Navy told: Prepare to blockade Iran by Oct 1

[kpete]

What Would War Look Like?

A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
By MICHAEL DUFFY


Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html

[malaise]

1. This is an oil shake down

raw, naked imperialism.

[Vidar]

2. Wonder how well stocked the Iranian subs are with torpedos?

Or haven't those subs been delivered yet?

[sofa king]

15. According to Haze Gray...

They have three state-of-the-art Kilo-class submarines which could prove to be a real headache, the youngest of which was delivered in 1997. They are probably not retrofitted with the Russian peroxide power and oxygenation systems which would make them comparable to nuclear attack subs in most ways. The Iranian Kilos are noted for their troublesome mechanical behavior in the past.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/mideast/iran.htm

Kilos are perfectly suited to operate in the Persian Gulf because they can move into combat zones on electric power alone, which in theory makes them more quiet than our own 688 nuclear attack subs. It's unlikely that a Kilo would survive for long after the first torpedo is fired, but if it did it could retreat to any of several dozen protected areas along the coastline in order to surface and "snorkel," or recharge its batteries by running its diesel motors. Kilos can stay silent and submerged for 72 hours or more.

If the Kilos successfully get loose in the Gulf, they're almost certain to chase out any American carrier groups there, because no admiral wants to be the first to lose a nuclear carrier to a rust-bucket third-rate floating septic tank. That's unlikely to have a huge impact on the course of a speculative war, but it might be one factor amongst many things that could go wrong which could turn such a war into a bloody fiasco.

Some sources claim that Iran has also acquired half a dozen mini-submarines from North Korea, suitable for suicidal ambushes and perhaps small-team special operations in the Gulf. One possible mission might be attacks on oil production facilities in the UAE, and tanker loading facilities throughout the Gulf, which could spark a global oil supply crisis and quickly turn international opinion against the United States.

Like most of the Iranian armed forces, their equipment is not equal to the task of challenging the United States toe-to-toe, so they can't be expected to fight that way. Rather, I would expect the Iranians to treat their equipment as expendable high-tech strategic assets, to be used in suicidal or near-suicidal missions hoping to achieve a one-to-one loss rate. The United States does not have a defense industry capable of replacing such losses, as it is now wholly directed toward milking the government for new models rather than building replacements.

If they can blunt the American strategic edge by wrecking five or ten percent of our high-tech forces, then throw their million and a half man army of raving lunatics at the 80,000 or so American troops available, they have a chance of winning a Pyrrhic victory, or at least producing a costly stalemate, which actually worked in the Iran-Iraq war, albeit with horrifying casualties.

More on the Kilo:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm

Iran's rocket torpedoes are probably just marketing fluff:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006423225356.asp

[Vidar]

17. Thanks for the information.

[ShaneGR]

46. Extremely unlike those Kilo's could even get out of port...

Sonar drops and arrays in the area would gobble them up pretty quickly. We face a much bigger threat from short/medium range missiles.

[sofa king]

48. Probably so.

But there are still plenty of tricks in the book: following a civilian ship out of port or even hitching a ride atop of one; resting on the bottom next to shipwrecks; using their obsolete subs (they have an unknown number of those) as decoys and distractions; jamming or otherwise interfering with the detection and transmission of sonobuoys; and of course a mass breakout in peacetime--if all seaworthy ships left port today, would the United States dare to attack them, or risk losing track of one or more of them?

The Kilos have a major flaw in that even though they have an impressive cruising distance, their diesel engines (used on the surface for both propulsion and battery recharging) are loud, and they can't stay underwater indefinitely like our nuclear subs can (unless they have the peroxide system I mentioned above). Thus, they could in theory break out of the Gulf right now and head for the Indian Ocean in hopes of sneaking back in later, but they would have to come up for air sooner or later and when they do, we'll hear it. Like most port-bound navies, Iranian captains and crews are likely poorly drilled and prone to mistakes--and that's if the boats are seaworthy at all, which is questionable.

Nevertheless, along with Iran's Harpoon-armed P-3s and Silkworm missiles, the Kilos are probably the US Navy's gravest concern, and their mere existence will shape American tactics and strategy.

[High Plains]

54. We don't face much of a "threat" of anything...

if we just don't go over there and try to start a war.

[annabanana]

3. MSNBC had some neo-conman on this morning

talking about surgical strikes against nuclear facilities.. quick and easy, no muss, no fuss, no ground forces..

No notion of the fact that Iran would roar into Iraq and pretty much take all our troops there hostage.

Can't somebody just lay in wait for these warmongers and trip them and steal their car keys or something? Preferably on the WAY to the studios?

[keta11]

4. As much as I hate the Dumbster and his idiotic policies,

you guys are living in la-la land thinking Iran could fight the US. How do you think Iran could match into Iraq and and take heavily -armed US forces hostages??? I am astonished sometimes at the naivete on here.

They could barely fight Saddam Hussein in the 1980S.

[n2doc]

5. Iran doesn't need to fight the US in a conventional war

And they won't. But they could very easily make things really difficult for the US in Iraq and, if we were dumb enough, in Iran itself. The lession of IRaq is that is may be possible to invade a country but it is impossible to impose our will on its people. We could, no doubt, set up a blockade and no doubt could sink Iran's major ships. But all Iran has to do is disrupt enough of the Persian Gulf traffic with small torpedo boats, ground launched missiles and the like, to send oil to 100 a barrel or more and hello global recession. I don't think China is going to stand still for this, either.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Perhaps you're the one in la-la land

See this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html

[keta11]

19. Article is just opinion

I am going by what I saw during the Iran-Iraq war and I was not impressed by their performance. Bear in mind Iran is much larger and more populous than Iraq.

I have no illusions that Iran could expand formenting terrorism but IMO you give them too much credit for strategy and tactics.

To think that US Forces in Iraq are somehow weak there in Iraq for Iran to over-run and take hostage is just plain silly. Remember Saddam's much vaunted Republican Guards during GW1?? I saw some of them surrendering to CNN cameramen on TV after a few days of the war!!

[jpak]

23. Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles that can take out oil facilities

in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

We cannot defend these facilities and neither can the host countries.

The only real defense we have is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Also, there's big difference between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi forces in GW1 - think Hezbollah with a lot more toys at their disposal and the motivation to use them effectively against US forces.

[hogwyld]

25. And don't forget

All it would take is a suicide bomber with a truck loaded, to get into the main supply depot in Kuwait to effectively isolate our troops from resupply.

[jpak]

27. And don't forget the lessons of the Millenium Challenge war games

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html

<snip>

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. 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. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out.

"A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested."

In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves.

<more>

[roamer65]

30. Yes, and the first field offline will be Ghawar

in Saudi Arabia. The world's largest, producing oil field. Ras Tanura, on Gulf, will more than likely be a target as well.

[Raydawg1234]

44. Uhhhhh, your forgetting that we're not doing so good in Iraq now

[Generic Other]

9. Here's what the article said...Time in La La land too?

No one who has spent any time thinking about an attack on Iran doubts that a U.S. operation would reap a whirlwind. The only mystery is what kind. "It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective," says retired Marine General Anthony Zinni. "It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?"
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy at the National War College, has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran war game for American policymakers for the past five years. Virtually every time he runs the game, Gardiner says, a similar nightmare scenario unfolds: the U.S. attack, no matter how successful, spawns a variety of asymmetrical retaliations by Tehran. First comes terrorism: Iran's initial reaction to air strikes might be to authorize a Hizballah attack on Israel, in order to draw Israel into the war and rally public support at home.

Next, Iran might try to foment as much mayhem as possible inside the two nations on its flanks, Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 160,000 U.S. troops hold a tenuous grip on local populations. Iran has already dabbled in partnership with warlords in western
Afghanistan, where U.S. military authority has never been strong; it would be a small step to lend aid to Taliban forces gaining strength in the south. Meanwhile, Tehran has links to the main factions in Iraq, which would welcome a boost in money and weapons, if just to strengthen their hand against rivals. Analysts generally believe that Iran could in a short time orchestrate a dramatic increase in the number and severity of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. As Syed Ayad, a secular Shi'ite cleric and Iraqi Member of Parliament says, "America owns the sky of Iraq with their Apaches, but Iran owns the ground."

Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl.--which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.

That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long. Zinni, for one, believes an attack on Iran could eventually lead to U.S. troops on the ground. "You've got to be careful with your assumptions," he says. "In Iraq, the assumption was that it would be a liberation, not an occupation. You've got to be prepared for the worst case, and the worst case involving Iran takes you down to boots on the ground." All that, he says, makes an attack on Iran a "dumb idea." Abizaid, the current Centcom boss, chose his words carefully last May. "Look, any war with a country that is as big as Iran, that has a terrorist capability along its borders, that has a missile capability that is external to its own borders and that has the ability to affect the world's oil markets is something that everyone needs to contemplate with a great degree of clarity."

[CatholicEdHead]

38. Carrier group would take of the sub long before it hits the carrier

That is what they are there for. I would assume we have the signature of those subs somewhere to have the sonar computers look for. While parts of the Task Force may take a hit, the carrier would probably be safe. This is using conventional weapons of course.

[hogwyld]

10. You're the one that needs a reality check

Iran could sweep into the southern Iraq zone cutting us off from resupply. You'll have 135000 sitting ducks to be killed of by a thousand paper cuts like what is happening now. Just imagine add 100x the paper cuts. Of course, with our forces annhilated, we have nothing in reserve to strike back. Remember Yamamoto's quote about awakening sleeping giants? Well, I'm pretty confident that China will gladly come to Iran's defence.

[keta11]

20. You are assuming Iran has capable "committed" professional

soldiers who can sweep into southern Iraq. Do they have tanks and aircover etc. You think those armies in the middle-east can engage toe-to-toe with the US armed forces? Put together, they couldn't even fight Israel.

Why do you think they resort to terrorism, roadside IEDs etc. They can't fight in massed formations anywhere/

Are you guys kidding me?? What a joke.

[hogwyld]

21. And what are we going to fight back with????

Once Iran cuts off resupply via Kuwait, it wouldn't take long for our troops to start running out of food, water, medicine, and ammo. We no longer have the ability for a Berlin airlift type operaton either. We could hold out for maybe a month or so, but after that, it would be a complete disaster.

[keta11]

22. Iran has no capability to cut off

resupply via Kuwait. The US can turn Iran into rubble 20 times without using nuclear weapons and Iran knows it. The USA spends $500 billion/year on defence, Iran spends $10 billion.

They can engage in terrorism, sneak attacks etc, thats all, and a neglegible threat.

[hogwyld]

24. It doesn't take a modern military to cut off supply

Asymetrical warfare is the kryptonite to our modern forces. There's only a couple of roads from Kuwait to Baghdad, and an awful lot of desolate land around them. A few IED's here, some quick attacks there, and no driver would take that route. Remember, we are relying on civilian contractors to deliver the bulk of our supplies.

[jpak]

26. A few well placed mines in the Strait of Hormuz could ruin your day too.

Iran has invested in a lot of modern mine technology - propelled ascent, moored, floating, seabed, etc.

They also have dozens of small attack boats to distribute mines and attack/harass shipping.

If they succeed in halting tanker traffic in the Gulf - they win (and we lose - Big Time).

[Raydawg1234]

47. not to mention if thousands of small boats/ jet skis swarm our ships

in the Gulf, This is a threat that we are not well prepared to deal with

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. The US spends $500 billion dollars a year...

because it spends billions of dollars on boondoggles that don't work, and to line the pockets of corporate execs.

So what if the U.S. has the most over-priced military in the world? It's not terribly effective against insurgents with AKs and mortar shells.

[Tigermoose]

53. Our air force.

nt

[Raydawg1234]

45. Uhhh, they don't need "professional soldiers" to sweep into Iraq.

Any idiot with an AK-47 can do that. You have forgotten the lessons learned in Vietnam and Iraq 2.

We're talking about "insurgents" here. You might not even be able to tell them apart from civilians!!!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Yeah, it'll be a cake walk.

They'll be greeting us with flowers.

:eyes:

[alfredo]

14. Our soldiers in Iraq could be subjected to human wave attacks

They could cut off our main supply line, the Persian Gulf. Syria could attack from the west.

A small dog can chase a big dog from its yard just on the strength of being in the right.

[Vincardog]

31. Right you are keta11. Iran has a MILLION MAN battle hardened ARMY

Weapons systems that can cover the immediate sea. Any they speak the local language. What chance do they have against an overstretched 130,000 bunch of US forces?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

35. aren't our troops already hostage in Iraq?

[Raydawg1234]

43. Ummmm, are you stupid,

Look at the damn fighting in Iraq.......are you telling me that there is not tough fighting going on?, There were over 2,000 U.S. casualties for crying out loud.

Thinking like you do is one of the reasons why we are failing in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now imagine of thousands more insurgents poured over the border from Iran. I think you are living in la la land.

[HamdenRice]

49. You don't know the first thing about warfare

And by that, I mean you seem not to know the first axiom of war: that war is the continuation of politics by other means.

It does not matter whether their troops can "beat" our troops. The question is: what is the political goal of the war? Can it be achieved? And the answer as to the impending Iran war is, no, the Bush administration's political goals cannot be achieved with the forces it currently commands.

You might have made the same statement about US forces and Iraqi insurgents. The Iraqi insurgents could not defeat US forces in a stand up battle. But if you consider every single political goal, real or fake, stated or secret, of the Iraq war -- finding and elimating wmds, creating a friendly regime in the middle east, fomenting democracy, getting control of Iraqi oil resources, having permanent bases in the middle east, making the region safer for Israel -- all have failed. And they have failed because Iraqi insurgents have prevented them from being achieved.

Now consider any Iran war. What are its political goals? Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, toppling the Islamic regime, creating a friendly regime in Iran, preventing Iran from gaining influence in Iraq -- none of them can be achieved.

That means the US is likely to lose the Iran war, just as it lost the Iraq war.

[Horse with no Name]

51. Iran is closer to being a first world power

than Iraq was to being a third world power. You see how well that is going?:sarcasm:

[liberal N proud]

6. If the oil prices stay down on this news, you know there is price fixing

This can not go well with OPEC and the price of Oil should reflect that.

[seemslikeadream]

erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1872679,00.html

UN attacks US nuclear report on Iran

David Fickling
Thursday September 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited


The UN's nuclear watchdog has made a stinging attack on the US Congress over an "outrageous and dishonest" report on Iran's nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that the congressional report published last month contained "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information", and that it took "strong exception" to "incorrect and misleading" claims in the report that the IAEA was covering up some of its doubts about Iran's nuclear intentions.

.....

There have been international concerns about Iran's nuclear programme since it announced success in enriching uranium earlier this year. Uranium must be enriched to be used in nuclear power plants, but further enrichment can produce material suitable for use in atomic bombs.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is only intended for peaceful power generation purposes, but diplomats suspect that it is being used as cover for atomic weapons development.

The congressional report is said to have been written by a Republican staff member of the house intelligence committee who is known to have hardline views on Iran and who based the report's conclusions on published material, rather than secret intelligence.

The IAEA letter particularly criticised a caption in the report claiming that the Natanz plant in central Iran was enriching uranium to weapons grade. That claim was contradicted by the IAEA's latest report on Iran, released to diplomats at the end of last month and showing that enrichment had so far only reached low levels.

But the strongest response was to the report's retelling of an article in German newspaper Die Welt about the departure of former nuclear inspector Chris Charlier from the IAEA.

The report had claimed that Mr Charlier was removed by the IAEA director, Mohamed El Baradei, at the behest of Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and that there was an "unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear programme".

The letter described these statements as "outrageous and dishonest", saying that the IAEA's founding rules stated that inspectors could only be sent to a country with the agreement of the country's government.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Ominous: Hints of an October Surprise

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/17/192156/448

Ominous: Hints of an October Surprise
by souldrift
Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:21:56 PM PDT
I'm not sure what's up here, folks, but something is starting to smell.


First we have allegations--continued allegations--on the rightist puke-rag WorldNetDaily alleging that American Muslims have been warned to leave New York and Washington--and the original article quoted by WND and dated yesterday is even more sensationalist:


Urgent news from Abu Dawood, the newly appointed commander of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan:


Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U.S.

Muslims living in the United States should leave the country without further warning.....The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.


Second, within a Time cover story attempting to forecast what a war with Iran would look like, there are indications that the Navy has sent "Prepare to Deploy" orders to get equipment and personnel ready by October 1.

Thoughts after the jump.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. The October surprise and the reason for gas prices to ...

skyrocket right after the election.

[NNN0LHI]

11. And I know people who I once considered sane and sensible...

...who think starting a draft would be a good idea right now with Bush as president. They claim to be liberals too.

Don

[Greyhound]

13. The scariest part of this for me is that I truly believe these idiots are

just stupid enough to believe they could actually get away with it, and so, will try.

Whether it is a ground assault, air attack, naval blockade, or tactical nuclear attack, Russia and China will almost certainly ally against us, and just in case the numb-nuts have forgotten, they have thousands of their own nukes with intercontinental capability.
:nuke:

[HereSince1628]

34. It absolutely WILL work.

A tightening of air, sea and ground transport will require US forces to be in close proximity of Iranian defenses. The first Iranian radar the gets lit up will trigger a "pre-emptive response" that will start the shooting war.

This sort of shit has gone on since before the dawn of national militaries.

[Greyhound]

39. If by working, you mean a world-wide thermonuclear conflagration

then, yes it will. Neither Russia nor China will allow us to just go in and disrupt the world economy and end their control over their citizenry.

[HereSince1628]

40. Don't bet on it.

Russia and China have their own stakes in the Great Game. The future options include more than peace or global nuclear war, and neither is interested in nuclear incineration of its assets and population.

What America needs is to have the world sympathetic...which is obviously much harder now than it was in late September of 2001. But blaming a ship sinking in the Straits of Hormuz on the Iranians would certainly be a step in that direction.

Don't forget the US has something of a history of using attacks on warships and private shipping to argue entry into war. Remember Jefferson's War on the Barbary pirates? The Maine? The Lusitania? Pearl Harbor?, the Gulf of Tonkin?

History has sort of a shitty way of repeating itself when the crazies believe a trusty old excuse can be recycled.

[Greyhound]

41. That may well be how they start it, if they even bother, but if Iran can't

end it quickly, military confrontation will follow. They do have a great deal at stake, and that is exactly why they can't let us take Iran. China will hold back and see what everybody else does, but they both realize what would happen if we control or even interrupt the flow from both Iraq and Iran.

Edit: I'm not even sure that Europe would stay out of it.

[libhill]

18. This insanity needs to stop

IMPEACH NOW

[lonestarnot]

29. Damn! Who's got their hand on the hair trigger?

[Joanne98]

32. There's your October surprise!

[Timbuk3]

33. Unbelievable?

I dunno. YOU decide.

The President's recent antics in the Roast Garden, his in-your-face attitude towards journalists...

...mark him as a man who knows he's trapped.

He KNOWS that if the Senate doesn't put themselves in danger of prosecution for violating the Geneva Conventions, then he's open for prosecution for what he's already done to violate them.

If the Democrats regain the congress, Bush is in SERIOUS jeopardy of being "found out" for a whole helluva lot of things. Surrounding Fallujah and bombing the hospital first. Shooting men, women, and children who tried to swim the river after the siege began. Abuse Graibh. Secret prisons. Gitmo. You probably know the list better than I do...

Now, if you were trapped and knew the only way out was to "win" the next election, what would you do?

I mean, if you knew that the Diebold scam just wasn't going to do it, any more? If you KNEW that the various "poll taxes" (voter ID cards) weren't enough to swing the vote your way? If your reputation depended on the US not being attacked again?

How about "START A WAR"?

Or, in this case, "ANOTHER WAR"?

Eight to ten percent of the voters will vote for the incumbent "in time of war", and the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan just aren't going to do it, any more.

An invasion of Iran wouldn't surprise me in the least, before the end of October.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Both branches of Congress!

:woohoo:

[Ignacio Upton]

37. Is Bush trying to hand us Congress with this shit?

I don't think the American people want World War III, especially if it will interrupt the slide of gas prices.

[Marr]

42. It's so disgusting that this is timed with the election.

I don't know if they think this sort of action will get them some short-term support, but it seems like that want to get their war on before they potentially lose Congress. It's just so damn sickening.

[savemefromdumbya]

50. DOES CONGRESS KNOW CHENEY IS GOING TO ATTACK IRAN?

[nealmhughes]

52. So just having the fleet ready on a date means that either/or the

Railyard Tramps or the man on the Grassy Knoll is getting ready to move into Dallas?

Ship movements are very visible things and the entire world see them. They are frequent and have whatever meaning they have to whomever sees them.

A few Kilos don't mean squat, unless a land/sea invasion were imminent, then they would be suicide missions -- kamikaze subs, if one will, trying to get off a torpedo or two before destroyed themselves to stop an attack on Iranian soil.

These are diesel-electric submarines...that means they need air for the crew and for the engines. They have to ventilate, either on the surface or by snorkel mast. And I have a feeling that the Iranian submarine sound-silencing program is not quite up to par with NATO's for some odd reason...

The likelihood of an aircraft carrier being sank by anything is so remote that it is almost laughable. The ship has an entire flotilla supporting it! Nuclear subs, helos with sonar, destroyers, etc.

They might have a sporting chance to go up the Thames and lob a shot or two at London Bridge or Westminster, but not taking on the US Navy.