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: 30
58
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Do you really think that Russia cares that much about Iran? Like we couldn't sway them with a few promises? They aren't going to jump into a world war to back Iran. They will talk, but they don't benefit THAT much from Iran.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I think it was not activated according to the Israeli navy, but the CIWS is obsolete and the US has been replacing them with SeaRam etc.. and the ESSM


CIWS will never be replaced by SeaRam or EESM, CIWS is the finale shield weapon and will remain that for a long time.
Though the phalanx may be replaced with the goalkeeper on some US ships (they are thinking about using goalkeeper on carriers)

The navy is working on lasers and masers as weapons for between the SeaRam ranges and the CIWS range but it will not replace ether.

The Navy is into overlapping defense shields and will always use what they can get.
edit on 1-1-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949


Israel is not worth a single American life or dollar





Well, I wouldn't go so far to say we should abandon Israel, they are our defenders against an united Caliphate state (which I believe will happen in the near future) I am not saying every Muslim believes in violence, but the numbers are greater then people think (and I also believe the moderate Muslims are cowed by the extremists)

Yes, the American foreign policy has brought us to this point, but at this point the damage is already done. So what will packing up and going home do at this point?


edit on 1-1-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
War is pretty unpredictable,so its hard to tell who will be destroyed.

But if america really wants to go to war with Iran,they probably will destroy some of their own units,whether or not that would be a whole fleet is anyone's guess.

I definitely wouldn't put it past them though,americans are pretty ruthless when it comes to achieving goals they see as critical or important.

I could bring up examples,but we all know what they are.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


So where's your physics equation proving this?
The full power given off by a carrier is, let me say this again, on a "need to know" basis. YOU most certainly don't know.

During my time deployed on a carrier I asked how fast it was able to go. My reply was "Officially? 38 knots" I said "what's the max speed?" my response was "that's on a need to know basis." and that was it.

But yeah, I'm wrong.
edit on 1-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
To the OP,

I am sorry but your thread is pretty void. Wikipedia is not a fully qualified source for your content even though its good for initial research. Also, Iran is not dumb enough to touch the US Navy in international waters in the strait. If you have been paying attention to their capabilities (Iran) you will see that their Navy is way outdated. Their subs look like what we used in WWII and their aircraft are way outdated with physical capabilities and electronic. Your response, they will use small PT attack boats rigged with explosives. Lets roll with that scenario for a second, not only can a entire fleet detect small surface vessels but they can also see them. The Navy is constantly sending out SH-60's to look for surface contacts and monitor the area around the fleet. You talk about the Red vs. Blue scenario, its exactly that. I would love to see Iran attack the US Naval Fleet in international waters bringing retaliation from a much obliged US Military and also other Allied countries. People often try and simplify things to make them more understandable (even I do sometimes) but in todays society complexities are prevalent.

Iran doesnt want war because they know they stand no chance. They want to quietly and sneakily attain nuclear capabilities before than boasting about them. If your the underdog, your not going to brag about your capabilities and strike your enemies Naval fleet knowing dang well that your outgunned. The only hope you have is it wait and try to attain a weapon of mass destruction to use as a bargaining chip or leverage.

That is all, carry on.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


I can help with this one...

USS Enterprise...Warp 7.



Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by bigyin
 


So where's your physics equation proving this?
The full power given off by a carrier is, let me say this again, on a "need to know" basis. YOU most certainly don't know.

During my time deployed on a carrier I asked how fast it was able to go. My reply was "Officially? 38 knots" I said "what's the max speed?" my response was "that's on a need to know basis." and that was it.

But yeah, I'm wrong.
edit on 1-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)


what a drag

clue



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Jus checkin in here,.
to see how the destroying of the US navy is goin..
.............. hmmmm... nothin yet huh..



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 




Third of all the USA Isn't causing a war, Iran is causing a war by not abiding by their agreements.


Does not matter about these agreements, USA cannot dictate to the world what to do. What if China started dictating to the USA?


Did you not read all of my post? Perhaps you mistakenly skipped over the most important part. Allow me to repost it so that you have the opportunity to read it again. Then maybe you can formulate an opinion of this portion of the post?




The UN security counsel has found Iran in non compliance with their treaties and has brought forth evidence for these claims for every UN country to view.

Apparently most countries agreed with the evidence in a vote and so sanctions were imposed as per agreements made with Iran.(and this is not the first time) In fact they have been habitually in violation.

The United States is not making these decisions to sanction Iran all by its self.


-Alien



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


To date there have been 89 prospective sanctions that were to be applied to Israel, all vetoed by the US.

It would seem the US is a bit biased when it comes to who gets sanctioned and who does not.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct



The UN security counsel has found Iran in non compliance with their treaties and has brought forth evidence for these claims for every UN country to view.

Apparently most countries agreed with the evidence in a vote and so sanctions were imposed as per agreements made with Iran.(and this is not the first time) In fact they have been habitually in violation.

The United States is not making these decisions to sanction Iran all by its self.


-Alien


And that report was BS.
And so what?
Iran has the right to have nukes if they can build them.
Every sovereign nation has that right.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Alien Abduct



The UN security counsel has found Iran in non compliance with their treaties and has brought forth evidence for these claims for every UN country to view.

Apparently most countries agreed with the evidence in a vote and so sanctions were imposed as per agreements made with Iran.(and this is not the first time) In fact they have been habitually in violation.

The United States is not making these decisions to sanction Iran all by its self.


-Alien


And that report was BS.
And so what?
Iran has the right to have nukes if they can build them.
Every sovereign nation has that right.
So,, please help me understand your thinking
lets say we have a child bent on hurting the neighborhood animals
and doesnt understand right and wrong in the normal thinking process.
You would feel comfortable leaving this child with your pet or a sibling for that matter?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 




Well, I wouldn't go so far to say we should abandon Israel, they are our defenders against an united Caliphate state


Oh so you are saying that this is a religious war? Preventing the Muslims from reuniting? Is that why you are bombing them? Hmmm, so you label them terrorists, so it is a hidden agenda. Gotcha



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

We lost the war in every way.




Technically America never declared war on anyone in Vietnam, it was a "police action", so America technically never fought a war in the first place.
De jure though, it was a defeat as, despite not losing a single battle and inflicting far greater casualties than suffered, the US failed in its political objectives, namely the defense of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam lost the Vietnam War not the US. The Vietnam War was a civil war in which the US was a third party. North and South Vietnam had been at war with each other before the US entered the conflict and were at war with each other after the US left the conflict.

To say the US lost the Vietnam War would be like saying the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War instead of saying North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. It was not our war to win or lose. The US should not be blamed for South Vietnam's shortcomings and lack of will. The US can give all the money and weapons to the South as it wants to, but the South has to have the will and desire to win and they did not have that. Therefore the loss is theirs, not ours.

--- It is widely considered that "America lost the Vietnam war." But (as previously explained) saying that America lost the war is a misstatement. It was misunderstood at the time of the war.

North Vietnam had indeed signed a peace agreement with the United States to leave South Vietnam and maintain a demilitarized zone, much as had been done in Korea. The North signed this agreement, waited until the United States had pulled almost all troops out of South Vietnam, and then attacked, and easily overtook the South.

Did we win? We won on honesty and integrity, both of which the North Vietnamese failed to display once the power of the United States had left. Although the US committed enormous resources and defeated the communists in tactical engagements time and again, there was a lack of will to do the things that have to be done to win a war: Go on the offensive, advance into enemy territory, seize the military initiative, and so forth.

In Korea, the US advanced all the way through North Korea to China at one point, although it was later forced back. The communists worried that the US might do this again, so they had an incentive to keep the truce. In Vietnam, treaties were signed, but the fighting went on.

Eventually, US public opinion tired of an endless, defensive war. Congress ordered an end to direct US military involvement in August 1973. US financial aid to South Vietnam was cut off in August 1974 and Saigon fell to the communists in April 1975.

Source


-Alien



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This post reminds me of a quote made famous by John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!". If you look at the first picture i posted below, the iranians better hope battle day is really windy, otherwise they will need about 20 minutes for the smoke to clear off the deck!

a57.foxnews.com...

www.petpeoplesplace.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by Camperguy
 


The Nimitz and Ford class Carriers are just as vulnerable as any other ship.

They are made of steel, you can believe they can take everything up to a nuke strike if you like, physics says otherwise.

If jet fuel can destroy the columns of the twin towers, just imagine what a thermate warhead will do to a steel ship.

Cosmic..
edit on 31-12-2011 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)



The U.S. Navy has stated that the carriers could withstand three times the damage sustained by the Essex class inflicted by Japanese air attacks during World War II


I thought thermite was used in the twin towers destruction


Also the Cole was sitting in dock refuling with a skeliton crew and its aluminium skinned. The Nimitz are steel armored and pretty sure would be expecting something if we went to war. They are heavily armored, compartmentalized and have redundant power and fire supression systems. The old Essex class that was just sunk to make an artificial reef had to have a couple of hundred bulkheads taken off and holes cut along the water lines, walls and decks with dozens of explosive charges set in strategic locations to get to sink. Im not saying the cant sink im saying it would take a #load of high explosives in percisley the right places to take it down and thats just one carrier after you get through the 2 attack subs and dozens of aircraft, drones, missle boats, friggets and early warning craft along with the P3`s ,Jstars and satilites. Nevermind the Spec ops on site and hack attacks.

Bill



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Alien Abduct



The UN security counsel has found Iran in non compliance with their treaties and has brought forth evidence for these claims for every UN country to view.

Apparently most countries agreed with the evidence in a vote and so sanctions were imposed as per agreements made with Iran.(and this is not the first time) In fact they have been habitually in violation.

The United States is not making these decisions to sanction Iran all by its self.


-Alien


And that report was BS.
And so what?
Iran has the right to have nukes if they can build them.
Every sovereign nation has that right.


They signed agreements saying they would not obtain nuclear weapons in return for aid and economic deals.

They are reneging on their agreements and so we aren't giving them their aid and economic help .

Its as simple as that.

They don't have to abide by their own rules that they put into place and we don't have to help them economically.


-Alien
edit on 1/1/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The american armed forces are so poor , they are the laughing stock of the whole planet . If it wasn't for the fact that the U.S have first strike capability, America would have been invaded and defeated decades ago



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by BRAVO949
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

We lost the war in every way.




Technically America never declared war on anyone in Vietnam, it was a "police action", so America technically never fought a war in the first place.
De jure though, it was a defeat as, despite not losing a single battle and inflicting far greater casualties than suffered, the US failed in its political objectives, namely the defense of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam lost the Vietnam War not the US. The Vietnam War was a civil war in which the US was a third party. North and South Vietnam had been at war with each other before the US entered the conflict and were at war with each other after the US left the conflict.

To say the US lost the Vietnam War would be like saying the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War instead of saying North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. It was not our war to win or lose. The US should not be blamed for South Vietnam's shortcomings and lack of will. The US can give all the money and weapons to the South as it wants to, but the South has to have the will and desire to win and they did not have that. Therefore the loss is theirs, not ours.

--- It is widely considered that "America lost the Vietnam war." But (as previously explained) saying that America lost the war is a misstatement. It was misunderstood at the time of the war.

North Vietnam had indeed signed a peace agreement with the United States to leave South Vietnam and maintain a demilitarized zone, much as had been done in Korea. The North signed this agreement, waited until the United States had pulled almost all troops out of South Vietnam, and then attacked, and easily overtook the South.

Did we win? We won on honesty and integrity, both of which the North Vietnamese failed to display once the power of the United States had left. Although the US committed enormous resources and defeated the communists in tactical engagements time and again, there was a lack of will to do the things that have to be done to win a war: Go on the offensive, advance into enemy territory, seize the military initiative, and so forth.

In Korea, the US advanced all the way through North Korea to China at one point, although it was later forced back. The communists worried that the US might do this again, so they had an incentive to keep the truce. In Vietnam, treaties were signed, but the fighting went on.

Eventually, US public opinion tired of an endless, defensive war. Congress ordered an end to direct US military involvement in August 1973. US financial aid to South Vietnam was cut off in August 1974 and Saigon fell to the communists in April 1975.

Source


-Alien


I like it! Makes you wonder how Vietnam would be now if we just stood back and let them duke it out. I wonder if we let North Korea walk into the South and didnt do anything would the whole country now be run by Kim Jung Un now? Would the whole country be a third world communist time capsule?

Bill



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join