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.

 

Third US carrier, 4,000 Marines augment US armada opposite Iran

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Did we have three carrier groups when we did this in 2006 and 2008? I can't remember if it got this far...anyone remember offhand?




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Let's say that you know the US capabilities but have little clue as to those of Iran and the asymmetric warfare capability of Iran has NO match worldwide: they have been preparing for this encounter for the last 25 years...

In fact, since I have studied it in detail, I'll start a thread soon dedicated to just that...

The first hurdle for the Carrier and Expeditionary Groups is staying out of range of coastal anti-ship missiles batteries, which means operating at least 200 miles from Iran's coast and outside the Persian Gulf...

This means that the landing crafts will be vulnerable during the open water trips and the aircrafts will spend some time flying over water before reaching targets on land...

The second is the Kilo submarines equipped with the Klub-S/Sizzler missiles that can approach the fleet at 5 knots or less completely undetected...

Then you have some 80 miles of rocky coast lines and islands fronting directly on to the Hormuz Strait and hosting mobile launching ramp for supersonic missiles hidden in rocky caves that need to be taken under US control to prevent its closure...

To succeed against Iran, all the LHD/LHA and at least 4 Carrier Groups will certainly be needed and there is no guarantee of success...

When Iraq was attacked, there were 6 Carriers Groups on hand and Iraq, which had nowhere near the capability of Iran, sunk/damaged 2 ships with its antiquated mines, while Iran has several thousand sophisticated EM-52...

www.irandefence.net...

I'm pretty certain that the surplus carrier Group out of rotation will soon leave the area and all this excitement for nothing will die again, as happened every 6 months for the last 4 years...



Originally posted by Newbomb Turk

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by i944002
 


Okay this getting long enough....basically could 2 carrier BG's and 1 ESG be "enough" to launch an invasion? You bet your ass they could. So yes be concerned...I am :-/

So THAT is


[edit on 30-6-2010 by Solace]

[edit on 1-7-2010 by Solace]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by Solace
 


Russia is far beyond it's hayday and the only thing going for them is the Cold War Legacy which provides them a bit of intimidation factor. In reality, they are simply using the time honoured tradition of misdirection, misinformation, and generally the fog of war. They say they are strong, everyone believes them b/c they once were, hence nobody challenges them. They are no stronger than any other European country and their large arsenal of Cold War Era weapons is outdated and outmatched by several generations of American Advances.


Russia is the only nation that fields 5th generation fighters. Their missile technology is not even matched by China - which is ahead of the US.

Specs show both Russian and Chinese fighters outclass US fighters.

It is the US fleet that is outdated.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Amagnon]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Quoted from website:
The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

Source:groups.yahoo.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


Not saying it will and not saying it wont, but running around saying ya can't touch our carriers sounds a little like "there too big to fail" or the "UNSINKABLE titanic", only idiots say something can't be done, and the idiots seem to be running the country right now.

Just remember history or you'll be domed to repeat it.

Just saying .......



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by Solace
 


Moral of this story, the weapons they have supplied Iran are far outmatched so Iran has no chance. No carrier will get sunk. Iran still uses LOUD diesel submarines, our nuclear subs will sink them before they even know we are in the same ocean as them so Iran has no chance.


Former US Navy submariner here (I was on one of the SSBNs that were recently converted to SSGNs), and just to let you know, diesel subs are loud only when running their diesel - they are VERY quiet when running on batteries, even quieter than our nuclear powered subs. They would only need to run the diesel to charge their batteries or if trying to make good speed...
During war games we would have to intentionally make noise for the ships hunting us, otherwise they couldn't find us - so you can imagine how difficult it would be to detect something even quieter... I wouldn't so easily dismiss the threat of Iranian subs, they aren't some tin can using WW2 tech - there is a reason that Russia is still exporting them...



[edit on 1-7-2010 by CommandoJoe]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
LIVE and LEARN!!...

The key word here is: ASYMMETRIC!...

The Iranian are masters at Asymmetric warfare, the same kind that routed the Zionist attack on Lebanon, where a few thousand HizbAllah fighters inflicted a stinging DEFEAT on a much better armed and much larger Zionist army with total control of the air...

Even before the advent of the game changing supersonic anti-ship missiles, Iran was proven in serious and expensive war games wholly able to sink the entire 5th Fleet in a matter of hours...

...Gen. Van Riper dismissed the new military concepts as empty sloganeering, and he had reason to be skeptical. In the first days of the "war," Van Riper's Force Red sent most of the US fleet to the bottom of the Persian Gulf...

...It so happens that the most vulnerable ship in the US fleet is none other than the flagship itself, the big Nimitz-class carriers. This underscores the significance of Force Red's victory during Millennium Challenge. Just think: If Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms, the lowly scuds of the cruise missile family, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable...


www.rense.com...

The Kilo Class subs are modern, quieter than nuclear subs and very effective with the Klub-S supersonic missiles, which are definitely carrier killers...

Iran also has a fleet of mini-subs developed with the help of Germany and North Korea that are ideal for the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf and are armed with the super-fast 200 knots Skval torpedoes: see post #581...

www.irandefence.net...

If it was that easy, Iran would have long been attacked, but with every passing year Iran is adding more ASYMMETRICAL capability to its forces to the point where a conventional attack would be too costly in term of military and economic (closure of Hormuz) losses to carry out successfully...

Sorry to disappoint the Zionist and other assorted War Mongers...




Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by Solace
 


I starred you above but this seems pretty rediculous. There isn't a country in the world with technology remotely possible of sinking one of our carriers. China is close but only b/c they can overwhelm the defenses with so many jets. Even that though wouldn't be very strategic or cost effective and would leave them supremely vulnerable in any further fighting.

Russia is far beyond it's hayday and the only thing going for them is the Cold War Legacy which provides them a bit of intimidation factor. In reality, they are simply using the time honoured tradition of misdirection, misinformation, and generally the fog of war. They say they are strong, everyone believes them b/c they once were, hence nobody challenges them. They are no stronger than any other European country and their large arsenal of Cold War Era weapons is outdated and outmatched by several generations of American Advances.

Moral of this story, the weapons they have supplied Iran are far outmatched so Iran has no chance. No carrier will get sunk. Iran still uses LOUD diesel submarines, our nuclear subs will sink them before they even know we are in the same ocean as them so Iran has no chance. Russia, dispite their best diplomatic threats, will stay out b/c they know the truth of their force readiness, thus Iran has no chance. China doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them so dispite their best diplomatic threats, they will not get involved, hence Iran gets destroyed again.

Iran doesn't have anything going for them. It is insane to think otherwise.;

HOWEVER, ALL OF THESE POINTS ARE MOOT B/C THE DEBKA FILE IS SIMPLY WRONG AND OUTDATED! There are not 3 Carrier Groups in that area. You can see our fleet movements on the US Navy Websites and specific ships websites. This, for the most part isn't classified information, in fact quite the opposite, our leaders would prefer to intimidate our enemies into submission just like the Russians would.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by memarf1] [/

[edit on 1-7-2010 by Solace]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Russia is the only nation that fields 5th generation fighters. Their missile technology is not even matched by China - which is ahead of the US.

Specs show both Russian and Chinese fighters outclass US fighters.

It is the US fleet that is outdated.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Amagnon]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Amagnon]


I hope you mean besides the U.S. which also fields 5th gen aircraft! Our stealth capabilities far outmatch anything the Russians have. The Russians focused on maneuverability which means they can do crazy things like fly backwards and stuff, but they will be shot down far before they even detect our aircraft coming near them. A few years ago we did a field test, albeit against F-16's not Migs, where we fielded a single F-22 if I am not mistaken against 10 F-16's. The only F-16 pilot that even saw the F-22 on radar only saw a short blip before it had lost the dogfight. The rest, well they were systematically destroyed. This is the very definition of Air Domanance Fighter that replaced our Air Superiority Fighters.

You can read all about the F-22 here, although it is already obsolete since we now use the F-35, a far more maneuverable jet with greater capabilities.
www.globalsecurity.org...

You an also check out the F-22 fact sheet to see what I mean:
www.af.mil...

No military in the world can come close to our Navy, no military in the world can come close to our Airforce, and only a handful of militaries(Mostly our allies) can come close to our ground forces training and equipment.

For Solace:
You are insane to think Iran has a chance. lol. 200 miles offshore is nothing, we were firing from 400 miles offshore during the first gulf war which by the way, Iraq and Iran were about equally matched at that time since they had only been at peace from basically a draw during a war in the 1980's about 7 or 8 years before. As far as Iran preparing for war for the past 25 years, well, they may have been but they started at a far lower point than we did and we never stopped preparing for war. We have been developing military technology for 70-80 years, particularly the cold war era, and we never stopped preparing for cold war situations.

ON TOP OF THAT, there are not 3 carrier groups in the area! Just go to the sources for pete's sake! haha.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   


To succeed against Iran, all the LHD/LHA and at least 4 Carrier Groups will certainly be needed and there is no guarantee of success... When Iraq was attacked, there were 6 Carriers Groups on hand and Iraq, which had nowhere near the capability of Iran, sunk/damaged 2 ships with its antiquated mines, while Iran has several thousand sophisticated EM-52...


I think you discount the fact that the US has the ability to launch over 600 cruise missiles without even being seen by anyone;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Iraq was a ground invasion, and a lot of the air-power was used for CAS(Close Air Support).

An attack on Iran would probably NOT be an invasion, but an assault on defenses, the IRG, and nuclear infrastructure.

The subs alone, with their contingent of Special Ops, would probably suffice.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


LOL! Great info. We aren't just preparing for war, we have been at war continuously for the last almost 20 years. 1991 first Gulf War, then Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq again.

No amount of training can substitute for real world battle experience. Iran's last war was in the 1980's. They are not prepared for today's surgical strikes and technology. They are not prepared for Urban Warfare. Even Russia is not prepared. The fiasco with Georgia proved that. Russia cannot even battle its own failed states back to submission, no way they can battle with a state of the art superpower.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
[edit on 7/1/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN



To succeed against Iran, all the LHD/LHA and at least 4 Carrier Groups will certainly be needed and there is no guarantee of success... When Iraq was attacked, there were 6 Carriers Groups on hand and Iraq, which had nowhere near the capability of Iran, sunk/damaged 2 ships with its antiquated mines, while Iran has several thousand sophisticated EM-52...


I think you discount the fact that the US has the ability to launch over 600 cruise missiles without even being seen by anyone;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The subs alone, with their contingent of Special Ops, would probably suffice.



Iran has thousands of better cruise missiles reverse engineered from the 12 KH-55 they bought from Ukraine, which would rain their 400 kilo payload of high explosives all over Zion and US bases in the region...

www.irandefence.net...

Iran has also containerized its missiles for delivery to countries far away... from innocent looking cargo ships...

www.irandefence.net...

Even the Sizzler supersonic missile is available in groups of 4 units set up inside a container...

smallworldnetwork.blogspot.com...

The US subs alone would not make it past the fields of smart EM-52 mines that Iran bought by the thousands from China...

www.irandefence.net...

If the US can't win in Afghanistan, it has no chance against Iran: US soldiers want to live to see another day, while Muslim fighters welcome death and that makes a big difference on the battle fields: ask Zion, which got beaten by a handful of HizbAllah fighters in Lebanon, even though they were much better armed and controlled the air...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solace
The US is so scared of the Iranian supersonic missiles that they resist building any more carriers until a solution is found. Unfortunately, as the speed of the next generation of anti-ships missiles will jump from Mach 2.5 to Mach 8 (new Yakhont/Brahmos version), there is nothing the US can do: large ships will disappear the same way as the DINOSAURS...


All this talk about fast missiles and elite asymmetrical warfare is pointless if someone pulls a nuke out of their back pocket. (It's not like the U.S. ever used a nuke in combat right?
) Sinking an aircraft carrier is a good way to ensure your destruction and ratchet the combat level to maximum intensity. Iran can't play at that level.

Aside from that the U.S. has several "carriers" that can avoid a Mach 2.5 or a Mach 8 missile. These ships are already stationed within range of Iran and have been for years. Diego Garcia anyone? If the U.S. wanted to launch an attack on Iran they could do so at any time they choose to.

Northrop-Grumman B-2 Spirit


up to 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of disposable stores carried in two side-by-side lower-fuselage weapon bays; each bay can accommodate one eight-round Boeing Rotary Launcher for a total of 16 (sixteen) 1.1 megaton B83 thermonuclear free-fall bombs; alternative loads are 20 megaton-range B61 thermonuclear free-fall bombs, or 22 680-kg (1,500-lb) or 80 227-kg (500-lb) free-fall bombs


So a single B-2 bomber could destroy pretty much all of Iran. Sinking all the carriers in the Gulf would just ensure destruction. Are the Iranians ready to play that game? The U.S. is posturing but still has an unbeatable ace in the hole. What's really scary is that Iran can't counter making it likely that the U.S. could use something of this nature if cornered. Closing the straights of Hormuz and cutting the U.S. off from it's precious oil is suicide.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


All this ego messaging is retarded, as pointed out already Vietnam, and the last 20 years in the gulf already clearly shows that the US an allies don't do it better than the sand jockeys (home field always has advantage) and can't!

They fight well from a distance and when the targets are LARGE PLACES, but the new fight isn't about blowing up a city anymore, the world will not tolerate mass destruction and pinpoint accuracy aint pinpoint as its sold to be.

I think this is a prelude to a big confrontation of some kind, it really wont go anywhere until someone through s the first stone. and when whoever does, its going to be one big fireworks, no holds bared with full out carnage! and I am not convinced the US has the eggs to see it through feet on ground.

just my .02 worth.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Solace
 




So, the "best military in the world", according to you, got a draw in Korea, lost the Vietnam war, lost the Iraq war after spending a couple TRILLION Dollars and having to leave tail between the legs in a few months time having gained NOTHING for the effort...

Afghanistan is already lost, so what is the use of this brilliant army aside from making a fortune for the weapons manufacturers and killing/maiming hundred of thousands of US soldiers??...


Excellent and correct point!


These are all "political" losses though, not military ones. I don't dispute the facts, just the idea that the military fought to a draw or lost in any way.

Starting in Korea and Vietnam, for some reason we stopped trying to WIN wars? We started trying to fight to a draw and occupy countries without first defeating them or taking the spoils.

In Afghan, the US took a matter of weeks to do what the USSR never could do! The US military was extremely successful, and then the Politicians cut their legs off and pulled their teeth. The same in Iraq, and most likely the same outcome will happen in Iran.

However, this discussion was only about military might. The entire Middle East could not unite and hold its ground against an aggressive US offensive. Even without Nukes, we have so much more technology, training, and stealth that if overwhelming force was our goal, nobody would last 3 weeks against us! Our problem is Political Correctness and Politicians! If it has "politic" in the name, then it is a problem!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Great point about politics, when you agreed with Solace I was about to post my reason that you were wrong, but you are entirely correct, politics is the problem.

reply to post by Solace
 


As far as our military winning or losing, they were always provided a clear mission in Korea, they achieved it and stopped. The point was not to take North Korea but to stop North Korean Aggression, a defensive war once we took back the original ground lost.

The first Iraq war was not about destroying Iraq or taking the ground, it was about pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. Since we do have politics it is important to note that Sudam purchased weapons from us with our full knowledge of his intention to invade Kuwait which we promptly agreed to until our politicians changed their minds and we decided to defend Kuwait.
www.historycommons.org...

Our missions, although politically driven always succeed, its the politicians that get in our way, not our military superiority. As far as your statement Solace, about me saying "More is Better", I never said that, but since you bring it up lets talk. More isn't better necessarily otherwise China, North Korea, and countless other military's around the world would be stronger than us. This is where the concept of "Force Multiplier" comes from. Our M1 Abrams, Our F-35 fighters, Our Infantries Body Armor, Our Nuclear Powered Subs, Our Nuclear Powered Carriers, Our etc. etc. etc. multiplies our effectiveness against our enemies.

The last navy that had a chance against us in all out war was Japan in WWII, and we learned from that and adapted.

Solace, you state a good point that we have had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you forget a major point there. In those countries we are fighting "Insurgents", not organized military units. This is one reason we put Petraus in charge of Afghanistan, he LITERALLY wrote the book on this type of warfare.

There can be no argument or doubt that in an organized war against an organized military, controlled by an organized government, the US reigns supreme. We will succinctly destroy Iran's military, although you are correct, if we occupy we will have some trouble.

Let me make 2 more points, first, we have not had "Hundreds of Thousands" of casualties, whether maimed or killed, in either or both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. If that had occurred we would have sustained roughly a 25% loss to our forces in those countries. That would be devastating, so please stop exaggerating the true facts.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Second, I posted sources too and do not intend to argue the validity of your claims about the 3 carrier groups. They are not there currently and I do not foresee them going any time soon. If they are going they are relieving the groups that are there. I posted links too and you can see for yourself that your info is outdated.

Edit: WOW! I hope everyone clicks that link you have provided for your misinformation campaign Solace. It only states the force readiness of the US Navy and what ships are currently sailing, it does not provide mission information! Of course we have ships underway, its the US Navy for pete's sake! If we had all our ships in port then I may be scared a little! You should also check your sources on Iran, it seems you have been believing propaganda on that as well, although I too will have to check to see if your sites above for that are Iran State Run sites.

Edit2: Solace, you seriously sourced another blog for your Iran info? Seriously? ATS is composed of bright people with real sources, some personal, some MSM, some intelligence, but almost never other blogs. That is what makes this site so unique, the educated people on these servers and their ability to investigate and find real info. Post real sources about your claims, please provide the direct sources not another blog that isn't as reputable as ATS. I don't want to sift your other blog, you sift it and provide real links!



[edit on 1-7-2010 by memarf1]

[edit on 1-7-2010 by memarf1]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
[edit on 1-7-2010 by Big Raging Loner]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


I liked that paper, it was entertaining. Unfortunately, it does not provide any of it's sources! If we want to independently verify these claims how can we go about doing it if they do not provide a list of sources? This is not only a problem with our current MSM, but a huge issue with these unsubstantiated claims on the internet. This author, from your site, claims he didn't want to believe it so set out to disprove it but then didn't provide any of the apparantly numerous sources that convinced him to write this oped!

I would like to see evidence, thats all I am saying. Rumors, stories, and claims mean nothing without hard proof! This is why I like to rely on Academic sources. Unfortunately they too are getting sloppy about sourcing. Our media is broken, but the least we can do is verify this stuff before writing these alarmist views.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by memarf1]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
What's the point of having the strongest and by far most expensive military in the world if it brings no benefit at all to the US citizenry - in fact, its only product is widows, orphans, hundred of thousands maimed soldiers on Veterans benefits and TRILLIONS of Dollars in DEBT...

No other army is going to oppose the US in a conventional war, but it is ill-suited to fight ASYMMETRIC WARFARE, just like Zion found out in Lebanon...

The human factor is also totally overlooked: while Zionists and US soldiers are careful not to die, their opponents are happy to sacrifice their lives for the glory of Allah: SELFLESS COURAGE has helped win many battles against all odds, starting with Saladdin and the Templars...

For 10 years, the Russian had a much more widespread control over Afghanistan while it lasted than the US now has: however, give modern MANPADS to the Taliban - equivalent to the Stingers given by the US - and see how long the US army will last when their choppers and planes start falling off the sky in their hundreds...

The Iranian officials are justifiably cocky because they know that their Asymmetric capabilities, including their ability to inflict painful retaliations have reached such a degree of sophistication that only a fool would dare attack them: this is why so much hot air is coming out of the would-be attackers to compensate for their perceived impotence...

Btw, the nuke route is also out of the question because there is ample evidence showing that Iran has already bought ready-made nukes from various parties, including Ukraine...




Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Solace
 




So, the "best military in the world", according to you, got a draw in Korea, lost the Vietnam war, lost the Iraq war after spending a couple TRILLION Dollars and having to leave tail between the legs in a few months time having gained NOTHING for the effort...

Afghanistan is already lost, so what is the use of this brilliant army aside from making a fortune for the weapons manufacturers and killing/maiming hundred of thousands of US soldiers??...


Excellent and correct point!


These are all "political" losses though, not military ones. I don't dispute the facts, just the idea that the military fought to a draw or lost in any way.

Starting in Korea and Vietnam, for some reason we stopped trying to WIN wars? We started trying to fight to a draw and occupy countries without first defeating them or taking the spoils.

In Afghan, the US took a matter of weeks to do what the USSR never could do! The US military was extremely successful, and then the Politicians cut their legs off and pulled their teeth. The same in Iraq, and most likely the same outcome will happen in Iran.

However, this discussion was only about military might. The entire Middle East could not unite and hold its ground against an aggressive US offensive. Even without Nukes, we have so much more technology, training, and stealth that if overwhelming force was our goal, nobody would last 3 weeks against us! Our problem is Political Correctness and Politicians! If it has "politic" in the name, then it is a problem!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Solace
 


Stop with the "Hundreds of Thousands" talk, see my above link. Wounded is around 30k and killed isn't very high either, although I think both are too high if they are more than 0. You need to relax, we probably won't do a land invasion and while Egypt and other local region countries may be pushing us to attack we only have 1 carrier in the area. If we attack, we are most likely going to stay far enough offshore to defend our ships, we will send missiles from afar and have several subs there to outnumber and destroy any underwater forces or fast surface vessels.

If we attack it will be surgical with the goal of taking out nuclear infrastructure, our ships won't go into the straight b/c it would be a huge mistake to get that close or go somewhere they could be bottlenecked. I wouldn't do it in Age of Empires and I am sure our generals are far better at warfare than I am. lol.

Here is a link to a good story to put it in perspective. There are some threats but we are responding the same way we would with any threat. Buildup, negotiate, and intimidate or destroy. Our forces are superior and our tactics are better. Plus like GetReadyAlready stated, our soldiers are battle hardened. We have been in war for decades.
www.upi.com...

Iran has done some excercizes and already revealed their strategy and tactics. It seems pretty stupid to reveal what your plan is to your enemy but they did it. We need to have a little faith in our military leaders. Our politicians may be stupid, but our Military Leaders have earned their positions.

Edit:
While Iran may plan to "Swarm" our vessels, we have a lot more equipment and forces than them. To outnumber us would be an undertaking by Iran. China could try it but even they would have massive losses. Swarming is usually not a good strategy. We can look at that tactic from a far superior China during Korea, they lost over 1000 aircraft after a year to build them up during an advance against US and British forces. They lost most of those planes while gaining only 30 miles of ground. If they try that, they lose. If they try anything they lose. They need to just let the inspectors in and stop their war saber rattling.
www.history.army.mil...

[edit on 1-7-2010 by memarf1]




top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join