|
|
Post by Sailor on Apr 21, 2015 2:21:17 GMT -8
A U.S. aircraft carrier was dispatched to the waters off Yemen Monday to join other American ships prepared to block any Iranian weapons shipments to Shiite Houthi rebels fighting in Yemen. A Navy official confirmed to Fox News that the USS Theodore Roosevelt -- along with her escort ship, the USS Normandy, a guided-missile cruiser -- left the Persian Gulf on Sunday en route for the Arabian Sea, to help enforce the blockade. A massive ship that carries F/A-18 fighter jets, the Roosevelt is seen more of a deterrent and show of force in the region. The U.S. Navy has been beefing up its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the southern Arabian Sea amid reports that a convoy of about eight Iranian ships is heading toward Yemen and possibly carrying arms for the Houthis. The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on rebel leaders. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining. More here: www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/21/us-navy-stationing-aircraft-carrier-and-escort-ship-in-yemeni-waters-to/This causes a little concern here, Roosevelt and Normandy are Norfolk based ships, though Roosevelt won't be coming back here when her deployment is done. She's heading for San Diego to replace the Reagan which IIRC is changing homeport to Yokosuka Japan. The carrier there, George Washington is coming back to Newport News for a 4 year overhaul and refueling. Right now there are more carriers in the yard at Newport News Shipbuilding than there are at the piers in Norfolk. The Ford is still in her builder's hands, Lincoln is finishing up the same kind of treatment Washington will get, and Enterprise is being "defueled" and stripped prior to being towed to Bremerton Washington to await scrapping or sinking. Roosevelt is joining 5 to 7 other US cruisers and destroyers stationed off Yemen and the Horn of Africa. That plus whatever the Saudis and others have there is a lot of metal to be confronting a frigate Navy (Iran) with. My analysis: I think Obama is bluffing and I think the Iranians think the same. The only warships they need to fear near term are the Saudis. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Apr 21, 2015 17:41:06 GMT -8
Makes a sane person wonder why the hell we're in nuclear negotiations with them
I doubt Obama has the stones to order a shot across the bow.
Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Apr 22, 2015 2:29:34 GMT -8
The mixed messages coming out of DC doesn't help. The spokesditz at State is saying the carrier was moved only to "ensure freedom of navigation," but other sources are or were saying the Teddy and other ships are there to prevent delivery of Iranian weapons to the "rebels" in Yemen.  ? Does that strike force commander have ANY orders, CLEAR orders on what his job is? |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Apr 24, 2015 9:09:41 GMT -8
Looks like the Iranians were called off by the mullahs.
Can't fuck up the process when Kerry and Obama are giving away the store.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Apr 24, 2015 17:41:29 GMT -8
Come ON, you guys.
In the first place, have you been watching the news regarding this embargo?
1) The U.S. Navy is not going to stop anybody. They can't. NOBODY knows what orders they have been given. They are there as a show of force. Undoubtedly the orders include "Do not fire unless fired upon." Remomber Vietman? The entire U.S. Navy watched as Soviet, Eastern European, Chinese and Cuban vessels delivered weaons to the people who were killing our soldiers, and never fired a SHOT. We NEVER mined the Hanoi-Haiphong harbor, NEVER called in airstrikes against those ships, and NEVER did anything that interdicted cargo ships. They just kept on coming. And that was under Johnson AND Nixon.
2) The nuclear negotiations are not designed to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. They are designed to DELAY Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. NOBODY who has actually sought such weapons, at any price, has been "stopped". NONE of the countries the world tried to stop was ever prevented.
THAT INCLUDES:
NORTH KOREA
INDIA
PAKISTAN
CHINA
RUSSIA
....NONE of them.
Those who had a program, and didn't go through with it, stopped because they WANTED to.
We didn't even know how far along Libya was until they TOLD us. The Libya sanctions were primarily due to terrorism.
South Africa HAD the damned thing, and dismantled it when the apartheid regime died.
Iran WILL acquire nuclear weapons eventually. Even the people who are balls to the wall for these negoiations have ADMITTED that. The tecnology goes back to 1945. It's been 70 YEARS since the first bomb was exploded. Do you really think you'll be able to keep Iran from doing what NORTH KOREA has ALREADY DONE?
And most experts agree that the first full-scale nuclear war probably won't involve the United States. Iran and Israel or India and Pakistan would be better bets.
So tell me.
What would YOU do, since personally, I believe the next President will be a Republican, and he is going to have to deal with this, just as every President has for decades. THAT'S why Netanyahu is having puppies and kittens.
The clock is ticking....
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Apr 24, 2015 19:08:45 GMT -8
It's been clear for some time that Iran is going to have nukes soon, probably only months now unless some direct action like that taken against Iraq and later Syria by Israel is taken against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But the question will be even then, what was missed? We didn't even know about at least one major installation until the Iranians fessed up just a few weeks ago, the intel weasels missed it entirely but Iran thought we knew.
One estimate I keep hearing is Iran will be capable of assembling a Uranium bomb within 3 to 10 months from now. They have aircraft capable of delivering it right now and, depending upon how small and light it is, theater ballistic missiles.
What would I do if I were to be saddled with the Presidency? Since it is already evident that Iran WILL be able to assemble a bomb by the time 20 Jan 2017 rolls around there is absolutely nothing I could do to stop them.
What I could do would be to warn them through whatever channels exist for communications between governments that don't recognize each other that if a nuke is detonated within the territory of any US ally (assume Israel) and it is traced back to Iran the United States would conduct nuclear reprisal strikes to destroy whatever military capability remains in Iran after that ally fires its own reply. I figure if Israel conducts that strike all I would need would be 2 or 3 Trident II MIRVed missiles to finish the job.
Question, do you think M.A.D. would work against Iran, a theocracy whose leadership (Mullahs) believe death in the service of Allah is an instant ticket into Paradise?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Apr 24, 2015 19:15:27 GMT -8
As to the Iranian convoy, it is 7 merchies escorted by 2 frigates with far less firepower together than even 1 US destroyer. Apparently they've been turned back by Tehran and are headed home without delivering their cargoes. The TR and Normandy never got closer to them than 200 miles, tracking them by Hawkeye AEW aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Apr 25, 2015 7:58:53 GMT -8
It's been clear for some time that Iran is going to have nukes soon, probably only months now unless some direct action like that taken against Iraq and later Syria by Israel is taken against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But the question will be even then, what was missed? We didn't even know about at least one major installation until the Iranians fessed up just a few weeks ago, the intel weasels missed it entirely but Iran thought we knew. One estimate I keep hearing is Iran will be capable of assembling a Uranium bomb within 3 to 10 months from now. They have aircraft capable of delivering it right now and, depending upon how small and light it is, theater ballistic missiles. What would I do if I were to be saddled with the Presidency? Since it is already evident that Iran WILL be able to assemble a bomb by the time 20 Jan 2017 rolls around there is absolutely nothing I could do to stop them. What I could do would be to warn them through whatever channels exist for communications between governments that don't recognize each other that if a nuke is detonated within the territory of any US ally (assume Israel) and it is traced back to Iran the United States would conduct nuclear reprisal strikes to destroy whatever military capability remains in Iran after that ally fires its own reply. I figure if Israel conducts that strike all I would need would be 2 or 3 Trident II MIRVed missiles to finish the job. Question, do you think M.A.D. would work against Iran, a theocracy whose leadership (Mullahs) believe death in the service of Allah is an instant ticket into Paradise? You address many of the problems that have confronted every Administration with regards to this. Regarding the attacks on Iraq and Syria conducted by the Israelis, the thing is that in both cases there was a specific target, a reactor. In Iran's case, there are numerous instalations scattered across a country the size of Iraq and Aghanistan combined, with a population as large as Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It would take a perfectly coordinated strike to hit them all simultaneously. Hitting one alerts the others of your intentions. And that's above ground. The Pakistanis' largest facilities were below ground in hardened sites, so even if some did hit them it would only delay, not prevent, their development of a nuclear weapon. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720Large scale retaliation against our allies in Israel is almost a certainty, through Hezbollah or any of Iran's other proxies. Miniturization is an issue as well. Although they have intermediate range missiles, they had better be damned sure their weapon can be successfully delivered and will detonate. Failure to do either one would be catastrophic ( and if the hit Israel they are doomed to nuclear destruction by Israel, which is, of course their target. Rest assured, Israel has that capability. If Israel is obliterarted, Iran will be as well. Count on it, WITHOUT U.S. retaliation.) So, even though they explode a test device there WILL be some time before it is deliverable... unless they have already mastered that, in anticipation. After all, they had the missiles beforehand. That would mean they know their accuracy and payload. NOTE: I think the Iranians are a LOT smarter than North Korea in that regard. And retaliation in kind, or MAD, IS a deterrent. Like North Korea, it depends on how Looney Tunes the Iranian goverment is at a given moment ( I don't really think they have EVER been THAT nuts.) See, knowing that, if you completely obliterate your enemy, the same thing will happen to you in a matter of hours, if not minutes, DOES matter. Unlike conventional weapons, it's not like your going to survive such retaliation to fight another day.
In this case, you dance with who brung ya. If Iran launches a nuclear attack against Israel, then we know that the sheer size of Israel means its destruction. I have no doubt whatsoever that Israel would return the favor, posthumously or not.
I am not 100% certain of a lot of things, but I AM certain of THAT. And that's WITHOUT U.S. involvement.
P.S. I'm damned glad those idiots turned back.
DAMNED glad, REGARDLESS of who the President is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Apr 25, 2015 16:17:51 GMT -8
NOTE: I think the Iranians are a LOT smarter than North Korea in that regard.
I do as well. That said, I would be careful in believing MAD will be the deterrent you think it is, Islam is not Judism or Christianity. The Ayatollah's who run Iran may not think the way you or I do.
Like you I believe that Israel's military will do its damnedest to avenge the destruction of the country if that happens.
P.S. I'm damned glad those idiots turned back.
DAMNED glad, REGARDLESS of who the President is.
Agreed.
|
|
?