Matrix Games Forums

Those who remember how Tom Clancy’s magnum opus on WWIII begins will find some eerie parallelisms here...

Drone attacks on Saudi plant could hit global oil supplies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... bal-supply

Houthi rebels in Yemen are claiming responsibility, but US’s fingers are already pointed towards Iran.

Also... Only ten drones were able to cause such damage? [X(] The face of warfare is really changing.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Those who remember how Tom Clancy’s magnum opus on WWIII begins will find some eerie parallelisms here...

Drone attacks on Saudi plant could hit global oil supplies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... bal-supply

Houthi rebels in Yemen are claiming responsibility, but US’s fingers are already pointed towards Iran.

Also... Only ten drones were able to cause such damage? [X(] The face of warfare is really changing.

There are some intriguing similarities -- and we haven't heard the last of this. However, some key differences. No country is facing economic collapse because of a shortage of oil. If there is an escalation (and that is indeed possible) it will be because the attack will have been found to be launched from Iranian soil, rather than a suicide terrorist attack. I would humbly speculate airstrikes and naval attacks, but no ground invasions. (I wonder if Matrix is working up a Command: Modern Warfare module?)

One other item: It looks like there were cruise missiles as well as/instead of drones, and more than 10 of them:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49733558

I expect that some of the missiles did not make it to their targets, and might be recovered from their crash sites.

the oil price will go up or down then?

It depends. Yes, now it would seem that they were cruise missiles, but this attack revealed the vulnerability of oil’s production. I guess that they will improve AA defenses all around, but the market, IMHO, will remain jittery for a while.

One thing I can’t find an answer for is: what’s Iran end game (if Iran is involved for real and this is not another “WMD” fiasco)? “Start a war” doesn’t seem to be a rational answer - as long as the West avoids another quagmire on the ground.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

It depends. Yes, now it would seem that they were cruise missiles, but this attack revealed the vulnerability of oil’s production. I guess that they will improve AA defenses all around, but the market, IMHO, will remain jittery for a while.

One thing I can’t find an answer for is: what’s Iran end game (if Iran is involved for real and this is not another “WMD” fiasco)? “Start a war” doesn’t seem to be a rational answer - as long as the West avoids another quagmire on the ground.

Speculating about the end game gets dangerously close to politics. Let me therefore just say that Iran wants the Houthi rebels to be successful, so it can have a client state on the Arabian Peninsula. To do this, Iran must weaken the Saudi economy, since money is "the sinews of war".

Thanks for share

spammer incoming, alert and on watch[:D]

already banned and removed your account and posts elsewhere, so welcome to the forum here, now lets see if you go on your own, or carry on and get removed and banned here, i'm waiting[;)]

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: larrybush

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

It depends. Yes, now it would seem that they were cruise missiles, but this attack revealed the vulnerability of oil’s production. I guess that they will improve AA defenses all around, but the market, IMHO, will remain jittery for a while.

One thing I can’t find an answer for is: what’s Iran end game (if Iran is involved for real and this is not another “WMD” fiasco)? “Start a war” doesn’t seem to be a rational answer - as long as the West avoids another quagmire on the ground.

Speculating about the end game gets dangerously close to politics. Let me therefore just say that Iran wants the Houthi rebels to be successful, so it can have a client state on the Arabian Peninsula. To do this, Iran must weaken the Saudi economy, since money is "the sinews of war".

Rather difficult to comment on this world event without being somewhat political I'd say.

Then do it from an economics standpoint. How much production and/or processing was lost compared to the national total. Then how much it would cost to harden (if possible) and defend the site. Then, how effective would that be.

Please note that we are observing the post.
This is a sensitive topic, where what has happened is still unclear, and obviously there is tremendous potential for this to quickly devolve into a political discussion.
For now we are leaving this open, but warily and please try to avoid political point of view, and even the "facts" on this are going to be slanted to one point of view or another, so while we can discuss the economic ramifications it would be unwise to discuss the political ones.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
The face of warfare is really changing.

Ive been led to believe war, war never changes.

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

Please note that we are observing the post.
This is a sensitive topic, where what has happened is still unclear, and obviously there is tremendous potential for this to quickly devolve into a political discussion.
For now we are leaving this open, but warily and please try to avoid political point of view, and even the "facts" on this are going to be slanted to one point of view or another, so while we can discuss the economic ramifications it would be unwise to discuss the political ones.

+1

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: larrybush

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

Please note that we are observing the post.
This is a sensitive topic, where what has happened is still unclear, and obviously there is tremendous potential for this to quickly devolve into a political discussion.
For now we are leaving this open, but warily and please try to avoid political point of view, and even the "facts" on this are going to be slanted to one point of view or another, so while we can discuss the economic ramifications it would be unwise to discuss the political ones.

Yep, I agree.

War is politics taken to the last degree. It is political negotiations at the end of a bayonet. [;)]

CNN does seem to agree re: the economics of the event:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/19/midd ... index.html

“The cruise missiles used in the attacks were re-tooled versions of a Russian design from the 1970s -- and drones are still the poor man's missile even if they are getting more sophisticated. In other words, 5% of global oil supply was taken out by weapons worth not even millions -- let alone billions -- of dollars.“

IMHO, this is the most disturbing part of the whole event for two (rather obvious) reasons:

- Upgrading the AA defenses around the oil fields/pipelines and other petrochemical structures could impact the overall oil prices even if there are no more attacks (the possibility of them being already enough).

- Now that this new form of warfare has been successfully tested, other sensible structures can become potential targets. I won’t elaborate on them (I think that everybody can make his/her predictions). However, my guess is that this will not remain the only case. It could be really the dawn of a new kind of battlefield.

I think they've always known these are soft targets.

As long as **** has some minors to do their dirty work for them so they can deny involvement this will not be the last of it in the ****** ****. It is an ongoing power play for domination of a region.

Please reconsider your remark and keep it to economics.

How much elasticity is there to oil production and processing? I know that there is some plus there are alternatives for some things that oil is used for. Soy based inks for example instead of inks made from oil. Plastics made from things other than oil. Recycling can be given a boost as well.

Plus, where does most of this oil from the region go to? Japan, East and South Asia? Europe?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Please reconsider your remark and keep it to economics.

How much elasticity is there to oil production and processing? I know that there is some plus there are alternatives for some things that oil is used for. Soy based inks for example instead of inks made from oil. Plastics made from things other than oil. Recycling can be given a boost as well.

Plus, where does most of this oil from the region go to? Japan, East and South Asia? Europe?

Saudi Oil is a strategic target. Oil is an economic target. Did you think that attack was only an economic strike? Not even close. War, and make no mistake, that was a war target, is about many things. Never about just one thing.

As far as how much oil there is in the world...the U.S. has enough shale oil deposits to satisfy national use for 300 years at current rates with known deposits. The entire planet has enough oil in different types of known deposits to last 500 years at current rates. Currently it isn't economically feasible to extract much of it. But as oil prices increase and technologies advance more of those deposits will be exploited. Known recoverable oil reserves are enormous. At current rate of production it will take over 300 years to exhaust Venezuela's known reserves alone. So in cutting the Saudi output they simply increase the price per barrel and make it economically feasible to extract more difficult deposits. They end up making no difference at all and just piss off the rest of the world.

BTW, one of Saudi's biggest customers, Japan, is modifying two of their helicopter carriers to carry F35B. Izumo and Kaga. Until Japanese pilots get fully trained the U.S. Marines will pilot those aircraft. Marines piloting aircraft off Japanese carriers. Life is stranger than fiction.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

CNN does seem to agree re: the economics of the event:

I would not trust CNN's analysis of anything.