We were talking about economic aspects and I mentioned my qualification to tell that I don't need be educated on econonomics basics, not to imply that someone else is unqualified in this discussion.
And yes, historical experience tells us that it needs indeed good demolition work to keep installations of such importance out of business for months.
A good example was the demolition of oil installations by the dutch in Dutch Southeast-Asia in early 1942. That was well done.
The massve bombing of oil installations from low level around Ploesti in 1943 otherwise achieved iirc no more than 40% output drop for more than a couple of days and effects vanished quickly as repairs were effective.
No pumping station, reservoir of pipeline is of such complicated construction that it couldn't be replaced within half a year as there's enough liquidity and will to repair present in the case of a successful strike. So no effect of a single operation would last a year or moreno matter how repairs are done, that's my opinion.
Another aspect is that it seems to be typical western since WW2 bombings to aim at ecoomic bottlenecks for high strike efficiency. Islamist have not shown such a behaviour at all. They strike high prestige targets and induce fear - they do not wage an economic war.
But maybe someone here can point at the impact of islamist insurgency 1991-2002 in Algeria on that nation's oil production, something like 50% dop is in question:
Again, I do not say that terrorists cannot reduce Saudi Arabian oil exports. Even unsuccessful attempts would have a price-driving effect on oil prices.
But a 50% drop in output only due to terrorist activity is in my opinion an overestimation of their capabilities.
Originally Posted by Lastdingo
We were talking about economic aspects and I mentioned my qualification to tell that I don't need be educated on econonomics basics, not to imply that someone else is unqualified in this discussion.
Bookmarks