If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Adm. Romero of the Iranian Navy: US ships are a target in case of war   (realclear.com) divider line 128
    More: Obvious, Iranian Navy, ADM, Iranians, Iran, admirals, case of war, air defense systems, USS Nimitz  
•       •       •

3142 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 6:27 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 07:22:16 PM

PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary


No country really believes they could beat America in a fight based on the defense spending numbers alone. Countries would back down and force America to occupy and fight in cities. That is what they learned to do when starting wars against Israel.
 
2014-05-06 07:24:36 PM
FTFA: "Aircraft carriers are the symbol of America's military might," he said. "The carriers are responsible for supplying America's air power. So, it's natural that we want to sink the carriers."

Well yeah, they are one "symbol of America's military might"
But I wouldn't say they are the "symbol of America's military might"

For Instance:
img.fark.net

or

img.fark.net

And these are just the ones you can see ;)
 
2014-05-06 07:24:48 PM
"Iran is building a simple replica of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in a shipyard in the southern port of Bandar Abbas in order to be used in future Photoshop exercises, an Iranian newspaper confirmed last month."
 
2014-05-06 07:24:58 PM
www.realclear.com

*What the Iranian Navy targeting US ships has never looked like.
 
2014-05-06 07:25:07 PM

PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary


Who wants to invade???

Sorry to cite a movie but has anyone seen "Deterrence" with Kevin Pollack????
 
2014-05-06 07:25:27 PM
I like the Hicks strategy...

Nuke them from space... It's the only way to be sure...
 
2014-05-06 07:27:38 PM
Latest photos of the Iranian Navy:

sfiles.d1g.com
 
2014-05-06 07:28:45 PM
You're Welcome !
 
2014-05-06 07:29:49 PM

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


The ability to destroy an aircraft carrier is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing
 
2014-05-06 07:34:25 PM

doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]


You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...
 
2014-05-06 07:35:06 PM

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


The other thing is there maybe technologies coupled with unusual tactics that no one anticipates at all. As my BBC documentary assured me, that combination quite often results in one-sided slaughter, ala machine gun versus infantry.

For instance, the average depth of the Persian Gulf is 50m. The deepest depth is 90m. Now there's a reason why Mythbusters wasn't allowed to use explosives on an overcast day. Study it out.
 
2014-05-06 07:37:15 PM

Persnickety: The ability to destroy an aircraft carrier is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing



ACK! GACK!

Enough of this!  Vader, Release him!
 
2014-05-06 07:39:04 PM

vonster: Omnivorous: Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.

And that was when they had 1/10 the capabilities they have today



1/10th? Methinks you need to consider a decimal shift.
 
2014-05-06 07:39:16 PM

lacrossestar83: doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...


*plugs in X-Box 360 Controller for Windows and presses right trigger two dozen times*
 
2014-05-06 07:41:22 PM

mjones71822: Babies right? It's totally babies.


www.subotage.com

Babies man, we just babies.
 
2014-05-06 07:42:52 PM

Poot beer: vonster: Omnivorous: Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.

And that was when they had 1/10 the capabilities they have today


1/10th? Methinks you need to consider a decimal shift.


You're probably right.
 
2014-05-06 07:43:53 PM
PackofJokers:

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary


Because that strategy totally worked for Japan in '41.
 
2014-05-06 07:45:11 PM

doglover: mjones71822: iheartscotch: Good luck getting close enough to a Nimitz-class carrier to fire those 24 rockets.

/ Me thinks they forgot about the usual escort of carriers; ie destroyers. Also, what the carrier actually has in her.

Babies right? It's totally babies.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 612x612]


This may be a stupid question, but what is that from?
 
2014-05-06 07:45:36 PM

Caffienatedjedi: Probably best not to underestimate them. I mean, they'd never win against the US Navy but they could still kill a lot of men. Read up on the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC202) to get the idea of what Iran could do if they had someone half competent in charge of their Armed Services.


Funny, that was my first thought.
 
2014-05-06 07:46:21 PM

phalamir: The Bestest: phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident

No.  He bested them fair and square.  Then they refloated the fleet and had him stick to a script because he didn't stick to the rules of engagement.

BTW the "rules of engagement" are "beat the other guy", not "what's printed ont he inside lid of Candyland".


I'm not going to say ignore the whole thing, as I haven't read the original paper on it.  Three things to consider, though, which I suspect may not have been taken into account:

1. Many rule systems don't handle large numbers of small attackers well, giving them too high an effectiveness.  If any attack has a 1% chance of succeeding, then 1000 attackers gives you 10 successes on average; in practice, this may be far too high.  I'd be extremely surprised if their system didn't fall into this trap somewhere, given that it probably wasn't designed to deal with thousands of suicide-bomber Zodiacs.

2. Speaking of suicide bombers - they're a lot harder to find than you'd think.  Assuming 2000 ships with 2 people each, that's more suicide bombers than Japan had successful kamikaze pilots in WWII.  Was that taken into account?  It's easy for the leadership to say, "Our valiant warriors will throw themselves into battle with no hope of survival!" but not so easy when you're the guy sitting on top of the explosives.

3. Finally, were the logistics of the situation dealt with? "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Getting hundreds or thousands of small ships armed and fueled and sent out together, keeping them coordinated, and guiding them to their targets - all easy things to do in a war game but much harder to do in the real world.

Again, not saying the whole thing should be ignored, but I suspect it's not as significant a threat as you're claiming.
 
2014-05-06 07:46:35 PM

lacrossestar83: doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...


D'oh.
 
2014-05-06 07:48:27 PM
I'd prefer it if we'd try not to go to war with every country in the Middle East.
 
2014-05-06 07:49:04 PM

kazrak: phalamir: The Bestest: phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident

No.  He bested them fair and square.  Then they refloated the fleet and had him stick to a script because he didn't stick to the rules of engagement.

BTW the "rules of engagement" are "beat the other guy", not "what's printed ont he inside lid of Candyland".

I'm not going to say ignore the whole thing, as I haven't read the original paper on it.  Three things to consider, though, which I suspect may not have been taken into account:

1. Many rule systems don't handle large numbers of small attackers well, giving them too high an effectiveness.  If any attack has a 1% chance of succeeding, then 1000 attackers gives you 10 successes on average; in practice, this may be far too high.  I'd be extremely surprised if their system didn't fall into this trap somewhere, given that it probably wasn't designed to deal with thousands of suicide-bomber Zodiacs.

2. Speaking of suicide bombers - they're a lot harder to find than you'd think.  Assuming 2000 ships with 2 people each, that's more suicide bombers than Japan had successful kamikaze pilots in WWII.  Was that taken into account?  It's easy for the leadership to say, "Our valiant warriors will throw themselves into battle with no hope of survival!" but not so easy when you're the guy sitting on top of the explosives.

3. Finally, were the logistics of the situation dealt with? ...


I'm just thinking of the effectiveness of just 1 auto 5" gun on 1 destroyer against small craft not to mention CWIS.
 
2014-05-06 07:57:33 PM

MayoSlather: I'd prefer it if we'd try not to go to war with every country in the Middle East.


I agree with that too.
 
2014-05-06 07:57:46 PM
pew pew pew

previous.presstv.ir
 
2014-05-06 07:59:49 PM
Maybe this wasn't a comedy piece but I just couldn't stop laughing all the way through.

Thanks for that.  I needed it.
 
2014-05-06 08:01:22 PM

vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.


Actually a more realistic comparison is the scrawny guy with a 9mm and ufc guys with bazookas. He'll lose for sure but may still kill or severely injured a guy or two.
 
2014-05-06 08:02:07 PM

cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]


We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.
 
2014-05-06 08:03:08 PM
Someone needs to let the Iranians know that the feeling is mutual.
 
2014-05-06 08:04:30 PM

SuperNinjaToad: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

Actually a more realistic comparison is the scrawny guy with a 9mm and ufc guys with bazookas. He'll lose for sure but may still kill or severely injured a guy or two.


That's what I meant
 
2014-05-06 08:05:19 PM

Maul555: Someone needs to let the Iranians know that the feeling is mutual.


They know. They're just like that little puke in NK. Spoiled child.
 
2014-05-06 08:07:18 PM

vonster: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]

We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.


That's funny 'cause the image is what is considered "current" for Iran.

/for reals
 
2014-05-06 08:07:51 PM

cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew


img.fark.net

I remember that ride at Disneyland. It was right next to the sky buckets in Tomorrowland.
 
2014-05-06 08:08:59 PM

Poot beer: vonster: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]

We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.

That's funny 'cause the image is what is considered "current" for Iran.

/for reals


Even so....
 
2014-05-06 08:13:05 PM

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


You know that officer had a big goofy grin on his face for weeks.
 
2014-05-06 08:13:44 PM

Danger Avoid Death: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew



I remember that ride at Disneyland. It was right next to the sky buckets in Tomorrowland.


Are you sure those aren't from the Pirates of the Caribbean ride?

/ I loved that ride the two times we went to Disney world in the 80's; I hear that it is currently infested by Capt. Jack Tonto
 
2014-05-06 08:15:19 PM
"The carriers are responsible for supplying America's air power. So, it's natural that we want to sink the carriers."

I guess he learned that from WW2 documentaries about the S. Pacific. Modern carriers are even harder to sink. You can put a whole bunch of holes in them, destroy the flight deck and the buggers will still float because they're so compartmentalized.

I watched a show where an old WW2 carrier was being sunk as an artificial reef and the demolition crew had to take days opening every hatch, cutting through hull supports and build frames in specific spots to place explosives on to punch big. square holes in the hull.

Even the supervisor said those old ships were designed not to sink. Imagine a modern aircraft carrier, using an assortment of new materials, all buttoned up for action. I believe there was a shot to shiat US carrier at Bikini Atoll when they did that nuke test with all of those captured warships.

It survived the blast. It did sink, but it took several days for it to do so.

Now, I did watch a video of a Russian warship gunning down Somali pirates, using one of those new automated, gatling guns which can shoot missiles out of the air.

They missed.

Several times.

Then the gun jammed and had to be fixed. By the time it got going again, the sailors were lined up along the rail, firing at the pirates with machine guns. They finally finished them off with the gatling gun, which actually did an impressive job.

Besides, after Korea, Vietnam and the 'iffy' Middle Eastern war, if the US has to go to battle again, I suspect we're going to want a clear cut victory, meaning if it gets dragged out too long, nukes might be deployed. It could be time for an object lesson.

After all, it seems every other nation these days just has to rattle sabers at the US, threaten and posture and cry over the military drones, since we don't send in battalions of soldiers, which they can shoot at, to get just a few guys.
 
2014-05-06 08:19:19 PM
Iran's front-line offensive against America's navy:

thunderbird37.com
 
2014-05-06 08:19:37 PM

LoneWolf343: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

You know that officer had a big goofy grin on his face for weeks.


Eh, maybe not so much.
He protested by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces, and warning that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.
But you can bet the Marines cherish the hell out of that story.
 
2014-05-06 08:20:33 PM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Not impressed.
 
2014-05-06 08:23:52 PM

kazrak: I'm not going to say ignore the whole thing, as I haven't read the original paper on it. Three things to consider, though, which I suspect may not have been taken into account:

1. Many rule systems don't handle large numbers of small attackers well, giving them too high an effectiveness. If any attack has a 1% chance of succeeding, then 1000 attackers gives you 10 successes on average; in practice, this may be far too high. I'd be extremely surprised if their system didn't fall into this trap somewhere, given that it probably wasn't designed to deal with thousands of suicide-bomber Zodiacs.

2. Speaking of suicide bombers - they're a lot harder to find than you'd think. Assuming 2000 ships with 2 people each, that's more suicide bombers than Japan had successful kamikaze pilots in WWII. Was that taken into account? It's easy for the leadership to say, "Our valiant warriors will throw themselves into battle with no hope of survival!" but not so easy when you're the guy sitting on top of the explosives.

3. Finally, were the logistics of the situation dealt with? "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Getting hundreds or thousands of small ships armed and fueled and sent out together, keeping them coordinated, and guiding them to their targets - all easy things to do in a war game but much harder to do in the real world.

Again, not saying the whole thing should be ignored, but I suspect it's not as significant a threat as you're claiming.


So, in order:

1. The whole purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to see if the US fleet could handle large numbers of small attackers. It was found that they could not.

2. That region abounds with suicide bombers, as you may recall from recent events. They don't need hundreds...but they've got them.

3. They don't need hundreds or thousands. They just need enough. Take a look at the size of the Persian Gulf, the maneuvering room needed by a Nimitz-class carrier vs. the room needed by small surface craft. Those boats are already there, so your "logistics" are canceled out by the fact that they don't have to transport a putative navy to the location.

Stop thinking like a large, coordinated, regimented military--it has gotten us in trouble before. Think like a small, weak, semi-insurgent force. They don't get a lot of marked armored PT-style boats; they commandeer fishing boats, rowboats with outboards, Boston Whalers, and hand everyone on board a couple AK-47's and fill the thing with Semtex. They don't need high-tech communications systems, they just pass out a bunch of burner cellphones and cheap Chinese wristwatches and give everyone a strike time. You tell your suicide attackers they're getting their 72 virgins when the attack succeeds, and make sure at least one guy on board is fanatical enough to kill the others if they look like chickening out.

They could never win in the long run, of course; but that would be small comfort to the tens of thousands of sailors dead on board the carriers in the first round of attacks. Now, Darth Cheney and his ilk would gladly sacrifice a couple carriers full of sailors to kick-start a war with Iran; I hope other administrations are not so cold-blooded.
 
2014-05-06 08:25:14 PM

Old enough to know better: PackofJokers:

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary

Because that strategy totally worked for Japan in '41.


Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive sucker punch; in the Revolutionary Guard's fantasies, we're the aggressor and they send us home with a bloody nose. Think more along the lines of Bay of Pigs in '61, or Mogadishu in '93.
 
2014-05-06 08:26:33 PM
If they tried firing one farking missile or rocket at us the Iranian fleet would end up Persian in awful pain and bloodshed.
 
2014-05-06 08:35:51 PM

shanteyman: Prof. Phalamir, the only way the Iranians would have a decent shot at sinking a carrier would be if they were able to surprise it. Given the fact that, if we were to go to war with Iran, there would probably be some build up of "incidents" before we took action, I think a surprise attack would be a little far fetched. Consider , too, that if we were planning to attack Iran we'd strike their command and control , any and all forces on the ground or in port capable of attacking our ships, and obliterate their air arm in the first days of the "war".
Add to that the fact that we have the acoustic signature of every submarine they have, so we'd be able to find them fairly quickly if they even made it out to sea. They might get lucky; but that's all it would be, luck.


That's what I was thinking.  If they pulled a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack, they might damage or even sink a big ship (I doubt they'd be able to get close enough to a carrier, but who knows).

Otherwise, in a planned invasion, they'd notice they were being invaded as their missile embankments, AA batteries, communications centers, and ports all started blowing up simultaneously courtesy of planes they never saw on radar.
 
2014-05-06 08:37:38 PM
Iran has a navy? Gtfo I learned something new today.
 
2014-05-06 08:45:17 PM

Bob Robert: PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary

No country really believes they could beat America in a fight based on the defense spending numbers alone. Countries would back down and force America to occupy and fight in cities. That is what they learned to do when starting wars against Israel.


And hopefully if we ever get involved in a conflict over there again we learn not to play that game.  We won the war in Iraq within the first three months.  The years that followed were just a failed experiment in nation building.  Go in, do the job, and leave.  It will take decades for anything resembling a threat to emerge from the rubble, and we could even embed CIA teams in the area to steer things in the direction we wanted and/or take out anyone gaining power that seems problematic.
 
2014-05-06 08:48:56 PM
So...did they forget about our submarines?
 
2014-05-06 08:50:44 PM
 
2014-05-06 08:51:09 PM
No shiat.   also do you we would move any of our ships in range of those small boats with out planning for how to stop them?

I would think one of the opening moves would be a strike by drones or cruise missiles  to blow the ever loving fark out of what Iran calls a navy.

We could always go old school and mine the harbors and while the Iranians struggle to remove the mines we blow up there boats.
 
2014-05-06 09:15:56 PM

Rik01: Even the supervisor said those old ships were designed not to sink. Imagine a modern aircraft carrier, using an assortment of new materials, all buttoned up for action. I believe there was a shot to shiat US carrier at Bikini Atoll when they did that nuke test with all of those captured warships.


They should have used an iceberg.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report