Bush Administration Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet – The New Pearl Harbor

reply to post by goosdawg



At sea level, how far away do you think the horizon is?

At 100 feet of elevation (eye level on a carrier deck)?

As for calling the Persian Gulf a "lake," that may sound good in a Rense article, but it's far from the truth.

reply to post by LaBTop


ah yes iran is totally innocent of supplying arms and actual iranian military personnel to help their proxies in iraq murdering american and british troops and in gaza with the hamas and in lebanon with the hezbollah firing anti ship missiles at israeli frigates and anti-aircraft missiles at idf aircraft.the iuds that the iraqis and taliban wouldnt have a clue how to make on their own just keep on magically arriving out of thin air?how dumb do you think the american and jewish military is with what irans leaders are up to?then there's the underground nuke installations in iran that are never inepected by the un where there are speculated to be up to 50,000 centrifuges being set up if not operating right now----according to past news articals on debka.com

MM is right. The Persian gulf is a bit big to be called a "lake". With a range of 120km according to most sources (although there are some sources claiming a 250km variant) even Russian SCRAMJET cruise missiles like Moskit can't cover the entire gulf.

Most of Iran's FACs can't carry them and the Iranian airforce would never be allowed within range.

That's not to say the Iranians can't get any shots in- but I doubt they could obliterate our forces in the gulf without a very overt setup to allow it.

Bush could certainly put our forces in harms way and then provoke the Iranians. But it would have to be more or less allowed by ordering the fleet into a vulnerable position and forcing restrictive rules of engagement onto them. The big advantage Iran gains from its missiles is the ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. At barely over 50km wide, that's a bottleneck that could be easily controlled with Iran's missile forces from a wide enough area that locating and taking out all of the missiles might be difficult.

Of course, Iran could always play some Van Riper style games- putting missiles on unconventional platforms for example.

And really, if I were running the show in Iran, aircraft carriers would be a second-priority target. What I'd really want a crack at is the LMSRs- the primary equipment movers of the war on terror. We have only 19.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
At sea level, how far away do you think the horizon is?

0*

At 100 feet of elevation (eye level on a carrier deck)?

12.3 kilometres*

*using an online "Distance to the Horizon" calculator.

Problem is that only gives you the measurement from an elevation to sea-level horizon.


Now then, I'm no mathematician. (I'm an artist, )

So I have a question for the more mathematically inclined: What's the distance "to horizon" for the top of the mast (about 64meters or 210ft above sea-level) to a missile battery, say, 400 meters up the side of a mountain? (or 1312.4 ft.)

Looking at a map of the Persian Gulf, I'll wager it's not "over the horizon' from anywhere off the coast of Iran.

How fast can a missile going Mach 2.5 cover that distance?

Now multiply that by several missiles coming from more than one direction.

And how many can be knocked down before the anti-missile systems are overwhelmed?

Remember, according to published info, it only takes one to get through to cause major damage and/or send the ship straight to the bottom.

reply to post by The Vagabond


LMSRs? What does that mean?

reply to post by Beachcoma


Yeah, and what's a FAC?


Edit to add googles:

FAC = Fast Attack Craft?

LMSR = Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off Ships

www.msc.navy.mil...





[edit on 11-11-2007 by goosdawg]

reply to post by Matyas

What?

I posted facts, it was reported that their effectiveness was pure propaganda.

And Im not sure what an armchair patriot is, Im guessing you served in the war and felt the need to try and prove yourself "superior".

LMSR= Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off Ship. A class of transport that the navy took delivery of in the late 90s early 00s.

Intended to solve deployability problems in response to concerns during the 90s that the next incarnation of Saddam Hussien might not sit on his thumbs for half a year while we brought in men and equipment from all over the world.

Comes in 4 classes: Bob Hope class, Watson class, Shughart class, and Gordon Class. 8 are pre-positioned to support deployments and 11 are held in reduced operation for surge-sealift, ready to set sail in 4 days.
Our 19 LMSRs have moved 32 Million square feet of cargo since 9/11.

• Each LMSR can carry an entire U.S. Army Task Force, including 58 tanks, 48 other tracked vehicles, as well as more than 900 trucks and other wheeled vehicles.
  
• The LMSRs are each crewed by approximately 30 civilian mariners who work for private companies under contract to the Military Sealift Command.
  
• The ships support both combat and humanitarian missions.
  Bob Hope-class, Watson-class and Shughart-class ships each have a cargo-carrying capacity of more than 300,000 square feet, equivalent to more than five football fields.
  
• Each LMSR has a slewing stern ramp and a removable ramp that services two side ports, making it easy to drive vehicles on and off the ship.
  
• Interior ramps allow easy traffic flow between decks.
  
• Two single pedestal twin cranes which can jointly lift 110-tons make loading and off-loading possible where shoreside infrastructure is limited or nonexistent.
  
• A helicopter deck allows for emergency landings.

www.globalsecurity.org...
FAC= Fast Attack Craft. The Iranian Navy depends on fast attack craft rather than larger surface combatants. They have about 25 small missile boats, 3 corvettes and 2 frigates, and these are older than dirt (US and Brtish designs from before the revolution). 200 "miscellaneous small craft", most of which won't pack the kind of firepower you'd need to go after a carrier battlegroup, although you could try the Van Riper thing with them.

The hypersonic ramjet cruise missiles designed by the Russians were designed for deployment on large ships. Tarantul class FC and Sovremenny DDG as I recall.

Their small missile boats, half chinese, half old french designs, can accomodate the C-802, but its a shorter range and inferior missile to SS-N-22 and considering how Iraq's Osa class missle boats did against British helos, I wouldn't expect much of a show from them.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Just so I know...

When does this neoconservative agenda end? If this "sacrifice" doesn't occur by a certain time, is it officially a "crap theory?" When is the cutoff? Is it January 20, 2009? Is it Mid November 2008?

Let me know, I want to mark it on the calendar because I just hate open ended doom and gloom... Especially when it's ridiculous crap.

Ridiculous crap? These are sound theories. ATS is the place to speculate and theorize, you seem to want to crack down on free thinking. You sure dont show much moderation in your posts. All very one-sided.
As for the open-ended doom and gloom... trust me... its not open ended, just wait and see. We dont have much time left.

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Just so I know...

When does this neoconservative agenda end? If this "sacrifice" doesn't occur by a certain time, is it officially a "crap theory?" When is the cutoff? Is it January 20, 2009? Is it Mid November 2008?

Let me know, I want to mark it on the calendar because I just hate open ended doom and gloom... Especially when it's ridiculous crap.

Ridiculous crap? These are sound theories. ATS is the place to speculate and theorize, you seem to want to crack down on free thinking. You sure dont show much moderation in your posts. All very one-sided.
As for the open-ended doom and gloom... trust me... its not open ended, just wait and see. We dont have much time left.

Actually sir i think mirthful has not only been the voice of reason in this thread but also of intelligence and just because you "neoliberals" call people sheeple or sheep or saying they are trying to "crack down on free thinking" when they offer polite and intelligent counter points. maybe your advocating laziness or irresponsibility for speaking against someone offering intelligent debate?

Misconceptions and a wager of Musa...

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
Ridiculous crap? These are sound theories. ATS is the place to speculate and theorize, you seem to want to crack down on free thinking. You sure dont show much moderation in your posts. All very one-sided.
As for the open-ended doom and gloom... trust me... its not open ended, just wait and see. We dont have much time left.

Yes, ridiculous crap. This happens to be the "Breaking News" forum, and it's supposed to be based on news stories... This one is not; it's based on an Op/Ed analysis piece... An analysis that is patently flawed. To subscribe to this analysis, you must be willing to accept that the current administration (the dreaded neocons) will manipulate events so that the Fifth Fleet is sunk, allowing thousands of Sailors and Marines to die. That by this manipulation that capital ships will be sunk by a foreign nation, and since this is by the very title of the article, is going to be carried out by the current administration (because we all know those warm and cuddly liberals will be in the White House come January 20, 2009). Right? That would be the cutoff, then, or when the election was declared official (hence my mid November 2008 alternate date). So there you have it... A finite period of time for this "theory."

There's is free thinking, wild speculation, and then there is crap like this... A liberal PhD who has some pipe dream about what the "evil neocons" are up to, and what he is sure that they are going to do. I'm a betting monkey, I'll put up a pallet bananas against Michael Salla and his "insight" into the machinations of the Bush Administration. I'm betting I'll getting my fill of Musa.

On a side note, I'm not constrained in any way in my posting, save for the Terms & Conditions, so there's no need for "moderation" when it comes to posting my opinion.

I'll keep my own counsel on who to trust, thank you very much.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
On a side note, I'm not constrained in any way in my posting, save for the Terms & Conditions, so there's no need for "moderation" when it comes to posting my opinion.

I think he might be referring to your signature, not your title or position on ATS. Maybe.

simple war game scenarios. every imaginable scenario must be considered. there are those so opposed to self defense that they would gladly welcome a less imaginative military to look after our freedoms.

fighting back is just wrong, innit?

funny thing about that "news" website... does it lean to the left of your monitor like it does mine? i mean like waayyyy left?

=o)

reply to post by yahn goodey


You would be implying that Bush is the antichrist if this were correct. I deem this unlikely. The antichrist will be wildly popular, most everyone on this board would support him in fact, but they hate Bush. Moreover this leader of the north will exhibit all kinds of false signs and wonders and blaspheme God. Leader Bush, instead at least pretends to worship God and as far as I know hasn't actually claimed to be God, nor has he made a deal for Israel to rebuild the temple.

At best we might be looking at the Gog and Magog war here in Ezekiel 39. In that war, "those who dwell carelessly in the coastands" are burned with fire early in the conflict. That would probably be a successful Russian nuclear first strike against the US, effectively removing her as a world power forever. After that by the hand of God, according to prophecy, Russia and her ally Iran fare exceedingly poorly.

Originally posted by planetfall

funny thing about that "news" website... does it lean to the left of your monitor like it does mine? i mean like waayyyy left?

I have 2 monitors and this story seems to be stuck on the left one...

On another note

The point is still the huge jump this article takes that makes it really worthless. It is funny that I would find a war simulation interesting, but that is not the real story here. The story is Bush is going to kill 6000 plus sailors and wipe the 5th fleet to meet his agenda of attacking Iran before he leaves office.

Now all of you that are so convinced that this will happen I think your heads are buried so deep in a bucket of conspiracy that you have lost all sense of what reality actually is. I’m not sure what you all are going to do when Bush quietly leaves office, but just maybe a ray of truth might pierce this blackness that surrounds you and prevents you from seeing the real truth.


[edit on 11-11-2007 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Oh, here we are...

The article was published on the 9th of November, certainly within the 48hr limit for "Breaking News," and it concerned a conspiracy of silence by the leaders of the "free world" to disregard a real and present danger to American citizens and hardware.

Good fodder for discussion on a conspiracy-themed website no matter what your political label, don't you think?

Owing to the serious nature of the themes covered in this article, I felt it was imperative to bring this to light as something more than just a "political" issue.

Unfortunately the "Neocon" in the title ruffled the feathers of a few remaining apologists for the "right wing agenda."

I operate under the constraints of the "Breaking News" TAC that require the title of the article referenced to be also the title of the post.

So be it, here we are, moved to the AbovePolitics section with a thread concerning events that should be above politics.

So the OpEdNews.com website wears their political leanings on their sleeves, I find that to be more honest than a news source like Fox "news" that claims to be "fair and balanced" yet is anything but.

And the facts concerning the deliberate downplaying of the "cooked" results of the "Millennium Challenge" were certainly news to me and, I'll wager, more than a few of the 3,000 plus views by our fellow "netizens."

Gives rise to questions of "why" they would park our assets in harm's way, like "sitting ducks," if they know they're in danger.

Why is the theory of a major "false flag" event as described such "ridiculous crap," given that the Cheney has publicly stated he needs an event "bigger than 9/11" to rally the popular support needed to have his way with Iran?

Oh how I hope, with all due sincerity, that the horrific scenario the author has proposed never comes to pass.

But if it does, we'll be in a world of hurt, and you'll be eating more than bananas!


Edit to add link:

Here's a link to an article in the "The New Yorker" that details some of the machinations of the people involved in running the "show."

www.newyorker.com...

[edit on 12-11-2007 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by planetfall
simple war game scenarios. every imaginable scenario must be considered. there are those so opposed to self defense that they would gladly welcome a less imaginative military to look after our freedoms.

If "every imaginable scenario must be considered," why did they refloat the ships and throw the game?

And then continue to downplay the significance of this action?

I would posit that there are those so devoted to their offensive position to impose their goals, they will sacrifice their own citizens and assets.

And in order to counter an extreme far-right leaning administration about to tip us into the abyss, we must take an opposite stance to the left to level the ship.

reply to post by semperfortis


I agree. There is no reason to "sacrifice" the Fifth Fleet. It is more logical to watch for a repositioning of the fleet as evidence that something is being ratcheted up.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Owing to the serious nature of the themes covered in this article, I felt it was imperative to bring this to light as something more than just a "political" issue.

Unfortunately the "Neocon" in the title ruffled the feathers of a few remaining apologists for the "right wing agenda."

You can call it breaking news and the name calling “Neocon etc” means little. The fact that the author basically invented the "serious nature" of the article is what makes it worthless and what has ruffled most feathers. I would think an article that could have stated that the 5th fleet may be vulnerable to missile attacks and then used the war simulation to back up that claim would have been then a good article, but that was not the purpose of the author.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The fact that the author basically invented the "serious nature" of the article is what makes it worthless and what has ruffled most feathers.

I must respectfully disagree with your estimation of the op article being worthless and disingenuous.

The serious nature of this scenario wasn't dreamt up by the author just to bash the "NeoCon" agenda.

You see, simply put, time's running out for the Bush administration, and their backers, to have their way.

The very future of humanity may rest upon seeking a diplomatic solution to this dreadful havoc.

Bellicose demands and cowboy posturing is not a very mature or productive way to deal with a proud and powerful people.

If they hadn't lied, repeatedly, to embroil us in their Iraqi debacle, their case for forcing their will on Iran might now have been considered with more weight.

Hence, their arguments for military action against Iran, ring hollow, and self-serving.

With that in mind, the only way they're going to garner popular support for using force in the Iranian situation now, is if "another 9/11" takes place, using Cheney's own words.

Sacrificing "the Fifth Fleet" actually makes much more sense, for lack of a better term, than nuking, or dirty-bombing an American city.

A "false flag" event in the states would be subject to some very rigid scrutiny, as evidenced by the intensifying efforts to re-examine the official explanation of the "original" 9/11, which would risk exposure to their criminal machinations.

Whereas an event in the Gulf could be "contained" and controlled to a much higher degree by the forces that pull it off, allowing for a better chance of keeping the truth under wraps.

Besides, in the view of those who call the shots, anyone who volunteers for the armed services is, by definition, already simply cannon fodder.

A means to end, a tool in the service of their masters.

So why not expend a few of those assets to satisfy their hidden agenda?



Allow me to re-post the link to the New Yorker article, mentioned in my earlier post while this thread was languishing under a different name:

www.newyorker.com...

May I respectfully suggest having a go at it, it's a good, in-depth read going into the historical under-pinnings of this most dire situation.