Something is brewing up in the Gulf

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well the precise specifics I cannot judge, I refer just to this passage from the first link i provided:
...
Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers.
...

Alright, can someone please explain to me the US Navy's fixation on "game playing" the insertion of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? The US won't play an "Iranian gambit" without local land bases of operation, anyway. Plus the CVNs will still be useful, in larger (and safer) bodies of water, rather than the "narrows" where you f*rt in Persia and it smells in Oman (excuse my language ).


.

Originally Posted by Diopos

Alright, can someone please explain to me the US Navy's fixation on "game playing" the insertion of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? The US won't play an "Iranian gambit" without local land bases of operation, anyway. Plus the CVNs will still be useful, in larger (and safer) bodies of water, rather than the "narrows" where you f*rt in Persia and it smells in Oman (excuse my language ).


.

I think, but am not sure you mean game theory. It is different, and more telling as a means of winning a battle. Some have used it in a market theory to determine winners in a finance. Bush used it and was heartily criticised for using the gambit.

But it is science so it is OK to use National Socialist methods to predict human behavior.

Plus the CVNs will still be useful, in larger (and safer) bodies of water, rather than the "narrows" where you f*rt in Persia and it smells in Oman

But you have to gameplay it that way, after all if the CVNs were not close inshore amongst the "civilian" flotilla the small boats wouldn't hear the secret call from the minarets telling them to attack....unless of course someone has been breaking sanctions and them coastal mosques have all got really kicking soundsystems now

It is a very simple end. If the US is looking at defeat and the elimination of the status quo, the deaths of many US citizens, etc. The nukes will be used to off set that eventuality.

Certain EU countries can count on the same action to protect their citizens.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Does that mean they ain't real muslims after all?

This might just be more accurate than we can know. One party states generally reek of doctrinal hypocracy so there is no reason to believe that all the mullahs are as devout as their public personas would have the world believe. Historically theocracies have been as prone to this as any secular dictatorship.

It would be foolish to think them all as irrational crazies rather than power hungry and dogmatic but entirely conventional despots.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Alright, can someone please explain to me the US Navy's fixation on "game playing" the insertion of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? The US won't play an "Iranian gambit" without local land bases of operation, anyway. Plus the CVNs will still be useful, in larger (and safer) bodies of water, rather than the "narrows" where you f*rt in Persia and it smells in Oman (excuse my language ).


.

The only reason the US sends its carriers in to the Gulf is to show that it can. The only ships the US has in the gulf on a permanent basis are a couple of mine sweepers.

In a real conflict the carriers would be a thousand miles off shore in the Indian Ocean. The only ships in the Gulf would be escorts for the tankers, mine sweepers and maybe a cruiser.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Sorry Skybird but I really think you have it wrong and overstate the case for their irrationality. You don't see the mullah's, the politico's and the generals as suicide bombers, they are the motivators for the propaganda soaked minions with the explosive vest. They did not achieve positions of power by being suicidal, reckless or irrational.

The purpose of power is power and the prospect of total annihilation would serve to rob them of their power. As I stated, they are perfectly rational by their own standards and behave remarkably like despots have always behaved regardless of religion or political system therefore they understand when a threat is real or empty.

If you THINK there is a chance of flipping a bomb at the neighbor and getting away with it once you may be tempted to do it sometime. If you are absolutely CERTAIN that doing so will result in the destruction of all you hold dear you are far less likely to turn that key.

They can huff, puff and strut all they like, if deterrence serves to keep them from first use, their nuclear arsenals have no teeth and merely act as a drain their own resources.

You base on cold war logic of the US and USSR. And having been in Iran, and having learned it and the people a bit from inside the country, no, I do not think I see them too wrong, I am quite aware of the diversity in education levels and social structures in the society, and internal conflicts between some politicians and the clerics (their moderate politicians also being in favour of the bomb, btw). I judge them also by what they - the state - already do, and that is actively masterminding and supporting and financing and equipping Islamic terror in at least three hot spots of the world and financing several other terror groups beyond that.

By our non-reaction to that and their constant provocations, and us always correcting our own "ultimatums" and "demands" without us taking consequences, they have learned one thing - that they can get away with it. We have acchieved NOTHING with all this sanctionising and negotiating and good will of the past seven years and longer. Nothing. They are determined to get the bomb and spread their influence against the sunni Saudis. And because they are that determined, all this negoatiing means nothing, and never will mean anything but to buy them the time they need. And the West accepts to play the part of Chamberlain again and wave with a worthless oiece of paper, talking of "optmism". Is it so difficult to learn from history? You cannot appease a totalitarian regime. You cannot contain an ideologically fanatic aggressor. You either fight him to destroy him, or you fall back - and face the same situation, the same need to decide again the next day, for the other side will not stop to push you. even less so when considering the relgious fanatism in some of Iran's löeading figures, and Islam's principal claim for world dominance.

You also underestimate that the rabid dogs you let lose can turn against you. If proliferation takes place by inention of Iran, this does not mean the faction ebenfitiing from that always stays loyal to iranian command. In fact you see it in every coutnry where there is major terror that constantly even more radcial groups form up because the mainstream terror for their taste is too willing to make a deal with the declared enemy, or is not resolute enough.

Maybe you are willing to bet your country's or your citiy's or even just your family'S wellbeing on that vague assunption of yours - I am not. We have a saying in German, that in my opinion is adequate when it comes to terror or nuclear proliferation:

Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I thought this thread was about hurricanes....

The tropics have been unusally quite so far. Knock on wood.

I now return you to the topic at hand

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The only reason the US sends its carriers in to the Gulf is to show that it can. The only ships the US has in the gulf on a permanent basis are a couple of mine sweepers.

In a real conflict the carriers would be a thousand miles off shore in the Indian Ocean. The only ships in the Gulf would be escorts for the tankers, mine sweepers and maybe a cruiser.

TLAM that's the reason I posted my comment. I can't find a reason for putting a CVN in the Persian Gulf during a conflict. My question was why the hell they're "war-gaming" it. Sending a "message" to Teheran? Anyway, in a geostrategic level, a CVN group is much more useful as a "threat" rather than being threatened itself. Of course that's my amateur point of view .....


.

[Ishmael]

I also spent a bit of time in Iran decades ago. Iran's religious leadership are just as corrupt as any western nation when it comes to their own power and privilege. That said, I think that Iran's leaders have a position of their own to maintain as the Guardian among the Shi'ite population of the Shi'ite faith in the Muslim world. Look who Iran's ally in Lebanon, the Shi'Ite minority Hezbollah represents and groups within the Shi'ite populations of the Gulf States and Iraq. THAT is seen by the Gulf state rulers as the real threat among thir own population.

The US was already secretly funding the Mujahedin Khalq in the west as well as certain Sunni groups in Afghanistan against the Iranians. The Iranians have also been funding and training anti-US groups there acording to the wikileaks revelations.

The REAL problem for the US and Israel of a strike at Iran's nuclear facilities is the very real possibility of a Shi'ite uprising against US troops in Iraq as well as Hezbollah and Hamas attacks on Israel's nuclear facilities in places like Dimona.