Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Almost all Americans know nothing about ancient Persia nor it's military prowless.

So my guess is, none of you have ever heard of Artemis; she was the highest Commander and Admiral of the Persian Royal Navy in 480BC.

youtu.be...

Why the USA may be bigger and more powerful but that does'nt automatically mean they'll win any in confrontation with Iran's naval units. Sometimes smaller, more stealth like can sting like wasps.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I do think this is an interesting OP

An whole generation lives on the Hollywood version of War and American Superpower status, and many who even though may serve and have gone to Afghanistan and such like (on ships/navy) I feel have been lulled into an false sense of security.

There has not really been any serious naval battles since the Falklands war in the 1980's and Argentina is nothing compared to Iran...

With all the armchair Admirals here I think its best to re read what the Op source stated, an real deal American Patriot and Riper is well known for his non political but strategic/doctrine strength...


Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise,
Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game.


If an man of such character and regard and rank does this I will listen to him, not screen names on an message board, and the fantasies of over active imaginations...

Why did he resign and loose all he has invested in, worked hard at, isolate himself from peers, if he did not 100% believe the following was true:



Van Riper later expressed concern that the wargame's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience.


Sounds very much like the Bank Bail outs?



He was quoted in the ZDF–New York Times documentary The Perfect War[4] as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara


Maybe some servicing members can ask some older servicing members what reality was like under such leaders.. the hype against the truth.

This is my concern as said earlier, many who serve in the Navy will be rudely awoken by any Iranian action if naval, it will be an different kettle of fish from Iraq or any other deployment, sinks will be sunk on both sides, young men suffer terrible burns and die....

I don't think the Iranian navy would last long, but with their shore sites, the confines of the gulf, suicide bombers, new soviet and (korean?) technology they will certainly make an dent in any task force.

It only takes an $100 dollar mine to sink an carrier to no fancy weapons or stealth or lasers.


The Perfect War[4] as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara before and during the Vietnam War, namely that the U.S. military could not and would not be defeated.


And this current warmonger turn Iran into glass philosophy is so reminiscent of the above.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
A nation like Iran means...

..well stocked with up to date missile capabilities.

As I thought, you seem to imply that a carrier fleet such as the one the US will send over, is basically ineffective against ANY nation that has modern missile capabilities? Lol.


..able to draw on its resources.

Quite amazing, yeah.


Look at a map...Iran has an even bigger super duper carrier...it's called Iran.

Err.. no they don't.
Take a look at something better than a map. Iran's army:
www.globalfirepower.com...
Their entire navy consists of nothing more than several old fashioned frigates, three subs, and gunboats. Yes, lots of gunboats...


If you imply that Iran can simply send out everything it has on a single carrier fleet, you're basically saying Iran is going to have it's territory completely compromised in order to take down a single carrier group which the US has tens more of. Not even mentioning long air superiority capabilities.

If you're talking about logistics, the US army, with bases all over the globe, is ultimately the leading force on Earth in terms of supplying, resupplying and reinforcing it's units. Yeah, Iran can send another strike force after one is destroyed, but so can the US.

In terms of technology there is nothing to even compare.


You cannot project enough force on Iran with a single carrier group

What makes you think that this carrier fleet is out to destroy Iran? It's out to clear the strait, and it is able to receive resupplying and reinforcement by the (huge) rest of the US army in record times.


hell it took 6 months of preparation to attack Iraq who were mostly conscripts and didn't want to fight anyway, Iran is a different proposition altogether.

Hey Baghdad Bob, how are you doing?
I love it when people mention the Iraqi war, which was basically won in several days. If the US didn't feel obliged to eradicate land forces from within, the war would've ended in a several days indeed.
If you look at the Iraq war in terms of completely destroying the opponent's military, the war was indeed won in under a week.

In an all out war against Iran, the US will not need to invade. It will be over with once the Iranian army is not capable of anything much more than widespread foot soldiers all across the land.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Is this potential event spoken of the prophecy? re: Daniel 10;13

bible.cc...

World English Bible
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days;



here was a message that the power of the prince of Persia (Iran)(Supreme Leader) blocked the passage of the 'honorable one' for 3 weeks.
..might this be describing the Straight and the ships laden with oil for the western world among others?


it would seem that a naval war was averted, but a 3 week 'delay' was somehow arranged...
because the Persian military is soon to join the forces of Gog Magog in a much larger campaign

so this standoff- showdown is not the end of the fleet or the strife in the area



(looking through the filter of scripture, prophecy... for those who trust such evidence)
edit on 31-12-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by isaac 7777
You really think Russia or China would go to war over Iran? Especially if Iran closed the strait?


we know our western "leaders" can over react and lead us to disaster.
the drama queens turned into a stampede for war when they heard the weapons of mass destruction mantra.

since the fall of the ussr, the us has acted extremely arrogant, many countries resent the past 20 years of bullying.

if the situation was to degenerate into a shock and awe of iraqi style destruction on iran, the flow of oil will stop.imo

not because of the iranian navy. but because oil tankers make easy targets and so do the massive oil installations of the gulf states.

the achilles heel of the west is their utterly corrupt financial sector, which would plunge their economy in chaos.
the hedge funds would make a fortune fleecing the oil and other commodity markets.

our dysfunctional political system is great at generating hysteria but incapable of solving problems.
the lobbyists would paralyse washington, the criminal bankers run the show.

russia supplies europe with oil and gas and would prosper from this disastrous western war.
china will watch the western economies collapse, weakening the enemy trying to contain them.

history is full of arrogant empires destroying themselves by engaging in useless wars.

once the shooting starts, there is no way of knowing how big the forest fire will become.

imo we are living in the good old days, future generations will wonder why we threw it all away.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiorano
To be frank- the simulation was in 2002- which means in 10 years time since, I am sure the USN has worked out the bugs.
The carrier group fights with not only ships but a myriad of aircraft, and these will certainly help out, the scenario is interesting, and a big ship may get crippled, but the Battle group won't the USN is not a bunch of untested amateurs, this is not unknown technology, this would bring the hurt.
I have much family who served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia/ Bosnia and there is crap the military has, no official news media has any idea exists, there is some trick stuff, it isn't just big boats and big guns.
there have been missteps in the US foreign policy in the past administrations, but I have full faith in what this country is aiming to accomplish and how they do it, I am not a sheep, but I am invested in the land I live in in my neighbors and family and simply I believe in what they can accomplish when the goal is set.
..

Many of the publically released "simulations" are psyop bait to direct thinking in the emenies minds. Huge holes in the simulations are left out intentionally so as to give the enemy confidence to move forward with those actions. The first casualty within minutes of any military engagement is the plan.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Although I disagree with my colleague Mr. Professional's sanguine prediction, we should be able to find out: Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the mad mullahs pulling their strings are just the kind of people to force a confrontation in the Straits of Hormuz. My guess would be that, if such an incident occurred, the result would several damaged American ships and the extinction of the Iranian Navy, Air Force and about half of their oil exporting capabilities..

Not their nuclear facilities, though; that would probably disappear a week later, courtesy of Mr. Bibi Netanyahu & Co.

Of course, these are only my guesses; I am not a professional.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 


If you insist on treating the rest of the planet like asshat untermenschen why should i even bother to try and have a debate with you.

There is no debate with ones such as you, when confronted with alternative outcomes you resort to juvenile name-calling and ridicule.

Have a nice day.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to ``sacrifice`` those soldiers. Wouldn't be the first time a government does this.

Oh COME ON.. Here we go again.
If the US wanted to sacrifice something it'd sacrifice a boat, a sub, a ship.. not an entire fleet worth of hundreds of billions of dollars just to give themselves an OK to go to war.


Really don't know much about America do you? Look up The Gulf of Tonkin Incident the president lied to America to drag us into war with Vietnam so what makes you think we won't do it again? The US is more than capable of falsifying enough evidence to get us into war. Just look at 9/11 it worked then so it will work again.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to ``sacrifice`` those soldiers. Wouldn't be the first time a government does this.

Oh COME ON.. Here we go again.
If the US wanted to sacrifice something it'd sacrifice a boat, a sub, a ship.. not an entire fleet worth of hundreds of billions of dollars just to give themselves an OK to go to war.


Really don't know much about America do you? Look up The Gulf of Tonkin Incident the president lied to America to drag us into war with Vietnam so what makes you think we won't do it again? The US is more than capable of falsifying enough evidence to get us into war. Just look at 9/11 it worked then so it will work again.


I don't think our colleague Mr. Israeli Guy was saying that the United States wouldn't lie to its people to secure a geopolitical advantage; all countries do that -- all the time. What I believe he was saying was that that sacrificing a destroyer would work just a well and wouldn't degrade our naval capabiliteis like the loss of an aircraft carrier would.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Woudn't the US navy simply stay out of Hormuz, thus avoiding close proximity fighting withthe small craft.
I think so.

Stay out of their range and mop them up with aircraft and helicoptors.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
Woudn't the US navy simply stay out of Hormuz, thus avoiding close proximity fighting withthe small craft.
I think so.

Stay out of their range and mop them up with aircraft and helicoptors.

There are two reasons that I believe the US Navy would enter the Straits of Hormuz and pass through to the Persian Gulf. The first is military: should a shooting war start, the US Navy's position in the Persian Gulf gives them better access to their own logistical "tail" (prepositioned in allied Gulf states) and allows them a wider range of targets in Iran, including Esfahan, Shiraz, and Teheran.

The second is geopolitical: a US presence in the Gulf itself would send a message to our allies in the area that we are there to block putative Iranian air attacks on Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

By the way, you mentioned helicopters as a weapon against sea targets; although Saudi, UAE,and Kuwait all have Boeing Apache AH-64D attack helicopters, the US Navy has none (they are US Army assets) and, in any event, are not designed for marine operations (although they do have an excellent littoral capability).



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Can I point something out here. Alot of people lording the assets that the US can bring to bear. Granted you are largest military power but others have something you dont. A remarkable willingness to die for there country.

You are currently fighting a war against one of the poorest nations in the world and they are still kicking your ass. Learn a lesson. Unless wholescale destruction is used no outcome is guaranteed, it depends on enemy strategy as well as your strategic might. If history has taught us something its that we are extremely good at finding new and surprising ways of killing each other.

As a side note this is the one move in this great game of chess that will force the hand of the other big players. Control of Iran means control of straits. Happy days.

Have a good new year everyone.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
are all them once missing ruskie suitcase nukes accounted for? marinised and magnetised, sitting on the sea bed waiting for a passing hull to kiss. suntans all round. if this wasn't factored into any scenario how would the war chiefs react knowing one the their nuke powered carriers evaporated? carrier reactor gone critical/onboard nuke accident? accidents could also very well be spun into hostile actions.
if this kicks off, one can forget about pension contributions and that nice retirement shack in the forest.
f



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


would you like a world war whose legacy shall written in blood ,including yours.


I don't want to be part of any such legacy.Keep your warmongering militaries in control or situation will be such that the people of the world will support Russia and China in WW3.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I doubt that. One US carrier groups brings more firepower to the party than Britian`s entire armed forces. Relying only on tech is a mistake but that is not what the Navy does. How many Iranian boats do you think will be underway if something was to happen? Naval intel you can bet already knows the location of their bases and will have them on the airstrike list. The Navy babies the carriers in ways that rival a mother bear protecting her cubs, they dont send these things to look down the barrel of a gun.

You short change the US military so much from your previous posts and threads, give them some credit. Not one of your predictions has ever come true and i believe you just like to troll and get things started for attention.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Hi there,

Reading this infomation regarding current events does make the mind wander.

But the talk of this going nuclear? First if the US turns Iran to glass wont they Iradiate the area? Which will cause a knock on effect for th whole region.

The only way I can see something this bad, and I dont want to be a fear monger, but the possibility of a dirty bomb or something of that nature on 'Allied' soil- and that only if the perpatratures have the ability to do so whilst slipping through the intelligencs services net.

In regards to conflict in the straight, if anything does happen nobody for sure can predict the outcome, as War is unpredictable!

Everything else is based on assumptions.. And asumptions are the mother of all fu.. mistakes.

eee.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by murch
 


No one is "kicking our ass" Our military is being used as an extended police force and thats not what they are trained to do. Who is exactly kicking our ass? Misguided religo-tards blowing themselves up thinking its an easy way to a heavan that dosent exist?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Oh dear lord not the mass missle attack scenerio again. This one has been the "how we are going to beat the US Navy" on the cheap go to since the 80's. I hate to break ruin things for people but the US Navy knows that most of the planet does not have much beyond a brown water navy and they spend a very great deal of time preparing to face navies just like Irans.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join