• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

🗣️ | US-Israel/Iran | Post CF Anouncment | ANALYSIS OF REPORTS

Seeing reports about Bab Mandb Strait being closed no good sources atm to confirm this report.
 
Torch said:
“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”


That is an act of war. If this was a military operation or extended raid, it just, legally became a war.
Click to expand...
He's still saying it in a truth social post and not given details to how it even will work, so it's early to say an act of war has been commited.
 
In all serious though taking over the straight could be the first step to a ground invasion of the coast or some Islands.

You don't launch ground invasions or operations in contested waters or from contested waters.
 
RiffRaff said:
This is an act of war against multiple countries, not just Iran.
Click to expand...
Blockading an enemy port to prevent the importation of war supplies is considered a legitimate military tactic, but some particular practices are not. For instance, under modern international law a ship from a neutral country entering a blockaded port can be boarded and inspected for contraband, by force if necessary, but the blockading force cannot simply open fire on a neutral ship for approaching the blockaded port. The specific rules imposed by the laws of war have varied over time, created by a combination of accumulated customs, legal precedents, and treaties, and the extent toto which they are actually followed also varies.
A blockade, the use of military force to cut a nation or part of a nation off from outside trade or supplies, is an act of war against the blockaded country.
So if the purpose is to cut off supplies to Iran it is an act of war. If purpose is to ‘ provide safe passage and inspect for weapon transfers. No it is not
Assassinations on the other hand if conducted covertly and discovered(or bragged about) are considered and act of war
 
Torch said:
Is all of Iran’s entire power grid and many multiple power plants hundreds of miles away are all piped into, and singularly responsible for nuclear power plants?
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on this. Bushehr is monitored by the IAEA and information is public, however.

Bushehr is connected to the national grid as far as I can tell. The grid is powered by many sources, the plant does not have dedicated primary and backup stations to power emergency cooling. You can destroy many of those sources and their transformer and transport lines and still have a functional external power source for the Bushehr nuclear plant.

Instability in the grid caused by bombing the rest of the country would require the eventual shutdown of the reactors at Bushehr, because without external power for the coolant pumps the backup power systems would be out of power within 8 hours in a total station blackout. The total station blackout simulation test is what caused the explosion at Chernobyl.

Operations without cooling result in reactor meltdown and all the bad things that happened at Fukushima Dayichi or Chernobyl. Fukushima is the more direct comparison here because Bushir has containment vessels and closed loop cooling from the diagrams I can find.

However, spent fuel pools also require constant cooling, provided by the same pumping systems powered by external power, or they evaporate.

Iran is a desert climate in the tropics, evaporation happens quickly, even near the ocean. Once evaporated, the spent fuel rods would burn, releasing fission products into the atmosphere. I believe the usual expression is that you make an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for ten thousand years if this occurs. Most of that would end up in the Gulf and outside of Iran in Oman, carried by the smoke.

All those products would end up in the Persian Gulf, which all of the countries in the region desalinate for potable water. The heavier isotopes with long half-lives would settle to the seabed, but the Cesium-137 would not and it has a half-life of 30 years, and would take about 300 years to be safe.

Basically, if the plant melts down through the containment vessel, or the containment vessel is destroyed during a strike and a meltdown occurs, or the reactor is shut down but the spent fuel pools are damaged in an attack, or there is no power to cool them, you could end up poisoning, starving, or dehydrating millions of our regional allies, which would definitely halt the flow of Middle Eastern oil for quite a while.

Bushehr isn't the only reactor, but I believe their Arak breeder/enrichment reactor for the nuclear program isn't as large and is unfueled atm.

Anyway, the solution if the U.S. is claiming dual use for all the power plants they want to destroy, is to ensure the continued operation of enough external grid capacity to keep the plant running. This means they have to also keep the grid connected to the plant. It is possible to surgically sever sections of the grid selectively.
 
Last edited:
jack said:
I am not an expert on this. Bushehr is monitored by the IAEA and information is public, however.

Bushehr is connected to the national grid as far as I can tell. The grid is powered by many sources, the plant does not have dedicated primary and backup stations to power emergency cooling. You can destroy many of those sources and their transformer and transport lines and still have a functional external power source for the Bushehr nuclear plant.

Instability in the grid caused by bombing the rest of the country would require the eventual shutdown of the reactors at Bushehr, because without external power for the coolant pumps the backup power systems would be out of power within 8 hours in a total station blackout. The total station blackout simulation test is what caused the explosion at Chernobyl.

Operations without cooling result in reactor meltdown and all the bad things that happened at Fukushima Dayichi or Chernobyl. Fukushima is the more direct comparison here because Bushir has containment vessels and closed loop cooling from the diagrams I can find.

However, spent fuel pools also require constant cooling, provided by the same pumping systems powered by external power, or they evaporate.

Iran is a desert climate in the tropics, evaporation happens quickly, even near the ocean. Once evaporated, the spent fuel rods would burn, releasing fission products into the atmosphere. I believe the usual expression is that you make an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for ten thousand years if this occurs. Most of that would end up in the Gulf and outside of Iran in Oman, carried by the smoke.

All those products would end up in the Persian Gulf, which all of the countries in the region desalinate for potable water. The heavier isotopes with long half-lives would settle to the seabed, but the Cesium-137 would not and it has a half-life of 30 years, and would take about 300 years to be safe.

Basically, if the plant melts down through the containment vessel, or the containment vessel is destroyed during a strike and a meltdown occurs, or the reactor is shut down but the spent fuel pools are damaged in an attack, or there is no power to cool them, you could end up poisoning, starving, or dehydrating millions of our regional allies, which would definitely halt the flow of Middle Eastern oil for quite a while.

Bushehr isn't the only reactor, but I believe their Arak breeder/enrichment reactor for the nuclear program isn't as large and is unfueled atm.

Anyway, the solution if the U.S. is claiming dual use for all the power plants they want to destroy, is to ensure the continued operation of enough external grid capacity to keep the plant running. This means they have to also keep the grid connected to the plant. It is possible to surgically sever sections of the grid selectively.
Click to expand...
Very very good answer! Thank you.
 
Friendly Engineer said:
Price controls, unfortunately, don't work.
Capping the price would artificially inflate demand and cause even worse shortages
Click to expand...
Supposedly there is no shortage in the US.

Reality vs. Rumor: Is There an Actual Shortage?​

There is no official confirmation of a nationwide gasoline shortage in the United States. Refineries are still operating. Pipelines are still moving fuel. Distribution systems, for the most part, remain intact.

But that doesn’t mean everything feels stable on the ground.

Localized shortages can and do happen—not necessarily because supply has run out, but because behavior changes faster than infrastructure can keep up. When people begin filling up more frequently, topping off tanks, or storing extra fuel “just in case,” it creates sudden spikes in demand that certain areas aren’t equipped to absorb in real time.

What looks like a shortage is often a distribution strain amplified by human reaction.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
NuclearID said:
Flipped it on em. 😂
Click to expand...
Yeap this has nothing to do with ground invasion.
This is about taking the last card Iran had to play. The continuity of the oil flow though the Straits of Hormuz.

It’s a brilliant tactic. It’s diverting oil sources from the gulf. To places like Indonesia the US, Gulf State pipeline routes. and Venezuela. Anyone still wondering why Maduro was snatched and Venezuela was brought in line?
There is nothing random or haphazard here. This military pressure campaign on Iran was planned out last year.
Want another marker? The gulf states support for this and their working to increase supplies as much as they can.

And it is India and China who are in the short run who are most pressed. However in the long run. With an oil market that will no longer have 28% of world supplies held hostage by a capricious and petty Iran. They too are both beneficiaries thus their relative quiet on this.
 
william said:
Supposedly there is no shortage in the US.
Click to expand...
What everyone forgets about “markets” is it is never solely about physical supply, demand, production or transportation cost. Markets are also subject “perceptions”
 
NP777 said:
Blockading an enemy port to prevent the importation of war supplies is considered a legitimate military tactic, but some particular practices are not. For instance, under modern international law a ship from a neutral country entering a blockaded port can be boarded and inspected for contraband, by force if necessary, but the blockading force cannot simply open fire on a neutral ship for approaching the blockaded port. The specific rules imposed by the laws of war have varied over time, created by a combination of accumulated customs, legal precedents, and treaties, and the extent toto which they are actually followed also varies.
A blockade, the use of military force to cut a nation or part of a nation off from outside trade or supplies, is an act of war against the blockaded country.
So if the purpose is to cut off supplies to Iran it is an act of war. If purpose is to ‘ provide safe passage and inspect for weapon transfers. No it is not
Assassinations on the other hand if conducted covertly and discovered(or bragged about) are considered and act of war
Click to expand...
I would agree with you except for the part of his statement where he said "no ships in or out." That means he's threatening the global oil supply just like Iran was, except the US has the military assets to actually do it.
 
NP777 said:
Blockading an enemy port to prevent the importation of war supplies is considered a legitimate military tactic, but some particular practices are not. For instance, under modern international law a ship from a neutral country entering a blockaded port can be boarded and inspected for contraband, by force if necessary, but the blockading force cannot simply open fire on a neutral ship for approaching the blockaded port. The specific rules imposed by the laws of war have varied over time, created by a combination of accumulated customs, legal precedents, and treaties, and the extent toto which they are actually followed also varies.
A blockade, the use of military force to cut a nation or part of a nation off from outside trade or supplies, is an act of war against the blockaded country.
So if the purpose is to cut off supplies to Iran it is an act of war. If purpose is to ‘ provide safe passage and inspect for weapon transfers. No it is not
Assassinations on the other hand if conducted covertly and discovered(or bragged about) are considered and act of war
Click to expand...
Trump specifically said “all in and all out” he also said if China gets caught shipping weapons they will have an immediate 50% tariff assessed against them.

Edit mostly eclipsed by Riff Raff above while posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom