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: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 




Iran is chest pounding daily. If they do not back down they will have a bad day.


They are only chest pounding because we are threatening them, sending a carrier off their shores is a threat. Did we the USA feel threatened when the Russians had missiles in cuba? Sure we cried like babies.


Cried like babies? You definitely have a warped vision of reality.
As I remember we took a stand and drew a line in the sand and gave an ultimatum if it were crossed and we prevailed.

Cried like babies?
Really?




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Oh, it does!

Not a goalkeeper, but rather a Sea Dart system on board HMS Gloucester in 1991 saved the USS Missouri from a Silkworm missile launched by the Iraqi's.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


All I am saying is that you're not seperating your beliefs and political opinons from the hard facts. Japan should feel threatened by China and North Korea without a doubt. You need to understand how they feel, not you.

Japan attacked Pearl harbor first, maybe you need to re-examine what some NYU Professor brainwashed you with? I could care less if anything connected to Oil or economics in general, gave them an excuse to attack Hawaii. Facts are, they need to be allowed to build multiple carriers in order to defend themselves from the sinister Red Chinese as well as their puppet state of North Korea. ~SheopleNation



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 




Iran is chest pounding daily. If they do not back down they will have a bad day.


They are only chest pounding because we are threatening them, sending a carrier off their shores is a threat. Did we the USA feel threatened when the Russians had missiles in cuba? Sure we cried like babies.


A silverback gorilla is dangerous. If we sent a squad of our troops into his territory and they surrounded him, he'd chest-pound too. He'd also rip someone's arm off, probably the one that said "guys we shouldn't be here", before the rest pour 1000 rounds into him in the name of self-righteous defense.

Edit: Oh and people would call them brave and courageous and were justified in their actions because it harmed or threatened to harm someone.
edit on 12-1-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
If you bump into a bees' nest, they are going to start a-abuzzin. If you kick a bees' nest, they are going to attack and hurt you. Therefore it's ok to smother the nest to prevent them from escaping, or it's even better if you douse the nest in gasoline and burn it to ashes?

A wise decision is to learn to coexist with the bees and perhaps there will be a reward of honey later on.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Trying to dumb it down into new testament-like parables so the thick headed will understand.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
From my personal experience of being on the USS Lincoln and soon to be on the USS Nimitz I sleep well every night knowing there isn't a single thing that could get close to a Carrier. Aside from the submarines and the rest of the strike group always around us, AND..... our radars, and E2-C Hawkeye's that are in the air (E2-C Hawkeye) I feel at peace knowing we are very protected. My favorite quote I have learned in the Navy....
AIRCRAFT CARRIER... 90,000 tons of DIPLOMACY!
Nothing will touch it, nothing will get close to touching it, and for those of you that say "Oh well there is a ACC sinking torpedo out there that can spank you..." I will requote some one above me...
Nothing or no one lays a scratch on a carrier and lives to tell about it.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


I liked the analogy mate!

Quite fitting, if only those in charge thought in such philosophical terms



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You seriously have no idea how these things work do you?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


3 words -

Aegis Combat System
edit on 12-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Indeed..

Aegis + Samson/Astor = not much chance of anything getting through.

It is odd though that some people round these parts belittle "Western" tech and big up"Eastern" tech, when the former has been proven time and again to be superior to the latter.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
So this is a rehash of Iran is going to sink a carrier thread?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Nope, this is the brand new, all singing all dancing they will "sink 2 carriers thread"

Boom, boom...I'm here all week...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Wow-i see this thread is talking nothing about the original post.


MODS???????????????????????????????????????????????????



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


I'm sure if the USA were to attack they would position their self in the best possible position for that attack

I mean its really a no-brainer.

The USA will always have the advantage over a comparatively 3rd world military. If we hit them they won't last much longer than Iraq.

-Alien



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
So i heard from one of our collegues here that during Iraq [2003 i guess] one carrier was pounding Iraq while anchored in the Red Sea.Can i assume that for attacking Iran and safeguarding the Straight it is not really necessary to sail the gulf but to stay safe from a distance like in the Arabic sea in order for the planes to be undetected up untill the last moment.Would this mean that, if Iranian anti-carrier missilies do pose a threat, one carrier can stay in the Red sea and the other in the Arabic sea?
Why 2 carriers btw? they can also use Diego Garcia and Guam right, and even the b2's who fly directly from Missouri..



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
The missiles won't even make it to the US carrier groups, HMS Daring is due thre any day, plus the Iranians can't missile a sub as they have no idea where it is. Tommohawk sub launched missliles will take out Iran's air defences and the bombing of Iran can begin, first strike their attack capabilities.


You've been playing too many video games. Cruise missiles can't be launched at mobile targets.... because mobile targets are...well...mobile.

If the carriers get too close to Iran they will be hit. If they are hit, then it's war. The Russians will back Iran, as will China. Big trading partners. This could kick off a real war.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Acid_Burn2009
 


Have they tried to launch 100 missiles at it in a real live test simulation where it succeeded? If each missile was launched at the same range and time, each target will have the same priority. The computer classifies the target according to speed, angle, range etc...if each target has the same priority then the computer has a difficult time deciding which one to shoot first because it wont matter. Conclusion = dead carrier.


Compuer systems in any process control, are able to make adjustments less



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
never mind
edit on 12-1-2012 by posthuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Personally, I feel we should just leave Iran be, but our leaders have an affinity for needless war.


The thing is, its not seen as "needless"

I dont know if you've heard, but war is a business now. With unemployment the way it is, we cant just bring home tens of thousands of troops.

Plus, all the aerospace, and defense contractors are basically the only thing keeping the economy alive. War is our only export now.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join