U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran bad idea?

I have been a member of ATS for a short time but I must admit that I cannot believe what I read sometimes and I often wonder what planet some Americans must be on. Right Iran has no means of hurting or inflicting serious damage on the US fleets in the ME. Well let me give you a short history lesson, do you remember those poor 3rd world small men wearing pyjamas who wuped America's ass in a place I'm sure you will all recall.

And once again American military prowess has not won the day in Iraq, this should tell you something, its either your military is not as good as you think it is, the people and Goverment back home do not support those who they send to do their fighting or you TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY. Wars are not just won with weapons alone but with ideologies and the mindset of those who do the fighting.

If you invade someone's counrty they are going to fight you, thats what the indigenous population do, there not just going to roll over while you ransack their country and murder and torture the populace. America and its people are being used to fight war for the benefit of others we can see that so why cannot you.

And if you wish to discuss matters such as this one must do so with a clear mind with brain in gear rather than relying on emotional responses because you may hear truths that you dont like and cannot deal with.

The situation in Iraq can be explained by the sole guerilla tactics those people are using. It's exactly the same why the Israeli wiped the egyptian and syrian army but still have trouble with Palestine

Let me remember you, that the Iraqi Army lasted about 3 or 4 weeks to the american onslaught. For a country that was seen as a major power in the region, that should tell you something

I, for one, try to limit myself to the military point of view, I leave the justifications to other ATS users

As for the Offencive capability of Iran on the US fleet, refresh my memory, when was the last time a US carrier was sunk? No better, when was a US navy beaten?

And since the topic is about the fleet the US is moving in the Gulf, I'd just like to remember everyone that you cannot invade a country with a fleet and thereby, a fleet relocation is not a good indication of an invasion of Iran

Finally, the topic has been calm and interesting, and I think everyone gave their mind about the situation. I don't see why you see the need of telling us to clear our mind and ready our brain, is that because some disagree?

For me, it is impossible that our economy can possibly continue to artificially grow at the rate it has since the war in Afghanistan and Iraq without another major military event to occure.

Wars are very profitable, it spurs the production of a nation and creates a new tax income. The taxes being brought in from big oil companies (50% excess tax = 100billion - 50billion goes to the gov) not to mention mechanical parts, weapon parts, income tax from troops, feul and opening, securing and finding new resources. Oh yes, we gained alot from this war.

On 9/11 the worlds most powerful financial center was struck, the worlds largest producer and richest nation shut down almost entirely, our military headquarters mangled. Imagine it now, billions lost in seconds, paper work, computer files lost, gone forever with the tracings of trillions, the wtc was a major international trading center. Not to mention of course, one of the worlds largest financial and physical structure complexes falling down upon the worlds largest business district.. I firmly believe that had this happend to ANY other nation in the world, ANY state.. they would have collapsed immediatly. Whether or not you think the government did it, or terrorist did it is irrelevent. We suffered an economic crash (dot com buble burst) and right after that... histories largest and deadliest and costliest terrorist attack.

So we go to war, the economy picks up in numbers, the paper work says we are doing fine.. the rich are richer and thats all the matters.. who cares if the middle class is stretched to the breaking point of a meltdown? .. America's savings are at the lowest point since the great depression, our personal debt higher then any point in our history.. But the rich are richer. That makes the paper work look good. If a few men (walmart) become billionairs in a short amount of time, amassing billions alone, many billions together it sure does help when that is counted in the personal income gains right?

The war in Afghanistan is being prolonged, as is Iraq.. WWII lasted years, as did WWI.. along time to sell alot of goods, even vietnam lasted longer and requiered a higher demand of our production, Iraq simply isn't cutting it. Iran will be the next place we hit simply to keep the economy artifically high until we get another era where we no longer need a war to stay on top. All we are doing now is between high pionts, avoiding a depression. The problem is, the longer it is held off the harder it will be if it happens. So far their little plan is working.. unethically and at the cost of many people.. we are not loosing our lively hood, our American and Westernly way of life.

I think we have pushed the Russians, the Chineese and even Europeans around, invading Iraq because they wanted to go to Euros, they knew the Dollar was falling, is it any wonder why Europe was so mad we went there? .. Do you honestly think France gave a rats !!! about Iraq's?? .. It is about money. Always has been, always will be.. money is what drives wars, to create it, to secure it, it is the one thing a nation can reasonably see worth dieing for.

So my response to "is it a good thing"

No, absolutely not.. we need to let the economy run it's course.. we are making it worse for our selves in the long run.. Many people are going to die in a war with Iran, and the situation in the ME is at the point where one spark ignites the powder keg. So it would be a terrible thing to amass troops, unless you want to continue living the way you currently do right now.

EDIT: Spell, grammar buttton still is broken so uh, deal with my horrible English.

[edit on 12/20/2006 by Rockpuck]

Although no Navy can touch the USA, I would not discount the Iranians irrationality!

They do have weapons that can damage our ships, they did it with Hezbollah's attack on the Israel Navy just this summer!

I feel we will have and "gulf of tonkin" incident early next year and be at war with Iran and thus a draft in spring or summer of '07!

I hope I am wrong, but the current leadership in Iran is pretty dangerous and may take our problems in Iraq as a sign of weakness that will embolden them!

You said it Mel1962, im not discounting the Iranians

I even think they would wipe the bulk of the US army in a prolonged Guerilla War
But it would stay in Urban areas

In open ground, in the air or on the Sea, I say the US wins

It is only in mostly urban area, where Guerilla works the best that Iranian wins in my opinion

And you said it, "damaged" I don't think they sunk a single boat and the damage was limited. Of course this is a worst case scenario with a militia and the Iranians would probably do a bit better but not much

And those ship were coastal ones... We are talking about an Aircraft Carrier group here, not exactly the same stuff.

I think I already gave my opinion about an eventual draft so I won't bore y'all with that

Well CG

I've enjoyed the Debate, I am a bit worried about our Navy being bottled up in the Persian Gulf.

I am not worried about the aircraft group getting sunk or any other ship. Although I think the support ships like the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers maybe vulnerable to their new surface to ship missle or an attack like on the Cole.

I believe we may get a wake up call from the Iranians, I have no doubt that we would wipe them out on the ground, air, water and nuke if we have too!

I think their large Army will force us to double or triple our ground forces in Afganistan and Iraq!



[edit on 20-12-2006 by mel1962]

A Cole like attack is always a possibility but is very rare and works only if you have the benefice of surprise

Maybe, but the Iranian army is optimised for Guerilla-like fighting, and Striking into Afghanistan and Iraq is asking a lot for this type of combat doctrine

I don't think we will see any wake up call, the Iranian is already fighting a proxy war with the US in Iraq, Why would they risk their safe seats in Teheran when they can strike the US and get away with it?

Iran has the capability to sink American vessels using Chinese and Russian missile technology.

It's foolish to think that they're not going to use weapons that they purchased for just this reason, if we make it clear we intend to commit to open hostilities.

Their Air Force is not very powerful, but they have access to some of the best missile tech in the world right now. If they can take out one of our very expensive ships with a handful of relatively cheap missles, they're winning the war.

How do we project power into the region without aircraft carriers?

People should not underestimate Iran. If I were them, I would fire off every ounce of ship-killing ordinance at my disposal, in one brief but massive attack, and then order the army to blend in to the civilian population and prepare for a guerilla war against any occupying force.

Nevermind all that, what does our military run on? Fuel. Aren't we already having problems in Iraq? What's another front going to do, alleviate the shortages?

No, I don't think so...

I think that if American generals decide to attack Iran, they are either very stupid or very co-opted (by parties in a position to benefit financially from our blunder).

No better, when was a US navy beaten?

The First Battle of Savo Island was the last (and probably worst) clear defeat suffered by a US Naval force. The last carrier the US lost was USS Bismarck Sea in 1945 - two kamikazes hit her magazines off Iwo Jima.

Great Post by all, I think we all can agree this is a situation that needs to be watched closely and I hope and I believe the US military has the same conerns as us!

WyrdeOne: Why arent the Iran-backed Militias in Iraq importing some of those wonder weapons and Gun down the US there? I doubt those missiles are as wonderful as it may seem. Remember those GPS jammer Iraq bought and werent worth jack in the end? Of course Im more confident in those missiles, since they are actually Warheads and not just Techtrick. If it really was That easy to smoke the US, I think people would have done it before

Like I said, Iran's strengh lays in his army that is trained in Urban Warfare and Guerilla

If you were Iran, you would have just started a War and would be probably seen as an agressor, As Iran, you should therefore continue to fight your proxy war in Iraq instead no? Like that, you fight, but you remain apparently neutral and the Troops you send on the field gain experience in Urban Warfare Wich could be used in later operations

And then again, you are suggesting to prepare for a war against an occupying force while nothing suggest the US is willing to Occupy Iran right now. They moved a fleet, you don't occupy a Country with a Fleet. They already have their hands full with Iraq

As for the Fuel, I think the Carriers run on nuclear reactors?

While I disagree with some of your points, I do agree with the line that says it would be Strategicaly disastrous right now for the US generals to attack Iran

EDIT: oh thanks xmotex,
Wow, 1945, it sure was a long time ago. Strange name altough for a US carrier?

[edit on 20-12-2006 by CanadianGlasnost]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I have been a member of ATS for a short time but I must admit that I cannot believe what I read sometimes and I often wonder what planet some Americans must be on. Right Iran has no means of hurting or inflicting serious damage on the US fleets in the ME. Well let me give you a short history lesson, do you remember those poor 3rd world small men wearing pyjamas who wuped America's ass in a place I'm sure you will all recall.

And once again American military prowess has not won the day in Iraq, this should tell you something, its either your military is not as good as you think it is, the people and Goverment back home do not support those who they send to do their fighting or you TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY. Wars are not just won with weapons alone but with ideologies and the mindset of those who do the fighting.

hey mm...sorry didnt mean to jump into a conversation thats been going for a while..there is a touch of sarcasm when i say this but...
i guess america could always step it up if they had to and just dominate. i belive this is a good example of domination. wow.

"The US armed forces bombed one end of the main highway from Kuwait city to Basra, sealing it off. They bombed the other end of the highway and sealed it off. They positioned mechanized artillery units on the hills overlooking it. And then, from the air and from the land they simply massacred every living thing on the road. Fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, and armored battalions poured merciless firepower on traffic jams backed up for as much as twenty miles. When the traffic became grid locked, the B-52s were sent in for carpet bombing." Our forces did not wait for the fleeing people to surrender, they did not surround them and force them to surrender, they just exterminated them. Americans never heard about the "Highway of Death," they just paid for it, a slaughter that, in Barnes' words "ranks among the great atrocities of modern warfare."

www.rense.com...

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Funkydung]

Wow, talk about supressive fire

CanadianGlasnost

Why arent the Iran-backed Militias in Iraq importing some of those wonder weapons and Gun down the US there?

They wouldn't be of any use in Iraq - the weapons I'm thinking of are designed to destroy ships at sea. I don't think it's feasible to smuggle a missile that's 9-10 meters long and weights 5000 kilos across the border in the boot of a mercedes or on the back of a donkey. And once you get it there, what are you going to do with it, drop it off a rooftop to hit a tank?

Besides, I think if Iran has these (and I think they do), they are much more interested in using them to defend their own country. After all, they can stir the pot perfectly well in Iraq without them, and every one they send to Iraq is one they don't have.

I doubt those missiles are as wonderful as it may seem. Remember those GPS jammer Iraq bought and werent worth jack in the end? Of course Im more confident in those missiles, since they are actually Warheads and not just Techtrick. If it really was That easy to smoke the US, I think people would have done it before.

Well, you may be right, they may not work like they're supposed to when the chips are down. Time will tell. As far as 'someone would have done it by now', I think they are doing it, as we speak. Iraq has felt like a set-up from day one.

We go in there, over-extend, surrounded by unfriendly nations and a bunch of nasty terrain, no good exit strategy, roads are too dangerous to use for re-supply, two blossoming superpowers waiting in the wings, we're short water, fuel, and spare parts, and our commander in chief is a dunce. We've got ZERO intelligence capability since the CIA was purged for political reasons, and most of the top generals seem to be retiring early in the face of this nonsense. Nobody wants a blunder of this magnitude to play itself out on their watch.

So, yeah, I think we're being set-up, and if we lose our force projection (in the form of a carrier group or two), we'll really be in a bad way.

And then again, you are suggesting to prepare for a war against an occupying force while nothing suggest the US is willing to Occupy Iran right now. They moved a fleet, you don't occupy a Country with a Fleet. They already have their hands full with Iraq

I don't think it would be wise to invade Iran, but I also don't think the people pulling our strings are interested in what's wise, or what's good for us as a nation. They seem to be much more interested in what's profitable for them and their cronies. A quagmire is the most profitable, no question.

As for the Fuel, I think the Carriers run on nuclear reactors?

I wasn't talking about the carriers, I was talking about the planes, tanks and trucks - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Even if Iran managed to sink one or two USN carriers they still have to deal with US land based air power. Add in air flight refueling and modern warplanes and the Iranian military would still have a few problems to deal with.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by xpert11]

Hum Yeah but If the Iranians are indeed able to sink the US fleet in the Persian Gulf won't the troop be pinned in Iraq surrounded by, like wyrdeone said, people that hate them?

Not only would they lose their force projection, they would lose an evacuation way if things were to go bad (which is a good guest if some people were able to sink the US fleet in the Area)

I don't THINK they are able to do that, but if they can... That will be a strategic mess for the US in the area

And for my last line, I do think it sucks to be out of gas in the middle of a nation that has so much oil



[edit on 21-12-2006 by CanadianGlasnost]

Originally posted by Funkydung

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I have been a member of ATS for a short time but I must admit that I cannot believe what I read sometimes and I often wonder what planet some Americans must be on. Right Iran has no means of hurting or inflicting serious damage on the US fleets in the ME. Well let me give you a short history lesson, do you remember those poor 3rd world small men wearing pyjamas who wuped America's ass in a place I'm sure you will all recall.

And once again American military prowess has not won the day in Iraq, this should tell you something, its either your military is not as good as you think it is, the people and Goverment back home do not support those who they send to do their fighting or you TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY. Wars are not just won with weapons alone but with ideologies and the mindset of those who do the fighting.

hey mm...sorry didnt mean to jump into a conversation thats been going for a while..there is a touch of sarcasm when i say this but...
i guess america could always step it up if they had to and just dominate. i belive this is a good example of domination. wow.

"The US armed forces bombed one end of the main highway from Kuwait city to Basra, sealing it off. They bombed the other end of the highway and sealed it off. They positioned mechanized artillery units on the hills overlooking it. And then, from the air and from the land they simply massacred every living thing on the road. Fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, and armored battalions poured merciless firepower on traffic jams backed up for as much as twenty miles. When the traffic became grid locked, the B-52s were sent in for carpet bombing." Our forces did not wait for the fleeing people to surrender, they did not surround them and force them to surrender, they just exterminated them. Americans never heard about the "Highway of Death," they just paid for it, a slaughter that, in Barnes' words "ranks among the great atrocities of modern warfare."

www.rense.com...

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Funkydung]

Very nice example of what happens when a very powerful nation attacks a very weak nation ... even though Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world.. nothing comes close to comparing with our strength.

The Highway of Death is actually the reason we didn't go into Iraq and take out Saddam. The international outcry from it was huge.. even though we never heard a word of it.. world leaders where not very pleased. The Highway was mostly citizens, however the majority of Saddams retreating army (in the tens of thousands) where on the road running with the citizens. Every single moving object was hit, scortched earth I believe is the term. After the ... incident, which I agree is the worst case of slaughter in modern warfare .. we pulled out of Iraq and ended the war, a very short war because of what President Bush Sr. and historians agree, "Over kill" .. we killed to much to fast .. which lead to our eventual failure. the result being the people we told to rise up and fight with us as we ride in, where slaughtered because we couldn't go in.

four in ten Americans predict a 2007 war with Iran as second carrier group was deployed to the Persian gulf


source

Some of you guys do not appreciate what it takes to sink a carrier and what the air defense and land strike capabilities of the USN are. Iran's best weapon is going to be it’s subs, that's why I wont buy the attack hype until a few SSN's, ASuW and anti-mine assets move in theater. But anyway, their costal missile defenses wont last long nor will they be effective, their numerous small patrol boats were a potential threat but recently tactic were devised to deal with them (US Coast Guard already in theater will play a big role). Their conventional surface and air forces are also not a match, like I said only their subs are a credible threat, given the littoral conditions and the fact that they are diesel-electric subs. Currently there is one US carrier in the Gulf and the second one I predict will remain outside the Straight of Hormuz.

Iran, if it's smart, will go after soft targets such as oil tankers and cargo ships, like they did in the 1980's, they will attempt to close the straight and make passage impossible via mines and missiles. This will force the USN not to only defeat Iranian assets but to also defend and clear the way for international vessels. A difficult task but one that we have been aware of sine the 1980's and one we constantly train for. Ever since the late 80's the US has been running OPS in the Gulf for this very scenario, with multiple partner nations I might add, Italy, Aus. UK etc...

Overall I think if the US commits there will be such an overwhelming force that Iran cannot possibly win, and no I don't consider damaging a few ship as being victorious. It might take a bit longer but the result will be the same as that of Operation Praying Mantis, in which we destroyed half of Iran's surface fleet in one afternoon after one of their mines struck the USS Roberts.

Other Relevant Ops.
Link 1
Link 2