Hmmm... Iran And War?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-06-14 09:04 by Karl Denninger
in International , 258 references Ignore this thread
Hmmm... Iran And War?
[Comments enabled]

Video evidence appears to show a vessel, which is claimed to be Iranian, "retrieving" an unexploded mine from one of the tankers that suffered explosions yesterday.

Original reports were that the two ships were struck by "torpedoes"; this I did not believe for a number of reasons -- not the least of which is that torpedoes have to be launched by something, we have lots of naval assets in the area and the odds are good that if we really thought something was firing torpedoes we'd find -- and immediately sink or shoot down -- whatever it was.  That didn't happen.

Second, torpedoes are best-used not as contact weapons (that is, hit the hull and explode) but rather are typically set to run under the keel of the target and detonate.  They're much more effective this way, and yet both of the vessels apparently hit look to have been hit at or right near the waterline, which strongly implies a detonation on or the near the surface.  Static ("anchored") mines also are typically set to explode under the vessel (for the same reason torpedoes are set that way; it's much worse for the target) but limpet mines, which are attached to a hull by magnets, are another matter -- those are usually attached at or near the surface of the water because otherwise the flow of water over the hull would tear them off the ship before their fusing was able to operate and detonate them.  Putting one of these on a moving vessel is quite difficult for obvious reasons, implying that they were likely attached covertly while the vessels were being loaded or otherwise stopped.

Being attached above the waterline these sorts of mines rarely sink vessels; they do, however, cause a lot of damage and disable them, at least temporarily until repairs can be made.  Being at or above the waterline they're also visible if you look.

The crew of the Courageous apparently saw the second, unexploded mine on the hull during inspections after the original detonation, which was what caused them to abandon ship.  But the crew also reported seeing "flying objects" prior to the attack -- who knows what's going on there but I note that eyewitness statements to virtually any "traumatic" event are notoriously unreliable.

We had military assets about 40 miles away at the time, and steamed over to assist, ultimately taking one of the crews off to safety.  I note that surface-to-surface radar range is only about 10 miles due to the curvature of the earth, but if anything is flying at any sort of altitude, or if the radar mast is elevated, which of course it is, that range is greater.  It's at least somewhat likely, however, that at a 40 mile distance something flying near the surface is out of radar range from said ship and would be invisible to it, but definitely would NOT be invisible to any nearby air cover, which is almost always up in the air when naval activities are taking place.

So the obvious question is this -- since we are not dumb enough to have surface ships in "warm" areas without air cover of some sort flying around, and we do have bases where we can have that air cover operating out of, where is the evidence that "someone" was flying around those tankers?  Missing, it appears.  Then you have the mine that apparently really did exist as there's photographic evidence of it.  It certainly wasn't placed above the waterline while the vessel was steaming (try getting close enough to do that while the ship is underway and you're odds on to wind up under it, chopped into pieces by the screws) so when was it placed and why do those places where ships are being loaded and unloaded (or otherwise not moving) have dog-squeeze security?

But never mind those questions!  Pompeo says Iran did it -- without specifying how and where, so they must have done it.

Uh huh....

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info Hmmm... Iran And War? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The entire narrative makes no sense. The Iranian PM and Japanese PM were meeting together, so Iran is going to attack a Japanese owned ship? Ok so maybe they didn't know it was Japanese owned...

But then, they are going to mine the water to take out a ship but then render aide and remove an unexploded mine, for...reasons?

It is not like it would cover their tracks, or they wouldn't get blamed no matter what, so removing the mine can't show any intent other than to...remove a mine.

I've seen a bunch of crazy **** in my day, but this whole setup ranks up there with a single bullet that can cause multiple entry and exit wounds through bone and somehow come out intact with more mass than it went in with...
Hot-dog-guy
Posts: 33
Incept: 2019-04-03


Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
OK I dunno what freaks me out more. The fact that Karl retains 100% of everything he has ever read or heard or the fact that it instantly made sense to me why an explosion under the keel of a ship would cause more damage than one at the waterline. At waterline, a lot of the blast would radiate up and out into a gaseous environment (compressible).

Under the keel the water is serving as packing for the charge. Under the water is...the planet. Between that and the weight of the boat...SHIVER ME TIMBERS! And we'd have a coup-contra-coup injury! The first blow lifts the boat, the second blow is the ship coming down onto the water.

With enough explosive, the ship might be coming down into a hole in the water or a turgid area. That would be a stress multiplier. Lots of room left in Davey Jones' locker.

As of this moment I see that we might have picked the wrong careers. We should have been pirates. Curse ye winds of ironic fate!



Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
But then, they are going to mine the water to take out a ship but then render aide and remove an unexploded mine, for...reasons?

Well, no. Limpet mines are not laid in the water; they're attached to the boat by people (the mine is magnetic and sticks to the hull.) You have to put it ABOVE the waterline, however, because otherwise once the ship starts to move the force of the water sweeping down the hull will pull it off (you would not BELIEVE the amount of force involved there.)

In addition you can't get close enough with the vessel moving at anything other than dead slow to put such a thing ON the ship without getting killed; the suction generated at the waterline by a ship of size moving through the water at maneuvering speeds is INSANE. Play chicken with such a vessel underway and what usually happens is that you get sucked into that low-pressure area right at the hull and are dragged underwater -- and since all that water is going through the area of the screws you take a trip through the shaft and screw area of the vessel at the stern and are turned into small pieces.

In other words it's a near-certainty that the mine was attached while the vessel was stopped, PROBABLY while it was being loaded.

Further, while any decent EOD dude can remove one it's not without risk, ESPECIALLY if you're not the entity that placed it and thus don't know in advance exactly how it's fused. Most are on either a timed or distance-traveled fuse, but not all -- and if you get it wrong and **** with it you die. We have some very good EOD people in our military and I assume so do other military branches, but you definitely don't treat any suspected explosive in a cavalier fashion, especially if you didn't manufacture it and are uncertain as to how its fusing is set up.

----------
Winding it down.

Phdude
Posts: 156
Incept: 2009-05-26

NJ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So after,

- Lusitania
- Gulf of Tonkin
- USS Liberty
- Iran/Contra
- Saddam did 9/11 (meanwhile we sell Saudi Barbaria weapons because reasons).
- Saddam had WMDs (Remember Powell's UN speech? Yea...)
- Syria has chemical weapons (no they don't, they were decommissioned and those incidents were proven to be false flags).

After all those proven LIES, we are now supposed to believe that Iran did this?

Does anyone still believe the "official narrative" from the USG, after all those false flags over the years?

But on the other hand, people still believe in 'Russiagate' and that Hillary did nothing wrong, so, as Karl says...meh.
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Ok that makes sense, but returns back to my original question...why mine it and then remove it later? I get the idea that maybe to try to cover their tracks, but they would have to know we would blame them anyway, and yes people are dumb, I am presuming a certain level of intelligence here...but still.

Nothing about the narrative we have been handed makes any sense.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'm not sold that Iran actually PLACED the weapon.

However, they may well have known that TWO were placed by SOMEONE (who got them from Iran), and that only one went off. If so then recovering the other one before WE get our hands on it (and it's obvious where it was made when inspected) would be sort of important......

That's the most-likely explanation.

----------
Winding it down.
Asimov
Posts: 111324
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Video of them removing it is even more damning than showing the world where it was manufactured would be.

God, there's just too many twists and turns possible with something like this - we'll never know for sure.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You're assuming Iran actually removed it. I'm not.

SOMEONE obviously removed it as we caught them doing it on video but unless you interdicted the boat (we didn't) and capture both the vessel and the people on board how do you know who's vessel it was? It wasn't exactly flying an Iranian flag!

----------
Winding it down.
Marc2mrkt
Posts: 667
Incept: 2008-04-12

Taipei
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is another quirky angle to this, I read that is one of the tanker ships was filled with $30M of naphtha heading to Taiwan. Possible PRC connection? Maybe a way for the Chicoms to fvck with Trump in regards to tariffs?
Lenguado
Posts: 2697
Incept: 2010-01-12
A True American Patriot!
Orlando, FL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
how do you know who's vessel it was? It wasn't exactly flying an Iranian flag!

I understand that we had UAV coverage (where the video came from?), as well as other air and naval assets in the area.

If one of the air assets was an E-2C/D (likely) or a P-3, they were likely able to track the vessel in the video both from and back to it's port/harbor. If so, the UAV probably tracked it via video as well. We are only seeing a small snippet of tracking data / video that was likely recorded.

That's not to say that it was Iran who did it - or was a False Flag. No idea, and not making a guess. Just that we are only being provided a view through a soda straw.

----------
"War is when your government tells you who the enemy is. A revolution is when you figure it out yourself." --Unknown

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - President John F. Kennedy
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Just that we are only being provided a view through a soda straw.

Exactly, which is why until I can see more than the soda straw view I'm not believing it.

It's not like the US Government hasn't lied repeatedly in such matters in the past, right?

----------
Winding it down.
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You don't mean to say His Excellency would be lying to us about Iran's involvement...I don't believe it. But the Conservative Treehouse and Q said it was 36 Dimensional Reversi...
Asimov
Posts: 111324
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nope. Never. The US is the virgin innocence incarnate.

We, on the whole and as a species, simply can't be trusted.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Peterm99
Posts: 6374
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tickerguy wrote..
It's not like the US Government hasn't lied repeatedly in such all matters in the past . . .
FIFYsmiley

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Tsherry
Posts: 1870
Incept: 2008-12-09

Spokane WA
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"As of this moment I see that we might have picked the wrong careers. We should have been pirates. Curse ye winds of ironic fate!"

There's still plenty of time available for piracy, if you can survive the first collapse.

----------
Omne mendacium est.
Raftermanfmj
Posts: 4822
Incept: 2010-09-06

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Limpet mines are best attached below the water line, using a specially made stick for that purpose and can and do remain attached to a ship in motion.

Naturally you'd want to place them under the waterline to allow water to enter, and make them harder to detect. Why they were placed above the waterline?

Actually, it would make sense they were simple demo charges and NOT actual limpets; a simple demo charge would be in danger of being pulled off the ship by water motion whereas a purpose-designed limpet would not be.

Obviously torps were not used as they would detonate under the ship, breaking its back; no way in hell a tanker survives multiple torp hits.

To my knowledge, tankers are required to have double hulls after Exxon Valdez? Would account for the claims that no cargo was lost.

No idea who did it; could be anything from a Saud false flag to influence legislation about arms legislation that's up in Congress to an Iranian Houthi proxy attack to demonstrate they can screw with oil supplies and thus the global economy...

----------
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know. - Epicurus
Oderint dum metuant - Caligula & Police State USA
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Probably on the double-hull; the blast wasn't big enough to get through TWO sets of steel plate. As for why this one was above the waterline we don't know EXACTLY what it was -- whatever it was it doesn't look like the other one was THAT big of a blast.

----------
Winding it down.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There IS another possibility -- the "video" we're being shown is either not real at all or is "poorly produced" and doesn't show what it looks like it shows.

And the tanker was hit by a projectile above the water of some sort, such as the terminal end of a rocket. A rocket intended to get through both hulls, but not create a big enough explosion on its own to freak everyone out. However, both of those cargoes are ******nable if they get lit and the vapors are explosive. Good chance you get the cargo lit both vessels sink along with the evidence.

Instead, carrying methanol and naptha, respectively (gee, how convenient none are full of crude given that those two would evaporate quite rapidly and likely not do much to the environment) these two specific vessels were both hit by mines stuck on the side of the boat above the waterline and nobody saw them at any time until they exploded. THEN we saw an Iranian vessel remove an unexploded mine from one of the ships.


Uh huh. That's the story? Gee, that's a lot of odd things and coincidences, don't you think? Wouldn't you like at least some evidence that the boat was Iranian and evidence that it actually took an ACTIVE AND ARMED explosive device OFF THE SIDE OF THE SHIP WHILE BOUNCING AROUND IN A LITTLE BOAT?

----------
Winding it down.

Raftermanfmj
Posts: 4822
Incept: 2010-09-06

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl said: "There IS another possibility -- the "video" we're being shown is either not real at all or is "poorly produced" and doesn't show what it looks like it shows."

Yes, I thought the same thing but didn't want to go there as that would indicate US false flag...an iphone 8 would provide better resolution but we've no idea how far away the camera is so...it's beyond me ken to speculate on US military surveillance capabilities.

But it's so grainy it literally could be what they say, or anything.

----------
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know. - Epicurus
Oderint dum metuant - Caligula & Police State USA
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Raftermanfmj -- I don't know what shot it or under what conditions. Atmospherics from far enough away get wonky around the water in particular, so it's not exactly beyond reason that it's what it looks like and the angle isn't "from above", so.....

I'm not buying anything at this point as to what exploded or who made it explode; that SOMETHING exploded, twice, is obvious. That both were above the waterline is also obvious. So it wasn't a "torpedo" and it wasn't an anchored "semi-floating" mine either.

A limpet mine (whether a high-quality, well-produced one or something more-crude), yeah, I buy that. Steel boat, big magnet, Boom. Yeah. But even a relatively-crude device (e.g. not-very-big UAV full of explosives, etc) also works, doesn't it? The ship's complement insists there were one or more "somethings" flying around but the boom, so..... hmmmm.... and we didn't see it in the air? Well.... or did we?

I'm not taking anything on faith here; I want proof.

----------
Winding it down.
Burya_rubenstein
Posts: 1517
Incept: 2007-08-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
At a speed of 30 knots in water I get a dynamic pressure (q = 0.5 Ro V^2) of 17.27 psi. Not sure how big a limpet mine is, but for something a diver could handle I'm pretty sure I could design a casing that can stay on the hull; *very* powerful magnets are available. Though it might be a good idea to scrape the barnicles off the site before attaching the mine (Magnetic force varies with the inverse 4th power of separation distance if I remember right).
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Burya_rubenstein - The mine can be designed to be near-neutrally buoyant as that's simply a matter of mass and volume, possibly with a balance chamber for fine tuning (salt .vs. brackish water, etc) if a diver is going to put it on. In that case you can assume the diver(s) are using both rebreathers (no trail of bubbles which are otherwise EASILY visible to unaided human eyes) and DPVs. DPV duration (range) is mostly about the number of batteries you're willing to use and even civilian units can be bought with ranges of 10 miles!

But there's no ****ing way you're lifting a decent-sized and mass object OUT OF THE ****ING WATER to several feet above the waterline to stick it there while in scuba gear! Having done a LOT of diving -- don't think so!

----------
Winding it down.

Whossane
Posts: 56
Incept: 2018-01-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
At 1:15 of the video, it looks like you can see one of the men holding a large fish. I don't think it's a fish though. It looks like a diving fin. Specifically a Force Fin. Hmmmmm indeed.
Radiosity
Posts: 223
Incept: 2009-03-05

Sunny UK
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"ship of size"

Got a mental image now of the ship standing in front of a mirror trying on a new dress and asking 'does my keel look big in this?'.

Gonna take a while to shift that image...
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last