USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

Carrier Pigeons

Originally posted by kindred
I hope you're prepared to loose a few aircraft carriers, not to mention the waste of life of all those who serve aboard these ships.

I know this sounds like a rhetorical question, but I am genuinely curious.

Do you really think the U.S. Navy would expose its precious carriers to attack from these missiles without some sort of defensive strategy?

I personally find the presence of carriers in the Persian Gulf to be somewhat surprising, precisely because of the threat of Irani anti-ship missiles like the Sunburn and the Silkworm.

Then again, maybe the Navy knows something we don't.

Originally posted by kindred
Typical American arrogance. You take credit for everything. The truth is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad completely humiliated Tony Blair and Great Britain and made Tony Blair look like the American poodle he is. This had nothing to do with American helping whatsoever.

I think you're reading much more into the intent of the author of this thread and of the original source than was meant.

I, for one, don't really give any credit to the U.S. (my government) for freeing these British sailors and marines, but I certainly don't discount that the very real possiblity of an additional carrier (the Eisenhower's tour of duty could have easily been extended if needed) had a role in Iran's decision making.

Iran's actions were IMO illegal by capturing British in waters they had every right under international law to be in. I think Iran played the situation to the hilt to energize their hardline domestic base, but then gave up when it appeared the world was turning against them and allied attack was becoming more and more a possibility by the day, making the hostages more of liability than an asset.

I know many people here want to make Iran out to be some docile nonthreating state, but history has shown that its current government is far, far, far away from that -- even if the majority of people would rather not have that sort of hardline governance.



[edit on 4/5/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by gottago
The US has spent Lord knows how much to sail carrier groups into the Gulf and surrounding waters and threatens a huge attack. But Iran has Russian-supplied missiles that would wreak havoc on our fleets. This is either an enormously expensive attempt at bluffing & intimidation, or simple recklessness on the US's part if we do attack.

And you know this for a fact? Do you not think the military planners arnt aware of this? You dont honestly think they would send MULTI BILLION DOLLAR ships that take literally a decade to build into a hornets nest without some bug spray now do you? I think you would be surprised to know that they have defense capabilities against such threats.

From Bloomberg:

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the "Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

"This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. "That's its purpose.''

No one can know anything for sure, but Putin is deeply involved in checking US military expansion and reports are everywhere he's given these missile systems to Iran and Syria, and I for one wouldn't want to find out if he has indeed done what so many military analysts believe he has done.

And to answer your last question, anyone who is stupid enough to have gotten into Iraq is more than capable of similar, even more high-stakes, idiocy.

What a surprise, the US try to sniff a bit of the glory in the resolution of a bad situation... makes a nice change, at least this time they weren't killing UK troops in friendly fire and then holding the evidence back so the family involved couldn't get resolution.

Lets not forget what a wonderful world we live in thanks to the US arms trade, nearlly every war torn country in the world is full of bullet casings with 'made in the US' stamped on them.

Well at least Iraq is a nice quiet peaceful country now.

Yeehah. Let's kick ass Bubba.

Originally posted by Majic

Do you really think the U.S. Navy would expose its precious carriers to attack from these missiles without some sort of defensive strategy?

Then again, maybe the Navy knows something we don't.

If you step back a bit and consider what's been going on between the WH and the US military, there are serious signs that a good portion of the military command is balking at actual engagement with Iran.

There were reports a few weeks ago in the Times of London (not US papers) that at least a half-dozen senior brass would resign if the go order came down for an attack.

JCSC Pace directly undercut the Admin propaganda about Iranian-supplied advanced IEDs being found in Iraq. He said flat out there was no basis for the assertion after Bush himself had said so.

Let's face it, the slow-mo Iraqi tragedy is slowly bleeding the US military and the support of certain critics like Murtha is quite strong in military circles. The Admin is in very serious conflict with the armed forces and there is obviously enormous reluctance to attack Iran and set off a war that could go anywhere.


Also you had Breszinski, the CFR/Trilateral Commission head--the most grown up of the grown-ups--just last week write a WaPo OpEd saying that the GWOT is a fraud and Iraq a debacle. The writing on the wall doesn't get much clearer.

Yes we have nukes and lots and lots of military tech, but only the neocons are actually contemplating using them. Such an attack would simply be unprecedented and IMO staggeringly immoral. There are real patriots in the armed forces, and all indications are that they've had enough. This is a very dangerous game and it could unleash unforeseen counter-moves.

Witness the pronouncements coming out of Russia and China. Who is not to say that China won't take the opportunity, once the US nukes Iran and loses all moral credibility and bogs itself down in a larger ME war, to retake Taiwan? They've got those Sizzler/Sunburn missiles and the US has most of its naval capabilities tied up in the Gulf region.

Like I said, no one should believe that this is going to be a cakewalk.

The real question is, are the Strangelovians still in power in Washington? If they are, then all Hell could break loose.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by gottago]

I think some things need to be cleared up in this thread. For starters, lets not lump all Americans into a single category; that is patently unfair. Yes, there was a poster who swaggered in like John Wayne and tried to paint this as the United States saving the day but some where I missed reading how his view represents the United States of America and her people.

Secondly, there is no defence against the Sunburn missile yet it isn't a problem for the US carriers in the Gulf because no one intends for the conflict to get hot. It is a classic Cold War situation. The presence of US carriers in the Gulf negates any Iranian chances of blockading the Straights of Hormuz and seriously degrading the Global oil supply. The prevention of an Iranian blockade is done so without actually doing any fighting.

Iran's only option therefore is to initiate an attack on the carriers and START a War with the Americans that it cannot possibly win. That would allow the United States to vaporise the Islamic Republic and not draw a whimper of condemnation from anyone since Iran fired first (and what a serious blow it would be). So basically the carriers are safe because Iran, regardless of what the tabloids/news media say, is a very rational actor and they wont fire first. Neither will the Americans since they don't need to in order to accomplish what they are there for.

The carriers are there to intimidate and prevent a blockade. They are not there to start a war which would result in their certain sinking. The Iranians know this and they too will not start a shooting war.

We are watching the initial stages of a new Cold War. Cold Wars drive economies better than shooting wars since they don't involve any deaths hence can be waged without losing public support. I would not be surprised if some in Washington actually want the Iranians to develop nukes. That way the United States could continue to drive it's economy on a war footing as well as give a continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan an air of legitimacy.

America needs a bad guy, just check the history of US armed conflicts. If there is not one, one will be created.

[edit on 5/4/07 by subz]

Originally posted by Majic
House Of Straw

Originally posted by gottago
Oh, and btw, let's not be so naive.

Let's not be so presumptuous, and please give that straw man you're beating on a break.

I can't really help you with your post, because it addresses someone who doesn't exist.

If you want to discuss the topic with me, please be courteous enough to actually disagree with something I've said, rather than launch into an irrelevant and insulting tirade unrelated to my actual opinions.

Thanks.

Majic,

Sorry if I've offended but the comment about being naive was general and not directed at you.

As for the rest of my post, I was truly staggered by this:

I think it's safe to say the time for talk is coming to an end.

Maybe I've entirely misread its meaning, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the implication that sentence and of ending it with a smiley/wink is that you were actually somehow looking forward to conflict.

Certainly it indicates an unwarranted confidence in both the willingness of the US to actually attempt diplomacy to defuse the crisis and not to launch an attack, neither of which are supported by the record of this administration.

Originally posted by kindred
As they say an image speaks a thousand words and quite frankly the title of this thread is truly laughable. Typical American arrogance. You take credit for everything. The truth is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad completely humiliated Tony Blair and Great Britain and made Tony Blair look like the American poodle he is. This had nothing to do with American helping whatsoever.

I agree,
What influenece did 1 AC have, when we already have, 2 or 3 in the region?
Ahmadinejad played a perfect game of chess.
The British just sat there, on their pawns.

I think releasing them after kicking up a fuss was the plan from day 1.
Britain couldnt even convince its own people, where its navymen were kidnapped from.

I think Blairs soft tactics are his own guilty mind speaking to him.
He knows we have no right to be in Iraq, he even admitted before the invasion WMD's was a farse.
He didnt want to do anything, because well they have more right to be doing what they are doing than we do.

Either way, Irans President VS Blair & Bush

The west just got trounced!

subz,

Very good analysis, and absolutely there's a new cold war developing.

But this time the roles are reversed and we are in the old Soviet position and are acting from a paradoxical position of strategic weakness.

Yes we've got weapons upon weapons, very reassuring on the surface, but as we've seen our carriers are checked and we simply don't have the manpower to follow through in the event of a real war. Launching a tech war is a possibility, but then our already tattered standing falls further into the gutter and we probably would unleash disastrous counter-moves.

What's really driving this is US weakness. Our economy is built on escalating and unsustainable debt and as profligates we desperately need to assure the flow of oil.

Russia and China are in full ascendance. Russia has the largest oil reserves in the world, their weapons tech is as good or better than ours and Putin is a very intelligent strategist. He is checking US advances in the Caucacus, the -stans, and in the ME. China holds massive amount of our debt and is rapidly becoming a serious military power.

Agreed Iran is a stalemate, and should remain so, if all parties are indeed rational actors. Stability is always preferable if one is rational. But my great worry is that we do not have entirely rational actors in Washington. And I don't know who really is in control there. That's the big wild card that could cause this crisis--which has after all been largely fomented by Washington--to develop into war.

If we take Iraq as any guide, we should all be deeply concerned.

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I have to agree with the title of this thread. The Nimitz battlegroup entering into the Persian Gulf helped Iran move a little faster to sending the 15 home. You can thank us later, Great Britain -- always glad to be of assistance.

Thank you for what? For the pre-planned rotation of a CBG?

The Nimitz is no where near the Persian Gulf right now, nor is it likley to be for another three weeks - you do know that Iran is about 4,000 miles away from the US and that ships like Nimitz move at a top speed of about 30-35 mph don't you? You are aware that the planes on Nimitz operate usually within a 300 mile radius of the carrier ?

What am I supposed to be thanking you for?

Originally posted by kindred

American arrogance knows no boundaries.

Does your use of LOL = Loser On-Line? Based on the pure arrogance of your childish post, I might have to assume as much.

Question: Why does thoughtful discussion of actual world events regarding a likely scenario equal "Arrogance"? The last time I checked, reasonable discussion about very real current events was equivalent to dialogue, not arrogance.

It is shameful that you have let your ignorance shine, shine, shine as the remainder of us ponder what all of this might mean for the world. If you have a problem with the "Arrogance" of the United States, I recommend you start a separate thread on such a topic and see what some of the other members have to say about it. Until then, please keep you anti-US bullocks off the thread! This topic has NOTHING to do with your opinion of the US or it's people.

Back on topic: The Nimititz is on scheduled deployment. However, there is not a normal deployment schedule for 2 CBGs to be in the same theatre at the same time, unless there is a very real threat of military conflict. I think we can all agree that we are clearly at that juncture.

What this presents to planners, however, is an option to extend deployment of any or all CBGs in the theatre as a show of force or for actual engagement. I seriously doubt that the CBGs had anything to do with Iran's decision, however. I believe that all of this was a calculated ploy in an attempt to force diplomacy as the world would've likely reponded very negatively to a show of force over the captured soldiers. Iran got exactly what it wanted - international exposure and a slight bargaining chip. By releasing the captives they are attempting to display benevolence and a willingness to cooperate with the international community. In very real terms, we refer to this as a smokescreen.

Originally posted by kozmo

Back on topic: The Nimititz is on scheduled deployment. However, there is not a normal deployment schedule for 2 CBGs to be in the same theatre at the same time, unless there is a very real threat of military conflict. I think we can all agree that we are clearly at that juncture.

What this presents to planners, however, is an option to extend deployment of any or all CBGs in the theatre as a show of force or for actual engagement. I seriously doubt that the CBGs had anything to do with Iran's decision, however. I believe that all of this was a calculated ploy in an attempt to force diplomacy as the world would've likely reponded very negatively to a show of force over the captured soldiers. Iran got exactly what it wanted - international exposure and a slight bargaining chip. By releasing the captives they are attempting to display benevolence and a willingness to cooperate with the international community. In very real terms, we refer to this as a smokescreen.

Sorry Kozmo, but there are already two carriers on station. The deployment of Nimitz to the area shows nothing other than the pre-planned relief of one of the two carriers, and the fact that it happened when it did is nothing but a co-incidence - it would have happened anyway regardless of if sailors had been captured or not.

Yeah, when it gets there it may well present a "show of force", but its certainly nothing to do with the capture and release at all, but more to do with the US posturing over Irans nuclear programmes

I would say this is a case of the reporter who wrote the article "talking up" the US position because - as has been extensively reported in the European media - the setting free of the captives came as a complete suprise to everyone. Iran scored a minor propaganda victory here.

With all this talk about the Sunburn being the dick pratt of missiles - lets not forget America never pulls out all her tricks at once.
No one had a wiff of the Stealth Bomber/Fighter until its operations in Iraq, yet it was a finished project by the 80s.

God only knows what America has these days sitting in underground bunkers. It spends such immense amounts on its military budget, has some of the greatest minds, and resources on the planet working for a common goal.

I'm no military expert, but what good is a missile if its function to fire is stopped with a technology like EMP or God knows what. Some electrical interference that stops its firing mechanism ....
Personally I believe America has technology that we could not even imagine.
Stories of huge flying triangles - do we know for certain they are not American next gen fighter/bombers?

Basing Iran's, China's or Russia's defenses on a singular weapon is not smart. And Im sure American technology has already surpassed missile technology, we just dont know about it.

Originally posted by JaneHendrix

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I have to agree with the title of this thread. The Nimitz battlegroup entering into the Persian Gulf helped Iran move a little faster to sending the 15 home. You can thank us later, Great Britain -- always glad to be of assistance.

No worries. I always knew we built your country for a reason.

Haha, touche!!! Gotta love that British sense of humor.

Anyways, I doubt this had as much to do with the Nimitz as it had to do with Iran using this to gather world support and play the little propaganda game. Because remember, propaganda can be true and be just as effective. If you look at it from an Iranian perspective, the release of the soldiers plays into their corner.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Iran's actions were IMO illegal by capturing British in waters they had every right under international law to be in. I think Iran played the situation to the hilt to energize their hardline domestic base, but then gave up when it appeared the world was turning against them and allied attack was becoming more and more a possibility by the day, making the hostages more of liability than an asset.

So is it right and correct then for This but not right for the iranians? no thats wrong - i said it before and i`ll say it again - this is a blatant case of `do as i say but don`t do as i do` very VERY much double standards.

us forces kidnapped iranians diplomates (very illegal) but thats `ok` then huh.

and 2-3 weeks is the right amount of time for a game like this - release too short and you look weak at home , take too long and you look bad on teh international scene - as before they got it right.

nothing about an american (it wasn`t allied at all in this) attack - stop trying to fan the flames when we all knew - well those with our blinkers OFF what the outcome and how long it would take.

Iran has hundreds of exocet class missiles, and nobody knows how many of the newer generation Russian Missles. Argentina had on a couple exocets, and took 2 ships out with those in the Falklands battle.

A massed attack of cruise missles against the battle fleet would severely cripple american naval capability, damaging it for decades. I dont think russian leaders have forgotten the afghanistan war, where the US supplied missiles to afghans and turned the tide.
Putin is excellent strategist, Iran figures they will be attacked sooner or later by either Israel or the cowboy pretending to be king....Iran may very well be used by Putin to wound the US and give russia the edge it needs.

The USA biggest export are US dollars, used to pay for goods not made in the USA any longer. We have no exports to speak of, nothing that creates wealth other than moving money around the world in a ever shrinking shell game.
The world is catching on, and the piper is going to get paid. Putin has massive oil and Gas reserves, sitting on the worlds greatest cash machine.
removing USD from the equation gives russia unprecedented economic power. This will be interesting to watch unravel

[edit on 5-4-2007 by el fuego]

I'm curious, people say that the US Navy is susceptible to attack by Sunburn and Sizzler missiles.

I'm sure people thought the same thing about Iraq in '91 when we went in. Oh, Iraq was invincible then, all new expensive Russian equipment aimed at defeating the US military might. Too bad it failed miserably.

I want you all to just stop, breathe and consider that perhaps the US doesn't display all of its capablities on CNN and what ever other news sources you all use to take apart the US military.

Perhaps it is possible that the US military has some form of defense against these "missiles" that they don't want anyone to know about. The sunburn and sizzilers to me are just like nuclear weapons, better as a deterrent than anything else.

Unfortunately for them it hasn't stopped the US from placing CBG's on schedule to the Gulf. Be it maritime practicing or whatever it is, they may not be there for war, but they are in a possible hostile area in the for the near future.

Besides the CBG's act more as psych weapons than anything else. They may not be there to fight the physical battle, but sure enough they're fighting alright.

I think people are underestimating the US military once again and putting things on a pedestal that really shouldn't be shined like that.

Shattered OUT...

or rather the US Navy are just brushing off the threat of a mach 3 missile as they have steal cojones but in reality they are trying to find a way to counter it

the only sea skimming missile attack in GW1 was intercepted AFTER the missile had missed its target and was shot down by an RN ship on the other side of the formation!

And the USN has upgraded the ability of ships to defend themselves against incoming threats since then. During GW1, they only had Phalanx, which really turned out to be a stop gap, feel good weapon than anything else. As for stopping them, we're not even going to have carriers in range of it, unless Iran has picked up SU-27Ks, and I haven't seen anything to show they got them. Even people in Iran say they don't have any SU-27s. Carriers don't operate inside the Gulf, they stay outside the Straits of Hormuz, because it's too hard to do ASW inside the Gulf, and it's too close to react to threats. The Sunburn only has a range of 60 miles (120km) although there are reports of it having a 250km range. Put buddy stores on some S-3s and EA-6Bs, and carrier borne aviation can operate well outside the range of the Sunburn.

I dont think anyone is under-estimating the US military. It's the only thing the planet seems to associate with the US now: guns, yeehahs, fake tans and false breasts.

The only estimate to do with the US military seems to be when they estimate whether a target is an enemy or not and then shoot it anyway - just in case.

Just think how awesome the US military would be if you injected it with a descent dose of intelligence.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Quackmaster]