7-May-14 World View-Iran says can sink US carrier in 50 secs

[John]

7-May-14 World View -- Iran's navy chief says he can sink an American aircraft carrier in 50 seconds

Another terrorist attack on a railway station in China

** 7-May-14 World View -- Iran's navy chief says he can sink an American aircraft carrier in 50 seconds
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140507



Contents:
Another terrorist attack on a railway station in China
China makes plans for the collapse of North Korea's regime
Iran's navy chief says he can sink an American aircraft carrier in 50 seconds


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, Guangzhou, Xinjiang, Uighur,
Junming, Urumqi, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
China, North Korea, Korean War,
Iran, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, IRGC,
USS Nimitz, Ali Fadavi, U.S. Navy 5th Fleet, Bahrain

[NoOneImportant]

While reading John's article pertaining to the Iranians, I couldn't help but reflect upon the take the Greeks took regarding war - for me history is a great instructor. In Plutarch's: Lives; under Lycurgus, the law-giver of Sparta, there are a number of Rhetras - rules, or ordinances for the conduct of Spartan life. The one Rhetra, that I read and remember from a lifetime ago, that immediately came to mind was: "do not make war, often, or long with the same foe, lest you instruct them, and train them in war...", that is, long conflicts train the implacable enemy to defeat you - you'll remember Vietnam.

Each of the Carriers house a crew compliment of roughly 6,000, and the total Carrier Strike Group many more. Furthermore the Carrier Strike Groups represent (human life aside), for the carrier alone, hardware assets (including the 85+ aircraft) worth in excess of 20 -30 billion dollars per carrier. That hardware cost does not include the cost of the submarine, the missile air defense cruiser, and the 2 - 4 destroyers or frigates that provide surface, and anti-submarine protection. Without the carrier providing air cover the remainder of the Carrier Strike Group is considered vulnerable. All, with the associated human capital, are not easily replaced.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... imitz.html (somewhat dated)

and

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does ... ornet_cost

The Iranians have come to understand that It is the human capital that is the real prize in war. Churchill early in WWII intentionally disbursed the British fleet that they might be available to come together, when needed, to sink the true prize in warfare, the German invasion troop transports, when the expected German invasion of Britain might come to pass.

To underestimate an implacable enemy is one of the great errors in conflict. In the final passages of Thucydides': History of the Peloponnesian War, he describes the utter destruction of the 25,000 man Athenian army at remote Syracuse that Athens only became aware of a year after the fact - for us that would be two Carrier Strike Groups. In the current context of world events it must be expected that any American foe, including and especially Iran, would be armed with the current state-of-the-art Russian, and/or Chinese anti-ship weapon systems in addition to any indigenous, home-brewed, weapons.

While the ultimate outcome of any Iranian conflict might not be in doubt, in a world where America is no longer respected, nor feared prudence would dictate extreme caution in the risking of assets and lives not easily replaced, as we have given the Iranians 25 years to prepare for any prospective conflict. Additionally, in any such conflict with the Iranians, we have also given the Russians, and Chinese license to eradicate American carriers with prospective impunity, by arming the Iranians with state-of-the-art anti-ship weapon systems, systems that might possibly even be maned by Russian, or Chinese crews.

[John]

Pride goeth before the fall.

[Guest]

I personally wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran. French President Chirac talked about it in 2004 as almost a fait accompli. Chirac described a future Iranian nuclear weapon as a way to neutralize Israel's large nuclear arsenal.(In some many words) I think a nuclear Iran would check Israeli aggression. Israel could no longer launch attacks on Lebanon or bombing raids on Tunisia or Syria with impunity.

Israel is a bully. A lot of Israel arrogance comes from commonly held racist beliefs in some kind of racial superiority over the Arabs-a ridiculous notion. The Egyptian counter attack in the Sinai proved highly successful back in the early 70s. The Israelis were donkey punched in 2006 by Hezbollah. Israel holds only a qualitative advantage in weapon technology over its enemies-nothing more. A nuclear armed Iran would neutralize what few technological advantages Israel had.

I also do not believe that Iran is looking to launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv. Iran has been constantly threatened with attack and invasion for last 25 years. It is only natural that it would seek an effective deterrent .

Why should America get involved in this?