US carrier crosses Hormuz against Iran threats

Redress said:

Do not overestimate what those can do. They can do alot, but not s much as you might think. The bombs they are referring to are standard 500, 1000 and 2000 pound bombs(BLU series) equipped with laser guidance most likely. To give you an idea, when I was in the navy with old F-18C's, we would carry sometimes 8 2k pound bombs(mk84/BLU-117) per aircraft. The few hundred the article talks about would be used in a single strike, and the 10k number you give in a week. It would be virtually impossible to destroy either Iran's nuclear or military capability with just airstrikes and would take many times the amount of ordnance the article you link suggests.

Iran may however have some Phoenix missiles left they can load on their few F-14's and get some actual aircraft kills, but few and not for long.

Click to expand...

I know they're not capable of hitting the nuke sites but they're referring to other Iranian military assets. Missile and rocket launchers, armory depots, tanks, big guns, planes, Navy etc.

According to Panetta they're working on improving the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) but it's a time table game, and it might take a mop-nuke because the thing has to penetrate halfway thru a mountain.

American said:

Bolton will know more than most about what's going on, so he's not "blathering". I don't give a damn who's lobbying, the communist are lobbying for their causes too. What's your beef? If Obama can't man-up, then he needs to go. I don't hear any war drums.

Click to expand...

Bolton is a rabid Zionist and a very obnoxious man. I sat next to him on a plane for about ten minutes before I asked the Stew to move me. He is incapable of civil discourse... I buckled up and said "hi'.. when he launched into a completely uninvited diatribe.

sharon said:

Bolton is a rabid Zionist and a very obnoxious man. I sat next to him on a plane for about ten minutes before I asked the Stew to move me. He is incapable of civil discourse... I buckled up and said "hi'.. when he launched into a completely uninvited diatribe.

Click to expand...

Why don't I believe you? As thought someone like that would talk to a stranger in such a way. Pullleaze.

American said:

Why don't I believe you? As thought someone like that would talk to a stranger in such a way. Pullleaze.

Click to expand...

I have NO ida why he behaved that way.. He's a creep.

He may have seen my photo in a Saudi newspaper since he had been in Arabia for 3 days prior.

American said:

A Navy friend of mine also said that the ships are all at GQ when passing through that area. I think the lack of threat has to do with the shear power of our Navy and the readiness of the crews. Anyone that tries to get near a carrier, especially at GQ, would have to have a galactic size set of nuts.

Click to expand...

Through Hormuz? We did GQ through it each time I went and I would assume the same is true now.

grip said:

I know they're not capable of hitting the nuke sites but they're referring to other Iranian military assets. Missile and rocket launchers, armory depots, tanks, big guns, planes, Navy etc.

According to Panetta they're working on improving the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) but it's a time table game, and it might take a mop-nuke because the thing has to penetrate halfway thru a mountain.

Click to expand...

Again, the amount of ordanance listed in the article would be enough for a single smallish strike. It is simply not enough to do significant damage to Iran's military.

Redress said:

Again, the amount of ordanance listed in the article would be enough for a single smallish strike. It is simply not enough to do significant damage to Iran's military.

Click to expand...

I agree the small of amount of bombs listed aren't enough but in coordination with the air strikes coming off two carrier groups, subs with cruise missiles, B2's coming off bases in Turkey and Diego would add up to enough to hurt them severely. I've no experience in military logistics but I think you're right that we would need a bigger presence to shut them down completely.

grip said:

I agree the small of amount of bombs listed aren't enough but in coordination with the air strikes coming off two carrier groups, subs with cruise missiles, B2's coming off bases in Turkey and Diego would add up to enough to hurt them severely. I've no experience in military logistics but I think you're right that we would need a bigger presence to shut them down completely.

Click to expand...

It all depends on the end goal. Typically a force like that would be used to destroy anti-air and radar emplacements. Then the big boys from Minnesota can come in and take out the underground stuff. To me, it looks like a disrupt and cordon operation. Disrupt their ability to see, and prevent them from leaving the harbor.

grip said:

I agree the small of amount of bombs listed aren't enough but in coordination with the air strikes coming off two carrier groups, subs with cruise missiles, B2's coming off bases in Turkey and Diego would add up to enough to hurt them severely. I've no experience in military logistics but I think you're right that we would need a bigger presence to shut them down completely.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the amount held in Diego represents all we intend to use. We must also consider that any strikes on Iran would be accompanied with strikes by Israel.

EagleAye said:

I seriously doubt that the amount held in Diego represents all we intend to use. We must also consider that any strikes on Iran would be accompanied with strikes by Israel.

Click to expand...

I agree with you and Blue_State but they might try and keep Israel out of it at first to diminish an Arab outcry. They'll knock out radar and SAM's first then go after Iranian assets, probably while the MOP's are coming in on high flyers for attempts on the nuke facilities.

grip said:

I agree with you and Blue_State but they might try and keep Israel out of it at first to diminish an Arab outcry. They'll knock out radar and SAM's first then go after Iranian assets, probably while the MOP's are coming in on high flyers for attempts on the nuke facilities.

Click to expand...

I would try to keep Isreal out as well. I know they are chomping at the bit for revenge (bombings at embassies and Thailand), but they could push the locals into a frenzie. If I were an Arab nation, I would wonder when America was coming in my back door. Isreal could be the catalyst to turn the region against us.

Redress said:

Through Hormuz? We did GQ through it each time I went and I would assume the same is true now.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I meant.

Blue_State said:

I would try to keep Isreal out as well. I know they are chomping at the bit for revenge (bombings at embassies and Thailand), but they could push the locals into a frenzie. If I were an Arab nation, I would wonder when America was coming in my back door. Isreal could be the catalyst to turn the region against us.

Click to expand...

I disagree.. I think Israel should take care of this on their own.. and we should stay out of it.

Redress said:

Again, the amount of ordanance listed in the article would be enough for a single smallish strike. It is simply not enough to do significant damage to Iran's military.

Click to expand...

Don't forget all the cruise missile that Navy has. But yeah no doubt take a large coordinated strike; Iran has a real military unlike some of the other countries. They lack experience though.

American said:

Don't forget all the cruise missile that Navy has. But yeah no doubt take a large coordinated strike; Iran has a real military unlike some of the other countries. They lack experience though.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have to much.

Proud South Korean said:

Again, another person talking about NK's nuclear "deterrence"

Click to expand...

come on, whether or not nuclear weapons act as some sort of deterrent is not even debatable.

Proud South Korean said:

As for Iran, it's not a problem of whether it can get a nuke. Nukes can be smuggled, and there are variety of nukes, from ones that can launched from an ICBM to one that can be launched from a small infantry mortar.

Click to expand...

No way. Who would sell Iran a nuclear weapon? Russia - nope. China - not a chance. Pakistan - uh-uh. North Korea - highly doubtful. None of the other nuclear powers are even worth mentioning. The problem is that, from the perspective of the seller, there's nothing really to gain and a lot to lose. First of all, it would be a flagrant violation of an international treaty upheld by nearly every other nation in the world. A country that sells a nuclear weapon would suddenly be on unfriendly terms with all of the most important nations in the world. Collusion and clandestine support for a nation's nuclear program - now that's much easier to get away with, and therefore has a more favorable risk vs reward profile. But outright giving/selling a nuclear weapon to a nation? No way. That'd be a silly strategic blunder for any of the nuclear powers.

Second of all, having a handful of nuclear weapons isn't really that big a deal. It's having the technology and capacity to produce more if needed that's really the key. Y'know, give a man a fish he'll eat for a day - teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime and all that.

Besides, if it were so easy for Iran to simply purchase nuclear weapons as you say, why are they going to such great lengths and sabotaging their whole economy?

Proud South Korean said:

The problem is the method of delivery. Missiles are harder to smuggle, and harder to build. Iran hardly has a capacity to build a long-range missile. Trying to hope for one that can bypass the Aegis or any of those anti-nuke measures is like dreaming for a rich Somalia. Impossible.

Click to expand...

What's your point? I'm not afraid that Iran would be able to hit the U.S. with a nuke, if that's what your after. They wouldn't even attempt that if they could.