If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Darn Good Intelligence wrote: 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. 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 Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does. BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a lesson? Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Jack Linthicum wrote: Darn Good Intelligence wrote: 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. 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 Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does. BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a lesson? Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? "Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future. Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate appeasement? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
wrote in message s.com... Jack Linthicum wrote: Darn Good Intelligence wrote: 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. 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 Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does. BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a lesson? Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? "Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future. Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate appeasement? How quaint. Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is 'apeasement'. How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on them? Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I declare war on the USA...' -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
William Black wrote: wrote in message s.com... Jack Linthicum wrote: Darn Good Intelligence wrote: 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. 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 Yes, nuking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to solve the problem of Ahmadinejad getting nukes as Iran's targets are too far below the ground for conventional weapons to destroy. I hope Bush has the balls to use nukes in Iran - I think he does. BTW, does the Eisenhower have enough nukes to teach the Iranians a lesson? Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? "Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future. Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate appeasement? How quaint. Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is 'apeasement'. How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on them? Because half the world will say 'serves you right' and the rest will say 'I declare war on the USA...' In which case we'll just nuke the half of the world that declares war on the U.S (especially if they're muslim fanatical states) - this would be a scenario where no-one wins, but some will lose more than others (and the ones losing the most won't include the U.S). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the future. Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate appeasement? How quaint. Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is 'apeasement'. How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in a shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons on them? For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Jack Linthicum wrote: Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? When did the US put nukes back on carriers??? Geez ... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive'build-up for war with Iran
Mike wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? When did the US put nukes back on carriers??? Geez ... Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see. Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a declaration is not sophomoric. If Herr Bushler gives such an illegal order, he should be arrested. I put my faith in a military junta before I would the NeoCon cabal. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
Defendario wrote: Mike wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: Would the Commander of the Eisenhower task force obey an order to use nukes without a long diplomatic buildup? When did the US put nukes back on carriers??? Geez ... Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see. OK dimwit; when did the US put tactical nukes back on her ships??? Task Force comprises many vessels, not only CVN But not SSBNs, dimwit. The question of whether the Commander will launch WW III without a declaration is not sophomoric. It sure as hell is. It's simply another silly comment, one of many in this thread. If Herr Bushler gives such an illegal order, he should be arrested. I put my faith in a military junta before I would the NeoCon cabal. yawn |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
There is so much political discussion here, full of hatred, but not
many guys, apart from the original poster, asked themselves a question if a single aircraft carrier can make war (except in the movie like "The Final Countdown"). I think at least 2 or 3 Carrier Strike Groups would be needed to perform such a mission. The Navy's Fleet Response Plan calls for as many as six CSG ready in 30 days, but for the moment being this doesn't look to be the case... Best regards, Jacek 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. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nations sending Iran to Security Council (for Israel via the US, of course!): | NOMOREWARFORISRAEL | Naval Aviation | 1 | July 13th 06 05:05 AM |
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 11 | January 5th 06 09:38 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |