Now Iran?!?!
 

I obviously don't have a subscription to the Christian Science Monitor but this story got my attention today.

[ QUOTE ]
US may designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists

The US has indicated that it may act unilaterally if the UN doesn't approve further sanctions.

Tensions between the US and Iran continue to mount. The US has long taken a dim view of the Islamic nation's nuclear program and charged that Iran is actively contributing to chaos in Iraq. Now, US officials are considering designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the largest branch of that country's military, a terrorist organization. In the background is the ongoing debate within the Bush administration about whether to take a conciliatory approach with Iran or seek to intensify the country's international isolation.

European diplomats say that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has cautioned them that if UN Security Council approval to increase economic sanctions on Iran is delayed, the US will have little other option but to act unilaterally, reports The New York Times.

A move toward putting the Revolutionary Guard on the foreign terrorist list would serve at least two purposes for Ms. Rice: to pacify, for a while, administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action, and to further press America's allies to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the Security Council.

Senior administration officials said current plans called for the declaration to be made this month, but cautioned that it could be put off, and that the effort could still be set aside if the Security Council moved more quickly to impose broad sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Though Iran continues to insist that its disputed nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes only, there are signs of growing skepticism about the program from Russia. The nation has been helping Iran to build a nuclear reactor and has been less tough in its stance on the Islamic nation than either the US or the European Union, reports the Associated Press.

Russia warned in March that it would not provide fuel rods for the reactor it is building in the southern city of Bushehr as long as Iran ignored U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze uranium enrichment, diplomats said.

Now, Moscow has modified that demand, saying no fuel will be provided unless Iran meets another key international request — that it fully explain past activities that heightened suspicions it might be looking to develop a nuclear arms program, two diplomats familiar with Iran's nuclear file told The Associated Press.

Iran has not been sitting idly by, strengthening its ties to two neighbors – Iraq and Afghanistan – that also host large US military presences, as the Los Angeles Times reports.

Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has forged cordial relationships with Iraq's new Shi'ite-dominated government and with (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai. Last week, the Afghan president rebuffed President Bush's attempts to characterize Iran as a destabilizing force in the region, contending on CNN that Iran had been "a helper" on fighting terrorism and narcotics.

Just as worrisome for Sunni Arab governments in the Middle East, Ahmadinejad's tough talk against the United States and Israel has won Iran unexpected and growing popularity in the Sunni Muslim world.

US generals in Iraq have insisted that Iran is playing a major role in arming and encouraging the activities of Shiite militias inside the country – a charge that Tehran denies. In an opinion piece for Inter Press Service, the antiwar columnist Gareth Porter argues that intensifying Shiite militia activity is not directly linked to Iran.

When a top US commander in Iraq reported last week that attacks by Shi'ite militias with links to Iran had risen to 73% of all July attacks that had killed or wounded US forces in Baghdad, he claimed it was because of an effort by Iran to oust the United States from Iraq, referring to "intelligence reports" of a "surge" in Iranian assistance.

But the obvious reason for the rise in Shi'ite-related US casualties - ignored in US media coverage of Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno's charge - is that the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr was defending itself against a rising tempo of attacks by US forces at the same time attacks by al-Qaeda forces had fallen.

Odierno's charges are the latest addition to an ongoing Bush administration narrative about developments in Iraq that treats all Shi'ite activity outside the Iraqi government as reflecting Iranian policy.

There have also been recent charges, made ahead of the Iranian president's meeting with Karzai that Iran is arming the Taliban in Afghanistan – a virulently anti-Shiite group that was sharply at odds with Tehran at the time of the US invasion of that country, reports The Scotsman.

"It is clear to everyone that Iran is supporting the enemy of Afghanistan, the Taleban," Colonel Rahmatullah Safi, head of border police for western Afghanistan, which borders Iran, said earlier this month.

"I doubt seriously if there is any truth in it," (Ahmedinajad) told a press conference. "With all our force, we support the political process in Afghanistan."

In the case of Iran, the US is not alone in alleging it's fueling Iraq's violence. In an open letter this week in which he appealed for international Arab support, senior Sunni Iraqi politician Adnan al-Dulaimi, who has ties of his own to Sunni militants inside the country, alleged that Iran is seeking to foment "genocide" there, reports Reuters.

"Your brothers in Baghdad are suffering a genocide carried out by militias and the death squads with Iranian planning, instructions, and weapons," [Mr. al-Dulaimi] wrote.

"If you think what is happening to us will end at Baghdad then you are wrong. By God, this war that started in Baghdad will not stop here. It will extend to every Arab spot where the Arabic tongue is spoken. It is a war of history."

Iraq's national unity government has all but fallen apart in recent weeks, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki scheduling an emergency reconciliation meeting. On Wednesday, Iraq witnessed one of its worst terrorist attacks in months, which also prompted allegations of genocide, though in a different direction from Iran, Agence France-Presse reports.

More than 200 people were slaughtered when four suicide truck bombs ripped through an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, as fears grew on Wednesday that more dead were trapped under the rubble.

In one of the bloodiest single incidents of the four-year war in Iraq, bombers detonated four explosive-laden trucks late Tuesday in two villages in the province of Nineveh inhabited by members of the Yazidi minority.

President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, said the victims were "Kurdish Yazidis" who fell to a "genocide war launched by the terrorists and takfiris (extremists) against the Iraqi people."

"Takfiris" are generally used in an Iraqi context to refer to Sunni Arab fighters who share the same ideology as Al Qaeda.

By Dan Murphy
August 16, 2007 edition

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Steve [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

politics forum?

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if you are a republican or a democrat, everyone will be affected if this goes through.

Big Steve [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

How else are Republican poll numbers going to go up if we don't have a fresh new enemy? It's a little late to sell more tax cuts to the wealthy as a benefit to the middle class. The Halliburton/Bechtel/oil machine must be fed.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

I think this whole article amounts to nothing. The USA is in absolutely no position to start another war, its completely impossible. I think what it might be doing, with the whole classification deal, is to help in the upcoming election process. By have a majour officially classified terrorist organization operating at the border of Iraq, it could easily be used as a possible reason for the US's poor performance in Iraq's rebuilding/stabilization.

But its all just a theory

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

The designtion as terrorists opens up the actions that can legally be taken against them, including types of surveillance, tracing and freezing bank accounts etc. It is primarily an administrative move.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

I'm sure it'll be fine

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure it'll be fine

[/ QUOTE ]

As Faith no More would say, "Its it, what is it?"

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Designating Iran as one of the "state sponsors of terror" is one thing. Agree or disagree with it but at least there is a prima facie evidence it is true.

Designating the most professional and well trained segment of their armed forces as a "terroist orginazation" is approaching absolute ludicrousity. Small elements of the republican gaurd surely do provide some level of support for pro Iranian/Shia insurgents groups in Iraq. This by no means should comdemn the whole force. Just in te same way that rouge elements of the US Military conducted their own shenanigns in Nicaragua and numerous other places shouldn't condemn the entire US Military.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't matter what party is in office if they intend to stay in office. The American public has a short memory for pain, but reacts very strongly when that pain is first inflicted.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

I am in 100% support of labeling the revolutionary guard terrorists on the sole basis that I do not like them.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this whole article amounts to nothing. ... I think what it might be doing, with the whole classification deal, is to help in the upcoming election process. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, the grand fun of destabilizing the world in order to scare people before elections. Such a noble country we live in.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Iranian Navy and it's coastal defence forces and it's air force would sit idle whilst any sort of heavy bombing campaign was going on over Iran.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you don't support your one line posts with any sort of discussion.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because thats not an argument unless you can prove that its "wrong", which you can't since "wrong" is subjective.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Iranian Navy and it's coastal defence forces and it's air force would sit idle whilst any sort of heavy bombing campaign was going on over Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you dont think we can take them out with minimal loss?

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]

and you dont think we can take them out with minimal loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have state of the art 80s Russian weaponry.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because thats not an argument unless you can prove that its "wrong", which you can't since "wrong" is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree with the premise, that 'wrong' is a subjective term, and thus any claim that something is wrong is unprovable.

However, the leap in logic you make from this premise to "thats not an argument because you cant prove it" is just silly. If Euclid couldnt get through the basics of lines without a ton of unprovable assumptions, then political discussion would be pointless if "you cant prove it" were a valid reason to conclude "therefore its not an argument." Every political argument since the beginning of the time has rested on unprovable assumptions.


Also, an 'argument' is, by its nature, going to be unprovable. If it werent, we wouldnt call it 'argument', it would be called 'fact'.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Now Iran, and then the draft. Two very important articles here:
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-...ng-081507.html
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Draft-081207.html

Christ, I hope the country makes the right choice or we are doomed.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Designating the most professional and well trained segment of their armed forces as a "terroist orginazation" is approaching absolute ludicrousity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree here. This is so ridiculous that it made me laugh. Seems like everyone the american government doesn't like is a terrorist. How can the war against "terrorism" have any credibility after that?

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and you dont think we can take them out with minimal loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have state of the art 80s American (and others) weaponry.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...hawk/hawk4.jpg
American-made Hawk missiles

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...f14/f14_16.jpg
American-made F-14

http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft...omside_jpg.jpg
American-made F-4

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/images/iran_af_f5.jpg
American-made F-5

http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/iranianAircraft.jpg
American-made P-3 maritime patrol

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history...torm/13tow.jpg
American-made TOW anti-tank missiles

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/s...-1t_4-4651.jpg
Amewrican-made AH-1G attack helos

Other not shown: C-130, VIP 707/747 transports, S-61 and H-53 naval helicopters, M-60 tanks, M-113 armored personnel carriers, numerous airlift helos, etc.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Yea they have those too. Way to make my mockery of their technology political. What forum is this anyway?

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yea they have those too. Way to make my mockery of their technology political. What forum is this anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's alright. I could have made your mockery itself political but chose not to. After all, since we as American taxpayers are paying 46% of total military spending in the entire world, the joke is on us.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might not be entirely true. Iran has a much more dangerous military than Iraq did, and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran. If the US has to fight the entire Iranian armed forces from a few carriers in the Persian Gulf, expect it to be pretty bad.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I was working on the assumption that using Iraqi bases against Iran wouldn't be practical. Iraq is after all mostly Shiite, and a lot of its leaders have ties with Iran.

Afghanistan presents fewer political issues, but most of the action in a conflict with Iran would be centered on the Persian Gulf, 500 or so hostile miles from Afghanistan.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might not be entirely true. Iran has a much more dangerous military than Iraq did, and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran. If the US has to fight the entire Iranian armed forces from a few carriers in the Persian Gulf, expect it to be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to bombing Iran, not invading. Iran cannot stop the US from immediately controlling their airspace, and seaspace for that matter.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

food

for thought

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Thanks I wasn't aware that bombing China was dangerous, that carrier battle groups are primarily offensive weapons platforms, or that the Persian Gulf is a terrible place for them.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

So your view remains "lolz iranistan: we can bomb them whenever--what are they gonna do about it?"

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might not be entirely true. Iran has a much more dangerous military than Iraq did, and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran. If the US has to fight the entire Iranian armed forces from a few carriers in the Persian Gulf, expect it to be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to bombing Iran, not invading. Iran cannot stop the US from immediately controlling their airspace, and seaspace for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. I managed to overcome my searchtardedness.
Here is a reply of mine in a previous "war would be easy against the Iranians" thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
Also remember that it only takes ONE battery to survive and ONE missile to get through the barriers to hit and destroy/permanently disable a Capital warship/Aircraft carrier.

This is often said by many, but completely incorrect. Modern aircraft carriers are 100,000 tons of steel with literally hundreds of watertight bulkheads. A ship of that size could probably take on 20,000 tons of sea water without sinking, but the bulkheads stop that from happening. You are looking at probably 10 or more cruise missiles hitting a carrier to essentially "destroy" it, and even then, the missiles will probably not penetrate the topside all the way down to the waterline or below. One missile, if lucky in placement, could put a large hole in the deck and cause chaos a level or two below over a limited area, but probably wont put a carrier out of action for long periods. Im not sure, but I believe there was good precedent set for this aboard a carrier in vietnam that cooked off a bunch of its bombs accidentally (anyone else recall this?) and still stayed afloat.

It has also been said that carriers are highly vulnerable to conventional torpedos, which they are not, once again due to compartmentalization. A hole 30ft wide on a ship a thousand feet long and 150 ft wide with a hundred+ armored compartments wont ruin its day by any means. Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft. Precedence for this is the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Even though torpedos are shaped to do much more damage on a per weight basis, they also contain much less explosive than what was used against the cole, so it more or less equates. Remember also, that the Cole is only 1/12 the size of a carrier and thinner armored.

One of the reasons our carriers are so large is to take a pounding and stay afloat. Theres no way a one-ton conventional warhead is going to put a 100,000 ton compartmented warship out of business. When you hear the contrary, its typically just rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design, which obviously accounted for missiles and torpedos getting through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I reply to this let me give a quick synopsis of my background. I served in The US Navy for 13 years. 6 years as a submarine officer and 2 years as a Battle Group Submarine Liason Officer (embarcked on a carrier) including a deployment through the Pacific and The Persian Gulf. I also sepnt 4 years assigned as an exchange Officer to the British Military for Submarine Operations. I am extremely well versed in Anti-Sub, Anti-Surface, Anti-Air, and missile strike combat principles and planning. That ought to cover the

[ QUOTE ]
...rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in that modern aircraft carriers are massive ships with significant robustness and an extensive defensive screen. That said they are still highly vulnerable to even individual torpedo or missile attacks.

It would take several missile hits in vital locations (perhaps 2-5) to set off a chain of events leading to the sinking/complete loss of a carrier.

It would take 2-3 well placed advanced torpedos to sink/cripple beynd repair a carrier.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is widely inaccurate. There is no ship, ever built, in the history of mankind that will survive 4 modern torpedo hits. I sugest you do a bit of research on torpedo technology and their specific method of destruction. The only semi recent example would be The General Belgrano, and Argentinian BattleCruiser sent to the bottom of the Ocean with ALL HANDS lost after being hit by 2, YES just 2 torpedos from HMS Conqueror during the Falklands war.


It only tales ONE well placed missile or ONE wellplaced torpedo to cripple/take out of action a carrier.

Size and compartmentalization are only two factors in the equation. FIRE is a huge factor. Given a missile strike, even assuming it hit in a semi non essential area of the carrier, flight ops would be curtailed immediately and for at least days as the fire and resultant damage was put down.

The Vietnam era carrier you are refferring to was The Forrestal and they suffered a jet crash which lead to a fire which lead to a bomb cooking off sympathetically which lead to an even greater fire and more damage. That ship didn't sink but it was combat ineffective until LONG after it was returned to port and repaired over a period of months. (As an interesting side note, the future SEN John McCain was the pilot of the plane that had the bomb cook off on deck)

Combat effectiveness. In order for a carrier to be combat effective it needs to be able to conduct flight ops (which entails numerous things including: near full propulsion capabilities, effective combat control center. effective flight control, a clear sea area to conduct one way steaming during flight ops, an effective (not dead defensive screen of cruisers/destroyers, oiler support). Cripple any one of these requirements and you limit or curtail a carrier's comat effectiveness. Hit the carrier directly with a missile and it is near guaranteed that at least several of these RQMTS will be degraded significantly.
Hit a carrier in the propulsion spaces or directly in one of it's main engine shafts and you immediately limit its propulsion ergo limit or curtail flight ops. Hit a carrier with a modern torpedo in the propulsion spaces and that ship is at best limping home not to conduct any flight ops for quite some time.

There is an old saying about why cariers are the best defended ships in the Naval arsenal. It's because they HAVE to be. They are mighty ships and hard to sink, no doubt, but you don't have to sink them to end there mission/threat.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I was working on the assumption that using Iraqi bases against Iran wouldn't be practical. Iraq is after all mostly Shiite, and a lot of its leaders have ties with Iran.

Afghanistan presents fewer political issues, but most of the action in a conflict with Iran would be centered on the Persian Gulf, 500 or so hostile miles from Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we attack Iran from Qatar, we won't offend Iraqi shiites? How does this make sense -- we are occupying Iraq, no? And if you move the goalposts and talk just the Gulf, not Iran proper, well we ring the Gulf with bases and carriers, so what's your point?

Edit: Here, let me help you with this map. Would you still like to contend that we have no local bases to attack Iran or the Persian Gulf? And these are just the ones with active USAF air bases, I'm not even including the number of carrier air wings which could easily join the fight.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ntation1-2.jpg

And I'm sure I'm missing some, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I believe the US has many more operating locations in Iraq. And if you include Army attack helicopters, the number of air bases in the region grows even more.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Kaj

[ QUOTE ]
So if we attack Iran from Qatar, we won't offend Iraqi shiites?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would probably say when we attack. How often do two countries get engaged in what Iran, Israel and the USA are in currently and not get war? I think the simple fact is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and it doesn't matter which party is in office. Ten of thousands of people will most likely die before Iran is allowed to go nuclear.

I am also sceptical that US cares about shiite support. The US cares about 1) protecting its interests in the Middle East; and 2) but only after 1 is obtained, getting some sort of stability in Iraq.

At the moment, Iranian shiites are working with Iraqi shiites and endangering both goals, so it seems rather unlikely the US will be overly worred about pissing off the Iraqi shiites when the time comes. The US is playing the democracy game now, but they have been building an Iraqi police force and army too. If we can't get a democracy going, we'll just return to our former standard of installing ruthless dictators.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

[ QUOTE ]

The American public has a short memory for pain

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not implying that the American public had a short memory for pain when it came to Vietnam. I'd disagree with you there.

Re: Now Iran?!?!
 

Kaj,

I'm aware that the bases exist, I was just questioning whether the host countries would let us use them for the purpose of bombing Iran. Even in Iraq, an open break with the present government probably wouldn't be acceptable, especially if a war with Iran was also going on.