You're dreaming the same dreams of overwhelming force that led the arrogant fools in the White House into this situation. You're playing the wrong video game.
Just ask Genghiz Khan.
And well, too bad if the non-tankers will have to have some fallout land on them, but war is dangerous. They knew that when they joined up. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
you are the media you consume.
Iran has an air force. It might not have an air force for long, but I doubt it's the pushover it might be supposed to be.
Iran also has missiles, is more than happy to use them.
Zip. Bang. No more convoy. Insurgents have fun picking over the pieces. Game over.
We're talking about a quarter of a million people or so, who not only have to be moved, but also require food and water.
You don't need to be a military genius to understand that the best possible outcome would be one of the most humiliating retreats in the long list of humiliating US retreats in recent history.
The middling outcome. would be Stalingrad, only with sunblock. (If they can find any.)
The worst is a friendly nuclear exchange between irritated superpowers.
The Iranian Air Force will be destroyed within hours.
Convoys might well be hit by Iranian rockets, but that's war for you.
As long as no care is taken to spare Iraqi civilians (fire at anything that moves reasonably close to a convoy), the operation is very doable. Especially if there is some reasonable preparation, but consdiering the Bushies, we shouldn't count reasonableness.
Anyway, this is what the US armed forces are good at. No counter-insurgency, no fancy blitzkrieg maneuovering, just excellent logistics work while driving straight ahead blowing everything up. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
This time the Americans will fight something even more feeble than the Iraqi Army, namely Iraqi civvies with guns.
Mogadishu, anyone?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The kind of firepower available in this operation is immense in comparison. The question is not if there is enough firepower but if the American soldiers are allowed to use it, as doing that will entail big civilian casualties. But what will a few more tens or hundreds of thousands of dead civilians mean as this war has already killed 1-1.5 million? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I don't know, those Iraqi civvies seem to have been more successful than the Iraqi Army at both killing and injuring Troops and destroying armored vehicles.
No counter-insurgency,
So they are suddenly no longer going to be fighting insurgents? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
So they are suddenly no longer going to be fighting insurgents?
It's not like the WSJ hasn't editorialised on the need to get genocidal in order to beat the insurgency. We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
I'm thinking more like in "collateral damage and we just don't care". Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Bribe'em, nuke'em or leave'em the Hell alone. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I'm here in the Genghiz Khan no restraint mindset.
The rest of the world would protest immensely against this kind of WW2/Vietnam blow everything up style, but since has worldwide protests fazed the Americans? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
