Author Topic: Abqaiq  (Read 1923 times)

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Abqaiq
« on: September 24, 2019, 07:02:09 PM »


Trump has got up in front of the UN and said,

"America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end [...] The United States has never believed in permanent enemies. America knows that while anyone can make war, only the most courageous can choose peace."

I don't think many what a profound shift that is for the US. It is essentially an abandonment of the Carter Doctrine, a tossing aside of the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives the US has spent guaranteeing the flow of oil to itself and the world. It's a return to isolationism.

The attack on Abqaiq was done with less than $100,000 in spending, and has caused billions in damage. Despite many similar attacks by Houthi rebels against Saudi facilities, the US did not see it coming. This is a profound failure of signals and human intelligence.

Three Aegis Destroyers costing US $1.8 billion each with Raytheon SM-2 missiles off the coast of Saudi Arabia and the 88 Patriot batteries at $5 million each - $440 million in all - didn't see a damn thing, or fire a single shot.  The drones just went around and through them. $100,000 worth of gear and operators rendered useless SIX BILLION dollars worth of gear.

Just as aircraft carriers made battleships obsolete, so have cruise missiles and drones made destroyers, aircraft carriers and a whole swag of other technologies obsolete. The US may finally get the budget cuts it so desperately needs - it may as well mothball most of the USN.

I have not seen this talked about much. The world is too busy with Trump's non-impeachment and other trivial nonsense. The US is drifting to isolationism, and even if it wanted to remain a global power it couldn't. What the fall of Singapore was to the British Empire, Abqaiq is to the US. Americans probably won't acknowledge this, but then the British didn't at the time, either.



lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Guest
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2019, 07:24:45 PM »
 I can't remember where I read this (maybe in The Dawn of Eurasia) but apparently the US conducted some war game simulations against Iran where some of the US generals took roles as US and Iranian generals. One clever guy playing an Iranian launched a series of small-scale improvised attacks against the US Navy in the Straits of Hormuz and sank half the carrier fleet*. They decided to do a do-over on the war games and disallowed some of the tactics that resulted in the successful attack...

I mentioned elsewhere how the motivations of the US to become a global hegemon have been waning since the end of the Cold War. Combine that lack of will to a lack of capability against asymmetrical threats and a new round of US isolationism does appear to be on the horizon (not to mention the US is not directly very reliant on global trade as a % of GDP, outside of USMCA).

On balance, I don't think all of this is a good thing but it will become the new normal. The rise of a multi-polar world will be likely be more chaotic and violent, with a resumption of regional geopolitical rivalries that were set-aside during the Cold war and the brief period of US hyperpower status that followed.

*my memory is terrible so this might not be right but it was a stupid amount of damage
« Last Edit: September 24, 2019, 07:28:00 PM by lost_in_the_endless_aisle »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2019, 04:37:35 AM »
And even after all of this, the Australian Government has no interest at all in shoring up our oil supply.

We have about three weeks worth (which I believe includes ships on the way here).

Madness in a country that is still so dependent on it. It's the "she'll be right" attitude laid bare.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2019, 08:34:51 AM »
So, Kyle, I thought you felt the end of American global hegemony was a good thing? I mean, that's what I've gathered from a lot of your posts in the past. But this post suggests you don't think that. Or am I missing something?

As far as America drifting toward isolationism... It definitely is under Trump. Who knows what will/would happen under a future administration. But in terms of its not being able to remain a global power... I think a lot of people (at least people on the left) are aware that at the end of this century, the US will almost definitely not be the first power in the world. On the right, I don't know. Until Trump, I thought the Republican Party's main goals re global dominance were pretty much those outlined in Project for a New American Century. Now, however, their goals mainly seem to be: 1) own the libs; 2) pretend that fossil fuels are "patriotic" and still the future; 3) deny global warming while grabbing as much wealth and power as possible; and 4) keep the rank and file right-leaning voters too occupied with lib-owning, gun-loving, abortion-hating, and bathroom-defending to notice 2 and 3. Not a lot of room in there for higher goals, developing future-looking technologies, soft power, or even thinking about what the US's place of global leadership in the 21st century should or shouldn't be, and how to get there.*

*That said, there's always room to keep selling weapons to anyone who will pay the price, no matter what their goals are as long as their money is green.
 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2019, 08:46:49 AM by Kris »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2019, 11:43:16 AM »
What Kris wrote. Re: isolationism -- This, too, shall pass.

As far as the tech, it's not rocket surgery. Drones are guided by RF. There's a lot of empty desert surrounding those refineries where a signal jammer could be placed.

bwall

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2019, 01:10:57 PM »
I think a lot of people (at least people on the left) are aware that at the end of this century, the US will almost definitely not be the first power in the world. On the right, I don't know.

Fascinating comment. What country do you see supplanting (or joining?) the US as the first power in the world? 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2019, 02:08:30 PM »
I think a lot of people (at least people on the left) are aware that at the end of this century, the US will almost definitely not be the first power in the world. On the right, I don't know.

Fascinating comment. What country do you see supplanting (or joining?) the US as the first power in the world?

I think we’ll find out. But the US has been the dominant global power for less than a century. And it has grown complacent, as though its role as a leader politically, technologically, and otherwise, is assured. We’re falling behind in many ways, and the government’s reaction to any number of threats is to clap our hands over our eyes.

Other powers such as Russia and China must be watching this with glee.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2019, 07:54:19 PM »
I think a lot of people (at least people on the left) are aware that at the end of this century, the US will almost definitely not be the first power in the world. On the right, I don't know.

Fascinating comment. What country do you see supplanting (or joining?) the US as the first power in the world?

I think we’ll find out. But the US has been the dominant global power for less than a century. And it has grown complacent, as though its role as a leader politically, technologically, and otherwise, is assured. We’re falling behind in many ways, and the government’s reaction to any number of threats is to clap our hands over our eyes.

Other powers such as Russia and China must be watching this with glee.

If somebody supplants the US, my money's on China.   

I have to wonder if America is more distracted than complacent?    The various types of media are sucking the life out of the population (he says as he writes another post to the forum...)

I had a media holiday whilst on vacation this year and it was great.   Now I'm back and I'm falling into the same old media trap...

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2019, 11:39:50 PM »

So, Kyle, I thought you felt the end of American global hegemony was a good thing? I mean, that's what I've gathered from a lot of your posts in the past. But this post suggests you don't think that. Or am I missing something?
The end of American hegemony may or may not be a good thing. What's most important in the next generation is how it declines. All Great Powers decline at some point, the question is how they do so. Looking at history, we see four basic routes to decline.
  • internal rot causing sudden spontaneous collapse, like the Soviet Union
  • a blow from outside exposing internal rot, like Austria-Hungary
  • a blow from outside knocking off extremities of the relatively small core, like France, Portugal, Spain, etc
  • anticipating 1, 2 or 3, accepting surgical amputation of extremities, like Britain after 1945.
The first 3 options are messy and cause a lot of misery and suffering. I'd rather see #4, but the nature of becoming a Great Power means some hubris (this was somewhat knocked out of Britain in WWII) which tends to make them reject that option. The attack on Abqaiq really is an example of #3, but #1 or #2 seem most likely for the US.

Quote from: bacchi
Drones are guided by RF. There's a lot of empty desert surrounding those refineries where a signal jammer could be placed.
And mobile phone detonated IEDs, "well hey, let's just shut off the mobile phone towers, right?" There are many reasons this is a bad idea. "Okay we just shut it off when we know there's a threat!" Evidently you missed the part where the threat was not detected.

In any case, it does not require a supercomputer AI for a drone to be programmed to find a particular target on its own.

trollwithamustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2019, 09:57:13 AM »


Trump has got up in front of the UN and said,





Three Aegis Destroyers costing US $1.8 billion each with Raytheon SM-2 missiles off the coast of Saudi Arabia and the 88 Patriot batteries at $5 million each - $440 million in all - didn't see a damn thing, or fire a single shot.  The drones just went around and through them. $100,000 worth of gear and operators rendered useless SIX BILLION dollars worth of gear.




If the attacks really came from Yemen, then it was all overland and pretty easy to avoid the fancy pants navy toys posted in the gulf.  Note, physically coming from Yemen can still be Iranian hardware, or not.   FWIF, I suspect your 100k number is a bit low...

six-car-habit

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2019, 12:34:36 PM »
 Seems a bit hypocritical for US and others to say Iran was behind the oil field attacks, because iranian built equiptment was used. No evidence has come out saying the drones were launched from iran. Maybe that info isn't deemed necessary for the worlds citizens to see ?  I've not seen one map overlay, showing the trajectory of the drones.  It would be no different to say the US was behind the repeated bombing of Yemen, simply since the saudi dropped bombs were manufactured in the US.  Well, except thousands and thousands have been killed with the US supplied and saudi launched weapons , whereas if i remember correctly no-one was killed @ abqaiq, or the mining of the oil tankers either .

 Im not sure i understand the comparison to Singapore. Which was a "crown colony" , unlike SA . Which was invaded by land, where the british built up the sea defenses, but the japanese actually occupied the city for ~3years . No iranians invading and holding land inside SA.  Where the japanese used british know-how and support in building their 1st aircraft carriers, which subsequently sunk the british battleships that were meant to defend SE asian british possesions.  Do you mean to say that its the beginning of loss of prestige / US miltary presence in the Persian gulf ?

 Agree that millions/billions of $$ in american supplied weapons, bought by the saudis were essentially useless in stoppping this attack.
 
 Diasagree that america doesn't seek permanent enemies. Every year around Sept 11th, i see US military publications with "Never Forget" slogan , referencing 2001 airplane hi-jack attacks. MAybe not permanent, no-one lives that long, but certainly generational.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6720
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2019, 12:37:17 PM »
How well can a missile turn? Can they be launched  from the north and strike from the south without a an extra 200 mile radius turn?

I mention this b/c I saw in the media where at one point speculation was about which sides of the oil refineries had been struck.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2019, 01:25:41 PM »
Agree that millions/billions of $$ in american supplied weapons, bought by the saudis were essentially useless in stoppping this attack.
 
 Diasagree that america doesn't seek permanent enemies. Every year around Sept 11th, i see US military publications with "Never Forget" slogan , referencing 2001 airplane hi-jack attacks. MAybe not permanent, no-one lives that long, but certainly generational.

America forgets very quickly though - even a whole generation.  Like it seems to have been totally forgotten that 15 of the 19 men affiliated with Al-Queda involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens.  And for some reason all official documents related to Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack have been classified and protected from freedom of information requests.  I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist . . . but it makes you wonder.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6720
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2019, 01:39:33 PM »
Must protect the oil industry revenue streams at all costs...

six-car-habit

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2019, 05:56:13 PM »
Agree that millions/billions of $$ in american supplied weapons, bought by the saudis were essentially useless in stoppping this attack.
 
 Diasagree that america doesn't seek permanent enemies. Every year around Sept 11th, i see US military publications with "Never Forget" slogan , referencing 2001 airplane hi-jack attacks. MAybe not permanent, no-one lives that long, but certainly generational.

America forgets very quickly though - even a whole generation.  Like it seems to have been totally forgotten that 15 of the 19 men affiliated with Al-Queda involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens.  And for some reason all official documents related to Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack have been classified and protected from freedom of information requests.  I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist . . . but it makes you wonder.

 I've always wondered , how is it that no video of the plane hitting the pentagon was ever released.  I work near a big military base, and they have cameras on the gates and fenclines, even back in 2001.  I'm pretty sure they'd have video footage if a truck or plane rammed / crashed into a gate there. The pentagon in the middle of DC and no footage ?

  Maybe Americans short attention span is the reason we feel the need to remind military and civilian dept of defense workers - Never Forget !-  each year. I think either that, or justification for jobs and policy.

 A year or two ago Russia fired some cruise missles from the north end of the Caspian sea, and hit some rebel enclaves in Syria. Thats pretty far , and i remember the trajectory having some turns / angles , not a straight line.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2019, 02:43:29 AM »
Hey Kyle, I thought I recognized your style. Wonder how many bbers have accounts here heh.

Anyway, I'll repost my reply, slightly modified.

Guerilla/asymmetric warfare has given superpowers fits for hundreds of years, how do you think we became the USA after all? The issue now with the stateless groups and their access to tech is something we've known about for a while. I don't think the fleets of huge ships is without purpose, like tons of cops around conventions and gatherings-mostly inactive but ready to act within a moment's notice. Puts us in good position. Our gov't acts on many levels (thinking proxy wars, coups, propping certain groups/leaders up, fomenting political action, bombing/missile strikes, troop placement, economic actions) and many are not in the headlines. I'm not sure this is a major fall, but more like a wake-up call to our vulnerabilities. 9/11 hit us at home and we changed a lot of processes. In the grand scheme of things, years from now we'll see how much of an impact this attack had, I'm sure this incident is going to lead to some changes, but overall is not a harbinger of things to come.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2019, 03:14:52 AM »
Historically, militaries do not wake up when given the wakeup call. They are after all large bureaucracies. It requires a lengthy ongoing war for them to adjust, and even then they often don't, instead doubling down on their previous failed strategies.

If someone is ballsy enough, one day an aircraft carrier will be sunk by drones and cruise missiles. On this day, assuming nobody spazzes out and starts lobbing nukes around, the US will commit to doubling the size of the carrier fleet.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8822
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2019, 04:19:08 AM »
the nature of becoming a Great Power means some hubris (this was somewhat knocked out of Britain in WWII)
I'd quibble with this slightly: we still had the hubris, we just didn't have the money because we had borrowed so heavily from the USA to enable us to keep fighting Hitler.  There was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA to impoverish us so that the USA could be undisputed Top Dog.  We still did the right thing, even knowing the likely consequences.

bwall

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Abqaiq
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2019, 07:21:47 AM »
the nature of becoming a Great Power means some hubris (this was somewhat knocked out of Britain in WWII)
I'd quibble with this slightly: we still had the hubris, we just didn't have the money because we had borrowed so heavily from the USA to enable us to keep fighting Hitler.  There was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA to impoverish us so that the USA could be undisputed Top Dog.  We still did the right thing, even knowing the likely consequences.

I thought it was WWI that was most damaging to Britain, more than WWII?

And wasn't the USA already undisputed Top Dog after WWI, just that they didn't want to accept the role? Thus WWII ensued in the power vacuum.