has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?

[AirRaid[_3_]]

The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?

Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
USS Bataan and their escorts.

If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.

[John Szalay]

AirRaid > wrote in news:1178213708.198211.202840
@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>


According to the"Status of the Navy" report as of May 2


Nimitz is still underway in the Pacfic.

http://www.navy.mil

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146

[shrubkiller]

On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
> The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.



Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
entire navy.

LOL!!!

[Chip Anderson]

shrubkiller > wrote in
oups.com:


>> If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>> easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
>> for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
>
>
> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> entire navy.

Who has a thermonuclear device than has even a small chance to do the job?
With the possible exception of the Israelis, certainly no one in the
region.


--
---
Chip

Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius

[John Keeney]

On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>
> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> entire navy.
>
> LOL!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

[[email protected]]

Anybody here heard about the Fleet Response Plan, or do you guys
prefer to discuss nuclear Armageddon again or explore political
fiction scenarios?;-)

On 4 Maj, 01:54, shrubkiller > wrote:
> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>
> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> entire navy.
>
> LOL!!!

[[email protected]]

On May 3, 9:46 pm, Chip Anderson >
wrote:
> shrubkiller > wrote groups.com:
>
> >> If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> >> easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> >> for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> > Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> > entire navy.
>
> Who has a thermonuclear device than has even a small chance to do the job?
> With the possible exception of the Israelis,


BINGO!!!!

The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
anything about it. You didn't.


certainly no one in the
> region.











>
> --
> ---
> Chip
>
> Oderint dum metuant
> -Lucius Accius

[J[_2_]]

On May 4, 1:54 pm, wrote:

> The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
> anything about it. You didn't.

I propose we change the name of the USS Stennis to USS Liberty and
park it off the coast of North Korea.

Regards . . . J

[Al Smith]

> On May 4, 1:54 pm, wrote:
>
>> > The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
>> > anything about it. You didn't.
>
> I propose we change the name of the USS Stennis to USS Liberty and
> park it off the coast of North Korea.
>
> Regards . . . J
>


Seems to me that any ship named Liberty is likely to go undefended
by the Bush administration.

[David E. Powell]

Al Smith wrote:
> > On May 4, 1:54 pm, wrote:
> >
> >> > The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
> >> > anything about it. You didn't.
> >
> > I propose we change the name of the USS Stennis to USS Liberty and
> > park it off the coast of North Korea.
> >
> > Regards . . . J
>
> Seems to me that any ship named Liberty is likely to go undefended
> by the Bush administration.

Then you are wrong on doctrine. People have learned from the Liberty
and Pueblo. Especially after the RN sailors got abducted by Iran, no
one is going to be sleeping on cover protocols again any time soon.
Also, if Iran and the US were shooting at each other I doubt Israel
would send any forces within a few hundred miles. No point and the
cost would outweigh any benefit.

[David E. Powell]

On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>
> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> entire navy.
>
> LOL!!!

No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>
>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>
>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>
>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>
>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>> entire navy.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
> Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
> part it'll take a crust cracker.

Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:
http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff/Crossroads/Baker8.jpg

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

AHS

[Chip Anderson]

wrote in
oups.com:

> On May 3, 9:46 pm, Chip Anderson >
> wrote:
>> shrubkiller > wrote
>> groups.com:
>>
>> >> If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>> >> easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region.
>> >> enough for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>
>> > Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>> > entire navy.
>>
>> Who has a thermonuclear device than has even a small chance to do the
>> job? With the possible exception of the Israelis,
>
>
> BINGO!!!!
>
> The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
> anything about it. You didn't.
-->snip<--

So much for your analysis. Keep your day job.


--
---
Chip

Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius

[Airyx]

On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:

> In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
> one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
> like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
> enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.
>
> The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
> medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
> your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
> your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
> or medium future.

During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
target ship would be mission killed.

The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 12:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" >
wrote:
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>
> >> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> >> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> >> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> >> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> >> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> >> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> >> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> >> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> >> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> >> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> >> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> >> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> >> entire navy.
>
> >> LOL!!!
>
> > Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
> > part it'll take a crust cracker.
>
> Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
> space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
> been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff/Crossroads/Baker8.jpg
>
> In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
> one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
> like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
> enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.
>
> The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
> medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
> your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
> your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
> or medium future.
>
> AHS



The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!








- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Arved Sandstrom]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
[ snip ]

> The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!

No, none of this requires anything other than simple comprehension of
elementary math. There have been enough books published about nuclear
weapons effects that an average kid in high school could work out most of
the arithmetic.

It may seem incomprehensible to you, however.

AHS

[shrubkiller]

On May 8, 3:52 pm, Airyx > wrote:
> On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:
>
> > In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
> > one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
> > like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
> > enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.
>
> > The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
> > medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
> > your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
> > your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
> > or medium future.
>
> During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
> against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
> accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
> target ship would be mission killed.
>
> The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
> to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
> the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.
>
> The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
> fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.



Right into the ocean!

Sweet!

[BlackBeard]

On May 11, 9:57 am, shrubkiller > wrote:
>
> > The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
> > fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.
>
> Right into the ocean!
>
> Sweet!

So right! How could they dare to dump that waste into the ocean...
where 99% of the fallout from the blast landed already...

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...

[fudog50[_2_]]

On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
> wrote:

>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>
>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>
>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>
>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>
>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>> entire navy.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
>No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.

Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.

How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
Navy's capabilities or doctrine.

Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.

[Arved Sandstrom]

<fudog50> wrote in message
...
> On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
> > wrote:
>
>>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>>
>>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
>>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
>>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>>
>>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
>>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>>
>>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
>>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>>
>>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>>> entire navy.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>>No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
>>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
>>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
>
> Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
> if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
> during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
> of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.

Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces
just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the
first weapon.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things
may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.

> How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
> carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
> Navy's capabilities or doctrine.

The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If
WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.

> Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.

Only sensible response you made.

To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier
off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled.
At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces
every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.

Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.

Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have
diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a
medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with
crossbows.

AHS

[David E. Powell]

On May 14, 10:47 am, "Arved Sandstrom" >
wrote:
> <fudog50> wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "DavidE.Powell"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>
> >>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> >>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
> >>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
> >>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>
> >>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> >>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
> >>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> >>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>
> >>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> >>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
> >>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>
> >>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> >>> entire navy.
>
> >>> LOL!!!
>
> >>No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
> >>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
> >>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
>
> > Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
> > if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
> > during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
> > of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.
>
> Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces
> just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
> would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
> counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the
> first weapon.
>
> You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things
> may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
> thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
> had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
> between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.
>
> > How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
> > carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
> > Navy's capabilities or doctrine.
>
> The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If
> WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
> swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
> had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.
>
> > Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.
>
> Only sensible response you made.
>
> To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
> 2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier
> off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled.
> At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
> planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
> response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces
> every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
> military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.
>
> Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.
>
> Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have
> diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a
> medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with
> crossbows.

Nuclear weapons are political as well as military. Also, ti would not
be just a question of replying to Iran here, it would be a precedent,
because if the US did not reply in kind to one nuclear attack, what
would it tell anyone else?

I am pretty sure that the response doctrine has been pretty solid for
at least the past 50 years. As for whether that is stupid, it is
intended to make the idea of anyone using a nuclear wepon on the US a
stupid idea.

> AHS-

[Arved Sandstrom]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On May 14, 10:47 am, "Arved Sandstrom" >
> wrote:
>> <fudog50> wrote in message
[ SNIP ]
>> Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't
>> have
>> diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like
>> a
>> medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him
>> with
>> crossbows.
>
> Nuclear weapons are political as well as military. Also, ti would not
> be just a question of replying to Iran here, it would be a precedent,
> because if the US did not reply in kind to one nuclear attack, what
> would it tell anyone else?
>
> I am pretty sure that the response doctrine has been pretty solid for
> at least the past 50 years. As for whether that is stupid, it is
> intended to make the idea of anyone using a nuclear wepon on the US a
> stupid idea.

Response with nuclear weapons to the use of nuclear weapons, yes, that's
always on the table. But what hasn't usually been on the table is to
obliterate every city, town and village, every grassy field (read "ersatz
airfield"), every factory, every military base, etc etc, just because one or
two nuclear weapons took out some major combat units of yours.

Let's be clear. If some Second-World country with nuclear capability wiped
out a carrier or Tico or LCS or LHD with a single atomic bomb, and a couple
of USN ships and 2000-5000 sailors and Marines got killed, do you seriously
think that POTUS would consult the SIOP and select "let's launch every
f**king thing we have?"

Which is what those jokers were suggesting.

It's entirely possible that the US would not respond with any nuclear
weapons of its own in that situation, or if it did, they would be restricted
to limited counterforce ... "tit for tat", with a somewhat heavier "tit".
;-) It might be counterproductive for the US to use any nuclear weapons in
response, because by this day and age nobody out there thinks the US
wouldn't use the damned things if it really wanted to...it would be more
effective to capitalize on the strike by the enemy to put in a truly massive
conventional assault.

The latter would actually be much more damaging to the enemy...imagine half
a dozen US CSGs off your coast, a bunch of ESGs, Army units teady to move in
after the Marines. One to two months of incessant bombing and missile
strikes, and then the world's most powerful military lands on your coast and
starts dissecting you. You have to remember, once the lines are drawn by
using a nuclear weapon, this is not Iraq - this is Germany 1945.

The US wouldn't have to use a nuclear weapon at all. They'd be much more
frightening by doing a colossal conventional invasion, and leaving people to
guess how bad it would be if the US decided to fire off a couple of hundred
SLBMs or ICBMs.

AHS

[fudog50[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> wrote:

><fudog50> wrote in message
...
>> On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>>>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or to
>>>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already there
>>>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>>>
>>>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>>>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to mention
>>>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>>>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>>>
>>>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>>>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region. enough
>>>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>>>
>>>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>>>> entire navy.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!
>>>
>>>No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
>>>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
>>>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
>>
>> Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
>> if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
>> during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
>> of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.
>
>Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear forces
>just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
>would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
>counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched the
>first weapon.
>
>You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life things
>may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
>thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
>had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
>between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.
>
>> How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
>> carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
>> Navy's capabilities or doctrine.
>
>The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2. If
>WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
>swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
>had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.
>
>> Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.
>
>Only sensible response you made.
>
>To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
>2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US carrier
>off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be scuttled.
>At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
>planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
>response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that reduces
>every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
>military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.
>
>Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.
>
>Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't have
>diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like a
>medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him with
>crossbows.
>
>AHS

Nice response Arv
,
I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5
nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue.

Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight.

Now go back to sleep.

Noted.
>

[Arved Sandstrom]

<fudog50> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> > wrote:
>
>><fudog50> wrote in message
...
>>> On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>>>>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already
>>>>> > there
>>>>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>>>>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to
>>>>> > mention
>>>>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>>>>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>>>>
>>>>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>>>>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region.
>>>>> > enough
>>>>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>>>>> entire navy.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>
>>>>No, an Iranian Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
>>>>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
>>>>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
>>>
>>> Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
>>> if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
>>> during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
>>> of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.
>>
>>Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear
>>forces
>>just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
>>would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
>>counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched
>>the
>>first weapon.
>>
>>You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life
>>things
>>may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
>>thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
>>had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
>>between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.
>>
>>> How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
>>> carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
>>> Navy's capabilities or doctrine.
>>
>>The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2.
>>If
>>WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
>>swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
>>had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.
>>
>>> Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.
>>
>>Only sensible response you made.
>>
>>To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
>>2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US
>>carrier
>>off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be
>>scuttled.
>>At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
>>planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
>>response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that
>>reduces
>>every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
>>military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.
>>
>>Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.
>>
>>Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't
>>have
>>diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like
>>a
>>medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him
>>with
>>crossbows.
>>
>>AHS
>
> Nice response Arv
> ,
> I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5
> nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue.
>
> Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight.
>
> Now go back to sleep.
>
> Noted.

The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this
discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also
hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever,
gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier
was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US
metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city
is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city
manager.

I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just
don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in
artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's
the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked".

And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier
sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's
about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the
response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm
speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even
involve US nuclear weapons.

AHS

[fudog50[_2_]]

AHS,

Thanks for the reply, and for better clarifying your position.

Still, I stand firm any country would be foolish at best to attack a
carrier and the resonse would be swift.

You are right about one thing, it may not be a Nuke retaliation but
rest assured any entity would be sorry and regret the day they
attacked a US carrier.

One reason I don't post here too often is that most tend to attack
others opinions they have, based on thier own knowledge.

Rather than just sticking to the post.

/R,

CWO4 S.

(ps maybe we do get a little more briefing on what we'll do if a
carrier gets nuked you will never know!)







On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:34:26 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> wrote:

><fudog50> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>><fudog50> wrote in message
...
>>>> On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
>>>>>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already
>>>>>> > there
>>>>>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
>>>>>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to
>>>>>> > mention
>>>>>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
>>>>>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
>>>>>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region.
>>>>>> > enough
>>>>>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
>>>>>> entire navy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>No, an IranianHiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
>>>>>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
>>>>>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
>>>>
>>>> Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
>>>> if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
>>>> during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
>>>> of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.
>>>
>>>Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear
>>>forces
>>>just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
>>>would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
>>>counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched
>>>the
>>>first weapon.
>>>
>>>You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life
>>>things
>>>may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
>>>thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
>>>had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
>>>between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.
>>>
>>>> How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
>>>> carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
>>>> Navy's capabilities or doctrine.
>>>
>>>The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2.
>>>If
>>>WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
>>>swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
>>>had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.
>>>
>>>> Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.
>>>
>>>Only sensible response you made.
>>>
>>>To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
>>>2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US
>>>carrier
>>>off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be
>>>scuttled.
>>>At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
>>>planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
>>>response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that
>>>reduces
>>>every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
>>>military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.
>>>
>>>Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.
>>>
>>>Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't
>>>have
>>>diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like
>>>a
>>>medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him
>>>with
>>>crossbows.
>>>
>>>AHS
>>
>> Nice response Arv
>> ,
>> I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5
>> nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue.
>>
>> Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight.
>>
>> Now go back to sleep.
>>
>> Noted.
>
>The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this
>discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also
>hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever,
>gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier
>was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US
>metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city
>is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city
>manager.
>
>I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just
>don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in
>artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's
>the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked".
>
>And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier
>sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's
>about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the
>response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm
>speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even
>involve US nuclear weapons.
>
>AHS
>

[Tankfixer]

In article >, fudog50 <>
mumbled
> AHS,
>
> Thanks for the reply, and for better clarifying your position.
>
> Still, I stand firm any country would be foolish at best to attack a
> carrier and the resonse would be swift.
>
> You are right about one thing, it may not be a Nuke retaliation but
> rest assured any entity would be sorry and regret the day they
> attacked a US carrier.
>
> One reason I don't post here too often is that most tend to attack
> others opinions they have, based on thier own knowledge.
>
> Rather than just sticking to the post.
>
> /R,
>
> CWO4 S.
>
> (ps maybe we do get a little more briefing on what we'll do if a
> carrier gets nuked you will never know!)

Perhaps you do.
I do know that IF you do you know better than to spout it here.
Right ?


>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:34:26 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> > wrote:
>
> ><fudog50> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>><fudog50> wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. Powell"
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On May 3, 7:54 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 3, 11:35 am, AirRaid > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > The USS Nimitz and her Battle Group / Strike Group left California
> >>>>>> > around the beginning of April. generally it takes about a month or
> >>>>>> > to
> >>>>>> > reach the Persian Gulf. So if the Nimitz group is not already
> >>>>>> > there
> >>>>>> > yet, it should be shortly. within maybe, 1 more week or so, yeah?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > Then the United States has 3 supercarriers (assuming the Eisenhower
> >>>>>> > group doesn't leave) within striking distance of Iran, not to
> >>>>>> > mention
> >>>>>> > at least two smaller "carriers" the Marine assault ships; USS Boxer,
> >>>>>> > USS Bataan and their escorts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > If the Pentagon needs even more naval power, I've heard they could
> >>>>>> > easily deploy 2 or 3 additional carrier groups to the region.
> >>>>>> > enough
> >>>>>> > for... ahem.... Gulf War III: Operation Devastate Iran.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yep....and once they're all there, one big nuke will take out the
> >>>>>> entire navy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LOL!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, an IranianHiroshima/Nagasaki/Bikini - level Nuke might take out
> >>>>>some of the ships, before the remaining ones (Including nuclear
> >>>>>missile subs) destroyed their entire country in retaliation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Damn Stupidest thing I ever heard. ANY country would be a parking lot
> >>>> if even one carrier was attacked, especially with a Nuke. Even USSR
> >>>> during the cold war knew this and they had 11,000 times the capability
> >>>> of any middle east country. They quit. China doesn't even dare.
> >>>
> >>>Why would the US launch an all-out attack with all strategic nuclear
> >>>forces
> >>>just because one of its carriers got taken out with a nuclear weapon? That
> >>>would be stupid and counterproductive. At most you'd see a limited
> >>>counterforce attack that bloodies the nose of the country that launched
> >>>the
> >>>first weapon.
> >>>
> >>>You guys don't know what you're talking about. Although in real life
> >>>things
> >>>may have not worked out nicely, at least in theory people on both sides
> >>>thought about graduated response for most of the Cold War. That's why they
> >>>had tactical nuclear weapons, so that (in theory) a war could be fought
> >>>between military units without going all out with SLBMs and ICBMs.
> >>>
> >>>> How could you be so ignorant to even suggest anyone would threaten a
> >>>> carrier? You obviously watch too much CNN or don't understand our
> >>>> Navy's capabilities or doctrine.
> >>>
> >>>The Soviets always did threaten our carriers. So did the Japanese in WW2.
> >>>If
> >>>WW3 had happened the Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Aviation would have been
> >>>swarming on the CVBGs like bees on honey, and if tactical nuclear weapons
> >>>had been necessary I'm pretty sure the Russians would have used them.
> >>>
> >>>> Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.
> >>>
> >>>Only sensible response you made.
> >>>
> >>>To put your thinking into context, imagine this - North Korea in the year
> >>>2021 launches a nuclear-tipped cruise missile that obliterates a US
> >>>carrier
> >>>off Japan. Well, not totally obliterates...but the hulk has to be
> >>>scuttled.
> >>>At the time North Korea and the US are in a state of declared war, and
> >>>planes off that carrier are bombing targets in North Korea. The US in
> >>>response delivers approximately 50 MT worth of nuclear ordnance that
> >>>reduces
> >>>every NK city over 50,000 in size to desert, wipes out most of the NK
> >>>military, and irradiates a third of the country and much of Japan.
> >>>
> >>>Well, that's just a brilliant solution. But that's what you're advocating.
> >>>
> >>>Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't
> >>>have
> >>>diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like
> >>>a
> >>>medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him
> >>>with
> >>>crossbows.
> >>>
> >>>AHS
> >>
> >> Nice response Arv
> >> ,
> >> I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5
> >> nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue.
> >>
> >> Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight.
> >>
> >> Now go back to sleep.
> >>
> >> Noted.
> >
> >The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this
> >discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also
> >hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever,
> >gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier
> >was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US
> >metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city
> >is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city
> >manager.
> >
> >I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just
> >don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in
> >artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's
> >the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked".
> >
> >And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier
> >sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's
> >about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the
> >response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm
> >speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even
> >involve US nuclear weapons.
> >
> >AHS
> >
>
>

--
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."