Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran'

were we not talking about battleships a few months back
like pulling out the Wisconsin again and home porting it in the Gulf with a
local crew
funded by locals - hummm - why would any carriers in the Gulf be needed
and of course there is the point about throwing grenades without their pins
pulled
but the BB's just sit there and look at you and look at you and look at you
and look at you ....



"eatfastnoodle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Warning is not a Warning when nobody believes that you will indeed
carry out the threat, there have been so many "warnings" (don't do
this, don't do that, otherwise there will be consequences, don't test
the bomb/US will never tolerate a nuclear NK/Iran) sent to Iran and
North Korea so far that US credibility has become a joke, because they
did exactly what the US warned them not to do, and what they got?
ANOTHER WARNING. When you don't have the military resources, diplomatic
support and political capital to back it up, warning is just an
invitation for the world to see how powerless and stupid you are,
better to admit your weakness and try other routes.

Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf.

hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
battle ship that would be left there forever





"Arash" wrote in message
oups.com...
Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf.

Ski wrote:
hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
battle ship that would be left there forever





"Arash" wrote in message
oups.com...
Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf.





you mean it would be sunk?

Vince

sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure
think of it this way - we would want the Iranians to shoot at the battle ship and possibly sink it for a proper start of a war
we would not like to loose a carrier group for the same start pass - think strategic man
besides the battle ship would be paid for by the locals and could benefit them with the joint command center they do not have


"Vince" wrote in message . ..
Ski wrote:
hat is why we need to take out the carrier battle groups and bring back a
battle ship that would be left there forever





"Arash" wrote in message
oups.com...
Slow and huge U.S. warships are very vulnerable in a tiny operating
area like the Persian Gulf.





you mean it would be sunk?

Vince

Ski wrote:
sink them in shallow water and still use the guns and superstructure

this is just silly

If that is your point, no problem

Vince