fleet was in range.

In the event of salvo attacks I don't think the US would be too reluctant to use nuclear weapons for defence.

And I'm not sure that it is even necessary for such a group to get too near to land anyway.

Finally, if the battle group was badly mauled, then the US would get out the big sticks ...

What WILL kill such a fleet is over confidence ... I hope they learned from the war games!

Well, when it comes to armed conflicts, people are rather clever monkeys. Every single weapon, weapons system and strategy has been made redundant by new innovations. As soon as a weapon or a strategy start to win wars, people start figuring out ways to make it redundant.

The aircraft carrier has dominated warfare for some 60-70 years, and that's a very long time for a weapons system today. It might last another 60 years, but when considering all the tinkering that has been going on to challenge it, I would not bet to much on the carrier.

The history of warfare is full of losers and surprises. Most of the time the part who lost a war did not enter with the intention to lose, otherwise they had negotiated. So, roughly 50% of the participants in wars got a nasty surprise. That's about the same statistic as for tossing a coin.