NATO as the cause of the largest disaster in the Red Sea - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15024030
According to the report of the Atlantic Council, published at the end of July 2019, the Safer oil tanker could explode at any time, which would allow about 1 million barrels of oil to be spilled into the Red Sea.

For those who are not up to date, I recall that the tanker was built in Japan in 1976 by order of the Yemeni company and was used until 2015 - until the time when the civil war in Yemen began. Safer was anchored in 4.2 miles from the coast, actually turning it into floating storage and offloading facility - FSO. And from the shore, a pipe was stretched aboard, through which up to 200 thousand barrels of black gold can be pumped into 34 tanks of the vessel per day.

Thus, a dilapidated ship, which has stood at sea for more than four years without maintenance, and filled with more than 1 million barrels, threatens a massive environmental disaster. And the amount of oil in the tanker, by the way, is four times higher than in Exxon Valdes, which crashed off the coast of Alaska in 1989. This environmental disaster was considered the largest at sea until the accident of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

The easiest way to avoid a catastrophe is buyout of the ship from the Yemeni government by the UN (which will cost about 70 million euros today).

But why is NATO inactive? It is believed that this is due to greed. The ship is in the hands of a Shiite rebel group of Hussites, who consider it their war trophy and do not allow UN experts to conduct inspections on the ship. The Atlantic Council does not propose to enter into negotiations with them, explaining this by saying that "they must not dance to the tune of blackmailers, terrorists, etc." So, money has become more important than security, and the words about terrorism and so on are just an excuse?

An oil spill can be extremely devastating. Pollution of desalination plants will deprive tens of millions of people of access to fresh water (some of them are already on the verge of starvation). Also, marine ecosystems that protect the seas of the rest of the world from warming will collapse. The temporary closure of the sea routes of the Red Sea will cause a significant blow to the global economy. The situation will provoke new armed conflicts in the region because of the struggle for basic necessities to ensure human life. Moreover, a catastrophe off the coasts of Yemen, Oman, and Somalia will put an end to fishing, and most likely people will go the path of least resistance and choose to "take up guns and start pirating".

Safer can explode at any second, because the oil gradually settles, compounds remain on the surface, which eventually oxidize when exposed to air. As a result of chemical processes, heat is released and hence spontaneous combustion. There is no time for thoughts. Why is NATO inactive?
#15024047
Tintin Storm wrote:According to the report of the Atlantic Council, published at the end of July 2019, the Safer oil tanker could explode at any time, which would allow about 1 million barrels of oil to be spilled into the Red Sea.

For those who are not up to date, I recall that the tanker was built in Japan in 1976 by order of the Yemeni company and was used until 2015 - until the time when the civil war in Yemen began. Safer was anchored in 4.2 miles from the coast, actually turning it into floating storage and offloading facility - FSO. And from the shore, a pipe was stretched aboard, through which up to 200 thousand barrels of black gold can be pumped into 34 tanks of the vessel per day.

Thus, a dilapidated ship, which has stood at sea for more than four years without maintenance, and filled with more than 1 million barrels, threatens a massive environmental disaster. And the amount of oil in the tanker, by the way, is four times higher than in Exxon Valdes, which crashed off the coast of Alaska in 1989. This environmental disaster was considered the largest at sea until the accident of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

The easiest way to avoid a catastrophe is buyout of the ship from the Yemeni government by the UN (which will cost about 70 million euros today).

But why is NATO inactive? It is believed that this is due to greed. The ship is in the hands of a Shiite rebel group of Hussites, who consider it their war trophy and do not allow UN experts to conduct inspections on the ship. The Atlantic Council does not propose to enter into negotiations with them, explaining this by saying that "they must not dance to the tune of blackmailers, terrorists, etc." So, money has become more important than security, and the words about terrorism and so on are just an excuse?

An oil spill can be extremely devastating. Pollution of desalination plants will deprive tens of millions of people of access to fresh water (some of them are already on the verge of starvation). Also, marine ecosystems that protect the seas of the rest of the world from warming will collapse. The temporary closure of the sea routes of the Red Sea will cause a significant blow to the global economy. The situation will provoke new armed conflicts in the region because of the struggle for basic necessities to ensure human life. Moreover, a catastrophe off the coasts of Yemen, Oman, and Somalia will put an end to fishing, and most likely people will go the path of least resistance and choose to "take up guns and start pirating".

Safer can explode at any second, because the oil gradually settles, compounds remain on the surface, which eventually oxidize when exposed to air. As a result of chemical processes, heat is released and hence spontaneous combustion. There is no time for thoughts. Why is NATO inactive?


NATO is not responsible for oil spills and old tankers. On the other hand Russia is responsible for perhaps largest man made disaster in human history: The Chernobyl disaster. Which killed thousands of workers who dealt with it and hundreds of thousands of civilians as a consequence. (If not over a million)
#15026017
JohnRawls wrote:NATO is not responsible for oil spills and old tankers. On the other hand Russia is responsible for perhaps largest man made disaster in human history: The Chernobyl disaster. Which killed thousands of workers who dealt with it and hundreds of thousands of civilians as a consequence. (If not over a million)


But NATO unlike the USSR at that times IS ABLE now to prevent the tanker disaster
#15026077
Clare Dauson wrote:But NATO unlike the USSR at that times IS ABLE now to prevent the tanker disaster


They are not specialised in this kind of operations. There are proper organisations, NCOs and private companies that deal with such things. What do you expect NATO to do? Bomb the place? I mean that is the best they can do with the hardware they have. It is unreasonable to ask NATO to keep a cleaning crew for this nor is it a proper expenditure.
#15026199
Hello @Tintin Storm (or may I call you Asexual Alex?)
The Atlantic Council is not NATO. It's an American think tank, and thus would not consider paying the Yemeni government (the nominal owners) money to have responsibility for a rotting oil tanker. You say "the Atlantic Council does not propose to enter into negotiations with them"; well, yes, of course it doesn't. I expect Moscow State University doesn't propose to enter into negotiations with them either.

You seems to have started this thread because you, or whoever tells you to copy Asexual Alex, read the Atlantic Council blog on this. They are actually urging the UN (not NATO) to do something. The UN Security Council includes China, and, most importantly from your point of view, Russia, as well as NATO members. Shouldn't you be asking your own Russian leadership to be doing something about this, rather than blaming the American think tank whose report alerted you?

The Hussites, by the way, were a Czech medieval Christian movement - a sort of Protestant before Martin Luther. They really aren't involved in this. At all.

Since you've misidentified what the Atlantic Council is, do you want to have another try at who you claim said "they must not dance to the tune of blackmailers, terrorists, etc."? If you claim it's NATO, give us some evidence. Or is it the Security Council, including the Russian ambassador? There's no reason that NATO should be involved in this. Why are you pressing for NATO to pay money to Houthis? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to ask your Russian government to do it?
#15026238
The ship is in the hands of a Shiite rebel group of Hussites, who consider it their war trophy and do not allow UN experts to conduct inspections on the ship. The Atlantic Council does not propose to enter into negotiations with them, explaining this by saying that "they must not dance to the tune of blackmailers, terrorists, etc." So, money has become more important than security, and the words about terrorism and so on are just an excuse?


It is actually the UN which should inspect the dilapidated tanker, while NATO is meant protect Europe only from Russia. But the Houthi have blocked access to the Safer. If there is an "environmental and humanitarian catastrophe" as it sends oil pumping into the sea, the Houthi should be blamed. Yemen is still in the middle of a civil war and a military intervention by the West is not desirable as the Atlantic Council proposed. Yemen and Sudan are some of the worst countries in the world controlled by terrorists, where nobody cares about the Red Sea marine environment. If there is an accidental nuclear explosion in North Korea, North Koreans can only blame themselves for engaging in terrorist activities, too, thus endangering their own existence.

In a letter to the UN, the government warned that the disaster is "imminent" unless the Houthi allow inspectors on to the ship.

But the Houthi have blocked access to the Safer - demanding they receive assurances that any revenue from the oil goes to them.

Doug Weir, director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory, told The Guardian: "Until a UN technical inspection takes place it is difficult to determine the precise risk that the vessel poses, however the potential for a serious environmental emergency is clear.

"An explosion leading to a spill would have a severe effect on the Red Sea marine environment, and on both biodiversity and livelihoods, an emergency made worse because the ongoing conflict would hamper efforts to control and respond to the pollution it would cause.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9570644/y ... n-red-sea/
#15026266
Yemen has had warm relations with Moscow for nearly a century. Surely, as interested in the environment as Moscow is, it could intervene and ask Yemen to let it salvage the tanker.

An alternative would be to allow the Saudi's to capture it.

Or, as cooler heads have suggested, let the US deal with it. And Yemen while they are at it. Time for someone to occupy Yemen and stop the humanitarian crisis there.

And the people in that picture are all clean, hea[…]

The Evolution Fraud

"Besoeker2 wrote: OK. Disprove them. Or ev[…]

With all this talk of revolution surely it is t[…]

Ideally, however unrealistic it may be, we would […]