2nd U.S. carrier strike group steaming towards Persian Gulf

[Kastor]

dude Iran is only a 2 days game, not a second more

Apprx 4000 U.S. serviceman died in Iraq, 35000 badly maimed or wounded. 3000 dead in Afghanistan, scores more wounded. This is not counting U.S. mercenaries and contractors. Yes, easy as pie...2 days tops

 

[xyxmt]

Apprx 4000 U.S. serviceman died in Iraq, 35000 badly maimed or wounded. 3000 dead in Afghanistan, scores more wounded. This is not counting U.S. mercenaries and contractors. Yes, easy as pie...2 days tops

we will see, game is about to end...the game that started with Iran partnering with US to destroy Muslim countries, now this the last chapter. I want to say told you so but i wont.

 

[zartosht]

if were to break out, i wouldnt want to be on one of those floating coffins aka. "carriers"


The US sent an aircraft carrier to 'send a message' to Iran — but it's at a major disadvantage

US will be sending the powerful carrier to a job it's arguably ill-suited for, putting thousands of sailors at a major military disadvantage. And if a conflict were to arise, the sinking of a US aircraft carrier would be in Iran's sights.

As a floating air base with guided-missile destroyers and cruisers sailing nearby for anti-missile defenses from land and sea, the carriers are best off when moving around far from the range of missiles fired from ashore.

The narrow, "confined waters of the Persian Gulf make carriers tremendously more vulnerable to asymmetric air, land, and naval threats," wrote Talmadge.

Iran's home field advantage could sink a tanker

In the Gulf wars, or against militants like ISIS, aircraft carriers made plenty of sense.

"Iraq has tiny coast, couldn't contest US carrier presence, so unusual situation," continued Talmadge, who pointed out that Iran was a different kind of beast.

But "Iran's geography & military capabilities, particularly presence of significant assets near Strait of Hormuz, make sailing carrier through Gulf a lot riskier, and w/ less benefit given US ability to deploy carriers in Arabian Sea & Indian Ocean instead," she said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...rier-message-but-its-at-a-disadvantage-2019-5

 

[TheImmortal]

US carriers are a joke, without the support ships it’s an easy target.

Yes, it’s hard to sink one, but you don’t need to sink it to render it useless for months or years.

However, attacking a US carrier would be paramount to a full fledge war and not a smart decision by Iran.

Iran is better off providing Houthis with BMs and having them strike Saudi Oil refiniaries and oil transport hubs. That alone will cause much more impact or unleashing cyber warfare attacks on Saudi Arabia.

 

[zartosht]

US carriers are a joke, without the support ships it’s an easy target.

Yes, it’s hard to sink one, but you don’t need to sink it to render it useless for months or years.

However, attacking a US carrier would be paramount to a full fledge war and not a smart decision by Iran.

Iran is better off providing Houthis with BMs and having them strike Saudi Oil refiniaries and oil transport hubs. That alone will cause much more impact or unleashing cyber warfare attacks on Saudi Arabia.

If Iran is attacked. It will anahilate any hostile American ship in the Persian gulf. Otherwise they will be a permenant threat.

I don't think there is going to be a limited war between Iran and the US . neither side would want to lose face, both sides can do serious damage to each other, and Iran will see it as a all out war for survival.

under these circumstances, escalation is a certainty.( though potentially necessary long term) once they see the shock of losing a carreier, and the thousands of casualties that go with. once they see the shock of their bases getting rained on by missiles. once they see the shock of their ships sinking, with massive loss of life, once when they see the shock of a serious and competent force hunting down, and slaughtering their troops all over the middle east.....

they will understand that war is not about pushing buttons and slaughtering colored people. War is serious business. Iran knows this well. does the US? do the Zionist lobbys who pull the strings even care? whats 50k dead American boys to them if it guarantees Zionist (Israeli) security?

 

[batmannow]

Iran has never attacked Israel either but is always fighting wars against sunni Muslims. What are we to make of that?

Because sunni Muslim states are standing with state of Israel, under the leadership of KSA???

If Iran is attacked. It will anahilate any hostile American ship in the Persian gulf. Otherwise they will be a permenant threat.

I don't think there is going to be a limited war between Iran and the US . neither side would want to lose face, both sides can do serious damage to each other, and Iran will see it as a all out war for survival.

under these circumstances, escalation is a certainty.( though potentially necessary long term) once they see the shock of losing a carreier, and the thousands of casualties that go with. once they see the shock of their bases getting rained on by missiles. once they see the shock of their ships sinking, with massive loss of life, once when they see the shock of a serious and competent force hunting down, and slaughtering their troops all over the middle east.....

they will understand that war is not about pushing buttons and slaughtering colored people. War is serious business. Iran knows this well. does the US? do the Zionist lobbys who pull the strings even care? whats 50k dead American boys to them if it guarantees Zionist (Israeli) security?

Emotions and words don't win wars, but clamness and solid plans and a will to execute those plans win wars, if Iran has them sure it not matters its USA or who ever Iran will win that war but it all starts up from the realization of the streanth of your enemy then to hit it with a perfect weapon makes u win the wars, time is good IRAN should play it diplomatically good, bring China, Russia to its back frist and let world knows, its not going for any war untill its been attacked or bieng targeted economically then asses the enemy's power and hit it with thousands cuts, in Pakistans case sure pakistan won't be going against IRAN bt it may remain neutral as IRAN did the time when ever pakistan been attacked?
So IRAN has to get better relations with pakistan which can bring a lot, more then just a few gas or feul deals?
Pakistan can easily, let Iran's feul supllies going to india, China if it can get some thing out of that deal, I'm sure no one would be pointing any of thier dam fingers on pakistan cause pakistan is in grave economic situation and if it can benefit from the cooperation between Iran and its buyers then it's a win win to all except Americans and Israelis and maybe Saudis and thier brother hood which in case has no power on pakistan, cause pakistan comes frist

 

[TheImmortal]

If Iran is attacked. It will anahilate any hostile American ship in the Persian gulf. Otherwise they will be a permenant threat.

I don't think there is going to be a limited war between Iran and the US . neither side would want to lose face, both sides can do serious damage to each other, and Iran will see it as a all out war for survival.

under these circumstances, escalation is a certainty.( though potentially necessary long term) once they see the shock of losing a carreier, and the thousands of casualties that go with. once they see the shock of their bases getting rained on by missiles. once they see the shock of their ships sinking, with massive loss of life, once when they see the shock of a serious and competent force hunting down, and slaughtering their troops all over the middle east.....

they will understand that war is not about pushing buttons and slaughtering colored people. War is serious business. Iran knows this well. does the US? do the Zionist lobbys who pull the strings even care? whats 50k dead American boys to them if it guarantees Zionist (Israeli) security?

One one hand you say neither side will want to back down.

On the other hand you are naive to think that If Iran causes “thousands” of US casualties then US will surrender. What kind of stupid thinking is that?

This is the same US that was prepared to end the world if Soviet Union didn’t remove their missiles from Cuba. This was the same US that went up against the one of the most formidable war machines to walk the face of the Earth (Nazi War Machine).

The second Iran sinks a ship, the US population will ask for war and NO US President will back down for fear of looking weak. EVEN if he wanted to back down he couldn’t because it would set HISTORICAL precedent to China and Russia that if you cause US casaualties you can get USA to back down.

Like I said your thinking is not centered in reality and Iran has backed down on several occasions (Operation Pray Mantis, most of Iran Navy got sunk and 1988 US attack on airliner).

The best way to confront the enemy is in the wallet, not by causing casualties that force your enemy to respond. Iran should focus on causing a global energy crisis. That alone will do more widespread everlasting damage than sinking 20 ships.

US is not going to attack first, US is trying to pressure the collapse of current government or cause a miscalculation by Iran to fire the first shot.

 

[zartosht]

One one hand you say neither side will want to back down.

On the other hand you are naive to think that If Iran causes “thousands” of US casualties then US will surrender. What kind of stupid thinking is that?

This is the same US that was prepared to end the world if Soviet Union didn’t remove their missiles from Cuba. This was the same US that went up against the one of the most formidable war machines to walk the face of the Earth (Nazi War Machine).

The second Iran sinks a ship, the US population will ask for war and NO US President will back down for fear of looking weak. EVEN if he wanted to back down he couldn’t because it would set HISTORICAL precedent to China and Russia that if you cause US casaualties you can get USA to back down.

Like I said your thinking is not centered in reality and Iran has backed down on several occasions (Operation Pray Mantis, most of Iran Navy got sunk and 1988 US attack on airliner).

The best way to confront the enemy is in the wallet, not by causing casualties that force your enemy to respond. Iran should focus on causing a global energy crisis. That alone will do more widespread everlasting damage than sinking 20 ships.

US is not going to attack first, US is trying to pressure the collapse of current government or cause a miscalculation by Iran to fire the first shot.

in the Cuban crisis, the soviet union placed nuclear armed missiles aimed at the mainland US. at the time when the soviet nuclear programme was way behind the americans, less taboo against its use. incase of a war, it was logical to assume the US would win the nuclear exchange.

putting in nuclear missiles that can reach major American cities in 20 minutes upet the balance of power tremendously and the US responded in kind.

secondly your going on and on aabout what the US thinks or wants. as soon as the first bomb hits Iranian soil., the US will lose its unilateral ability to control events. Funny thing bout war Is the other guy gets to have a say as well.

And yes, Iran is not going to get attacked, and just sit by and do nothing out of fear of getting hit worse...? does that make sense? \

if Iran is attacked, it will respond viciously and in such a damaging way that the americans will never think that war will ever be a feasible option against iran again.

if you let the americans hit you, and you mute your response out of fear, that only encourages more aggression. (just ask saddam)

 

[TheImmortal]

in the Cuban crisis, the soviet union placed nuclear armed missiles aimed at the mainland US. at the time when the soviet nuclear programme was way behind the americans, less taboo against its use. incase of a war, it was logical to assume the US would win the nuclear exchange.

putting in nuclear missiles that can reach major American cities in 20 minutes upet the balance of power tremendously and the US responded in kind.

secondly your going on and on aabout what the US thinks or wants. as soon as the first bomb hits Iranian soil., the US will lose its unilateral ability to control events. Funny thing bout war Is the other guy gets to have a say as well.

And yes, Iran is not going to get attacked, and just sit by and do nothing out of fear of getting hit worse...? does that make sense? \

if Iran is attacked, it will respond viciously and in such a damaging way that the americans will never think that war will ever be a feasible option against iran again.

if you let the americans hit you, and you mute your response out of fear, that only encourages more aggression. (just ask saddam)

US is not going to attack, they will sanction every last bit of Iranian economy they can. Then sit back while Iran turns into North Korea.

Rouhani looked like a fool today. He announces that Iran will suspend cooperation in areas the US ALREADY MADE ILLEGAL! WHAT A DAMN JOKE!

Then US responds and sanctioned iran’s metals industry.

Iran looked weak today and with that Rouhani bafoon in Iran, this is only going to get worse.

 

[batmannow]

US is not going to attack, they will sanction every last bit of Iranian economy they can. Then sit back while Iran turns into North Korea.

Rouhani looked like a fool today. He announces that Iran will suspend cooperation in areas the US ALREADY MADE ILLEGAL! WHAT A DAMN JOKE!

Then US responds and sanctioned iran’s metals industry.

Iran looked weak today and with that Rouhani bafoon in Iran, this is only going to get worse.

Problem is whole world isn't, USA evn EU is still standing strong with Iran, and in case of any military action, EU won't be funding anything to this madness and worst kind of national robberies committed by usa and its allies?
Irans back yard isn't with countries like kawait or Saudi Arabia who r dependent on US to thier safety?
Iran, has turkey, Pakistan and last is Afghanistan where Americans are begging to go home but not in body bags?
Time to play strategical bulfs r long gone, cause now everyone has his own lives to taken care off, from sirya to Venezuela all that so called artificial Arab spring this and that American is caught its pants down? Lolzzz

Then u hve China and Russia, and we hve seen what usa can do, in Venezuela? Lolzzz
And still
U think that Moran trump ill wage war on everyone against America?
Stop looking CAPTAIN AMERICAN on HD speacilly in the night?

 

[Sineva]

We saw these sort of videos and bravado from Iraq, unfortunately these are just movies of tests and not proven in real theater.

Actually weapons like the fateh 110 and zulfiqar have been combat proven,for instance the fateh 110 was used to strike kdpi kurdish terrorists in iraq.Two of these missiles hit the terrorist headquarters,the first hit the exact part of the building that the leadership of this group was meeting in with an accuracy measured in the low single meters,the second landed right next to it just in front of the building.

https://media.farsnews.com/Uploaded/Files/Video/1397/06/18/13970618000857_240P.mp4
Heres drone footage of the strike plus launch footage,this involved strikes on around 3 or 4 targets.

Heres the target building,you can clearly see how big it is and where both missiles struck and how accurate they were
The latest variant of the fateh 110 series called the dezful has had its range stretched to around 1000kms

 

[LeGenD]

If it was tht much easy then USA would hve attacked IRAN 100 times at least whole 80s till now are those special forces and marines are thy sleepin?
No, Americans attack only those countries in which thy can create thier own civilian support Thts the frist and most required point of thier game, thy did tht in Iraq cause ppls been made divided with a decade of sanctions on them and tht thought USA may bring them financial and other independence from SADDAM but in the end what thy found out was same evil SADDAM was much much better then these so called freedom forces, in IRAN Americans r trying since decades to get a support group bt the support for revolution is far far strong then thy think and after all IRAN has the basics of democracy and its ppls like it mostly?
In any case of attack, Americans must be ready to see hizbuallha surrounding Israel in its own back yard supported by turkey, Russia, sirya and Russia and diplomatically China and Pakistan somehow Thts a no win situation no matter evn if USN put all its resources over Iran

1. War is NOT easy for any country - it can get really messy.

2. No, US will not attack any country out of the blue.

US was preoccupied with Iraq since 1991 and had no choice but to reshape its political landscape at a later stage (De-Ba'athification policy; 2003 - 2011). Of-course, American De-Ba'athification policy for Iraq wasn't an easy task by any measure and many people paid with their lives in the process.

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba'athification

3. Israel can take care of Hezbollah on its own. No, Turkey, Russia and Syria will not threaten Israel or even close; they have no stomach for opening this type of front because Israel is a nuclear power with SLBMs that can reach as far as Moscow in a short span.

4. I do not think that US is looking forward to execute 'regime change' in Iran at present; objective would be to damage/weaken Iranian regime to such an extent that it will collapse on its own weight. This is doable.

One should ask the so called world's only remaining super power, why thy were in a hurry to send OBL body to occens?
Or else Jst a plastic surgery, and nice beaches in South American country and hve a sip of cool cocktail???
And all tht happens with the knowledge of ISI aka Gen. Kiyani who made billions out of it???
and if he did that then the as oky don't u think???? Lolzzzz

They threw his body into the ocean as to prevent potential terrorists/loyalists/followers to gravitate around his grave and use it as a basis to spread terrorism and/or recruit more people to their cause. Make sense on a second thought.

 

[batmannow]

in the Cuban crisis, the soviet union placed nuclear armed missiles aimed at the mainland US. at the time when the soviet nuclear programme was way behind the americans, less taboo against its use. incase of a war, it was logical to assume the US would win the nuclear exchange.

putting in nuclear missiles that can reach major American cities in 20 minutes upet the balance of power tremendously and the US responded in kind.

secondly your going on and on aabout what the US thinks or wants. as soon as the first bomb hits Iranian soil., the US will lose its unilateral ability to control events. Funny thing bout war Is the other guy gets to have a say as well.

And yes, Iran is not going to get attacked, and just sit by and do nothing out of fear of getting hit worse...? does that make sense? \

if Iran is attacked, it will respond viciously and in such a damaging way that the americans will never think that war will ever be a feasible option against iran again.

if you let the americans hit you, and you mute your response out of fear, that only encourages more aggression. (just ask saddam)

Thts thier stupid, high school runaway kids who been recurrited in some of do called specialized cyber units and thier jobs is to find friendly supporters in the enemy land and to start some kinda, fake revolutions like that arab spring, like that of against BASHAR UL ASAD, like against saddam the kurds, and lastly against tayyab urdgan and it still is a failure???
Evn Venezuela, has kicked it out so its not just 2 plus 2, and whole world will bow down on its kness for America?
I gss, it's the begaining of Americas end, China and Russia will make it sure that America starts a conflict and will remain in it, as long as they or same as what is going on in Afghanistan?
Then how long America can stand in that war, from Vietnam to Afghanistan does America won, or America has destroyed both counties from earth????

1. War is NOT easy for any country - it can get really messy.

2. No, US will not attack any country out of the blue.

US was preoccupied with Iraq since 1991 and had no choice but to reshape its political landscape at a later stage (De-Ba'athification policy; 2003 - 2011). Of-course, American De-Ba'athification policy for Iraq wasn't an easy task by any measure and many people paid with their lives in the process.

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba'athification

3. Israel can take care of Hezbollah on its own. No, Turkey, Russia and Syria will not threaten Israel or even close; they have no stomach for opening this type of front because Israel is a nuclear power with SLBMs that can reach as far as Moscow in a short span.

4. I do not think that US is looking forward to execute 'regime change' in Iran at present; objective would be to damage/weaken Iranian regime to such an extent that it will collapse on its own weight. This is doable.


They threw his body into the ocean as to prevent potential terrorists/loyalists/followers to gravitate around his grave and use it as a basis to spread terrorism and/or recruit more people to their cause. Make sense on a second thought.

OK then let's see what proofs u can bring if it was a real OBL in the sea???
Jst a few, trump white supremist kids can trust that story no one else in this world? Lolzzz
If that's the case why didn't thy did the same to saddam, qadafi?lolzz
And does recruitment stopped after sending a dead dummy to sea on the name of OBL?
on frist thought? Lolzzz

 

[TheImmortal]

3. Israel can take care of Hezbollah on its own. No, Turkey, Russia and Syria will not threaten Israel or even close; they have no stomach for opening this type of front because Israel is a nuclear power with SLBMs that can reach as far as Moscow in a short span.

Why does every moron behind a keyboard bring up nuclear weapons? Israel cannot use nuclear weapons PERIOD. It would open Pandaoras box in the 21st century.

Second Israel is a one nuke state meaning Moscow can eliminate that state completely if Israel were ever to do anything foolish.

Again these Hollywood scenarios are stupid. The only time I see Israel potentially using nuclear weapons is if it’s on verge of collapse by a land invasion and even then some commanders may refuse to fulfill the presidents order because the retaliation by your enemy for using nuclear weapons will bring a huge unknown.

Much more likely a peace agreement/surrender agreement gets signed before the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[LeGenD]

If Iran is attacked. It will anahilate any hostile American ship in the Persian gulf. Otherwise they will be a permenant threat.

Tall claim.

I don't think there is going to be a limited war between Iran and the US . neither side would want to lose face, both sides can do serious damage to each other, and Iran will see it as a all out war for survival.

Tall claim yet again.

under these circumstances, escalation is a certainty.( though potentially necessary long term) once they see the shock of losing a carreier, and the thousands of casualties that go with. once they see the shock of their bases getting rained on by missiles. once they see the shock of their ships sinking, with massive loss of life, once when they see the shock of a serious and competent force hunting down, and slaughtering their troops all over the middle east.....

So you have taken out a CSG in your mind already - very convincing.

Do you think that American military bases are vulnerable?

Your ignorance is of staggering proportions. So much bullshit in your claims that I do not know from where to start. Here is my advice; go watch Baby Shark Do Do Do because this is the caliber of your responses.

they will understand that war is not about pushing buttons and slaughtering colored people. War is serious business. Iran knows this well. does the US? do the Zionist lobbys who pull the strings even care? whats 50k dead American boys to them if it guarantees Zionist (Israeli) security?

You are trying to educate Americans about the costs of war? Joke of the century.

Why does every moron behind a keyboard bring up nuclear weapons? Israel cannot use nuclear weapons PERIOD. It would open Pandaoras box in the 21st century.

Second Israel is a one nuke state meaning Moscow can eliminate that state completely if Israel were ever to do anything foolish.

Again these Hollywood scenarios are stupid. The only time I see Israel potentially using nuclear weapons is if it’s on verge of collapse by a land invasion and even then some commanders may refuse to fulfill the presidents order because the retaliation by your enemy for using nuclear weapons will bring a huge unknown.

Much more likely a peace agreement/surrender agreement gets signed before the use of nuclear weapons.

When you are unable to understand a point and its context then why even bother to quote it?

The original claim (from another member) was that Turkey, Russia and Syria might join hands to take down Israel in case US strike at Iran. Is this likely? NO. But should this be the case then Israel have no choice but to threaten to eliminate the trio with its nuclear arsenal - SAMSON OPTION. In this situation, doesn't matter what become of Israel afterwards.

CONTEXT.