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 sends aircraft carrier in the middle of Iranian wargames

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
DUH!!!! That exactly what it is...it is a photo to display an entire carrier group (surfaced sub included). Are you guys kids or something?



Originally posted by WooWoo

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by Violater1
 


Nice picture, but it looks like a stock Navy recruitment photo.

You would NEVER catch the submarine on the surface during a strategic deployment of a carrier group.

Thats a Slick photo for the 17 year old high school dreamer. A Submarine would never be visible but rather steaming below the thermal layer waiting to finish a fight. Bubble Head, 1979-1986




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1

Do you think a carrier group 'presence' is tantamount to getting up in someone's grill?



depends on the timing of it's deployment & it's mission intent from the commander, if a political move.

militarily, it wouldn't be sent in unless it's use is imminent.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
why don't they just tell the truth - we need jobs for troops but we lack the balls to kick out the illegals. Then everyone would be like aight koo



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





The Strait of Hormuz is the only way in or out of the area. Is this not deliberate provocation by the Iranians? Iran has no special privilege to occupy or close an international waterway.


Why not? The U.S. wouldn't hesitate to do it to them. We tried to pull that sort of crap with the Russians on their way to Cuba during the cold war. The U.S. designates "no-fly" zones and expects other governments to abide by them. Unfortunately the U.S. has set far too many precedences when it comes to bossing other countries and governments around, and now Iran may take the chance to be bossy. The U.S. uses terms like "Acts of War" and "Acts of Terrorism" to justify this type of international bullying but now when other countries try to make up rules in the middle of the game the U.S. doesn't like it so much. Now that the whole world is a war zone and every human is a potential terrorist all bets are off.
Follow the Money



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Good point, man.

If the US wants to show the Iranian leadership how it can destroy a city they should take them on a tour of Detroit.

By the way...

ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM


Originally posted by Chargeit
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Letting your Aircraft carriers be seen = intimidation

I fail to see how this works out in the end for Iran. yea we may end up paying more for oil, good's and all that. But i'll be sitting in my living room bitching about it on my computer. Their citys will burn wtf. they need to stand down.
edit on 29-12-2011 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
would be funny if the iranians nearly sank the aircraft carrier and it had to limp home due to some 40 year old torpedo the iranians lauched to sink some target scow but the carrier decided to ignore the warnings and sail right into it


If you are an American you should be ashamed of such a stupid remark! You are showing your true colors and who you stand for!
If you are against the USA military you don't deserve to live here, many men and women has died for your freedom!
Read this quote and see if the 'ugliest' of things doesn't fit you and a lot of people on here perfectly!

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself".
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)


edit on 30-12-2011 by wulff because: added text



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CCLLCCLL
The U.S. designates "no-fly" zones and expects other governments to abide by them. Unfortunately the U.S. has set far too many precedences when it comes to bossing other countries and governments around, and now Iran may take the chance to be bossy.


The US hasn't designated no fly zones...the UN has.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Right - after the US has bent the arm of the UN behind its back.

The UN is a tool of the US anyone who paying attention knows that.


Originally posted by bruwin

Originally posted by CCLLCCLL
The U.S. designates "no-fly" zones and expects other governments to abide by them. Unfortunately the U.S. has set far too many precedences when it comes to bossing other countries and governments around, and now Iran may take the chance to be bossy.


The US hasn't designated no fly zones...the UN has.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

What gives you yanks the right to interfere in every country on this earth.
The phrase "yankee go home" so aptly coined all these years ago holds more true now than ever before.


I don't think you understand how this would affect all countries in the world, not just the U.S. Why is the United States inherently "evil" for trying to stand up to crap like this. This is typical though. Evil U.S., but if we did nothing, and Iran actually did cut off oil supplies, and YOUR countries gas bills shot through the roof, you'd be asking why the stupid, worthless U.S. wouldn't step in when it mattered. They can't win no matter what they do.

I don't know why I bother getting into conversations on this board though, about anything U.S. - it seems a great majority of people who post here loathe the U.S. Why they still live here baffles my mind, but they hate everything about the country, from the military, law enforcement, laws, politics, health and safety, you name it. But the U.S. is just a wicked, evil empire it seems, and ALL their moves are for their benefit. Nothing they do is for the good of anything else.

Keep living in your fantasy land.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


LMFAO now thats just funny.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I know this thread is about the U.S. Navy Carrier Group heading to the straight. I wanted to see what is in these sanctions, I found the bill(S) summarized. HR-1905 , HR2105.

I'm not trying to misdirect the thread OP, but only adding more information.

Have a look ATS.

H.R.1905 Latest Title: Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011

here is the basic outline of the Sanctions in HR 1905




Defines sanctions to include: (1) prohibitions on Export-Import Bank assistance, (2) prohibitions on loans from U.S. financial institutions and other financial services, (3) prohibitions on foreign exchange and other banking transactions, (4) prohibitions on property transactions, and (5) export and procurement sanctions.



And possibility H.R. 2105 to be included.

H.R.2105 Latest Title: Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011




Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011 - States that it shall be U.S. policy to fully implement and enforce sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Syria for their proliferation activities and policies.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
I want those folks with real knowledge of 'strategerie' (sorry, couldn't resist) to advise here. I'm not asserting anything, just asking a simple question [please see mods note on 'we can't all know everything'].

Isn't the very reason for aircraft carriers an 'over the horizon' threat? Didn't the battleship go the way of the Dodo because of the carrier (big guns not having anywhere near the range of attack aircraft)?
If this is true, the very presence of an aircraft carrier within any sort of zone is simply chest beating.
Is this just picking a fight?

If the US carrier group wanted to bloody anyone's nose, they could do it from a very safe distance.
The voice in my head is screaming 'Gulf of Tonkin,' but there's part of me thinking this is just bravado.

Do you think a carrier group 'presence' is tantamount to getting up in someone's grill?


Many would assert that at this late round of global brinkmanship, the least provocative and best option available to the U.S. in the grand scheme is a clear demonstration of force.

4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile american territory



A quick reminder of the deadly serious potential consequences as reported by the last weeks major world news headlines...


Iran Threatens To Close Strait Of Hormuz To Oil Transit

 

The Iranian government, through its Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, has now steadfastly proclaimed that, "If they impose sanction's on Iran's oil exports than even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz."

The Huffington Post/12/29/11



'We will not tolerate it': U.S. talks tough with Iran over threat to close oil shipping lane following nuclear arms row

 

The threats have triggered an angry response from the U.S. Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain.

‘Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated,’ said a spokesman for the Bahrain-based fleet.
‘The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity,’ he added.

The Daily Mail/29th December 2011


Consider that in this case, the alternative to "getting up in someone's grill" is most likely knocking their teeth out with a bat in the form of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator

 


Here is a brief article discussing the USN's current operational concepts for planning and executing future conflicts.

The article touches on the strategic and tactical doctrine used by naval planners to define the requirements and goals needed for naval power to achieve a specific purpose such as force projection or area denial.

You should find some relevant information in response to your comments/questions beyond the obvious "90,000 tons of American diplomacy".



The Navy’s new doctrine should include several related operational concepts for planning and executing future conflicts...

...Only general features of the new concept are publicly known, but its focus seems to be to counter growing challenges to U.S. military power projection in the western Pacific and Persian Gulf. In particular, North Korea; the People’s Republic of China, especially because of its rapidly developing anti-access/area-denial capabilities; and Iran are considered potential threats....

...The new AirSea Battle concept should be focused exclusively on sea control. In addition, the U.S. Navy needs to develop separate but related operational concepts for sea denial, weakening of the enemy’s military-economic potential at sea, and defense and protection of that of the United States and friendly nations.



Primary threats to the U.S. Navy’s surface combatants and military/commercial ships operating in the littorals are land-based heavy bombers and attack aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants armed with antiship cruise missiles, coastal missile and gun batteries, and advanced mines.

In addition, small stealthy surface craft armed with low-technology small-caliber guns, short-range rockets, or even suicide bombs can threaten not only friendly commercial shipping but in some cases also U.S. surface combatants. Medium- and short-range ballistic missiles are a growing threat to U.S. forward bases, command centers, and logistics infrastructure.



In military terms, a concept pertains to the broad methods used by a specific platform, combat arm, or service to accomplish a given military objective. In the U.S. military, the term “operating concept” is used to refer to the application of military power within a certain framework, regardless of the objective to be accomplished. It does not pertain to a specific level of war, and is generic or universal in nature.

In a maritime context, an “operational concept” is designed to employ naval forces and the forces of other services in a major naval or joint operation or campaign. An operational concept is not identical to a concept of operations, as the U.S. Navy often erroneously believes.

A CONOPS is developed for a specific course of action during the commander’s process of assessing the situation and making a decision. Hence, it pertains to a specific location and the specific enemy force..


AirSea Battle Must Not Work Alone

Enjoy

edit on 30-12-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


why dont you rather ask yourself, "why have the americans sailed a couple of hundred miles to stir"

why dont you rather ask yourself, "why have the americans not researched a new fuel source instead of waging war on 3rd world countries?"

because america is the bully in the school yard. I lived in the states for a while and i thoroughly enjoyed it, sad fact is, tptb are rotten, corrupt, dirty individuals who care only for thier pockets. The banks dont care about the people, do you think when nuclear missiles are raining down on the states your awesome Obama is gonna make plan to save you all? no sir.. he will put his tail between his legs with his family and secure his own future.

Iran has more right to be in those waters than the US does at this time, even if they are "ensuring oil trade".. the US OBVIOUSLY only wants oil..

the US warmachine has an undying hunger for blood and bone...

full stop.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
would be funny if the iranians nearly sank the aircraft carrier and it had to limp home due to some 40 year old torpedo the iranians lauched to sink some target scow but the carrier decided to ignore the warnings and sail right into it


Do you really believe a country like Iran is using old surplus weaponry with China and Russia stepping tp to defend for them...?

lol



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


do you think that we're over there unarmed. do you have any clue the amount of tomahawks that a battle group normally carries, not to mention ASROC's, torpedoes, F/A 18s, SH-60s, 5-inch rounds, CIWS rounds, and all of the small arms?? We have the best equipped navy in the world, period, if it came to a naval battle, Iran have as much chance as a little leaguer in the world series.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Listen up all,

There has always been a carrier present and on station in the Middle East since the 1980's. I've done 7 deployments, 4 on a carrier and this is all normal.

If there were real tension to an actual conflict seen by any of the Navy Brass, The USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) would not currently, yes today, be enjoying a liberty stop in Hong Kong for 6 days.

There is no urgency by the big boys in my eyes. So it is just more sabre rattling and posturing like we get every other day over in the ME.

Nothing to see here.

Sirric



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Maybe I'm naive...

If hypothetically Iran was going to spy the US or Israel with a drone (ok that's science fiction), what would that be?

An act of war or just an excusable lapse of someone a bit too curious? And how would the world react? As silent as it was when the opposite happened...? Guess not...

Oh I forgot... Iran is craving for he atomic bomb... Yeah right... Hmmm...

But what exactly is the diffence between some madmen aiming for the nuclear bomb in a state with 75 mill. Inhabitants and some madmen who already have it in a state with 7.5 mill. people...?

As far as I'm concerned the answer is simple... The Israelis have the better PR and a big brother to proclaim it...
edit on 30/12/11 by beltemps because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


You should really, really , really, look into things before you just spout of untrue facts.

The Phalanx was SPECIFICALLY built for close range...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

So, again, beyond conspiracy theories, how does Israel ACTUALLY threaten world peace?


I'd like to know, beyond conspiracy theories, how does Iran ACTUALLY threaten world peace? There is no PROOF Iran has been building nuclear weapons, only conjecture by warmongering terrorists in Washington D.C.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by freee
why dont you rather ask yourself, "why have the americans sailed a couple of hundred miles to stir"


And the Iranians aren't stirring up crap by trying to close international seaways?


Originally posted by freee
why dont you rather ask yourself, "why have the americans not researched a new fuel source instead of waging war on 3rd world countries?"


We are. Just not working hard enough, in my opinion.


Originally posted by freee
because america is the bully in the school yard. I lived in the states for a while and i thoroughly enjoyed it, sad fact is, tptb are rotten, corrupt, dirty individuals who care only for thier pockets. The banks dont care about the people, do you think when nuclear missiles are raining down on the states your awesome Obama is gonna make plan to save you all? no sir.. he will put his tail between his legs with his family and secure his own future.


So, living here for a few years makes you an expert? Spare me.



Originally posted by freee
Iran has more right to be in those waters than the US does at this time, even if they are "ensuring oil trade".. the US OBVIOUSLY only wants oil..


What part of "international waterways" aren't you understanding?


Originally posted by freee
the US warmachine has an undying hunger for blood and bone...






top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join