It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 48
<< 45  46  47   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by Sailor Sam

yep, and when we did it ended world war 2. had we not done so, many more people than the combined deaths of hiroshiima and nagasaki would've been killed. read your history

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:56 AM
None of this even matters because all of it is speculation based off war games.

It doesn't take into account, the Airforce or the human element.

Nothing in this thread matters at's all been untested in a real life situtation. Why are you people arguing over something so extremely meaningless. As soon as war breaks out, Iran will tuck their tail between their legs and hide behind big bad Russia.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:57 AM
I'm U.S. and I agree that we wouldn't nuke. For one thing, we don't have to because there are many other options besides armed conflict of any sort, even now, with all the saber rattling. For another, there is the built in "proportionality" concept in the laws of war for modern, UN sanctioned warfare. The U.S. went to some trouble to get UN approval in Afghanistan to connect non-state actors (AQ) to state actors (Taliban) and attack them both. They were even using the rules of preemptive attack before that to attack AQ. If the Iranians attempt to close the Strait, then we can respond proportional to the threat, clear it, and try to keep it open - I doubt seriously that it could be used as a pre-text for open warfare with Iran unless preemption, e.g. destroying threatening missile batteries comes into play. You can see the runaway logic in this, "Gotta open the strait, can't do it without ships in there, ships are threatened by missiles, gotta kill the missile launchers, they're protected by ground to air, gotta kill that...etc. etc."

There is a gigantic corpus of international law that governs how these things play out in a modern world. The bigger threat I believe is the possibility of ungoverned cyber warfare between non-state Iranian actors, sympathetic quasi-non-state attackers all over the world, and retaliatory strikes by sympathetic Western actors. It really is the wild west out there. There are many posts on ATS about the capabilities of various national cyber forces, suffice it to say, if it's connected to the internet, it is vulnerable whether it's something big or something small. However, these are not the most likely "first responders" on the cyber battlefield nor would they be because their entry into a conflict would constitute an "armed attack" and consequently allow for a broader application of the laws of war. Rather, non-state cyber attacks, possibly aided by information from state actors, are the more likely scenario. These attacks could have dramatic impact. For instance, if a state actor wants to put the U.S. in its place without direct conflict, they could pass information to non-state actors, e.g. organized crime hackers, who could then apply their craft in a surprise attack on U.S. forces. Who does the U.S. attack in response? How do they find out who did it or who received the critical information? If a carrier is sunk because of something like this, and the U.S. bombs Iran when non-Iranian, non-state actors are involved, that will be a tragedy on both sides. So, this is a very, very tricky situation and the precedent of involvement from non-state actors has already happened.

Don't trust me though, verify and read the refs below:

Botnets and C&C for hire make a cyber conflict the most likely IMHO. The degree to which non-state actors can perform autonomously will determine its success. If they're linked to state actors, then "armed attack" comes into play and then it's probably bombs away time. I hope we don't get there.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:15 PM
Anyone want to place a bet there's not a scratch on a major USN surface ship? I'll take that.

Remember Operation Preying Mantis? lol, defenseless Boghamar speedboats vs A6 Intruders loaded w/Rockeye cluster bombs. lol, place your bets.

USN will stay far out of reach until missile batteries are suppressed.

Russia can't do anything overt to help the Mullahs, and both are on the wrong side of the issue to begin with.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by buster2010

Bullsh## Iran has be fighting a proxy war ever since they took the US Embassy in 79,now they want to give those proxy forces nukes and they don't think they'll be blamed.
Iran isn't going to use them themselves.
They can't counter western military forces so they resorted to world wide guerilla tactics in order to expel western influence from the middle east.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:29 PM
Operation Preying Mantis

Frigate IS Sahand burning stem to stern
edit on 27-7-2012 by BrutalDictator because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2012 by BrutalDictator because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by orangetom1999

What doe it mean when you see paintings of Napolean Bonaparte with his hand inside his tunic. Same thing with Civil War Officers with their hand in their tunic as is so many surviving photos?? Ever notice that
EarthCitizen07?? Once you do you will spot it more often..much more often.

Some of the most interesting things about history happen to be missing from most textbooks.

edit on 14-1-2012 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)

Great post. It seems pretty obvious that placing the hand concealed behind the garter is so the actor can flash their gang sign, covertly.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by dave_welch

dave is correct. We killed more people in our fire bombing runs on tokyo than the combined nuclear attacks of WW2.

Don't even get me started on what dresden looked like after we fire bombed that city. People were literally found fuzed into the melted asphalt of that city we bombed it so hard.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
I don't understand the point of these threads. Do you want to play a game?

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:53 PM

In 1987, an Iraqi jet fired a missile at the Stark, killing 37 U.S. sailors on board. It is the only successful anti-ship missile attack on a U.S. Navy warship.

How many attacks have there actually been?

Yeah, I know, they happen every day and are defeated but we don't get told because of National Security.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by Cosmic911

It is a war of propaganda, a war of ideas and information.

Battles are not just waged on a battlefield, it takes place daily on the web.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by The X
Iran, a rich nation with money to burn, a good relationship witht the second most advanced nation on the planet.
The strait of hormuz, iran understands that this is their backdoor and it needs to be defended.
Iran has spent untold amounts of money preparing a customised defence of this stretch of water.
If this was a real time strategy game the defender has gone "Turtle" in this location.
Anytime the iranians choose to close the strait, they will and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
The strait contains custom built diesel/electric sonar evasive submarines that have the same rubber hull coating the chinese have on their submersibles.
The outer defence marker can be reached by supersonic "Sunburn" missiles in around 25 seconds from launch.

As soon as the americans decide to attack, unless attacks are made in the minutes before hand on the sunburn installations, america will suffer many casualties and losses.

Dude, what you are saying in the second part of that message is based on the assumption that the US don't know anything about what's mentioned in the first. I'll skip the rubber submarines, but indeed Iran has significant coast defensed. The US intel knows about these. By the way if you want to speculate on the subject of autonomous submarines in Hormus, I'm not sure who has more of these, Iran or the US.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by BrutalDictator

Defenseless? no. Overmatched? Yes. That is the risk you take when you want to make whatever statement it is you're making...

Iran isn't the innocent wronged as so many here attempt to portray. Nor are they the demon that others attempt to portray...

They're essentially stupid. This is a conflict they can not win, the prudent thing to do would be to back down and save the fight for another day... But, hey, they got to be rough tough and stand up to the bully, and score points in some stupid political game. So, how many thousands are going to die, if it goes the way so many of us fear it might?

When you are outgunned to the extent Iran is, there is no shame in saying "We'll do this another day...".

What's pride against the lives of thousands, even hundreds of thousands? That's a question that maybe the ruling mullahs of Iran should be asking themselves...

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:06 PM

Originally posted by seagull
When you are outgunned to the extent Iran is, there is no shame in saying "We'll do this another day...".

While I think that the title of the thread is downright stupid, I still look at facts and see that land invasion of Iran, or even an attack on its coastal defenses, is far from slam dunk. It's a massive country with a massive army and a close to decent technology. Outgunned? Methinks not. It's half a world away from the US and if anything mattered in wars, that would be logistics.

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:12 PM
I think we'll see some energetic EMPs over strategic areas at the onset of hostilities.
edit on 27-7-2012 by BrutalDictator because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:14 PM

Originally posted by BrutalDictator
Two words: EMP

One word: WTF

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem

Should they attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, do you think it'll be just the US? That's the only way I can see a conflict igniting with Iran, and that would involve attempting to cut off a major portion of the worlds oil supply. No, the US wouldn't be the only nation involved.

You do remember the Iraq War, the first go 'round? They, too, were supposed to be up to the task... It's not just equipment. It's tactics, it's experiance... All of which the U.S. and NATO have a distinct advantage.

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:00 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by cavtrooper7

Bullsh## Iran has be fighting a proxy war ever since they took the US Embassy in 79

USA has been meddling in iranian affairs before then. They took the US emabssy because the CIA installed their own puppet

They can't counter western military forces so they resorted to world wide guerilla tactics in order to expel western influence from the middle east.

The west needs to not stick its nose in other peoples countries otherwise they would not have to resort to guerrilla tactics.

top topics

<< 45  46  47   >>

log in