Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Economic Impacts of Iran War >

Economic Impacts of Iran War


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Economic Impacts of Iran War

Old 04-30-2026 | 09:24 AM
  #1391  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 192
Default

Originally Posted by Name User
The thing about oil is just when you invest in long term projects prices tend to come crashing down. Lots of booms and busts along the way.
Plus any pipeline and associated pump stations etc are easy targets.
Not to mention the terminals themselves.
Reference Ukraine and Russia's facilities.
"Raining oil" after Ukrainian drone attacks.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 09:33 AM
  #1392  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 185
From: 787 FO
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
At the time, they probably would have used the bomb to prevent even very minimal further loss of life and treasure, perfectly understandable after all they had been through.
No, 'they' would not have used nukes for minimal loss of life or treasure.

Originally Posted by rickair7777
The scale of 9/11 was in the ballpark for justification, if somebody actually wanted to go there and you could identify a culprit to target.
Not even close if it involved nuking general population.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 09:47 AM
  #1393  
rickair7777's Avatar
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by jerryleber
No, 'they' would not have used nukes for minimal loss of life or treasure.
There's some threshold where they would have agonized over the use, even back then. We could come up with countless hypothetical scenarios and argue all day as to what they would have decided, but I'm not wasting energy on alternate history fantasies.


Originally Posted by jerryleber
Not even close if it involved nuking general population.
As I said, "culprits to target". But since 9/11 was 100% an attack against civilians, it actually would be proportional to nuke an equivalent number of enemy civilians, if that's what you wanted to (to say nothing of military targets). There's nothing magical about nuclear weapons that make them any more or less proportional than any other weapon. Yes, we can target and "dial-a-yield" to achieve specific end results.

It would be a good idea to consider fallout effects on nearby allies or neutrals, if any.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 09:49 AM
  #1394  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 288
From: 737 FO
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
There's some threshold where they would have agonized over the use, even back then. We could come up with countless hypothetical scenarios and argue all day as to what they would have decided, but I'm not wasting energy on alternate history fantasies.




As I said, "culprits to target". But since 9/11 was 100% an attack against civilians, it actually would be proportional to nuke an equivalent number of enemy civilians, if that's what you wanted to (to say nothing of military targets). There's nothing magical about a nuclear weapon that make them any more or less proportional than any other weapon. Yes, we can target and "dial-a-yield" to achieve specific end results.
What is an "enemy civilian"?
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:01 AM
  #1395  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 337
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
it actually would be proportional to nuke an equivalent number of enemy civilians
So, Saudis?
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:15 AM
  #1396  
rickair7777's Avatar
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by Name User
So, Saudis?
That was the problem with 9/11, hard to pin down the guilty parties. The Saudi regime most certainly did not participate, approve, etc. Some Saudi nationals, including royal family, did (the Saudis actually cleaned their own house in those cases). Bearing in mind that there are thousands of royal family members, many of which have too much time and money on their hands.


But the discussion was about a hypothetical 9/11 scale event perpetrated by a nation-state.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:16 AM
  #1397  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 621
Likes: 47
Default

Originally Posted by Name User
So, Saudis?
The civilians wouldn’t have been Saudis, those were the terrorist. They were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The enemy civilians would be the people who offer the terrorist safe harbor.

It’s not confusing unless you want it to be.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:17 AM
  #1398  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 337
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
That was the problem with 9/11, hard to pin down the guilty parties. The discussion was about a hypothetical 9/11 scale event perpetrated by a nation-state.


Weird, I don't see Iraq or Afghanistan on that list.
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:21 AM
  #1399  
rickair7777's Avatar
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by word302
What is an "enemy civilian"?
Civilians associated with a national entity which conducted a WMD attack against US civilians. Could be a nation-state, or even someone like hamas. Basically if you don't want to get nuked, better not let your government conduct WMD attacks against major nuclear powers (whatever you have to do to prevent that).

Worth noting that a WMD attack *might* be something like a mass cyber attack, ie shut down the economy, power, water utilities, and vital supply delivery. We do not have a no first use policy (not that those are worth the paper they're printed on anyway).
Reply
Old 04-30-2026 | 10:36 AM
  #1400  
rickair7777's Avatar
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by jerryleber
Along with innocent civilians, right?

Enemy civilians? Not necessarily.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jungle
Money Talk
3
01-12-2009 07:31 AM
ryan1234
Money Talk
0
12-05-2008 08:27 PM
jungle
Money Talk
1
11-25-2008 03:28 PM
vagabond
Money Talk
0
10-26-2008 08:48 PM
robthree
Regional
13
09-01-2007 03:23 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices