But the iranians had really better hope like hell they aren’t swarming a boat with the new mod CIWS.

We aren’t helpless here. You guys might be nervous, but believe me, the Navy isn’t.

We must fight fire with fire to make it fair. When any unmarked vessel encroaches on a U.S. war ship in a threating manner and comes within the blast radi (500 ft.) of the encroaching vessel it must be destroyed after one verbal or waring shot is given. No if and or butts allowed in the decision making process. Just do it.

The Iraqis really appreciate us franchising democracy upon them: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8189766511290964552&q=ron+paul&total=26843&start=70&num=10&so=1&

Don’t be Duped: http://www.photoactivistsforpeace.org/videos.html

Iran Attacks US Fifth Fleet! American Casualties Reported!!!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/weden3.html

I also recall the military not listening to one of their own when Gen. Billy Mitchell praised the value of aerial bombing and the growing threat of a military Japan.

I pray we do not see a repeat of history such as I have noted above.

Swarm tactics require a swarm which has to be gathered into the area of operations. I would wager in short ordered everything larger than a row boat will be hit with Naval Air and Air Force well before the first US ship makes a run.

The threat of losing some ships from the occasional mines, land based silk worms, and small number fast boats that slip through, is real and will very likely happen. I just don’t buy the end game we cannot over come it BS.

One wild card to my thoughts would be the ROE. If we cannot burn everything above a row boat with or without evidenced threat, then we are f*cked for real. In that scenerio swarms (innocent fisherman) will be able to gather then strike.

Bottom line you don’t try to kill a swarm of yellow jackets when they are buzzing around your head (you run like hell). Then you go get a long stick, some newspaper, and a lighter. Then you return when the yellow jackets are chilling in their nest and you burn their wings off. You can then squash them under foot at your leisure.

“Chaps”?

Jim Treacher on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Yeah, I don’t know either. Maybe that was Derbyshire.

a capella on January 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Agreed. I just love how they are high-fiving themselves and congratulating themselves about how edgy and funny they are.

Apeking on January 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM

No, he and couple of others just hijacked the thread away from the original subject, and ruined it for everyone. But, that was the intent, so you may be right and he did win.

Apeking on January 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Gee, thanks for keeping us honest, Paulbot.

And so forth. Chaps – and I’m talking to the regular, right-wing commentators here – you had better raise your game. I’ve just read through the comments and this BlackCapitalist fellow above is beating your arses. He’s using a mixture of sarcasm and parody to throw your own words and opinions back into your faces, and he’s winning.

Hey Ron, does the USS Cole mean anything to you?
Not to mention the Tanker War in the 1980’s which was the biggest engagement by the US Navy since WW2.

RobCon on January 12, 2008 at 7:08 PM

I’ll ignore your first post as it brings nothing of substance to the discussion, but answer this one.

The USS Cole was stationary and can hardly be compared to U.S. ships on maneuvers in international waters.

Regarding the Tanker War, are you saying the U.S. Navy hasn’t learned anything since then? If they were worried about such an attack, wouldn’t they have blown these small boats to smithereens?

I’ll concede part of your point more falklands posture less okinawa, but unfortunately we have to stress the political implications a la vietnam as almost as determinative as they were prior to 9/11. The mentality of vietnam may not hold as much sway as it did prior to 9/11 but there are disingenuos and hypocritical politicians on our left who will use any incident to their benefit. Most of this country is at “the mall” and polarized to boot.

Furthermore i don’t think we can divorce the scenarios from the uniqueness of each “sector” or the implications that each bring to the overall outcome.

For example losing a number however small of US warships in the straits of hormuz would have a significant psychological and propaganda impact that may be used by our adversaries to TRY to push world opinion and markets as well as our spineless elites into some form of strategic accomodation on what is essentially a cheap asymmetric cost.

i actually hope i’m wrong though…

You’re right. Next time I’ll just use “bomb” instead of “nuke.” Much more moral and pleasing to Jesus.

dude.

Watch your language

bnelson44 on January 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM

You’re right. Next time I’ll just use “bomb” instead of “nuke.” Much more moral and pleasing to Jesus.

The Iranians would be better off to understand that they have not yet witnessed what the US military can bring down upon them.

We’re not awake yet.

The US military is at war. America is at the Mall.

Up until that point it was thought that a smaller coastal force would cede control of the seas to the larger force but the gaming discovered that such forces when employed with asymmetric tactics (suicide runs, use of mines, swarming, use of diesel electric subs, etc) and combined with a massive propaganda campaign could derail an American naval effort.

No. Findings were completely wrong, the mentality of Vietnam and political implications far too prominent. Study should have looked at Falklands War more than Okinawa Campaign. Red Force advantages, from homeplay to greater quantities, actually become disadvantages to a greater mobile force. They overplay importance of “strategic sectors” and capabilities that go with these points. Problem is that Blue Force has to play into the scenario to be true.

Sadly, the only way “true” wargames are performed today are by having limits on what and what-not may happen.