2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

Foreseen MSNBC 'BREAKING NEWS ALERT':

"Today, a nuclear bomb was detonated by terrorists in the Strait of Hormuz. The device, which is thought to be Israeli in origin is one of several 'stolen' from Afghanistan in 2004."

This would of course mean that Israel had a good shot and sank one our US Nuclear Powered Carriers. At which point all hell would break loose; The US would go ape # across the region while Israel implemented their 'fail safe' and nukes not only themselves, but the surrounding large metropolitan areas.

I'm pretty sure, the bible talks about how awful it will be when the world turns its back on Israel. They're suppose to have the Holy Grail...thus they cannot be defeated.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


I'd LIKE to THINK that Iran would have someone in leadership who has a microgram of

reasonableness left.

However . . . given the founder of their religion and his demonized blood lust . . .

and the current leader's blood lust for starting WWIII and as much bloody chaos and mayem as possible

IN ORDER FOR THE MAHDI--the Muslim messiah to surface--brought about by said chaos in their eschatology . . .

I don't think it's very

rational

of us

to think that THEY will be the LEAST BIT rational

regardless of whether we have one carrier, 3 carriers or 6 carriers in the region.

They WANT bloody chaos of the worst sort in the worst way and seem to be maniacally eager to force it on the world.

I'd hope that 3 carriers could moderate their fantasies--they may well only excite them to the point of orgasm at the prospect of WWIII . . . thinking their Mahdi may well step out of a resulting mushroom cloud walking on air . . .

or smoke . . . or funny smelling smoke or . . .

reply to post by rigel4

I dont want war, but it is likely going to happen.Iran's military will get tufted.
I know ther will be some attacks/strikes outside Iran, but the Mullahs and their regime are as good as dead,
after the fighting starts.

I like to think you're right.

However, the Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief's bosses and probably he, himself

may well PLAN to shred however many carriers in order to have us greatly weakened

in order to prevent

us defending ourselves very well when China and Russia attack the USA mainland.

. . . in order for the NEW WORLD ORDER to be erected MORE EASILY AND QUICKLY

on the ashes of the USA . . .

May such traitorous bustards fall in the hole they have dug for the rest of us--and that speedily.

May they fight amongst themselves with sharp rusty knives coated with interesting substances.

reply to post by michael1983l


A question for you.

Do you think that the USA would use any of our UFO's and other exotic craft and weapons systems to protect our carriers in such a context with Iran?

What do the other military experienced types hereon think about that issue?

reply to post by Subjective Truth

if they use the big one they will not only lose but be erased from history.

Wellll, I think one of the 3 carriers could do the job nicely . . . or one of the subs . . . probably one of any number of the ships.

I'd have to check the verses as it's been a while . . . however, IIRC, I think the Bible indicates that Persia/Iran will be reduced to a tiny raction of it's stature and strength in this era. Not totally obliterated but close.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Iran has no desire to strike the mainland USA as much as you would like to see it to appease yourself. Have they stated that they would like to strike the mainland?

I don't know about "Iran" as a whole.

Given what I know of the leader of Iran . . .

I think you are . . . grossly lacking in accuracy in your psychological assessment of him.

I'm skeptical you're even in the same galactic cluster as accuracy about his goals and his psychological makeup.

I suspect one of the Carriers can do lasting enormous damage to Iran. I suspect at least some of the military leaders on the scene would do the patriotic thing . . . I hope so.

Certainly Iran's irrational Mahdi awaiting leaders are eager to cause as much chaos, mayhem, bloodletting, WWIII as possible BECAUSE THEY ARE CONVINCED IT WILL TAKE THAT to force/enable, facilitate their Mahdi/Muslim Messiah arriving on the world scene to conquer and exterminate the NonMuslims.

I thought that much was common knowledge.

I don't understand your seeming to leave that out of the equation.


.
.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Our current government is crapping on my constitution.

Actually, the oligarchy has been shredding our Constitution for at least 60 years . . . most likelly at least 110 years . . .

I'm not thrilled that there's a great likelihood that the 3 or however many carriers there are

playing out their roles in the Middle East assigned by the satanic globalist oligarchy.

I just hope that there's enough patriots on board to do the right thing by the Republic and the people of America regardless of what the traitorous leaders tell them to do or not do.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

They are only chest pounding because we are threatening them,

Uhhhhhhhhhh . . .



Perhaps you haven't read sufficiently in the Koran or the Hadith.

CHEST POUNDING; AGGRESSIVE CONQUEST ORIENTED BLOOD LETTING . . . WAS THICK IN THE FOUNDING OF ISLAM AND IS THICK in the exhortations, !DEMANDS! orders in the founding documents.

They are 'merely' BEING AUTHENTIC, TRUE MUSLIMS when they engage in such blood-thirsty conquest kinds of activities. Their founding documents declare that Allah will punish them if they DO NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH VIOLENT genocidal to non-Mulsims oriented ACTIVITIES.

Yes, I don't doubt that even in that they ARE being manipulated by the satanic globalist oligarchy toward THEIR genocidal population reduction oriented aims.

How the oligarchy plans for the Carriers to play their roles will be very fascinating, indeed. I pray for our sailors' sake, that they do not order our carriers suicidally destroyed in their treasnous goals and methods.

The evil of the elites at the top of the heap is off the scale.

I pray whether we have 3 or 6 or 4 or however many carriers, that every last sailor on them returns to port healthy.

The blood thirsty Iranian leaders desreve to be trashed by their people or our carriers or whatever.

I pray the innocent in Iran survive, somehow.

They might have a better chance if they trashed their leaders . . . but look at us . . . we don't do that regardless of how warranted it is here, too.

Yep, Iran's leader is a dumb ass. I hope he flicks one of his pebbles at one of our carriers...it'd be the last time he flicked anything before those two carriers let loose a new kind of hell he's never imagined and showed him what his 72 virgins really are...72 well placed tactical bunker busters. You want to talk about shaking the wrong hornets nest...those are two BIG nuclear powered nests full of BURLY hornets all hopped up on.."Honey" aka. missiles, bombs, armor piercing ammunition, and 10 years of anti-muslim propoganda. Iran's air force is made up of old Mig's; while ours is the largest on the planet. Not to mention our recent relocation, I mean "sale" of $30,000,000,000 worth of F15's to Saudi Arabia...which means we have a much larger stock pile of F15's in the region now.

Guys on the carriers...here's a few video's to inspire you:

What you have supporting you:
Over 400,000 battle hardened active war vets, 4 branches of the most advances military on the planet, THE best technology in the world, and the unwavering support of nearly 90,000,000 American civilians like myself. We might not like our government or it's 10+ year war on "terror", but we sure as hell respect each and every one of you for your service and your sacrifice.


Know your enemy:


Don't front and know what you're fighting for:

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

I'd LIKE to THINK that Iran would have someone in leadership who has a microgram of

reasonableness left.

However . . . given the founder of their religion and his demonized blood lust . . .

and the current leader's blood lust for starting WWIII and as much bloody chaos and mayem as possible

IN ORDER FOR THE MAHDI--the Muslim messiah to surface--brought about by said chaos in their eschatology . . .

I don't think it's very

rational

of us

to think that THEY will be the LEAST BIT rational

regardless of whether we have one carrier, 3 carriers or 6 carriers in the region.

They WANT bloody chaos of the worst sort in the worst way and seem to be maniacally eager to force it on the world.

I'd hope that 3 carriers could moderate their fantasies--they may well only excite them to the point of orgasm at the prospect of WWIII . . . thinking their Mahdi may well step out of a resulting mushroom cloud walking on air . . .

or smoke . . . or funny smelling smoke or . . .

Originally posted by stumason
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.

As a result of efforts to achieve economies of scale, the PAAMS command system shares a common architecture with that of the Type 45 destroyer. Consequently, the PAAMS uses the same Windows 2000 based command consoles as the Type 45. This extends the use of Windows for Warships outside the Royal Navy to the French and Italian navies as well.

On 28 January 2009, the PAAMS was given its official designation of Sea Viper by the Royal Navy.[1]

Testing

During its first major warfare sea exercise aboard HMS Daring the ship's Combat Management System crashed while under simulated air attack due to a power failure. The ship lost use of its combat management system, i.e. PAAMS. The ship's crew reverted to use of binoculars to spot incoming airborne threats until the CMS had been restarted.[4]

Noooooooooooo!!!

"Windows for Warships".... Kill me now!!!!!

Interesting times. I think Iran might surprise some people. Lets just say holidays to Tel Aviv should be canceled!

reply to post by TinyRageNothing 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.


so what your actually saying is...
I'm pretty confident most things cant touch us, but if torpedoes travelling at 100metres a second hit us we can go down with the knowledge that we can hit them back.
Very comforting considering your forces, been the aggressors would already be attacking every target possible.

reply to post by michael1983l


EXACTLY!! TheProffesional is making a living here on ATS with his delusional idea that Iran could somehow sink a carrier if they launched a barrage of missiles at it. He claims that the missile defense on the carrier wouldn't be able to track and destroy all missiles. He's stated in SEVERAL threads that "even if the carrier had a 99% success rate, Iran would only have to fire 200 to get through."

1. Iran can't shoot 200 missiles at one time.
2. Even if they could, and a few got through the CARRIERS defense, there are STILL other US ships in the area with anti-missile capability.
3. Even if EVERY US ship couldn't account for all of Iran's fired anti-ship missiles, it takes more than 2 missiles to sink a carrier.
4. The carrier won't even come within range of Iran's missiles if there's a threat. Too big a risk.

Iran will be able to fire missiles for about 10 minutes, maybe less within the firing of the first missile at a US ship. They might be ABLE to fire 200 missiles, but they wouldn't get NEARLY that many off before the United States Navy unleashed the motherlode on every Iranian missile site.

It's been an entertaining ride, The_Professional, but come off it already. Would you care to make a wager on whether or not the Iranians will sink a carrier? You seem so confident...

U.S. warns Iran it will act if Hormuz closed

Although the United States would respond with minesweepers, analysts said U.S. naval forces might encounter layers of simultaneous attacks. The Iranians could launch anti-ship missiles from their coastline, islands or oil platforms and at the same time surround any U.S. ship with missile-armed speedboats.

The tight squeeze of the strait, which is less than 35 miles wide at its most narrow point, offers little maneuvering room for warships. "It would be like a knife fight in a phone booth," said a senior Navy officer.

The strait's shipping lanes are even narrower: Both the inbound and outbound lanes are 2 miles wide, with a 2-mile-wide stretch separating them.

In 2002, a classified, $250 million Defense Department war game concluded that small, agile speedboats swarming a naval convoy could inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships. Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game, said in 2008: "The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes."

And remember that Riper sunk a bunch of US warships in that war game

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf

When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.

If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor.

.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Without the support of the United States Britain doesn't have much geopolitical/military clout on its own, save for its nuclear submarine fleet. The UK's primary strength is its alliance with the US, which just so happens to be the aggressor in this conflict.

Actually, we do. As one of the top economies in the world, a centre for global finance (soon to be the only place outside of China where their currency can be traded), our cutting edge tech (without the UK there would be no smart phones) and a leading military power, I think we have plenty of clout.

Sure, the UK is an economical powerhouse. I was strictly speaking in terms of military force.

Its still top 5

The British Army is currently in a technology transition /upgrades in all areas & cutting lose some unnecessary baggage to adapt and change with the times, we don't need a large army having the friends and allies we do so concentrate on getting out of this bigger problem called the global recession first while others crumble eh?, its only lacking carriers till 2015, and the reason it made the decision to go without for a few years is because it has airbases on many islands all over the world, something not many could claim to have, who else has unsinkable aircraft carriers all over the world? anyone? maybe the US as we share most of them with the USAF & Navy,

I highly doubt lacking a carrier or two is of any concern with our friends and allies & islands, its just good decision making

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

If they sunk a carrier because the USA started a war, tough luck, we shouldn't be there trying to stir up trouble

Stop saying "WE" , you're not American!!!!

At the end of the day, nothing good comes out of a war with Iran. If confrontation comes , they'll be decimated. This is fact, anyone arguing to the contrary is ignorant.

Originally posted by Xterrain

I'm pretty sure, the bible talks about how awful it will be when the world turns its back on Israel. They're suppose to have the Holy Grail...thus they cannot be defeated.

I'm agnostic , so I have no horse in this...but methinks the armegeddon they're hoping for starts with Syria.

The_Proffesional is lacking basic logic.

He said that iranians can launch 1000 missiles to a CBG.The questions is (even is they can launch such a high number of missiles) : WHY WOULD THEY DO IT?

Answer 1 : Iran strike FIRST, sunking or disabling a US carrier.The outcome : Iran will LOSE everyones support and will get such a beating, that Dresda or Berlin carpet bombings will look like training exercises to how Tehran will look.

Answer 2 : US strike first and Iran retaliates with 1000 (LOL) missiles.Well, if US will strike first, there will be NO carrier in range of those 1000 missiles.IF carriers will be in range of those missiles...there will be NO missiles, because US first strike will just do that : destroy iranian radar and missile capacity.

SO you see, the_amatorial...in BOTH scenarios IRAN is going to lose.In first, lose badly, and with many MANY civilian casualties.In second, lose EVERYTHING they can retaliate seriously.

Where is your logic when you say that Iran WILL actually launch a gazillion missile and seal their faith?

Maybe, you know, as i know, that Iran is either SUICIDAL, either just encourage themselves with chest beating declarations.

reply to post by Recollector


I heard there are 3 carrier battle groups there.

If you shoot at one carrier the other 2 blow you away.

Punch - Counterpunch

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Uhh how do you know Im not American. I am born and raised in the USA, unlike you who jumped the border across mexico.

Please provide evidence that I am not am american. Do you have a copy of my passport that demonstrates I am not from the USA? Please post your evidence, otherwise take your unAmerican butt out of my country.