Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2523 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
The_Virginian wrote:
Not saying it "wont happen"
BUT...
Putting TWO ( NOT 6) carriers in the Persian gulf means making two SITTING ducks of them....assuming Iran attacked first...
Better to strike Iran with Hypersonic jets, and stealth bombers...at least for a first strike....
Our carrier fleet is extremely outdated and vulnerable...useful in attacking only unprepared countries w/o proper criuse / Skvall / or even old french missiles...in a pond 180 KM wide at it's zenith...it would be very foolish.
If the take to the cover of the open sea...then maybe...
Lotsa' HYPE...little action for years now...
That does NOT mean they CAN'T or WON'T do it!
It will take a lot more than a little Exocet to sink a 100,000 ton ship.
But sure, the carriers are far more vulnerable than most people think, if they have to face some real resistance.
But then, so what?
Can't the US afford losing a single carrier? _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
As for a strike against Iran? Not likely. Only the Abraham Lincoln CSG will be in the Middle East region over the next several months, and we do not expect to see a second carrier in the region until the Theodore Roosevelt CSG deploys this summer. We observe half of the carriers currently counted among the 6 deployed intend to replace the other half of carriers also counted among the 6 deployed. The USS George Washington (CVN 73) is replacing the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) in Japan, while the recently deployed USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is replacing the USS Nimitz (CVN 6. The fifth and sixth carrier currently deployed is the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), which was last spotted near Greece on what is basically the return home after spending 5 months in the Gulf after being relieved from station by the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).
_________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Jun 13, 2007 Posts: 3016 Location: Minniesotuh
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
For what it is worth (and, I admit very little), last night I had problems sleeping (DH is out of town).
So, I went downstairs and fired up the tv and the computer.
At 2:25, the computer crashed, the tv went blank and I had no phone (all the same company); I checked my cell phone. No dial tone (different carrier).
Everything came back on at 3:08.
Must have fallen asleep a little after 5 am. Sometimes you just got to wonder... _________________ "RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto
As for a strike against Iran? Not likely. Only the Abraham Lincoln CSG will be in the Middle East region over the next several months, and we do not expect to see a second carrier in the region until the Theodore Roosevelt CSG deploys this summer. We observe half of the carriers currently counted among the 6 deployed intend to replace the other half of carriers also counted among the 6 deployed. The USS George Washington (CVN 73) is replacing the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) in Japan, while the recently deployed USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is replacing the USS Nimitz (CVN 6. The fifth and sixth carrier currently deployed is the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), which was last spotted near Greece on what is basically the return home after spending 5 months in the Gulf after being relieved from station by the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).
I went to that first link Starvid.
Looks like September is attack time.
Before the "I have heard this before a million times"...hit the send button...try READING what is at that site...I know it is hard, but just try...you may look less of an idiot. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4159 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
deleted _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
We are going back to roccland - me
Last edited by roccman on Thu May 15, 2008 9:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 4877 Location: Oklahoma
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
roccman wrote:
I went to that first link Starvid.
Looks like September is attack time.
I agree; it didn't reassure me at all. In fact I emailed the link to several people as a heads up.
Thanks for posting it, Starvid. Interesting stuff, regardless of whether we interpret it differently. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2023 Location: Arkansas
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
Interesting, the link above says Bush authorized a massive covert operation against Iran which authorized assasination of Iranian officials. I just read a news article which said Iranian diplomats were attacked, attempted assasination? in Baghdad today and the Iranians are blaming the U.S.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
The_Virginian wrote:
Not saying it "wont happen"
BUT...
Putting TWO ( NOT 6) carriers in the Persian gulf means making two SITTING ducks of them....assuming Iran attacked first...
Better to strike Iran with Hypersonic jets, and stealth bombers...at least for a first strike....
Our carrier fleet is extremely outdated and vulnerable...useful in attacking only unprepared countries w/o proper criuse / Skvall / or even old french missiles...in a pond 180 KM wide at it's zenith...it would be very foolish.
If the take to the cover of the open sea...then maybe...
Lotsa' HYPE...little action for years now...
That does NOT mean they CAN'T or WON'T do it!
No such thing as Hypersonic jets ... at least not yet.
Provided that they go in with the intention of just hitting a few strategic targets and then getting out again then it would be a comparative walk in the park for the US. Iran's defenses are old and pretty much useless against modern combat forces.
The problem would be that oil prices would almost immediately go through the roof. That is the last thing that the fragile US economy needs at the moment.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
kokoda wrote:
Provided that they go in with the intention of just hitting a few strategic targets and then getting out again
If by "a few" you mean "over 4000 that they have acknowleged", then yes.
kokoda wrote:
then it would be a comparative walk in the park for the US.
Compared to what? When they invaded Iraq, there was no air defense, no naval defense, and no ground resistence. And just look how that turned out. Afghanistan had even less than Iraq did, and it's in nearly as bad shape. Exactly what metric are you using for comparison?
kokoda wrote:
Iran's defenses are old and pretty much useless against modern combat forces.
Yes, Iran's oft maligned defeneses. Ancient technologies like the Sunburn anti-ship missiles (8 years), Feimeng 80 (11 years) and Tor-M1 (16 years) mobile AA systems. Yes, the Exocets and Silkworms are getting a little "long in the tooth", but that doesn't make them any less effective systems, and Iran has the industrial capability to manufacture them 100% internally. Even Iran's "old" Mig29's, while over 30 years old themselves, are about as "old" as the F-18. There were even rumours a while back that Iran might be aquiring F-16's (or at least parts of them) on the black market.
And you seem to be under the impression that "defenses" only include hardware. You're not even discussing the terrain advantage. Even if you decapitate the entire Iranian government, autonomous Iranian commando units could leverage the Zagros Mountains to mount attacks on Gulf traffic for decades.
Then there's the other, less tangible defenses. Things like bilateral energy contracts with China and Russia, friendly regional governments, proxy actors and long, pourous borders with other theatres of battle. Not all defenses are symmetrical.
kokoda wrote:
The problem would be that oil prices would almost immediately go through the roof. That is the last thing that the fragile USWORLD economy needs at the moment.
Other than that one little correction, I completely agree with your last statement. _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
America's military victory over Iraq was quick and easy. It destroyed Iraq's military "might" with embarrassing ease in both gulf wars.
America's problems with Iraq only started when the war ended. Peace keeping is often harder than war making because the rules of engagement change.
In war you shoot first and ask questions later ... a luxury you don't have in peace time.
Iran's military is in a poor state. Apart from a few soviet imports there equipment dates back to the 70s and 80s ... it would be a cakewalk for the American's.
I would imagine that the SAMs and what passes as an air force would be knocked out in the first days of the war.
Yes ... the aftermath of the war could be messy. There will be no war for that very reason.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
kokoda wrote:
Iran's military is in a poor state. Apart from a few soviet imports there equipment dates back to the 70s and 80s ... it would be a cakewalk for the American's.
I would imagine that the SAMs and what passes as an air force would be knocked out in the first days of the war.
Im afraid it would be no more a cake walk that Israels aborted push to the Litani river in 06. That proved what the world has known for years... motivated mobile teams can take on armour with the right kit. Kursk also proved this in spades, this is not the Egyptians in the Saini in 73 nor the Syrians in the Golan hights.
The M1 for example is vaulnrable to RPG-7 and 9s from the rear especialy its coolant. The Iranians have a damned sight better than that.
The Passdaran are no longer the rag tag religious fanatacs that were queuing up from the streets to join the army in 82, they are now a well drilled militia that may not be as well trained as the National Guard units in the states, but are very highly motivated and well trained for the job.
The army is of a quality nature even perhaps good. There motivation is liable to be vastly higher than the Iraqis, remember Iran has elections, not fair and free, but there is a level of involvement in civil society that is in a different magnitude to that of the Iraqis. This has always been a key indicator of a forces willingness to fight.
Irans population is 4 or 5 times bigger than Iraqs as well. Its terrain is far more naturaly defensible and it equipement in better state of repair.
Iraq itself is an achillies heal as Moqtada, the Badr (i.e. the new Iraqi army as of last month) and every Shia would go up in flames, America would have its supply lines cut, be under 5 to 6 times the pressure they were in mid 2005 in Iraq while invading a country larger and vastly more prepaired than Iraq was in 2003.
Not to mention Iran has proven asymetric reach with its links to Hezb'allah and other groups and probibly has plans for special ops against the US outside the Middle East theater.
Al Queada are Arab playboys playing Jihad with daddies money compaired to Iran's trained special forces and intelligence corps with the full rescources of a state behind them.
Iran also has chemical and probibly biological weapons. UN inpspectors have not taken apart its arsenal.
A US ground invasion of Iran would take many divisions far more than the 4 needed for Iraq. It would need to face suicide bombers and skilled insurgency prebuilt and predeployed and an army several order of magnitude more willing to fight both unconventionaly and to the death than the shambles Saddam put in the field.
No surely believes the US could invade Iran?
Last edited by dorlomin on Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 13, 2007 Posts: 3016 Location: Minniesotuh
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
dorlomin wrote:
No surely believes the US could invade Iran?
There's a difference between "could" and "would." Based on the previous actions of this administration, and Cheney's obsession with attacking Iran, I think there's a better than 50-50 chance that US forces will attack Iran, and I think it will be fairly soon.
Bush is still spewing his Evil Iran rhetoric; this administration has made little or no effort to diplomatically resolve whatever real or imagined differences with Iran. IMHO, I don't think TPTB were ever interested in anything But attacking Iran.
Of course, I could be wrong-but, I don't think so. _________________ "RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2523 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
roccman wrote:
I went to that first link Starvid.
Looks like September is attack time.
Before the "I have heard this before a million times"...hit the send button...try READING what is at that site...I know it is hard, but just try...you may look less of an idiot.
If you actually read what they think will happen...
Quote:
We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be.
[...]
As for a strike against Iran? Not likely.
So who's the idiot who doesn't read the posted articles?
Anyway, for those of you thinking carriers are invulnerable, read about Millenium Challenge 2002. More on the same exercise, but more entertaining. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: Re: Carrier groups headed toward Iran?
kokoda wrote:
America's problems with Iraq only started when the war ended. Peace keeping is often harder than war making because the rules of engagement change. In war you shoot first and ask questions later ... a luxury you don't have in peace time.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. The fifth and sixth carrier currently deployed is the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), which was last spotted near Greece on what is basically the return home after spending 5 months in the Gulf after being relieved from station by the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).
