It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US send warships to eastern Med

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

US send warships to eastern Med


www.rawstory.com

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the deployment should not be viewed as threatening or in response to events in any single country in that volatile region.

"This is an area that is important to us, the eastern Med," he said when asked about news reports of the ship movements. "It's a group of ships that will operate in the vicinity there for a while," adding that "it isn't meant to send any stronger signals than that. But it does signal that we're...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The eastern med, of course is the backside of Israel, and puts these ships within easy striking distance of any number of targets.

Does this complete the final move needed to backup Israel for an attack on Iran?

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
don't think so, but might be wrong....

they had some deployments scheduled, and well, didn't really have any place better to send them???



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Well, also note:


But it does signal that we're engaged, we're going to be in the vicinity and that's a very, very important part of the world."


Very very important, yep. Israel sure is to some people.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
what do you do when playing chess?

Find the best place to put your pawns.....

then move your knights an guardians

bam then check mate WW3.


Just wait everything has been falling into place just where they want them.......

now watch for a event in the middle east



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
It is like playing chess.

I'm hoping...no, praying that a strong US presence will stave-off WW3.

I think this is significant news and we have only to wait and see...maybe eventually have to "glow" a little.

Could be bad news.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Hmm, the Cole (interesting choice) and Nassau, an assault carrier (LHA).

Interesting, but probably routine.

Now if the unnamed "third ship" turns out to be one of the Ticonderoga-class CG's armed with SM-3, it will be time to sit up and take notice.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Well, unfortunately, here may be some proof of exactly that:

www.worldtribune.com...


Wednesday, February 6, 2008

U.S. anti-missile ship arrives in Israel
TEL AVIV — The U.S. Navy has sent an Aegis missile defense ship to Israel.

The USS San Jacinto has arrived in the Israeli port of Haifa as part of U.S.-Israel naval cooperation. San Jacinto contains the Aegis missile defense system, designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles developed by Iran and North Korea.

San Jacinto, a Ticonderoga-class vessel, docked in Haifa on Feb. 4 and was scheduled to remain in the port for three days. Officials said Israel Navy officers would tour the Aegis cruiser and receive briefings on the missile defense system.


And just in case there is any doubt of what the San Jacinto is:


The USS San Jacinto (CG 56) is the tenth AEGIS cruiser of the 27 ships in the Ticonderoga Class. Her construction began on 5 October 1984 and her keel laid 24 July 1985. She was launched on 14 November 1986 and christened 24 January 1987 by her sponsor, Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, wife of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. San Jacinto was commissioned on 23 January 1988 by then Vice President George Bush in Houston, Texas.


But whether this ship is part of the three others in the OP or not, the fact that its there would tend to raise a few eyebrows. What if it isn't, and is a 4th ship?

It doesn't necessarily mean action though.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Well, with the downing of the satellite and now this, I think it might be a good time to prepare for anything. Any detective will tell you "there are no coincidences". I highly doubt these two actions taken so close together mean nothing. It may not mean what it sounds like, but taken together, it means something.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
San Jacinto is NOT equipped with the SM-3s. Only the Lake Eerie, Shiloh, and Port Royal are currently armed with them, or capable of using them. As of January 08 only three cruisers, and 7 Arleigh Burke destoyers were capable of carrying the SM-3. The Japanese are planning on an initial deployment of 4 Kongo class destroyers, and there is one Spanish F-100 frigate that has participated in tests.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hey cool, if you say so.


All I can say to that is - as quick as an SM-3 was programmed to take out that satellite, it just makes me wonder how quick a few more ships could be outfitted with the change...



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Not very. It was quick with the satellite because the Lake Eerie already had the software installed, and had been testing it for years. They also had the modifications removed already. They're very slowly phasing the modifications into service. First is the LRS&T mode (Long Range Search and Track). Then after they test that system they put in the missile control software. They have a very specific plan on deployment, and they aren't going to rush it into service. If they were going to send an SM-3 cruiser, they would have sent one of the ones out of Pearl Harbor that has had the software installed already, not one that has just had it installed.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
This is definately a "watch this space" situation I think.
But claiming it is no more than a standard deployment that means nothing makes me think of two kids in the back seat of the car. One child with an extended finger 2 inches away from the other.....

"He's touching me"
"No I'm not..."

Passive provocation?



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Very carefully more and more U.S. ships have been deployed to the Middle East. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that the USS Cole had been sent, and excellent catch on your part on the news about the USS San Jacinto.

Sometimes when one plays the board game Risk it becomes very obvious what a particular opponent is scheming/planning. Looking at all of this I would be very surprised if the messages being sent weren't being heard loud and clear by Iran and Syria.

I would like all of this to be sabre rattling, but it seems self-evident that unless something extraordinary intervenes and removes the Bush/Cheney Executive in the USA through Congressional action, popular revolt or military coup d'etat, the world is going to behold something fierce and horrible before the end of March.

And of course there is utter insanity on the Iranian side of the equation. The Syrians are far more thoughtful, patient and cunning.

[edit on 28/2/08 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well great then, looks like we got nothing to worry bout... I wonder if Iran Lebanon, Syria and a few others are thinking the same...



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
A strong US presence is not going to make that region peaceful, all it's going to do is unite the entire region for a possible war with the US.

You don't avoid a bar fight by getting in the face of all the angry drunks you can find.


It's quite obvious that the current administration wants a world war, the only question is why? Is the government earnings from another world war really worth all the horror and deaths? Apparently Bush thinks so... but he doesn't have to fight does he.

I'll sleep very soundly when Bush and Co. are removed from office... regardless of how.

Honestly, would any of you shed a tear if some whack job disposed of Bush and Chaney? Here's hoping the next president is competent and sane... you know, someone who's not complete scum.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
So it takes SM-3's to take out anything Iran or Syria- or Lebanon can dish out, does it? Wouldn't mind your take on that Zaph.

only because:


In order to carry out its mission, San Jacinto is equipped with the most advanced naval weapons system in the world. AEGIS, a computerized, quick reaction, air defense system, provides extraordinary capabilities against attacking aircraft and missiles. The heart of the AEGIS system is the SPY-1A radar, which automatically detects and tracks virtually everything flying out to and beyond 200 miles.


Just askin...



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The Aegis system itself is designed to track IN ATMOSPHERE targets several hundred miles out, at almost any altitude. It was specifically designed to protect aircraft carriers from cruise missiles. It can't track a target that goes exoatmospheric without a pretty significant software upgrade. They simply move too fast for the computer to track with any accuracy. Even if they could TRACK them, the SM-2 doesn't have the range, or the speed to intercept them.


Btw that's a pretty old page. We haven't used the SPY-1A in awhile now. They've upgraded to the SPY-1B/D for the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke ships. Physically they're the same, software makes a huge difference.

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Wouldn't the Eastern Med. also possibly be to introduce a presence around Kosovo? I know its a popular theme on this board, but personally I can't see Iran attacking Israel...could see the opposite though.

Kosovo is the more likely powderkeg right now, in my humble, uneducated opion. Been wrong before though



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
So wouldn't it make sense anyways to send that ship because Israel likely already has hundreds of Arrow 2's or better protecting itself? I guess the point being that the US fleet needs to protect itself more from anti-ship missiles than Israel needs the ship to protect Israel from IRBM's?




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join