has the USS Nimitz Battle Group arrived in or near the Persian Gulf yet ?

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.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
oups.com...
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!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:
http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff...ads/Baker8.jpg

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

AHS

wrote in
oups.com:

On May 3, 9:46 pm, Chip Anderson
wrote:
shrubkiller wrote
groups.com:

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.

Who has a thermonuclear device than has even a small chance to do the
job? With the possible exception of the Israelis,


BINGO!!!!

The USS Liberty was a trial run to see if Mrrrknz had the guts to do
anything about it. You didn't.
--snip--

So much for your analysis. Keep your day job.


--
---
Chip

Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius

On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
target ship would be mission killed.

The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.

On May 5, 12:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:
"John Keeney" wrote in message

oups.com...





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!!!

Other than for the occasional photo shot they'll stay far enough a
part it'll take a crust cracker.

Even a closed-up formation (say, for a cruise photo) occupies a lot of
space...they wouldn't even be as closed up then as the ships seem to have
been for Shot BAKER in the famous photo:http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff...ads/Baker8.jpg

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

AHS



The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!








- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
ups.com...
[ snip ]

The noo-kyoo-lar genius has spoken!

No, none of this requires anything other than simple comprehension of
elementary math. There have been enough books published about nuclear
weapons effects that an average kid in high school could work out most of
the arithmetic.

It may seem incomprehensible to you, however.

AHS

On May 8, 3:52 pm, Airyx wrote:
On May 5, 1:53 pm, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

In reality, with either a CSG or ESG, you'll have ships very far apart. Any
one nuclear weapon may be bad news for one or two ships, a few more won't
like it, and the rest will be relatively unscathed. Unless, as you say, the
enemy uses some rather stupendous weapons.

The real problem is not that one or two nuclear weapons (let's say they are
medium-size fission weapons) is going to wreck the entire fleet, but that
your high-value assets may be mission-killed. A 50 kT airburst 3-4 km from
your CVN is not going to be conducive to continued flights ops in the near
or medium future.

During Cold War preparations, it was assumed that nukes would be used
against CVBGs in the North Sea. The blast radius of a nuke with the
accuracy necessary to hit a ship was deemed small enough that only the
target ship would be mission killed.

The other ships in the group would be far enough away from each other
to be somewhat unscathed by the blast, and free to maneuver to avoid
the fallout and/or conduct washdown procedures.

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.



Right into the ocean!

Sweet!

On May 11, 9:57 am, shrubkiller wrote:

The washdown system on the Nimitz class is even designed to wash
fallout off aircraft that are parked on the deck.

Right into the ocean!

Sweet!

So right! How could they dare to dump that waste into the ocean...
where 99% of the fallout from the blast landed already...

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...

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 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.

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.

Not to mention the other forces that would quickly retaliate.

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 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.

AHS