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-