Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#4 Main worry here is resupply to Afghan troops when Iran erupts, as Russia will likely screw up the Northern route by hook or crook and Pakiwakiland is impossible. Might just be easier to take out south of Iran and resupply the 'stan through an occupied Bandar-e-Abbas with its population removed for our troops safety.
Is the port at Konarek good enough for resupply? f.e. Konarek to Iranshahr to Zahedat and then crossing somewhere near Zabol into 'stan?
Posted by Water Modem 2012-04-19 02:48||
#5 By soft targets I think he means his woody shrinks and crawls up inside when he thinks he might get orders to attack a carrier.
The US should find a small gulf somewhere along the Iranian coast and name it the Persian Gulf, and refer to the existing gulf as the Arabian Gulf. That would certainly make some Persians angry.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-04-19 14:40||
#6 Why would a carrier want to come to a stop in the Persian Gulf? Why would it have to?
What's next? They can't hoist sail unless Iran sez it's OK? And, since they haven't, obviously they must be in mortal fear of the invincible Iranian navy.
Posted by tu3031 2012-04-19 17:32||
#7 "Hey, you scratched my anchor!"
Posted by mojo 2012-04-19 17:46||
#8 It would be awfully ironic on the centenary of the Titanic disaster to think that the U.S. carriers are unsinkable. We lost ten carriers over three years during WWII and the Iranians have much better technology now than anyone did then.
They are quite sinkable. But to do it would require sustained and determined attack that would make it immensely clear who was responsible.
And all of those folks understand that the U.S. response to such an attack would be extremely violent.
Posted by rammer 2012-04-19 19:24||