In article , fudog50
mumbled
AHS,

Thanks for the reply, and for better clarifying your position.

Still, I stand firm any country would be foolish at best to attack a
carrier and the resonse would be swift.

You are right about one thing, it may not be a Nuke retaliation but
rest assured any entity would be sorry and regret the day they
attacked a US carrier.

One reason I don't post here too often is that most tend to attack
others opinions they have, based on thier own knowledge.

Rather than just sticking to the post.

/R,

CWO4 S.

(ps maybe we do get a little more briefing on what we'll do if a
carrier gets nuked you will never know!)

Perhaps you do.
I do know that IF you do you know better than to spout it here.
Right ?



On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:34:26 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:

fudog50 wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:16 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:

fudog50 wrote in message
...
On 4 May 2007 12:49:56 -0700, "David E. 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 IranianHiroshima/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.

AHS

Nice response Arv
,
I obviously have no clue what I am talking about, having served on 5
nuke carriers and am currently serving on one, absolutely no clue.

Thanks for ripping on me and attempting to set me straight.

Now go back to sleep.

Noted.

The fact that a US carrier is nuclear *powered* is irrelevant to this
discussion - I think even you would agree on that point. I'm also
hard-pressed to see why serving *on* carriers, in any capacity whatsoever,
gives you extra information about what the US response would be if a carrier
was taken out by a nuclear weapon...it's like the city manager of a US
metropolis saying that he'd know what the US response would be after a city
is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, just because of the fact that he's a city
manager.

I'm not busting on your carrier experience and knowledge at all. I just
don't see that it's any more relevant here than me having served in
artillery. Unless carrier personnel get a routine briefing entitled "Here's
the part of the SIOP that we'll execute if a carrier gets nuked".

And let's face it, it's all speculation. In the case of one or more carrier
sinkings due to nuclear weapons, the US response is going to vary...that's
about the only firm statement that can be made. You're speculating that the
response will be to turn the offending country into a parking lot. I'm
speculating that the response will be a lot more limited, and may not even
involve US nuclear weapons.

AHS




--
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."