Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

[J. Carroll]

Jeff McCann wrote:
> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> news:ys_Mh.6299$tv6.2653@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> Jeff McCann wrote:
>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>>
>>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
>>>> against this.
>>>
>>> Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the
>>> PLAN (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in
>>> taking out a U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a
>>> response about equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to
>>> say, they'd better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets
>>> or interests that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be
>>> made to suffer and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
>>>
>> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
>> They just don't.
>> Iran is another story.
>
> Um, their core military strategy, especially the naval aspects,
> focuses on Taiwan. To forcibly "reunite" Taiwan with the mainland,
> they have to, and do, recognize that their biggest obstacle is the
> USN. They plan accordingly.


In the end Jeff, we won't actually do a thing. There is a difference between
a "bear hug" and war.
The two countries are becoming increasingly intertwined economically and the
key to all of this in my opinion will be not to "disturb" the big money in
Taiwan. The two countries resemble each other in this regard. The PRC's
political leadership will tolerate anything that doesn't threaten their hold
and the Taiwanese business community can live with anything that preserves
their stature.



>
> See, e.g., http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2005/11/1153293 "China's
> military buildup is primarily, if not exclusively, focused on what
> Beijing refers to as the Taiwan problem"

What the Mainland Chinese leaders fear most is a farmers rebellion. They are
upgrading their military for sure. Not hurriedly. They aren't spending much
and it's as likely as not that they would use their latest weapons on their
own.
There are now something like 40,000 "joint venture" partnerships on the
mainland where one partner is Taiwanese.
There isn't a "Taiwan problem" really but a solution, if you will, is in
process. Money and power, not ideology, are the root of the situation.


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Geno2341]

Iran isn't going to strike first. America has threatend that, Should America
do so Iran will destroy the Saudi and Iraqi oil intra-structures.
Then there is the invasion of Iran. That is nearly imposible. Any troop ship
intering the Persian gulf would quickly be sunk,
Also Iran could quickly launch a Army into Iraq and also make the Green Zone
a turkey shoot.
Also outside of Israel what other county would allow Bush to burn them
again.
Also Iran has already stated what would happen to Israel.
So be carefull what you wish for.

"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
news:ys_Mh.6299$tv6.2653@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Jeff McCann wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>
>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>> this.
>>
>> Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
>> (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
>> U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
>> equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
>> better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
>> that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
>> and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
>>
> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
> They just don't.
> Iran is another story.
>
> --
>
> John R. Carroll
> Machining Solution Software, Inc.
> Los Angeles San Francisco
> www.machiningsolution.com
>
>

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
> Yeah, but...
>
> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
> a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.

We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us. No way would the liberals allow us to win a
war.

Or do you really believe that some dirty terrorist have beaten our
Army, our Navy, our nuclear weapons, and our ability to bomb them from
the stone age to the mud hut age with iron bombs?! If we can't win in
Iraq because of the Kerry's, Kennedy's and Pelosi's, we have no hope
against China.

It's the fifth columnist here at home who are the enemy we have to beat
if we are to survive as a nation.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>
>>If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>this.
>
>
> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
> thinking skills first.
>
> anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
> dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
> called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.

Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.

 

[M]

On Mar 23, 10:00 pm, "stuart.g...@comcast.net"
<stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:

> We're simply too sick as a nation,
> too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.


You're one of the sick ****s, asshole.

Real Americans don't hate America.
They hate the Bush Regime.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

M

 

[Jeff McCann]

"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Jeff McCann wrote:
>> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
>> news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Scotius wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
>>>>> against this.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
>>>> skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
>>>
>>> Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the
>>> targets are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not
>>> sea, based.
>>>
>>> At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however,
>>> have the
>>> Exocet deployed and these things scare the **** out of any surface
>>> fleet, ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land
>>> based Exocet if is
>>> less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+
>>
>> My understanding was that the MM40s (and all Exocet variants) were
>> subsonic.
>>
>>> and they are evaders.
>>
>> My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at
>> present, other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the
>> Block 3 variant would have some reactive evasion capacity.
>
> Jeff you're right. Iran deployed Silkworms in 1999.
> There are indeed supersonic Exocet's however. They just aren't sea
> launched.
>
>>
>>> Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
>>
>> They do seem to have a rather high failure rate in actual use,
>> although that may be at least in part attributable to certain,
>> ahem, technological defenses. Moreover, their warheads just aren't
>> that large. More than a few hits would be required to sink anything
>> as big and robust as a CVN.
>>
>>> Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to
>>> matter 'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the
>>> thing to knopw in
>>> enough time to do anything much.
>>>
>>> OTOH, they can use what they do, and what they have tested and now
>>> deployed
>>> is a 250 mph land and sea based torpedo.
>>
>> I'm very skeptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The
>> Russians had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something
>> like that, based on supercavitation technology. But it had a range
>> of less than 5 nm, due to the huge fuel consumption required. I
>> doubt the Iranians could do much better, even with expert Russian
>> help. What are the odds a launching platform could get that close?
>
>
> Pretty good. They land based variant sits on the end of a 1200 mph solid
> fuel missile.
> I wonder what they do on entry?

The Aegis system should be a reasonably effective defense during the aerial
segment, and other countermeasures can be deployed during the underwater
segment.

>>> About the only thing the US can do if the **** hits the fan in the
>>> Persian gulf is leave quickly or loose every single asset on the and
>>> under water - including and perhaps especially - any subs in the
>>> Gulf. The Gulf is a terrible place to have a deep water navy
>>> deployed and that is what the United States has. It is shallow,
>>> noisy and easily observable. You can drive
>>> a carrier around in less than a third of it and it isn't deep or cold
>>> enough
>>> to have the temperature gradient our subs need for concealment.
>>>
>>> Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will
>>> be the withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
>>> They'd be sitting ducks.
>>
>> Good observation. Another alternative we might see is a sudden and
>> sustained multiplatform attack intended to so degrade Iranian
>> anti-shipping assets as to make Gulf a reasonably safe operational
>> environment for USN warships.
>>
>
> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a better
> choice if we have it out with the Iranians.

Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and weight.
The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran than land based
assets can. Also, any activity at American land based facilities in the
Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is probably being monitored rather
closely by Iranian intelligence, but attack preparations at sea would be
much harder for the Iranians to detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely
heavily on cruise missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well
as tactical strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to
likely targets.

> I know a couple of former naval commanders from GWI and the thing they all
> agreed on was that they didn't eat much or sleep well when they were
> operating in the Gulf.

That's fully understandable. It's the worst sort of environment imaginable
for our Blue-Water Navy to have to fight in. The military always seems to
suffer from being better prepared for the last war than the next one.

> Personally, I can't imagine circumstances under which such a thing, an all
> out conflict, would happen - in the real world anyway.
> Not withstanding any particular course or outcome in Iraq, I can easily
> imagine the beginning of normalized diplomatic and economic relations with
> Iran in the next 5 years. You might laugh at that but my own first hand
> knoweledge of Iranians is the basis. They are not unfriendly to America
> and
> are in fact increasingly western in many ways. We need to be patient and
> wise enough to let these "kids" grow up. Things are changing and as the
> old
> farts pass from the stage, anything will be possible.


We have very similar views on this.

Jeff

 

[J. Carroll]

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:
> Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>
>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
>>> against this.
>>
>>
>> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with
>> regular thinking skills first.
>>
>> anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier
>> is dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead.
>> It is called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
> Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
> striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
> far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
> it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
> their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
> their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
> primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
> would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not
> going to go all out over a carrier group.

Stuart,
I'm sure this will pain you mightily, icing on the cake for me, but I
essentially agree with your statement.
9/11 fits any definition of an attack with WMD on the US that I know of and
the Bush administration has bugled exactly this for years. Not nuking
Afghanistan means we won't nuke anyone. MAD is dead.

>We're simply too sick as a
> nation, too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.

Then you post this garbage and prove yourself yet again to be little more
than terrible dusturbed and ubstable.
We aren't to sick - we are to smart ( I hope ) to cut off our nose to spite
our face.

--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[J. Carroll]

Jeff McCann wrote:
> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Jeff McCann wrote:
>>> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
>>> news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Scotius wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>>>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
>> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
>
> Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
> weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
> than land based assets can.

Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
Jeff.
Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?

>Also, any activity at American land
> based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
> probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
> attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
> detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
> missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
> strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
> targets.

Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
would be a real possibility.

>
>> I know a couple of former naval commanders from GWI and the thing
>> they all agreed on was that they didn't eat much or sleep well when
>> they were operating in the Gulf.
>
> That's fully understandable. It's the worst sort of environment
> imaginable for our Blue-Water Navy to have to fight in. The military
> always seems to suffer from being better prepared for the last war
> than the next one.
>
>> Personally, I can't imagine circumstances under which such a thing,
>> an all out conflict, would happen - in the real world anyway.
>> Not withstanding any particular course or outcome in Iraq, I can
>> easily imagine the beginning of normalized diplomatic and economic
>> relations with Iran in the next 5 years. You might laugh at that but
>> my own first hand knoweledge of Iranians is the basis. They are not
>> unfriendly to America and
>> are in fact increasingly western in many ways. We need to be patient
>> and wise enough to let these "kids" grow up. Things are changing and
>> as the old
>> farts pass from the stage, anything will be possible.
>
>
> We have very similar views on this.
>
> Jeff

--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Jeff McCann]

"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
news:g_%Mh.1170$YL5.200@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Jeff McCann wrote:
>> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
>> news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Jeff McCann wrote:
>>>> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
>>>> news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> Scotius wrote:
>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>>>>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
>>> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
>>
>> Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
>> weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
>> than land based assets can.
>
> Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with
> binoculars
> Jeff.

True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
different kettle of fish.

> Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
>
>>Also, any activity at American land
>> based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
>> probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
>> attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
>> detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
>> missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
>> strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
>> targets.
>
> Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
> I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
> would be a real possibility.

Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
occupation in the long run.

Jeff

 

[Jeff McCann]

"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
news:Xt%Mh.1164$YL5.540@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
[snip]
>>> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
>>> They just don't.
>>> Iran is another story.
>>
>> Um, their core military strategy, especially the naval aspects,
>> focuses on Taiwan. To forcibly "reunite" Taiwan with the mainland,
>> they have to, and do, recognize that their biggest obstacle is the
>> USN. They plan accordingly.
>
>
> In the end Jeff, we won't actually do a thing. There is a difference
> between
> a "bear hug" and war.
> The two countries are becoming increasingly intertwined economically and
> the
> key to all of this in my opinion will be not to "disturb" the big money in
> Taiwan. The two countries resemble each other in this regard. The PRC's
> political leadership will tolerate anything that doesn't threaten their
> hold
> and the Taiwanese business community can live with anything that preserves
> their stature.

Over time, it seems that the PRC and the ROC will greatly expand their
economic relations and co-dependence, making any war an ever-increasing
mutual detriment.

It's a good thing that idiots and psychopaths never find their way into
power, international relations are never bungled, national leaders always
behave rationally, no one ever bluffs or calls someone else's bluff, and
crises are always averted, right?

And things do have the capacity to change very rapidly, indeed. Ask the
residents of Sarajevo, in the former Yugoslavia, about the stark difference
in the life of their city between the optimism of 1984, when they hosted the
Winter Olympics, and the desperation of 1992, when the siege of Sarajevo
began. What a difference a few years can make, eh?

Jeff

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 23, 5:17 pm, NeverExpectPowerAlways <h...@noway.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but...
>
> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
> a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.

>
> The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> of all the rest of the world combined.

LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
9/11 occurred?

>
>A deadly missile strike against a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
>

And if Bush would decide to attack Iran, doesn't Iran have the right
and responsibility to protect itself?


Yeah...life gets complicated, doesn't it?

TMT

 

[greylock123@houston.rr.com]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:37:36 -0800, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam>
wrote:

>Jeff McCann wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>
>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
>>> this.
>>
>> Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
>> (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
>> U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
>> equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
>> better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
>> that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
>> and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
>>
>The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
>They just don't.

Do you recall ever hearing of a place called Taiwan?

All that holds them back is the quite reasonable perception that they
are unlikely to WIN any encounter over Taiwan.

If - IN THEIR PERCEPTION - that equation changes - they might very
well attack a "US interest".


>Iran is another story.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 23, 5:50 pm, Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
>
> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>
> >If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
> >this.
>
> you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
> thinking skills first.
>
> anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
> dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
> called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
>
> Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
> somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
> of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
> somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
> of committing suicide.
>
> So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
> back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
> with what I just mentioned?
>
> Lg

>
> So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
> back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
> with what I just mentioned?
>

Well why doesn't some conservative tell me why after being in office
for over six years why the Navy is STILL wide open to this threat?
Hasn't Bush and the Republican Congress been given a blank check to
improve the military? As the article notes...nothing has been done.

TMT

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 23, 8:41 pm, "Jeff McCann" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
>
> news:g_%Mh.1170$YL5.200@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jeff McCann wrote:
> >> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >>news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >>> Jeff McCann wrote:
> >>>> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >>>>news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>>> Scotius wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> >>>>>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
> >>> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
>
> >> Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
> >> weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
> >> than land based assets can.
>
> > Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with
> > binoculars
> > Jeff.
>
> True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
> different kettle of fish.
>
> > Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
>
> >>Also, any activity at American land
> >> based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
> >> probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
> >> attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
> >> detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
> >> missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
> >> strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
> >> targets.
>
> > Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
> > I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
> > would be a real possibility.
>
> Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
> grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
> ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
> A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
> certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
> that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
> occupation in the long run.
>
> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[J. Carroll]

Jeff McCann wrote:
> "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
> news:Xt%Mh.1164$YL5.540@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> [snip]
>>>> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
>>>> They just don't.
>>>> Iran is another story.
>>>
> Over time, it seems that the PRC and the ROC will greatly expand their
> economic relations and co-dependence, making any war an
> ever-increasing mutual detriment.

Thousands of years of history in common also count. They really are one
people - even if they won't yet embrace that fully.
Taiwan and the PRC remind me of our Democrats and Republicans were the
gloves ever to truly come off in a genuine civil insurrection with the split
along party lines.

>
> It's a good thing that idiots and psychopaths never find their way
> into power, international relations are never bungled, national
> leaders always behave rationally, no one ever bluffs or calls someone
> else's bluff, and crises are always averted, right?

LOL
Amazingly good! <Cough>
I was thinking not long ago that the WWII generation and the young pols of
the late depression years dominated the political landscape in the United
States for decades and that the Baby Boomers look to be passing from the
stage after just two Presidencies. The former knew real hardship and
personal sacrifice. The latter didn't. The difference in their ability to
govern successfully has been striking. A generation of moderates begat one
of bullies. Who would have thought such an outcome was possible. I'd almost
be willing to bet we've seen the last of the boomers in the WH. There might
be one more but that will be it.

>
> And things do have the capacity to change very rapidly, indeed. Ask
> the residents of Sarajevo, in the former Yugoslavia, about the stark
> difference in the life of their city between the optimism of 1984,
> when they hosted the Winter Olympics, and the desperation of 1992,
> when the siege of Sarajevo began. What a difference a few years can
> make, eh?

They did what the Soviets had unnaturally prevented them from continuing to
do. The divisions there are the same ones that beset the Middle east.
Exactly the same ones.



--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>
> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
> this.


Not a problem, the Democrats will surrender to them as soon as they get
enough pork on the surrender bill.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 23, 8:41 pm, "Jeff McCann" <nos...@nothanks.com> wrote:
> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
>
> news:g_%Mh.1170$YL5.200@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jeff McCann wrote:
> >> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >>news:Fk%Mh.1163$YL5.1153@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >>> Jeff McCann wrote:
> >>>> "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote in message
> >>>>news:tg_Mh.6297$tv6.4961@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>>> Scotius wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> >>>>>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
> >>> better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
>
> >> Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
> >> weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
> >> than land based assets can.
>
> > Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with
> > binoculars
> > Jeff.
>
> True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
> different kettle of fish.
>
> > Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
>
> >>Also, any activity at American land
> >> based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
> >> probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
> >> attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
> >> detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
> >> missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
> >> strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
> >> targets.
>
> > Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
> > I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
> > would be a real possibility.
>
> Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
> grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
> ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
> A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
> certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
> that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
> occupation in the long run.
>
> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> I'm not
> certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
> that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
> occupation in the long run.
>

The first would be the total termination of Mideast oil...the second
would be the sound of the US economy grinding to a halt...the third
would be our Chinese creditors wanting their money.

Yep...life would really get interesting.

TMT

 

[J. Carroll]

greylock123@houston.rr.com wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:37:36 -0800, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam>
> wrote:
>
>> Jeff McCann wrote:
>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1174688265.380348.24810@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
>>>>
>>>> If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
>>>> against this.
>>>
>>> Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the
>>> PLAN (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in
>>> taking out a U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a
>>> response about equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to
>>> say, they'd better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets
>>> or interests that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be
>>> made to suffer and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
>>>
>> The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
>> They just don't.
>
> Do you recall ever hearing of a place called Taiwan?
>
> All that holds them back is the quite reasonable perception that they
> are unlikely to WIN any encounter over Taiwan.
>
> If - IN THEIR PERCEPTION - that equation changes - they might very
> well attack a "US interest".


LOL
Taiwan is much more of a Chinese interest than an American one and in the
event, the US isn't likely to go beyond a certain point. It would not be in
our interests to do so. It's a lose - lose.
You also aren't likely to see real conflict between India and Pakistan for
the same reason. The world can't afford to loose Bangalore.

It's high time for the US to grow the hell up and rejoin the world community
to create something, not force it.
We've become something of an international outlaw at this point. Feared by
all and respected by none.


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[Vandar]

Jeff McCann wrote:
> "Geno2341" <eugenefkent@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:339db$46047e45$d8442e0a$25923@FUSE.NET...
>
>>And Washington isn't in the sights of China's Nukes?
>
>
> Unless it is smuggled in via shipping container or something, the answer
> would be "no" to the best of my knowledge. But the West coast is within
> reach of their ICBMs.

The DF-5A can reach DC.