posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:03 AM
I'm all for possibilities and speculation, it's harmless and provides debate and exchange of ideas and point of views.
But I don't think that THE USS Enterprise would be sacrificed in the name of war. We have to separate this possibility into 2 parts:
1- The USS Enterprise. It's a vessel that carries a big name, it's not by chance that even in pop-culture it's praised as a vessel with powerful
meaning (case in point, Star Trek). It not only represents US military might, since it's one of the most notorious vessels in US navy history, but it
also represents US diplomatic power and influence.
People should be aware that the name "Enterprise" changes from ship to ship. Wikipedia fails to explain this, and only portrays the last generation
of the Enterprise, with nuclear engines. But for instance, the previous version used during WW2, was actually the one that earned the ship it's fame.
First because it brings memories of Pearl Harbor (USS Enterprise was one of the ships not damaged during the Pearl Harbor attack, along with most
aircraft carriers) and how the US turned it around, and second, because it represents a status of power.
It doesn't matter what other ships are around it. If you put the USS Enterprise somewhere, it has a deep diplomatic effect. Carriers often stop at
ports and attract a lot of attention, but the Enterprise seems to even have it's own little fan community.
So, it's like it's a "symbol" that the US can't disregard easily, or sacrifice.
2- The sinking of the USS Enterprise, as it stands now (wether heading for decommission or not) is a massive blow against the US. Yes, it would meet
it's objective, since sinking such a famous ship would make all eyes look into it, and it would kinda humiliate the US military power. But, it would
also enrage the military, especially increasing the motivation for war within the military. One thing is to hit your national nerve, but it's a whole
new level of playing to hit your pride and honor nerve.
That would mean not only a successful excuse for an attack on Iran (or whoever carries out the attack or is blamed for it) and an armed conflict or a
possible war, but it would actually send shockwaves throughout the whole world. It's not like a "terrorist attack on some american target". This is
"world war" stuff.
Sinking a US Aircraft Carrier (any of them) is a pure declaration of war, not only due to the nature of the attack (that would be brutal, considering
the size of the crew) but also because it's almost like sinking an embassy. It's american territory, and they are serious about it. It's not by
chance that US aircraft carriers behave in international waters like isolated airspaces, like you see in land with national airspace.
But then again, I like to have a realistic vain in my posts, and I can't forget a big detail about all this scenario:
The US did allow the sacrifice of a whole fleet in Pearl Harbor in order to push for "an entry" into World War 2. At the time, the UK was
having trouble with the Nazi Germany, and the US wanted an excuse to get in between.
Now, Israel (another close ally) is "in trouble" with Iran, with almost the same tone as Churchill portrayed the Nazi threat, and I hope the US
isn't thinking of doing the same thing, again... Although the signs (even economical and social) seem oddly familiar.
Like in World War2, the fleet was seen as outdated in every way. Battleships were no longer the pride and honor of the Navy, Aircraft Carriers were,
thus saving the carriers, and letting the battleships "die" honorably.
...in some way, just like the current USS Enterprise is seen (outdated and going into retirement).