[EnergyUnlimited]

With all respect to previous poster, I still think that aircraft carriers becoming obsolete quite fast.
They were good to fight Saddam, who was few decades backward because of sanctions, but in fight with Iran the only hope would be in keeping them totally out of range of Iranian forces and practically useless by the same. OK, they could still be used to launch some attacks from a very long distance, but land bases in Saudi Arabia or Turkey could also be as good for that.
It might also be possible to paint red crosses on them and pretend that they are hospital ships or something...
Shortly, if I take a part in this coming war, I would feel safe high in air, but I would not sleep well on the carrier.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', 'I')'m sure someone has a link.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', 'E')ver tested?

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colorado-Valley', 'W')ar Signals?
...
Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21 ...

[RdSnt]

It's amazing how even on a list like this that attempts to keep a clear eye on knowledge transfer, you submit and idea that perhaps American Might isn't all it's made up to be and up pops the bluster and American arrogance.

Sink and aircraft carrier? Gasp, never going to happen. Iran doesn't stand a chance, they'll be flattened if they even dare mount a defence. How dare they.

But then of course Americans thought they were completely invulnerable to attack here in North America. Two big oceans to cross, impenetrable radar early warning, hair-trigger response.
Oops, then those dastardly, evil Iraqi's, no Iranians, ah? no terraist...
went and dropped two ordinary planes on a couple of buildings. Now of course the sky is falling and poor America is the victim.

Sarcasm aside, the American military is extremely frail, being overly dependent on extremely expensive and rare high technology.
The US army is in collapse internally and can't keep up with repairs. After only three years of what is essentially a police operation in a defenseless and impoverished nation.

BushCo. decides to push against someone who can actually bit back and their only way to even back out of a major mauling would be to almost immediately go nuclear.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'p')erhaps American Might isn't all it's made up to be and up pops the bluster and American arrogance.

[elocs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', '.')

[evilgenius]

The Iranians might not be able to get at the US carriers but they could surely wreak havoc on the big naval base just across the Straits of Hormuz. Never mind the carriers anyway, what are the carriers protecting? Aren't the fields and facilities that lie under US sway vulnerable? Granted the Iranians probably don't want to destroy those things, but they might if they aren't given any alternatives.

I suppose the question is, will this evolve into a total war or will it remain measured? I vote for measured simply because there is too much at stake for a total war to take place. Even a limited action would shut down all if not most all tanker traffic. It would be much worse if the facilites that enable those tankers were destroyed. Because of this the race for victory will be a race to determine who can discover a mating type move that threatens unwanted destruction severe enough to make the other side seek cessation or evacuation. That threat can't be anything (US nuking Tehran, which would bring in Russia, or Iran destroying Saudi facilities, which would force division within OPEC) that reaches too far. Iraqi targets will be fair game. So will annoying Turkey and getting them to invade Kurdish Iraq. I do agree, the US does need to be ready for something on the level of a sunken carrier or a loss on the battlefield.

[galacticsurfer]

I read a good article at Safe Haven(The Master Plan for the World and its effect on Resource Stocks) by Claude Maund at following link:

http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=5986

QUOTE( note:"AXIS" in this articles means USA, UK, Israel)

Some have said that an attack on Iran would bring about World War 3. This suggestion raises two questions. The first is that, in order to have a World War, you have to have an adversary or adversaries with sufficient strength to fight back and have a chance of winning. The other is the question of when a World War become a World War. Just who would fight back in the event of an attack on Iran? The Arab world certainly, but in comparison with the Axis military machine they have little more to fight back with than sticks and stones - bombs and rockets for the most part is all they can muster, while the Axis has the military capacity to vaporize the entire region. Although the Axis predations in central Asia and the Middle East are clearly contrary to the interests of Russia and China, it is doubtful that Russia and China would want to risk the consequences of confronting the Axis directly, even though they have nukes. What is therefore likely to eventuate will be proxy wars, with Russia and China arming Central Asian and Middle Eastern factions to the teeth with advanced weaponry, and this, in combination with relentless and widespread guerrilla warfare waged on Axis forces by resistance fighters in occupied countries, who have the great advantage, militarily speaking, that they believe in what they are fighting for and are willing to die for it to the extent that they are prepared to blow themselves up, would eventually wear down the attenuated Axis forces by attrition, until they pack up and go home. This is already happening to some extent in Iraq. With regard to the question of when a World War becomes a World War, it is illuminating to consider briefly the runup to World War 2. Did this become a World War when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, or Austria, or later Poland, France or Russia, or after Pearl Harbor? The answer to this question is the point at which he had aroused opponents with sufficient power collectively to bring him down. So it can probably be said to have become a World War when the Japanese allies of Hitler attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States entered the war. Therefore, when the Axis attacks Iran, what determines whether the situation develops into a World War will be the reaction of other states in the region and across Asia. Iran can be expected to fight back, but will fall and eventually be consumed, but as with Iraq, it will prove to be highly indigestible. Should Russia and China counter with nuclear weapons, or fight a proxy war with the Axis via states in Central Asia and the Middle East, in collaboration with guerrilla fighters in the invaded lands, it will probably be fair to describe it as a World War, because there is a good chance that the Axis will eventually be overcome and forced into retreat.

UNQUOTE

The rest of the article is ok but not relevant as such to current discussion here in this thread.

[Scactha]

It´s interesting that amercians put so much faith into a warmachine that is continlously failing them since WW2. Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq & Afghanistan. Aren´t any bells ringing?

Further WW3 is already under way but no one is fighting with conventional means but the US. An interesting option looking at the aforementioned history of that choice. Reagan may have been a bad actor but the strategy he chose of engaging the enemy was good.

A 'flattening' of persian infrastructure would be a declaration of war on China and Russia as their significant investments would possibly be lost. Not a particulay smart option of the USA which is teethering on the brink economically speaking and with China having it by the b*lls.

When carrying a hammer every problem looks like a nail I hear. The US needs a new toolbox.

[Fergus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elocs', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', '.')

[elocs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('elocs', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', '.')

[miraculix]

I highly doubt that the US military will overtly engage Iran at this juncture.

The stakes are staked against the US, since EU, Russia and China have drawn a clear line in the sand.

If the US attacks, the retaliation will be in form of a phased dollar/US asset sell off.

The axis adversaries will strike where it hurts the most.

When the dollar will not buy anything in world any longer the house of cards will come crumbling down.

ChIndia will have a consumer base larger than the current US market in a few years.

We will see continued disinvestment and accelerating decline petrodollar recycling as a response to an US oil grab in Iran

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scactha', 'A') 'flattening' of persian infrastructure would be a declaration of war on China and Russia as their significant investments would possibly be lost. Not a particulay smart option of the USA which is teethering on the brink economically speaking and with China having it by the b*lls.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miraculix', 'I')f the US attacks, the retaliation will be in form of a phased dollar/US asset sell off.

[Scactha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'N')ot saying attacking Iran is smart, but rather, that from the perspective of those giving and executing the orders, there are plenty of solid ways to rationalize the attack as a good idea. And more than enough desire to make them all want to do so.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e'd be by the b*lls if we had borrowed a buch of Yuan from the Chinese. But we haven't.

[Dreamtwister]

18 days until show time.

[evilgenius]

The US could be stopped in its tracks if it seeks to attack Iran at this time. All that Russia has to do is start hostilities with Georgia. The proximity of Georgia to the region and the fact that Georgia is aligned with the US would make large scale military action against Iran dangerous beyond Iran. As it stands right now the Red Army isn't very far from Iraq. They could use the periphera of an attack on Iran as an excuse to be a lot closer. The cloud of the fog of war isn't a good place to be strategically when the risks are too high.

[mattduke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ink and aircraft carrier? Gasp, never going to happen.