AviationBanter - View Single Post - the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

**Defendario**

wrote:
Hmm..

I guess you don't remember when the USN nearly wiped out ALL Iranian's
Navy back in the 80s.

There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off

AirRaid wrote:
I don't understand... the deployment of the Eisenhower Carrier Battle
Group alone does not seem like we're ready or even getting ready for an
air-war against Iran. even assuming there are say, 2 other Carrier
Battle Groups in the Gulf and/or Med, that still does not seem like
the United States is ready to goto war against Iran.

in Gulf War I / Desert Storm, the U.S. had 6 Carrier Groups in the
region.

in Gulf War II / Iraqi Freedom, the U.S., I believe, had 5 Carrier
groups in the region.

Iran is far larger and undamaged from years of airstrikes. they capable
of taking out U.S. warships unlike Iraq. one would think the U.S.
would need at least
6 to 8 Carrier groups (with a lot of Aegis cruisers & destroys) in the
area to deal with Iran, unless the USAF is going to play a larger role.

I just don't see how the Eisenhower group arriving in late October, and
some minesweepers, is signaling war with Iran anytime soon. unless the
USN build-up is much larger than reported, and the U.S. already has a
massive amount naval firepower there, or in route.

Rummy is a NeoKlown, and thinks he can do more with less than any
military leader in the history of mankind. He is a dangerous idiot, and
is going to get boatloads of sailors killed.

then again, I suppose a single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
loaded with Trident II SLBMs with many *small* nuclear warheads each
could do the job

Define "the job"