You are kidding? Right?


An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missles, multiply that time 2.

Somehow TheMercenary actually believes those numbers are impressive? During the 1991 Gulf War, four carriers sat in the Persian Gulf. Marines that invaded Kuwait had zero air cover. Where was all that aircraft carrier might? Mythical. When Iraqis surprised the Marines on their left flank, what did the carriers do? Nothing. Marines saved their own ass. Swartzkopf personally said in that daily briefing that he "could not say enough about what the Marines did". Why? Four carriers did nothing to help Marines they were assigned to support.

Eventually, carrier forces were so pathetic as to be removed from most combat missions. Carriers consumed too much tanker support and achieved little. In fact, only 'most useful' functions in that war was an F-14 surveillance package which is why the Navy pilot "Stryker" got shot down in western Iraq, probably captured alive by Iraqis, and was never found.

OK. Carriers have improved abilities. And still its planes have limited range and are completely depended on land based tankers to achieve mission beyond a few hundred miles. What does just as good if not better? What almost toppled Saddam in 1998? Conventional ships and submarines with cruise missiles. Carriers expend so much effort just defending themselves as to be quite impotent. And without land based tankers, then carriers have extremely limited range. Well if the tankers are land based, then planes don't need carriers to launch from.

Why then have carriers? Hype. With 'big dic' thinking, those numbers sound impressive. From the strategic perspective, those carriers are less potent - have limited abilities.

Let's see. Shock and awe took out how many members of Saddam's family and the 52 most wanted characters on playing cards? Zero.

Where on a carrier is anything even approaching what an A-10 can do? Nothing. It planes have maybe ten minutes over a target when warriors need air cover that is available for four hours. Who wins a war? A '10 minute' navy plane - or the grunts? That ten minute air cover does what for those grunts?

What did all the work? Those grunts. Carriers are nothing more than support functions. Those who are easily impressed by numbers: a carrier is to be feared. Then we apply reality. Other things military are far more dangerous. How many carriers will it take to rescue 15 Brits in Tehran? How many carriers can take out bunkers where uranium is being processed? How many carriers can conquer a city or win a war? In each case, apply all the carriers and no objectives are achieved. Where is all this ability? Carriers cannot do anything that defines a military victory here. Carriers are only a support function that 'big dic' thinking never grasps.

Deja vue Nam. If we blow things up, then we will win. Well that was an outright lie promoted by those who also deny military principles from 500 BC. Carriers are nothing more than support function in the Middle East. Overhyped by 'big dics' who even and also forget the basic purpose of war. Marines had to breach Iraq lines to get into Kuwait without support from *four* carriers. How many know without first learning fundamental facts ... such as the purpose of war?

TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?

Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft. The carrier based aircraft were critical in the opening weeks of both the Afgan Campaign and the first two weeks in the opening drive to Bagdad. Pretty simple, I have practical real world experience and you have left-wing talking points. Oh, and years of service on active duty, of which you don't appear to have any, unless you would like enlighten me with where you gain your fantasy wisdom.

2:1: Overt Air Strike by the United States or Israel by March 31, 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/bombing-iran

Related anti-war positions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/not-insane

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq

Youtube is blocked by my work filters. I can rarely see it.

Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.

I get off work in the am, I will check it out at home. Thanks.

Because you know someone or because a relative did nuclear physics, then you are also knowledgeable in advanced nuclear physics? Bull.

There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.

General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.

In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.

Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.

What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.

Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.

You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table. And as I asked before, what do you bring? Having personal connections to people who are on the ground or in the air in these conflicts may mean nothing to you, but I believe it beats the qualifications of someone who sits behind a computer with no real world practical experince in the issue.

This does not negate the effectiveness and superiority of the air power. It definately does not minimize the significant role played by ground support AC. I do believe the AC tanker support flies out of the US and the UK for support in both theaters of operation.

I have not seen the video so cannot comment.

Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO. Currently the failure of the Russian state to contain it's own resources is one of the greatest threats. The US had active programs to help the former satillite states of the USSR to dispose of thier n. weapons and those programs are well known.

Your opinion, which I do not share.

Which is exactly the position I believe you are in right at this very moment.

Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.

How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.

Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.

Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.

The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.

And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.

Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.

'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.

Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.