Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 43
58
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by area6
 


They sink your battleship, so you nuke them....and you don't think anyone will nuke you back?? lol




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Eaglecall
 




We wiped it out in less than a week


Incorrect, still there, an article from today:
www.cnn.com...

But lets stay on topic, the US may have won the battle, but lost the war.



Of course they are still there. And they will always stay there. is like trying to eliminate communists. You can't. You can eliminate communist governments but not communist people. Even we have a communist party here.

I repeat. In Afghanistan, we accomplish the mission. Dismantle the Taliban regime. Done. Afghanistan doesn't have a Taliban government since then. We won the war.

Russians objective was to conquer and colonize the land. They failed. We never had the intention to form a new American state there. What we are doing now over there is useless in my opinion. If the people there is not strong enough to hold the Taliban back by themselves, then the problem is the ethnic population and in that case there's nothing we can do about it.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Why use speed boats? The sunburn cruise has the range from land.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I read a large portion of this large thread, and only then proceeded to read the "seminal" Wiki article, and a few links off it.

And the description of the war games is specious in the following sense:

the original version of the war game itself appears to be scripted. This invalidates all the subsequent arguments as far as I'm concerned.

Apparently, a large part of the Blue fleet was surrounded by swarms of the Red aircraft and "small boats", whatever this is supposed to mean.

I'm sorry I just can't see that happening, even though I admit I'm not a military person. I'm sure the Navy does have a way to secure some perimeter around its carrier groups in such a way that a potential floating bomb (or a flying bomb) doesn't get close. The fact that this simulated situation does not trigger the Blue response seems totally rigged to me. The whole thing just seems damn artificial to begin with. I think it's in part due to Van Riper's prestige and authority in the exercise. And of course he felt unhappy when the parameters were adjust to something more sane.

I should have done this research earlier /yawn/ would have saved me a lot of unnecessary reading.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Right. A carrier group is in hostile waters and a swarm of speed boats sneak up on the group undetected and unmolested? Doesn't sound right. However, the sunburn cruise (and other cruise models) could hit the group from land based positions. Maybe the speed boats is a distraction from the real threat of the cruise.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TestingOmega
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Right. A carrier group is in hostile waters and a swarm of speed boats sneak up on the group undetected and unmolested? Doesn't sound right. However, the sunburn cruise (and other cruise models) could hit the group from land based positions. Maybe the speed boats is a distraction from the real threat of the cruise.


My question is this then:

there must be some intel on these sunburn positions and capability, right? Not 100%, but some. If the carrier group knows it has no way of countering a salvo of missiles, why would it enter the straights and then "issue an ultimatum" while being veritable sitting ducks?

It's just damn silly, the whole setup.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Eaglecall
 


And the Soviets won the main war in days.It was the guerilla forces that caused havoc.Same thing is happening to USA in Afghanistan again.As for Taliban they are not removed.Al qaeda was a smokescreen for the new american empire.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I once had this fight against the biggest kid on the block in front of all his mates and relatives. We stood toe to toe and he had his hands up like he was setting the tone of the fight to go down the path of "Queensby Rules", I chuckled to myself and said to myself he aint gunna like how I will fight this one out seeing I'm fighting for my life.

All his mates had circled around us and were egging him on, I noticed a person I considered a friend barracking for the big guy and thought to self..self this guy aint your friend. Everyone there was barracking against me...I had no friends...still don't know why I was continually picked on by this same big bully all the time but I was.

He swung first and hit me right in the mouth, I grabbed him and threw us both to the ground. I got on top and began to pound him with both fist's. Then something strange happened, he grabbed hold of my hair when he realized he was being fairly beaten. I screamed as loud as I could to all that had encircled me "You Big Girl, Look he's pulling my hair".

That guy lost so much face with that one simple act, he never bothered me again...I turned the tables.

The US has become that Big Guy I fought against in my younger days and some parallels could be drawn between the current US + Israel vs Middle East conflict and my experiences with Bullies in my youth.

Some things just stay the same.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow
The US navy could just retool the Wisconsin with phalyanx systems and load nukes in the cruise missile pods and nuke warheads for the guns and by itself retire IRAN


If you use nukes on Iran or any Islam country.

100% certain one major city in the USA will be hit with a nuclear/dirty/chemical/biological weapon. Go on pick a big city in the US and say good bye to it. The death tool would be about 1,000,000. Again if you as an American are ready for that. Then by all means go nuke Iran.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Iran has no nukes.US WMD myth ...Does iraq mobile biological labortaries ring a bell?


They probably have no nukes as of now and have no reliable method of delivery, BUT the longer iran buys time, the more the chances of them doing so increase. Iraq did have chemical weapons and it used them against the kurds and #es who opposed the sunnis.

The first gulf war was necessary, but the second was a hoax perpetrated by 9-11 as an excuse. They had absolutely no reason to attack iraq AGAIN, they should have stoped at the taliban. Bin Laden himself called iraq a socialist regime which is antithetical to any islamic republic. An islamic republic denotes religion as a state sanctioned code of law.


Iran will eventually make a few small nukes with a yield of about 10 kiloton each.

They will use terrorists to smuggle them into Israel and set them off.

----------
The war in Iraq stopped Saddam Hussein from shooting SCUDs at Israel.
It also brought democracy to Iraq.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Well according to Sky News, they'll also have to sink the UK. "fleet".

Althought to be fair, acouple of extra bags of salt into the straight would probably be enough.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
Well according to Sky News, they'll also have to sink the UK. "fleet".

Althought to be fair, acouple of extra bags of salt into the straight would probably be enough.


Yes, the UK is also in the Persian Gulf.

It looks like Iran has it hands full.

Now they have to destroy the entire U.S. Navy and the British Fleet.

It sounds impossible.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by atomicn
If you use nukes on Iran or any Islam country.

100% certain one major city in the USA will be hit with a nuclear/dirty/chemical/biological weapon. Go on pick a big city in the US and say good bye to it. The death tool would be about 1,000,000. Again if you as an American are ready for that. Then by all means go nuke Iran.



I believe that the situation will be settled without any nukes. It is difficult to predict what the Irani regime will do or how desperate they will become. They want to elicit sympathy from the world while pretending to "defend" the straits and must continue to portray the US as an unwanted oppressor and themselves as harmless, peace-loving oil merchants who are put upon by the West. Note that Europe is pushing for more sanctions and that the saber rattling is a result of existing sanctions.
The US will continue to keep the straits open to international shipping and it is not in Iran's interest to completely close the straits for any length of time other than to demonstrate that they could do so. China would suffer if the straits were closed and might not send military equipment to Iran if they were annoyed. China has also not sent any nuclear weapons to Iran. They are climbing toward the top of the heap and it is not in their best interests to do anything other than to keep the US busy so they can play at being an international peacemaker.
The Sunburn missiles are problematic. They fly in excess of Mach 2 and give little time [25-30 seconds] to respond. The are jammable in their terminal phase but their speed makes that more difficult. CIWS can engage and destroy the Sunburn but a time-on-target attack could overwhelm the system. An obvious solution to the problem is to eliminate the launch platforms. The problem here is that without an attack, there is no justification to do so. If there is an attack, Iran will soon be missing its Naval bases and launch platforms. Sea mine stores would likely be eliminated. If that happens, Iran will have no sabers to rattle when needed and will lose power in the region, so it is not in their interests to lose their navy by confronting the US.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So, you are saying that the West will acquiesce to nuclear Iran?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The Sunburn Missile has met its match.

A new U.S. Navy laser.
- Burns Through 20 ' of steel per second -

Apparently, the U.S. Navy has the technology and the means to do incredible things.

For every problem there is a solution.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


You just need to strap it to a dolphin for complete world domination



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


You just need to strap it to a dolphin for complete world domination


No, dolphins are employed by carrier groups in a different function. Plus it's too heavy.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
don't know why everyone thinks we (the US) would ever use nukes as anything but a last ditch effort, and even then it's pretty doubtful, also, even if iran has nukes, i don't think they would be stupid enough to start a nuclear war with us. that's like trying to shoot a sniper with a .38 at 500 yards, while he's shooting at you.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
You just need to strap it to a dolphin for complete world domination


Dolphin? Just goes to show how much you don't know.

You need a shark. And if you can't afford one, a giant mutated Seabass will do.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
don't know why everyone thinks we (the US) would ever use nukes as anything but a last ditch effort, and even then it's pretty doubtful, also, even if iran has nukes, i don't think they would be stupid enough to start a nuclear war with us. that's like trying to shoot a sniper with a .38 at 500 yards, while he's shooting at you.


You "conveniently" forget that the USA has used nukes twice in anger and is the only country to have ever done so.
Go read your history.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Sailor Sam because: spelling






top topics



 
58
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution