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.

 

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 16
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Remember in 2006 when Israel invaded Lebanon?

Did Israel kill well over 1,000 civilians? Yes.

Did Israeli jets have complete control of the air? Yes.

Did Israel bomb anything they wanted, anywhere they wanted? Yes.

Did Israel destroy millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure? Yes.

Did Israeli soldiers die? Yes.

Did 50 Israeli tanks get hit, some destroyed most knocked out of the battle? Yes.

Was Israel shocked that so many Israel soldiers were killed in their tanks? Yes.

Did one of the most sophisticated Israel ships get hit and knocked out of service by a missile that Israel did not even dream could hit it? Yes.

Death is not a video game. Death is kids with no dad or mom.

We have been wrong about the outcome of every war we have been in since WWII and in war wrong means dead.


Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by susp3kt

Originally posted by butcherguy
The Iraqis fired one at us and the Brits shot it down with one of their anti-missile missiles.


That may be so, & then it might not be, but the C-802 nor the Nasr-1 are no outdated Silkworms though.



The single shot hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98%


The Nasr-1 is undetectable on radar.

Like I said, the Silkworms were going to kick our butts back then, and they didn't. That was what we were told, that they had tons of them and would loose them upon us. The Silkworms weren't old tech at the time.

Now it's being said again, and I just happen to think that we are hearing some more tired old rhetoric. Again.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 


Nothing like throwing cold hard facts into people's faces



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


In reflection, when Sun Tzu was writing "Art of War" and later Kong Ming (whom is regarded as a BETTER tactitan than Sun Tzu) confirmed that tactics over might wins out. A small force again and again can win . San Juan Hill, the Viet-cong, Castros Rebels 26 July, and the above mentions figures in history.

Never under estimate high moral and good tactics.

The article shows a major flaw in US policy, a simple group with hit-and run decimated a modern fleet, and much like a little kids baseball game a "Do over" was need and rules changed to make our team win.

edit on 31-12-2011 by merkej23 because: retard spelling error



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by area6
1 CSG destroyed does not equal "US Navy destoyed".

It does equal 600,000 square miles of Iranian glass.

Think it's worth it?


That's an assinine statement. It doesn't equal "600,000 square miles of Iranian glass". If your suggested scenario were to become reality, it would equal millions of innocent Iranian citizens slaughtered for no good reason and the US would be a target of far more self-generated terrorists than it already is and be viewed with fear and loathing by most of the World's citizens.
edit on 12/31/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
These American haters
are underestimating the power
of the USA military/navy.

This thread is proof of blind
hate filled with ignorance.

People hate America so much they make
up feel good fantasies in there head (much like this thread)
making them feel good that something bad might happen
to America, when in reality America has her problems but
there is still to date no army on earth that could beat America
in a all out war. The US NAVY will be just fine in the straight.

The dangerous leader of IRAN is sending his navy on a suicide
mission.. GOOD BYE IRAN (if you close international shipping lanes)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


its funny to read the response's from people denying any circumstance that would be a loss to the US Navy..

beating their chests, quoting facts and statistic's wallowing in the perceived ultimate dominating power of various weapons systems, ships etc..

did not America go to war because of an "attack"?

did not many sign up to fight "terrorism" because of this attack?

how did so many countries now become the targets because of this attack?

was it not said "Bin Laden" breached the most secure air space? IE the Capitol? the Pentagon?

you people remind me of 911 "truthers".. except you went into a blind patriotic faith..

because our Defense systems are so strong it is unbelievable a guy with a laptop ordering men with box cutters to hijack airliners & crash them is what happened that day, amongst so many military war games & trillions missing..

but.. here you are ..

11 years later..

the propaganda has switched to Iran ..

the courts declared them responsible..

now here comes the blind calling for war..

justifying how strong the Navy is to take on Iran ..

for what?

Nothing.. No facts.. no proof.. not a dam thing..

America is, just as you say, so strong it is highly unlikely to be destroyed..

unless from within..

which is what happened..

and you all waste your time arguing how much the Navy will destroy & kill Iranians..

once again.. not knowing why you would even attack them in the first place..

what a sad state of affairs our once Great Union has become...





"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976


you guys sure have been proving him right...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I will agree that the scenario was an "eye opening" moment. That doesnt make the scenario a reason "Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz". Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper used what he had to win. Any good gamer/strategist/General would. His own personal beliefs are just that,his own. You make it sound like it happened,and can happen again,based on a GAME.I am sure the Joint Chiefs of Staff are NOW well aware of what can be done with a bunch of civilian boats when a smart and savvy Lt. Gen is leading the opposition. It surprises me that you are using this old game,as a reason to Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz . Were ANY American lives lost in these games? No. Pride maybe,but not lives,hence why the games were played.


Not all of the details about how Force Red accomplished this have been revealed. The Pentagon managed to keep much of the story out of the press. But a thoroughly disgruntled Van Riper himself leaked enough to the Army Times that it's possible to get at a sense of how a much weaker force outfoxed and defeated the world's lone remaining Superpower.1



I'm angered that, in a sense, $250 million was wasted. But I'm even more angry that an idea that has never been truly validated, that never really went through the crucible of a real experiment, is being exported to our operational forces to use. ~Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf

As you can see he is justifying the games at a loss in money.
His bruised EGO cant get that out of the picture. Did he deserve a medal? No. He did what he was supposed to do,and they changed the rules of the games. Typical in the Military though.He cant even acknowledge that maybe they will use his information,and work off it.


His Ego and Pride were bruised.As to be expected.

That still doesnt mean his glory of winning a WAR GAME means the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz.

You should know this,and stop claiming it as fact. All you can claim IS that those who were leading the exercise got outfoxed by a Lt. Gen,at the expense of 250 million dollars. That in itself isnt a waste of time and money,because America is now wiser to the fact it can be done,and I am sure they have prepared for this scenario.Unless you have other information to prove otherwise.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I remember hearing SOMETHING like this when visiting the USS Forestall (a mothballed aircraft carrier used today for tourism); it was a simulated combat during WW II and the large cruisers and aircraft carrier were swarmed by dozens of smaller, faster ships. They could sink a few, but the numerous boats always got through to deliver a few bombs and after a few of these attacks, they won. The scenario was reset because it was not within the parameters to use many small vessels (I think the original restrictions were only based on resources).

So in the closer confines and shorter distances, the many/smaller attack won. If they had to cross the ocean, however, they could never carry enough fuel.

I forget which admiral was involved in this -- I'm not sure if it's this "red and blue" drill you are talking about -- but they sound similar.


>> However; it isn't like the Navy isn't familiar with this strategy today. There are massive auto-guns that can knock out a dozen incoming missiles or small planes at a time -- and I'm sure that even 100 boats would be swiss cheese before getting within half a mile of a Cruiser these days.

Unless Iran has invested heavily in small and fast armored or steal boats that is -- or perhaps mobile mines. The same old strategy would not work, but I could think of a dozen that would.

Arrogance might win the day for the Iranians.


>> However, as in all past US engagements -- the BATTLE is not the war. What is likely to happen is the US will provoke by pushing their ships into harms way and fly sorties across the border. They WANT some sort of devastating confrontation like a burning ship to show the TV News crews and drum up American sentiment to "go get those guys."

Iran won't fire the first shot. They haven't in decades even though the US has downed commercial aircraft "accidentally", given funds to terrorist cells (related to Al Qaeda) within Iran, and has imprisoned diplomats from Iran. Basically, the US has been breaking every sort of civilized engagement policy that exists short of an all out war for many years now. Strangely, however, we've been selling them weapons for F14's right up until about 2004 or 2006 when criticism got a little too loud for the Bush administration after their "axis of evil" speech helped "I'mMadInTheHead" get elected. Isn't capitalism funny that you've got to keep selling to your "alleged enemy" because profits come before all else?

So I don't know -- I think that the Navy is merely a sacrificial trap, and the US would try to win with air power, cruise missiles and drones alone. The Navy is just a sitting duck, so to speak -- it's too slow for warfare against any nation slightly more advanced than Iraq. The Oil companies would be ecstatic for the excuse to raise oil prices. It's after Christmas so we don't need cheap good from China for a while -- shoppers might get upset.


ON one hand, we seemed poised for a conflict -- on the other, we've been "poised" for 3 decades now. And the "secret info" that we might have low yield nukes, or some that have gone "missing" -- probably to those who paid for them, and various other "revelations" that trickle out over the years.

So there are ONLY two very likely scenarios in my mind;
1) China is going to call the shots and there will NEVER be a war with Iran as long as they want to keep access to their oil. Unless there is a HUGE TRADE for new oil rich lands -- which would explain how the USA sits back and lets Genocide occur in Darfur. ... I haven't spent even 30 minutes researching this, because I'm already spending too much time thinking about crap I can't control, and I don't think I can lower my opinion of this country I used to be proud of much more...
2) SOS; It's merely another scheduled escalation because the Iranian theocrats need an external enemy to keep Iranians from becoming Westernized. Before Bush started provoking them, America was more popular amongst the youth in Iran than we are in England. America, China, Iran and all the soft and hard totalitarian societies NEED a constant threat of external enemies to keep people from ousting the elites who are the real enemies.

After the cold war and before the war on terror, there were 10 years of prosperity and reduction in military spending. The Middle class for that brief moment, stopped losing buying power and were threatening to become more prosperous than in the 1980's. Iranians were wearing blue jeans and sneaking rock and roll tapes.

Today, China has nearly a larger Middle Class than the USA -- and they have nearly as much (or more) literate people who can speak English. They have more engineers.

Communism is NOT diametrically opposed to Democracy. China and Russia were never really Communist; they were totalitarian with lots of farms. China needs a "struggle" with a threatening West to curb the growth of real freedom in their country, and ours is on the way to Neo-Fuedalism.

Iran's fate is dependent on which scenario fits this goal.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
no army on earth that could beat America
in a all out war.


I think you are a tiny bit delusional if you believe that.If the united states would go to war with china ,russia or europe i woulndt be so sure of winning it really.Or why did you think there was a 'cold' war to begin with? Not because the U.S thought they could stomp all over russia i asure you.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
If a conflict begins between the US and Iran it wont lead to armageddon like some believe... Russia may get involved but they wont be nuking every major US city like some believe... Why would they? If anyone ever uses a nuke against the US, they better make sure that no one survives in the US military/Government, because if anyone does survive, you can bet your sweet @ss that a major retaliatory strike would be coming back in the form of multiple nukes.... Now I ask you, why would Russia or China want that? Why would they risk it? They know that if they use any nukes against us, there is a GREAT chance that they are going to get a few back from us.... A conflict between these 2 nations (US and Iran) wont lead to the end of the world... Russia and China have too much to lose by getting involved in this conflict...
edit on 31-12-2011 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I don't think people understand that, regardless of how Iran retaliates, America will not resort to nuking Iran. If Iran manages to miraculously sink a carrier, provided they were unprovoked and struck us first, we will retaliate with naval and areal siege and quickly dismantle its armed forces, and we will not be met with much resistance. If we attack Iran first, then we *may* be met with international resistance as China and Russia have both *claimed* to back the Iranians in the event that they are attacked. Regardless, I seriously doubt that either party will resort to nuking the other.

Every country builds its military up in the eyes of its people into this great indestructible legion, the only difference between us and other superpowers is that they don't flaunt their military; we have not seen what the Chinese and Russians are capable of because they have not gotten involved in any major wars recently. Therefor, it would be foolish to dismiss them as inferior.

Regardless of what everyone's opinion is on Iran and its nuclear capabilities and intentions, we cannot AFFORD another war. Also, I don't think that Iran, if it were to get the bomb, would be dumb enough to nuke Israel. I mean come on, if they were to orchestrate a rogue, unprovoked nuclear attack on a nation like Israel then they would be turned to glass, and I seriously doubt that TPTB in Iran have any intention of giving up the throne for such a foolish exchange. A nuclear weapon ensures protection and prevents a lesser developed country from being bossed around by nations like us and Israel, THIS is why our govt is afraid of Iran getting the bomb. IIRC Pakistan already has nukes, as does Turkey, and they are both against Israel's treatment of Palestinians, so why haven't they nuked Israel? OH RIGHT, THEY AREN'T BRAIN ATROPHIED.

As far as Iran blocking Hormuz, this is a very stupid threat for Iran to make; it threatens the global economy, and for that reason I can understand stationing a carrier fleet near Hormuz. I don't think our fleet is there to serve as a threatening presence towards the Iranian Navy as much as it is there to prevent Iran from attempting to block Hormuz.

Lets please stop pretending that Iran has any chance of winning a naval battle with America. If the battle goes to land then the Iranians have a chance of defending themselves, but only if they resort to Guerrilla tactics against our troops. It would come down to a matter of how long we can sustain said war before bankrupting ourselves.

If we replace the current establishment in Iran with a western puppet government, a revolution will follow and they will most likely take their country back in a decade or two.

Ideally we should leave Iran alone; threatening them with war only pressures the Iranians into developing a nuke, so even if they weren't planning on developing a nuke, they definitely are now. The American people don't want another war, the Iranian people don't want a war, and we can't really afford another war, so why resort to war over diplomacy?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Well OP i think you are correct....

..logic dictates that a Carrier group is no match for a whole national armory.

Iran will use its large arsenal of missiles to overwhelm any defensive systems, together with torpedo's from subs and fast attack boats.

The Stennis Carrier group may very well be able to stop..10..20..missiles, but it won't be able to cope with hundreds of missiles coming its way simultaneously, it's just a ridiculous proposition by people with more pride and arrogance than intelligence.

History shows us that technology is not the decisive factor in warfare, the ability to rapidly mobilize forces and to keep them stocked is far more crucial, logistically the US Carrier group is already sunk, they may be able to fight for 24 hrs but after that they will need to resupply whereas Iran can keep firing all day, all week.

A Carrier group against a nation like Iran...no contest, Iran wins.

It would not be the first time strategic planners were willing to make a sacrifice for a larger goal, they KNOW the carrier group will be destroyed, they KNOW Iran will destroy Saudi Oil Refineries and Pipelines, they think they KNOW what a $500 per barrel of Oil world will look like.

Cosmic..


Well then it's a good the US wouldn't go up against a country "like iran" with a single carrier group .... You do realise the US isn't built around a single carrier group? Don't you? The OP knows this too I hope?

edit on 31/12/11 by David291 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The USA is invincible because they spend an awful lot of social welfare funds on military technology to depopulate earth. So do the russians and they are not even communist anymore. What a pathetic joke!

I wonder what the hell is going on at area 51 and how much money gets spend on dumbs. The russians have their own doomsday bunkers as well. That is what happens when people push for republicanism rather than democracy.

Do you have a need to know, sir?

Do you have the appropriate clearance?

Meanwhile grey and reptillian aliens have been abducting people for decades, if not centuries.

Keep being stupid and eventually everyone will pay for it!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Meanwhile grey and reptillian aliens have been abducting people for decades, if not centuries.





Hard proof,no scenarios please........................




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
no aircraft carrier can withstand a missile assault. the truth is aircraft carriers haven't been tested seriously in war since ww2, when anti-ship missile technology didn't exist.


edit on 30-12-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)


I would suggest that the first anti-ship cruise missiles did in fact occur during WW2. Besides the German Fritz X which sunk the Italian battleship Roma and other ships there was a more potent anti-ship missile used.

This was the Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese. These converted planes and rocket planes (Okha) were not guided by computers but by men. During the battle of Okinawa, about 2,000 Kamikazes sunk around 34 ships and damaged around 250 more. These are huge numbers.

www.ww2pacific.com...

During the Falklands war, Argentina had 4, count em, 4 Exocet missiles and managed to sink or severely damage 3 ships, the HMS Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Glamorgan. Interesting sidebar: while the US was providing the British with the latest Sidewinder infrared anti-air missiles, Argentina had an outstanding order for 50 Exocets from France. France never delivered them when tensions in the Falklands rose. The British fleet may have had to withdraw if the Argentinians had received those 50 Exocets. So, the UK shouldn't say the French hate them all the time (or is it the other way around, or mutual, idk).

The point is that Iran has land, sea and air based cruise missile capability and if they can launch enough of them at the same time, they could overwhelm US Naval defenses. I've read about the US Navy testing electromagnetic rail gun technology to counter incoming cruise missiles as well as lasers.

But why put a US Carrier in the restrictive waters of the Persian Gulf anyway?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Nothing like going completely off topic but then again this is ATS and the average IQ on here is less than 100. Thats why no one can stay on topic without "reaching". ]




Originally posted by LongbottomLeaf
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 


Nothing like throwing cold hard facts into people's faces



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Agreed, war is wrong. War is stupid. War is wasteful. War causes death and pain. War sucks.

The big question is, what do you do to stop it from occurring?

Anthony Eden got " Peace in our time. " , just before WWII. So I will say that appeasement doesn't exactly work.

The old saying about the sheep getting together and passing a rule against any animals eating meat comes to mind. The wolves just won't listen.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Non sense, open your eyes well



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Nurse !!!!...

..i think the maniacs have missed their meds !!

Honestly, you war fanatics verge on the Psychopathic.

It's like listening to a steroid freak on roid rage.

Hulk smash !!

Try some diplomacy and abandon the sanctions, try dialogue, confrontation is the last thing you want in Irans backyard, they will embarrass and humiliate you.

You could do with some humility perhaps.

As for the Russia effect if the straights were closed, well they would obviously benefit from higher Oil prices, Russian Oil is very similar to Iranian in consistency and only Russia has the extra capacity to replace (some) of Irans output.

Saudi Arabia can only increase by 1.5 million barrels a day and that is IF their facilities are not struck by Iran, there is a possibility that all Oil and Gas production across the entire Arabian Peninsular will be destroyed.

The stakes could not be higher and it would be the US with everything to lose, it is the US that has the biggest petroleum habit ? addiction ? and yet you prepare to cut off your supply.

I hope the US does have secret Tesla energy tech, because with little to no oil supply ,you are going to need it.

Lets hope the intelligent people regain control and choose another option to bludgeoning people into conformity.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by murch
 


Kicking our ass? Lol wut? Do you have statistics to back that one up? Because I think you'll fail miserably at proving your point. For example, here's the statistics from Operation Al-Fajr AKA the 2nd battle of Fallujah. The HEAVIEST fighting experienced in Iraq. By mid December we had around 90 Marines KIA and over 1200 insurgents KIA, not counting the 1500+ insurgents captured by coalition forces.

Come on, really? In Afghanistan they take random pop shots at us from a far off mountain side and then run away. They don't even fight. I think you need to get your facts straight before you start spreading BS.
edit on 31-12-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join