Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (48210)	7/9/2013 7:46:47 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Not absolutely safe, but reasonably so. Less safe if our navy considered them to be invulnerable and thus got reckless. Their relative safety is an active thing more than a passive one. Act like its impossible for the enemy to hurt you and sometimes they can even if they are weaker. As for "in the straight" - That doesn't appear to be the case now (of course the data could be wrong) ----- CVN-68 Nimitz 09Jun-02Jul2013, North Arabian Sea that's the only one close The navy seems to have fewer of them deployed then usual. Maybe something do to cutbacks, or maybe because so many where deployed for longer than normal in the recent past. The only one other than the Nimitz, that isn't in the US or on the way to the US, is in the Pacific CVN-73 George Washington 26Jun2013, departed Yokosuka 26Jun-30Jun2013, in the local waters off Japan, WestPac 01Jul-02Jul2013, WestPac Source gonavy.jp According to globalsecurity.org The Stennis is going to deploy in August and the Truman Bush and Vison are "surge ready". Lets say Iran attacks now (to take advantage of us only having one carrier in the area). We could have 4 or 5 in the area in a month. (If we didn't care about disrupting planned deployments elsewhere.) Although that would only be relevant if we go to a full scale air campaign againt Iran. In the short run you would be more likely to see a somewhat bigger version of en.wikipedia.org. Perhaps not quite so one sided but unless the navy gets sloppy, or Iran very lucky, still one sided. IMO the worry is not so much military attacks on our navy (the possibility of which is a somewhat serious concern, but probably containable), but rather it causing even more problems in the area, and supporting terrorism even more. Of course its already doing a lot of that. The longer run worry is Iran with nukes, and even worse yet actually weaponized nukes. The later is not coming soon, but "not soon" doesn't equal "never". And attempts to stop Iran using military force, move the battle from the sea, in to Iran. The air campaign would be a major effort. They have multiple facilities, mostly buried deep, and there is a chance that the CIA,NSA, and military don't even know about all of them.