USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

Originally posted by xmotex
I think the Iranians know full well that the French won't be participating in any strikes against Iran. The UK may be firmly affixed to the US's posterior, the French are far less so.

Together with Britain and America, France has also been very loudly opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions, although the European nations have offered civilian nuclear technological assistance (which Iran rejected out of pride)

Germany has links to Iran that it needs to preserve, France had links to Iraq which is had to preserve.

Originally posted by Majic

...those "brutal Afghan winters".

Let me catch my breath here.

Every time I hear that phrase, I get a picture of that prune face Eleanor Clift.

[edit on 2007/4/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Westpoint knows his stuff, I wouldn't argue with him when it comes to ships.

He makes a valid point, you can't really apply one single incident to an entire conflict considering the situation.

Shattered OUT...

To those who think I have an agenda when I posted this topic, I would like them to know that I posted the headline as it appeared on newsmax.com. I also did not insinuate that articles opinion was true either, as I left some doubt in my initial statement. What I was hoping to accomplish was to read other peoples thoughts on the story….no need to get nasty. I’m just a college student trying to get the whole picture instead of what I am spoon-fed at school.

BlueRidge

I don't think you're the one who people thought that had an agenda. I don't think anyone had a problem with you posting it, only problem was with the insinuation made by the author of the article, not the author of the thread.

Shattered OUT...

No Problem,
Just thought I was being called out....thanks for caring!

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We seem to have a slew of military non experts chirping in here.

Now let see...

What a flying start, no arrogance there...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Funny, there is not a single case where the Sunburn missile has been used in combat that I know of...

Then why are you acting so high and mighty like you're convinced OTHER PEOPLE are wrong when you don't have ANYTHING to back it up with. You're entitled to speculate just as much as the next man. You may know slews of acronyms and specs which might give you a better speculative power. But its still speculation and shouldn't lead to arrogant posts such as those I've had the misfortune of reading.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There are plenty of defenses, some of which you and I still may not know of.

Ah yes, the great mystery machines argument again. Well let's bet your house on whether or not the Sunburn missile can be intercepted shall we? Are you that confident? You seem to be.

Can't you accept that there are simply missiles that cannot be intercepted? Is it not the case that missile defences are woefully inadequate? How about MIRVs? I suppose they can be successfully intercepted by American mystery weapons as well...right?

Drop the arrogant tone, it does your intellect no favours.

[edit on 5/4/07 by subz]

No Subz, because until missiles can travel the speed of light and cannot not be spotted by any form of optics man has at his disposal, there will always be a form of interception for that missile.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by subz
There is no defence against Sunburn missiles that I know of.

Here we go with the "all powerful" sunburn missiles again.

[snip]

Give it a rest, really ...

I'm sorry, do I know you?

Anyway...if the Sunburn is nothing to be afraid of then why was the US military trying (unsuccessfully) to purchase them?

Or are we to simply believe the omnipotent US military has some magical super weapon up it's sleeve that no one knows about. One that's been fitted to an aircraft carrier, that no one knows about.

If there was even a shred of evidence to back up the claim that Sunburn missiles could be intercepted I'd sure like to see it.

Do you really think the U.S. Navy doesn't have the lowdown on Iranian tech? Do you really think the U.S Navy has shown all of it's cards in this high stake game of Poker? Tisk, Tisk. You only know what the United States wants you to know. If and when it is necessary for us to pull out a couple of really sharp knives from the drawer --- then you will know. Same thing goes for Great Britain. We haven't seen every black ops project up her sleeve. Iran would be commiting suicide if it attacked either country and in the end we are ALLIES 'til the end. Both countries are defending the same set of values. To snipe at each other over the handling of the situation is stupid and inelegant.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 5-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No Subz, because until missiles can travel the speed of light and cannot not be spotted by any form of optics man has at his disposal, there will always be a form of interception for that missile.

So the United States has an impenetrable missile shield that can halt every known missile on the planet? WoW

I know my eyes are not 100% but I think most people would struggle to spot a missile 6ft above the ground doing mach 3.

So Um... How 'Bout That Nimitz?

I'm at least as guilty as anyone else in this thread, but I think we're going somewhat afield of the topical thesis that the USS Nimitz played a role in triggering the release of the British detainees from Iran.

Of course, members interested in discussing the pros and cons of carriers and cruise missiles are always welcome to debate the finer points in the Weaponry forum.

Meanwhile, with a respectful nod to subz, I'm sure a little more humility wouldn't hurt any of us.

You people do realize you're imposing the same faith argument to the topic here as do religious fundies? You're basing your positions on nothing more than faith. How are we meant to debate faith?

I don't know-the situation is just strange all around. I don't think the Nimitz alone did the trick. Yes the US can kick the ever-livin-fraq out of Iran militarily-no question. However the politic ramifications are a whole other game. How will a conflict with Iran go over with the other states? Can you say jihad? Also with the UN and world couple that with the fracturing(?) US sentiments towards war and conflicts...?

Does not seem like something the US should or would want to engage in AT THIS TIME.

Like I said-I don't know. Thoughts?

No subz, what I meant to say was that you're assertion that a missile was un-interceptable was merely false.

You have to keep in mind, it's not a person who is spotting out for these things it is highly complicated and advanced computers and sensors that are watching out. A lot of money went into the development of these systems, we can at least give our brother's and sister's the benefit of a doubt and say that they have some level of protection against the supposed "super missile" that is the Sunburn.

I'm sure they said the same thing about the exocet when it came out and to be honest it was a very fine missile, but eventually systems did come out to counter it.

Imagine this, there are optics and sensors that can detect old generation stealth. Not very stealthy if it can be detected right?

As the sword gets stronger so does the armor that fends against it. That's really the best way I can put it.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No subz, what I meant to say was that you're assertion that a missile was un-interceptable was merely false.

With respect to Majic's post, this is my last reply on the tangent of Sunburns. ShatteredSkies, I appreciate your points but more so I appreciate your civil tone

Do you really think the US NEEDS to pull out any 'secret' black program weapons out to engage an Iran?

Iran's military is a notch above Iraq's when under Saddams and the Rep. Guard. The F-14 Tomcats we sold them back when were shelved due to lack of maintenance spare parts. etc....

The only reason the US WOULD pull out some new wep is to test it out in a real world combat scenario. No something else transpired to flip the Iranian switch and to release the Brits and offer them care packages and fitted suits. Just my 92 cents (inflation ya know).

Originally posted by greatlakes
No something else transpired to flip the Iranian switch and to release the Brits and offer them care packages and fitted suits.

The situation outlived it's usefulness for the Iranians. They'd already humiliated Britain and got them to drop their "no talks" stance and ask for "direct talks" and assurances to respect Iranian waters. When that happened there was no need to hold the 15 soldiers any longer.

The whole Nimitz premise of this thread is incorrect IMO.

A Sudden Change Of Heart

Originally posted by greatlakes
No something else transpired to flip the Iranian switch and to release the Brits and offer them care packages and fitted suits. Just my 92 cents (inflation ya know).

For all his bluster, I think President Ahmadinejad is well aware that Iran can't really "win" against the U.S., just try to hurt it as best it can, and I'm sure the rest of the Irani government knows this as well.

These guys aren't stupid.

However, they do have goals and ambitions, and while people can debate it all they want, I'm sure nuclear weapons are way up there on the shopping list.

And who can blame them? It's not exactly like a hostile nation (U.S.) hasn't invaded the countries on each side of them and made it pretty darn clear they're next.

The Irani government is very much aware of the peril it's in, and has gone to great lengths to make itself a "hard target".

Delays benefit them. They know the longer the U.S. holds off attacking them, the better prepared they will be, and the weaker the U.S. position will be -- especially with elections looming in 2008. "October Surprises" aren't what they used to be, and a misstep could well be torpedoed by the Democrats.

In this case, I doubt the Nimitz was much of a factor in Iran's decision-making.

Rather, I think they realized holding on to the Brits was rapidly eroding their image in the world community, and they need all the friends they can get right now. Also, there's evidence to suggest some concessions behind the scenes by the U.S. and possibly Britain as well.

Not that it will make much difference. If the U.S. has decided on war, then war it shall be, and on a timetable which suits the U.S.

At this point, Iran's best bet would be to do whatever is necessary to disrupt that timetable, and I strongly suspect it's later than we think.

I don't agree. I think that the imminent arrival of the Nimitz Carrier Group certainly weighed heavily in the minds of some Iranian knuckleheads. Afterall, we know that they would not shoot first at the United States Navy. If they did then no one would question an appropiate military response. Part of the reason this played out the way it did, it should be kept in mind, was that Iranian military personnel that actually captured the 15 were part of some weird shadowy praetorian guard created by the Iranian President. It does not recognize the authority of the regular Iranian military and operates under a different set of rules.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

^^^^
agree.


I just wonder how Iran is selling it to the people-it seemed the iranian people were propagandized into a bit of a furor over the whole thing. Seems liek Iran is like other countries that need to 'save face' when dealing with international and military conflict. I guess the save face part was the back down by UK was enough to satisfy.