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.

 

2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 16
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


LOL . You honestly think Iran has the capability and guidance systems , and coordination to set up 500 missles at one target with precision?

Please

Iran's technolgy is still back in the 80's. US military is in the range of year 2030.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by digipulse
 


I honestly dont believe that Russia and China are stupid enough to attack US soil... Doing so would be totally reckless on their part, if 1 bomb gets dropped on US soil by either Russia or China, the US will do something much worse to them... Remember this, the US has the military, they spend nearly $1 trillion a year, they also have the experience, they also have the allies, and they are also crazy as hell... Attacking the United States would be a great way to have your own country blown back to the stone-age....



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   


I've said it once, i'll say it again.


When the western media starts going propaganda mad, then start worrying about a potential invasion.
The only way all out war is going to come about, is if Iran does something very very stupid with the Straits.
The only reason those vessels are in the area, is doing what they always do- insuring the straits remain open. That's it.
edit on 12-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Really? Where do you people get these ideas from? You don’t think the multi trillion dollar Department of Defense hasn’t thought about protecting our ships against missiles?

Come on, let’s come back to reality.




en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.strategypage.com...
www.facebook.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by digipulse
 


I honestly dont believe that Russia and China are stupid enough to attack US soil... Doing so would be totally reckless on their part, if 1 bomb gets dropped on US soil by either Russia or China, the US will do something much worse to them... Remember this, the US has the military, they spend nearly $1 trillion a year, they also have the experience, they also have the allies, and they are also crazy as hell... Attacking the United States would be a great way to have your own country blown back to the stone-age....


AH so what you're saying is that you'll nuke them all & that'll be that. You'll win a nuclear war with either Russia or China or both. Don't forget Russia has far more warheads than the US. Are you on Planet Janet or what!!??



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
From the article you linked to smart guy:

"An MoD spokesman said: "While the newly operational Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is more capable than earlier ships, her deployment East of Suez has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces a frigate on station."

Perhaps read your own rebuttals before posting next time?


Yes, let's read the article carefully. Let's start with the headline, and go from there.


Royal Navy sends its mightiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf


The headline is composed by the Daily Telegraph's defense correspondent, Thomas Harding. Apparently Thomas Harding, who is a defense correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, thinks HMS Daring isn't just steaming towards the Gulf for shits and giggles, it's to "take on the Iranian show of force".

Strike one.

Then, Harding quotes some naval commanders, speaking unofficially because the official line is obviously that the deployment is merely "routine":


Naval commanders believe the deployment of HMS Daring, a Type 45 destroyer, will send a significant message to the Iranians because of the firepower and world-beating technology carried by the warship.


Strike two.

Harding then quotes the British Defense Secretary as follows:


Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, has publicly warned Iran that any blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be "illegal and unsuccessful".


Obviously, the Defense Secretary is aware of the rising tensions with Iran and the deployment of the HMS Daring is connected by Harding to his remarks. It's the logical thing to do.

Strike three.

Next:


The Daily Telegraph understands that HMS Daring has been fitted with new technology that will give it the ability to shoot down any missile in Iran's armoury.


Why, Iran's missile capabilities are specifically compared to HMS Darings groundbreaking defensive countermeasures. What a coincidence! Could this possibly have anything to do with the escalating tensions with Iran?

Strike four.

Harding acknowledges HMS Daring is there to relieve another frigate currently on duty:


Daring, with its crew of 190, will transit through the Suez Canal and enter the Gulf later this month to replace the Type 23 frigate currently on station.


A Navy source is quoted as saying more deployments could be under way:


A Navy source has indicated that more British ships could be sent to the Gulf if required. The second Type 45, HMS Dauntless, will also be available to sail at short notice.


Just routine huh?

Strike five.


Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, described Daring as a "world beater", adding: "This warship has an unbelievably capable ability to track targets, spot the most dangerous and identify them for its missiles to take out. It's highly, highly capable. I would like to see the Type 45s show their potential in the region."


Strike six, Lord West fantasizes about a military confrontation where HMS Daring could show off its "potential in the region".

Followed by the final paragraph you so pathetically quote mined:


An MoD spokesman said: "While the newly operational Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is more capable than earlier ships, her deployment East of Suez has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces a frigate on station."


Wow... You mentioned reading... how about reading the entire article, interpreting the context, instead of quote mining it to distort its clear, unequivocal, intended, stated meaning that the deployment of HMS Daring isn't happening in some kind of geopolitical vacuum?

You are.... pedantic and willfully ignorant in a very amusing way.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the deployment of HMS Daring is seen as military posturing by the Daily Telegraph's defense expert as well as multiple naval sources, the Secretary of Defense and a former First Sea Lord, with the accompanying war rhetoric, in an ongoing standoff over a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

You are in denial, "smart guy".
edit on 12-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


But with this you can!



en.wikipedia.org...

Rate of fire= 4,500 rounds per minute







posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by digipulse

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by digipulse
 


I honestly dont believe that Russia and China are stupid enough to attack US soil... Doing so would be totally reckless on their part, if 1 bomb gets dropped on US soil by either Russia or China, the US will do something much worse to them... Remember this, the US has the military, they spend nearly $1 trillion a year, they also have the experience, they also have the allies, and they are also crazy as hell... Attacking the United States would be a great way to have your own country blown back to the stone-age....


AH so what you're saying is that you'll nuke them all & that'll be that. You'll win a nuclear war with either Russia or China or both. Don't forget Russia has far more warheads than the US. Are you on Planet Janet or what!!??


I'm not sure where you're getting this nuclear idea from
I never mentioned nuclear... But if we are comparing the US military against Russia and China, the US has a far greater one, with more capabilities... The US wouldnt need to use a nuclear weapon to defeat China and Russia...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

I'm not sure where you're getting this nuclear idea from
I never mentioned nuclear... But if we are comparing the US military against Russia and China, the US has a far greater one, with more capabilities... The US wouldnt need to use a nuclear weapon to defeat China and Russia...



Oh, please ...

The US hasn't waged any wars yet. The war against Iraq wasn't a war, the Iraqis were literrally incapable of defending themselves. I am not sure about Iran currently, but I suspect it is the same thing ... both of these nations failure, is attitude.

You aren't superior, because you were able to kill a lot of Indians running around in the wild, with a Gatling gun. It doesn't take guts, or intellect to accomplish that.
.
In fact, I'd say that until now you've been lucky as "hell" not having to face any real adversary ... nobody has gone to "aid" these Nomads. So, until now ... you've won your wars, because you're lucky. But don't count on luck, as a skill.

edit on 12/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by digipulse

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by digipulse
 


I honestly dont believe that Russia and China are stupid enough to attack US soil... Doing so would be totally reckless on their part, if 1 bomb gets dropped on US soil by either Russia or China, the US will do something much worse to them... Remember this, the US has the military, they spend nearly $1 trillion a year, they also have the experience, they also have the allies, and they are also crazy as hell... Attacking the United States would be a great way to have your own country blown back to the stone-age....


AH so what you're saying is that you'll nuke them all & that'll be that. You'll win a nuclear war with either Russia or China or both. Don't forget Russia has far more warheads than the US. Are you on Planet Janet or what!!??


I'm not sure where you're getting this nuclear idea from
I never mentioned nuclear... But if we are comparing the US military against Russia and China, the US has a far greater one, with more capabilities... The US wouldnt need to use a nuclear weapon to defeat China and Russia...


On paper perhaps but in practice the US get defeated or skulk away in every situation they mess with. As in Afghanistan they can & will never win unless you call staying there for hundreds of years 'winning'. Iraq too was a loss. The country is heading towards civil war - thousands of US troops killed in both theatres. Paper stats do not equate to winning. Occupation will never succeed. This is the vision of Ron Paul - the best hope for America but I guess you're addicted to war - thus more poor working-class boys come home in more body bags. Stupid dumb animals I think they were described as (Kissinger)?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


So are you suggesting that the US military isn't the greatest military in the world right now? Or are they just the luckiest military??? Using the word "luck" just makes me laugh.... Some people on ATS strongly underestimate the US military



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
What you are watching is choreographed. This whole thing will play out as planned. Pay attention to your pockets while you're watching the puppet show. Because when you are robbing people blind, you need a big distraction; something that polarizes people and makes them act on their emotions like characters in a movie. Except, when this movie is over, you'll see the doors are locked and the theatre is on fire.

Spoiler Alert:
Syria will commit a 'terrorist' act, Iran will defend them, and Isreal will be allowed to unleash the US military. Common people everywhere will suffer, a very small few will prosper unimaginably.


What you should be asking is: why?

I believe I know. I won't say, because I would rather you come to your own conclusions. But it's not oil, and money is only a means to an end. Every political move and machination for the last 2500 years has been about this. When they succeed, the world as we know will indeed end. You may or may not like what comes next, but there is nothing to be done, except wait and watch.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


So are you suggesting that the US military isn't the greatest military in the world right now? Or are they just the luckiest military??? Using the word "luck" just makes me laugh.... Some people on ATS strongly underestimate the US military


Yeah urinating on dead Taliban is really the "greatest military in the world"!!! You must be proud!!

edit on 12-1-2012 by digipulse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sleepermustawaken
 


Tell us what you think, i have no idea what your getting at.
I want to know, indeed i need to know, i don't like guessing.
edit on 12-1-2012 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by digipulse

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


So are you suggesting that the US military isn't the greatest military in the world right now? Or are they just the luckiest military??? Using the word "luck" just makes me laugh.... Some people on ATS strongly underestimate the US military


Year urinating on dead Taliban is really the "greatest military in the world"!!! You must be proud!!


So you're judging the whole US military based off of a couple idiots?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by digipulse

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


So are you suggesting that the US military isn't the greatest military in the world right now? Or are they just the luckiest military??? Using the word "luck" just makes me laugh.... Some people on ATS strongly underestimate the US military


Year urinating on dead Taliban is really the "greatest military in the world"!!! You must be proud!!


So you're judging the whole US military based off of a couple idiots?


I can't prove otherwise but neither can you....



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


You underestimate Iran's ability to defend her self. Iran has a full fighting professional Army a Airforce and a Navy with destroyers such as the Jamaran and 3 Kilo class submarines, multiple missile sites. I think Iran would do everything in there power to repel a foreign invasion force.
edit on 12-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


LOL . You honestly think Iran has the capability and guidance systems , and coordination to set up 500 missles at one target with precision?

Please

Iran's technolgy is still back in the 80's. US military is in the range of year 2030.


2030? Don't make me laugh.

Boy, the pro-American bs users are out in force lately.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on how CIWS works. The phalanx has what they call the engagement envelope which comprises of things such as target angle, elevation, velocity, proximity a
Amongst many things which it cannot take on things outside the envelope; also 4500 rounds/ min only lasts for so long and the carrier is not made of bullets that it can fire forever



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Nope. Its not made of bullets. Nor is Iran made of missles with superior guidance delivery systems.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join