If we (the US) want to prevent attacks on oil tankers, why war, rather than escorted convoys or the like?

Because war makes a few select people very,very ,very rich.

@SaganRitual That would ruin John Bolton’s hard on, and take away the wet dream he’s had for fifteen years.

The US, or at least its government or at least Trump and a few hardliners in the White House would like to encourage attacks on oil tankers as they would be the perfect excuse to start the war they are longing to fight.

Because trump thinks war makes his dick look big.

Who would provide the escorts?

Tankers don’t travel in convoys, and obviously there aren’t enough warships to defend every tanker. Finally, it is just too simple for anyone with intent and determination to inflict severe damage on something as huge and plentiful as an oil tanker.

@kritiper I propose that the nation that is trying to protect its interests supply the escorts.

@stanleybmanly Are you sure? Don’t we have like a bazillion warships in the US alone? Even if you couldn’t escort each one, aren’t there enough to patrol the area—and again, the idea being that it would be less expensive and less horrific than going over there and blowing up Iran(ians).

Also, as for intent and determination, I’m worried that blowing them up might increase their intent and determination. Any thoughts?

Having escort ships do that would not put a halt to the persons/nations causing the problem, and may even serve to embolden them further. It might be far better in the long run to curtail the problem at it’s source without constantly having escorts sailing here and there. Do you have any idea how many ships there are at sea at any particular moment??

Okay. The United States no longer has a merchant fleet. There are for all practical purposes no longer ANY commercial ships flying an American flag, even cruise ships. Flags of convenience are the name of the game and the Liberian navy is in no state to escort anything.

Well. If it is indeed Iran, or another country, attacking the ships, an escort wouldn’t do much. It may worsen the situation.

@MrGrimm888 Don’t stop there! Why would an escort not help? How might it worsen the situation (especially as compared to sending the military to blow up Iran?)

You guys don’t think that if an American ship escorting a tanker blew some attacker out of the water and put video of it all over the news—you don’t think that would serve as any kind of deterrent?

It might serve as a deterrent to Somali pirates, but it would be a very expensive matter for whichever country willing to designate its navy as escort service. In any event, the actual threat level has yet to justify the considerable hassle necessary to undertake such a defense.

@SaganRitual .Because small, unapproved/unordered incidents, could be considered acts of war. A rogue captain,on a foreign ship, could order an attack on say an American escort vessel.

That’s why it was so dangerous having Russian, and US military in Syria. A small mishap, could have sparked a war.

Ever read Alas Babylon? A US pilot, accidentally wondered into Russian airspace, and a missile accidentally hit a Russian target. Causing a nuclear response from Russia.

A meteorite exploded over Indian airspace, not long ago. (If memory serves. ) For a brief while. Pakistan, and India were considering a nuclear exchange, because they thought the other had already launched.

Just like a big fight in a bar, it can start over very little, or no real provocation from anyone. I was at a bar on a Saturday night once, and everyone was watching the UFC fights. During a smoke break outside (smoking in bars, is illegal in Charleston) my friend dropped a glass on the sidewalk. She was just drunk, and it slipped from her hand. Next thing you know, 60 people erupted into a big brawl. Tensions were high, because of alcohol, and the UFC fights had testosterone levels high. It was a pool of gas, and just needed a spark…

@SaganRitual

Because there’s a lot of money to be made from war.

What might these escorts do if fired upon? Just sit there and take hits??

@kritiper No, absolutely not. When fired upon, an escort’s captain would conduct a ceremony in which the entire crew performs a vigorous riverdance while singing “I’m a Lumberjack”.

I haven’t quite caught on to the conversational style here. Is it customary to assume/insinuate that a person asking a question or making a suggestion is an imbecile, or an enemy spy? What’s the protocol for stimulating conversation and soliciting opinions?

Didn’t the US run escorts for supply ships bound for England in the WW2 before the US joined the war officially?
So what would be the difference today?

@SaganRitual You’re doing fine. And the imbecility here is undeniable, though I fear far less so than what you will receive from the atypical man on the street in today’s America.

The difference Squeek is that not every tanker is going to Liverpool or Vladivostok or leaving from New Jersey. Now The U. S. Navy certainly has the ships to guard anything near the ports of embarkation but to cover every tanker from port to destination is not only less than feasible, but almost certain to generate conflict.

What it takes here is to think your questions through thoroughly so you have some idea where it might lead.
Here is a good example: If a oil tanker was to be escorted, it would require two escort vessels to do the job. One on the starboard side and one on the port side. Escort vessels are usually used to thwart submarine threats, not aerial threats. Aerial threats could be from planes or anti-ship missiles. Can one small escort vessel protect the tanker from these high speed threats, as well as the unseen underwater threats?
I can see that the idea of using one or even two escorts would not be practical or cost effective.
One asking a question may not be an imbecile here but must be willing to see that maybe they didn’t think the question through entirely, which isn’t unusual. It takes time to get the hang of all the different possibilities that a question may open up.
Some people learn. I hope the Iranians do before it’s too late.
Some people learn the hard way, as I’m afraid the Iranians will.
Some people never learn. I hope the Iranians aren’t that stupid.
I don’t believe in stupid questions. But my experience has shown that sometimes people just don’t see what is obvious, or don’t seem to. It can’t hurt to make sure that anything said is clear and properly understood.
I have a habit of getting right to the matter and not mincing words. I don’t mean it in a bad way, it’s just the way I am. Pure honesty, possibly lacking tact.

@kritiper I think I’m starting to understand you. Let me see if I have this right: before I ask a question about escorts, I must do the following:

1. Study navy and military maneuvers (“it would require two escort vessels”)

2. Study civilian protection protocols (“One on the starboard side and one on the port side”)

3. understand the typical uses of escorts and the purposes they would not serve very well (“Escort vessels are usually used to thwart submarine threats, not aerial threats”)

4. consider attack modes previously not mentioned in the discussion and determine how to address those (“Can one small escort vessel protect the tanker from these high speed threats”)

5. I must be willing to see that I didn’t “think the question through entirely” (which seems to mean something like “already know the answer”). And it may take me a while to get the hang of all the things I must know ahead of time before I can expect an answer from you, as opposed to scolding and insinuations.

If I had seen what is “obvious” then you wouldn’t have had to “make sure that anything said is clear and properly understood” with your (exemplary) clarifications such as Do you have any idea…?? and Durr, maybe they should just let themselves get shot at!

I’m not worried at all about tact. And I’d take minced words any day over the bilge you’ve offered so far in response to my requests. To me, that seems the height of dishonesty. I’d rather you just give me a good old fashioned FU—to “make sure that anything said is clear and properly understood”.

Peace

@SaganRitual

You must also be willing to accept that the responses they receive may not be the answers you’re looking for. From your question and your replies here it seems like you’re fishing for replies that merely conform to your point of view. Even long-time users here make that mistake.

@Darth_Algar I am greatly saddened to have given that impression. I am glad to accept correction. Please show me a couple of examples where I have objected to answers that do not conform to my apparent views. And do please especially indicate where I have asked questions that seem to carry an agenda, rather than being genuine requests for information. Perhaps I am making a systematic cognitive mistake, which I would like to correct, or at least allow for. Please and thanks.

@SaganRitual Consider a submarine launching a spread of torpedoes against a small escort and a very large oil tanker. It doesn’t take a wealth of imagination to figure out how that might work.