(06-22-2025 04:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 04:01 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:53 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  2 days at most.

LOL. Sink 226 vessels in two days? Plus, good luck with the 26 submarines and mini-subs.

The US has about 480 ships of various types. Think somebody could sink all of them in 4 days?

I know you arent trying to say that the only way we would destroy Iran's Navy is with just our ships... I mean, if that were the case where only boats could fire upon other boats, you might have a point, it might take a week... but our Navy also includes thousands of aircraft and then we have the, you know, air force, and then we have bombs that can be shot from hundreds of miles away....

Their navy would be destroyed in a matter of 2 days.

I don't think we would do it that way. Unnecessary. We might kill their warships in 2 days. But that's not what Elvis said. He said ALL their ships.

It makes no sense to sink anything else. But if you tried to do it, you sure as hell couldn't do all 200+ floating thingies in 2 days, lol.

It's just a matter of sheer numbers. As I said before, we have about 470 ships active and reserve. About twice Iran's. Do you think somebody could sink all of ours in 4 days? Especially if they are spread out?

And no, I didn't mean only with ships. I'm not that dumb. I'm not a Democrat.

And I was actually in the Navy. And worked for SecNav another 15 years as a consultant. So yeah, I know a thing about navies.

If you can give me an example of someone's navy that outclasses our navy to the extent we outclass Iran's navy, then it might be worth discussing. There are none. China comes closest, but even then they may outnumber us, but our navy (at this point) is still more powerful than China's, so it would probably be a dogfight. The answer would be no, there is no navy, even if all navies outside of the US combined, that would be capable of taking out the US navy in 4 days. Our military completely disabling Iran's navy in a matter of days is absolutely credible.

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 04:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 04:01 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:53 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  2 days at most.

LOL. Sink 226 vessels in two days? Plus, good luck with the 26 submarines and mini-subs.

The US has about 480 ships of various types. Think somebody could sink all of them in 4 days?

I know you arent trying to say that the only way we would destroy Iran's Navy is with just our ships... I mean, if that were the case where only boats could fire upon other boats, you might have a point, it might take a week... but our Navy also includes thousands of aircraft and then we have the, you know, air force, and then we have bombs that can be shot from hundreds of miles away....

Their navy would be destroyed in a matter of 2 days.

I don't think we would do it that way. Unnecessary. We might kill their warships in 2 days. But that's not what Elvis said. He said ALL their ships.

It makes no sense to sink anything else. But if you tried to do it, you sure as hell couldn't do all 200+ floating thingies in 2 days, lol.

It's just a matter of sheer numbers. As I said before, we have about 470 ships active and reserve. About twice Iran's. Do you think somebody could sink all of ours in 4 days? Especially if they are spread out?

And no, I didn't mean only with ships. I'm not that dumb. I'm not a Democrat.

And I was actually in the Navy. And worked for SecNav another 15 years as a consultant. So yeah, I know a thing about navies.

If you can give me an example of someone's navy that outclasses our navy to the extent we outclass Iran's navy, then it might be worth discussing. There are none. China comes closest, but even then they may outnumber us, but our navy (at this point) is still more powerful than China's, so it would probably be a dogfight. The answer would be no, there is no navy, even if all navies outside of the US combined, that would be capable of taking out the US navy in 4 days. Our military completely disabling Iran's navy in a matter of days is absolutely credible.

China has a strong near shore navy with tons of small ships to defend their coastline and control the area around Taiwan. No one else in the world has the blue water navy that can take the fight to any enemy in the way we can, and can project global force.

China is strong if we come to them, but doesn’t have the capability to come to us.

The force discrepancy between our navy and Iran is crazy if we committed our entire surface and subsurface fleet to the conflict.

Four aircraft sunk two of their frigates in hours last time, we have them within the operational range of three CSGs. Ford in the med, CV in the Arabian Sea, and Nimitz on the way for a last go around. That’s 150+ F18s that could be brought to bear by the three CSGs in region armed with Harpoons and LRSAMs hunting Iranian ships, without going to an “all in” theoretical scenario where the entire US Navy focused on Iran.

https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/iran-isr....500172510

"...The officials said 75 precision-guided weapons were used and the operation involved some 125 aircraft. Caine said the battle damage would take time to assess but “all three sites sustain extremely severe damage and destruction...."”

125! Supporting a few B-2 bombers.

(06-22-2025 03:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think there is political scheming between branches over overlapping mission capabilities and tasking.

Your entire worldview exists only in a fantasy world.

That is the single biggest problem with you far left kooks, you just can't accept reality so you create your own alternate reality and never leave that fantasy world.

(06-22-2025 05:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think there is political scheming between branches over overlapping mission capabilities and tasking.

Your entire worldview exists only in a fantasy world.

That is the single biggest problem with you far left kooks, you just can't accept reality so you create your own alternate reality and never leave that fantasy world.

Thank you for yet another on topic contribution to this post. Good job.

(06-22-2025 08:49 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 07:47 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  CBS just can’t help themselves. At 9 I turned on the tube to see what statement Trump was going to make. Before Trump could even speak the broadcaster same one in the biased debate said the US had entered the war and bombed Iran in support of Israel.

Is that not what happened though?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Absolutely NOT! We did not enter the war to support Israel.

We held negotiations with Iran. Once the talks broke down Trump followed through on his statement that Iran WILL NOT have Nuclear Weapons.

In no way were we coming to the aid of Israelis and in no way does this mean we are in a combat situation with Iran.

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 04:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 04:01 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 03:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:53 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  2 days at most.

LOL. Sink 226 vessels in two days? Plus, good luck with the 26 submarines and mini-subs.

The US has about 480 ships of various types. Think somebody could sink all of them in 4 days?

I know you arent trying to say that the only way we would destroy Iran's Navy is with just our ships... I mean, if that were the case where only boats could fire upon other boats, you might have a point, it might take a week... but our Navy also includes thousands of aircraft and then we have the, you know, air force, and then we have bombs that can be shot from hundreds of miles away....

Their navy would be destroyed in a matter of 2 days.

I don't think we would do it that way. Unnecessary. We might kill their warships in 2 days. But that's not what Elvis said. He said ALL their ships.

It makes no sense to sink anything else. But if you tried to do it, you sure as hell couldn't do all 200+ floating thingies in 2 days, lol.

It's just a matter of sheer numbers. As I said before, we have about 470 ships active and reserve. About twice Iran's. Do you think somebody could sink all of ours in 4 days? Especially if they are spread out?

And no, I didn't mean only with ships. I'm not that dumb. I'm not a Democrat.

And I was actually in the Navy. And worked for SecNav another 15 years as a consultant. So yeah, I know a thing about navies.

If you can give me an example of someone's navy that outclasses our navy to the extent we outclass Iran's navy, then it might be worth discussing. There are none. China comes closest, but even then they may outnumber us, but our navy (at this point) is still more powerful than China's, so it would probably be a dogfight. The answer would be no, there is no navy, even if all navies outside of the US combined, that would be capable of taking out the US navy in 4 days. Our military completely disabling Iran's navy in a matter of days is absolutely credible.

Oh good grief. This is a stupid argument. We just have a different opinion about how long it takes to blow up a bunch of speedboats, lol.

I never said anything about our Navy not being the best in the world. I didn't say a Navy existed that could do that. I was simply talking numbers and time. THEORETICALLY.

Frankly, IDGAF if we can blow them all up in 5 minutes. Or that nobody in history could ever blow up ours. You win.

(06-22-2025 05:42 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

This might be the most ironic, and funniest, thing of the whole deal.

(06-22-2025 06:20 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:49 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 07:47 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  CBS just can’t help themselves. At 9 I turned on the tube to see what statement Trump was going to make. Before Trump could even speak the broadcaster same one in the biased debate said the US had entered the war and bombed Iran in support of Israel.

Is that not what happened though?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Absolutely NOT! We did not enter the war to support Israel.

We held negotiations with Iran. Once the talks broke down Trump followed through on his statement that Iran WILL NOT have Nuclear Weapons.

In no way were we coming to the aid of Israelis and in no way does this mean we are in a combat situation with Iran.

All of it, every little sprinkle, is in support of Israel.

(06-22-2025 05:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/iran-isr....500172510

"...The officials said 75 precision-guided weapons were used and the operation involved some 125 aircraft. Caine said the battle damage would take time to assess but “all three sites sustain extremely severe damage and destruction...."”

125! Supporting a few B-2 bombers.

Yep. Seven B-2s, to be precise.

(06-22-2025 06:39 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 06:20 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:49 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 07:47 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  CBS just can’t help themselves. At 9 I turned on the tube to see what statement Trump was going to make. Before Trump could even speak the broadcaster same one in the biased debate said the US had entered the war and bombed Iran in support of Israel.

Is that not what happened though?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Absolutely NOT! We did not enter the war to support Israel.

We held negotiations with Iran. Once the talks broke down Trump followed through on his statement that Iran WILL NOT have Nuclear Weapons.

In no way were we coming to the aid of Israelis and in no way does this mean we are in a combat situation with Iran.

All of it, every little sprinkle, is in support of Israel.

If that were the case our warships and aircraft would be pounding Iran about right now!

(06-22-2025 02:20 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 01:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 12:22 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  If they do that, it would fukc China much MUCH more than us.

And they not only want their nuclear program destroyed, but also their navy.

I didn't think Iran had much of a Navy, but in fact, they do.

Quote:Yes, Iran has a navy, and it's comprised of two main branches: the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN). The IRIN is part of the regular Iranian military, while the IRGCN is a separate branch with its own command structure.

Here's a more detailed look:

IRIN:
This is the larger of the two naval forces, and it focuses on traditional naval warfare, including submarines, frigates, and other surface combatants.

IRGCN:
The IRGCN focuses on defending Iran's territorial waters and coastal areas, often employing smaller, faster attack craft and potentially asymmetric warfare tactics.

Recent Developments:
Both naval branches have been expanding and modernizing their capabilities, including acquiring new submarines, missile-armed warships, and drone technology.

Global Presence:
While traditionally focused on the Persian Gulf, Iran has been expanding its naval presence, including sending ships to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Submarine Fleet:
Iran possesses a significant submarine force, including both domestically produced and Soviet-era submarines.

Does Iran really want to see her entire Navy smoked? They surely know that will be the cost of attempting to close the Straight of Hormuz. They can close it for a short period of time----but their navy getting dusted and their missile batteries along the cost getting turned into scrap metal will largely end their ability to close the Straight. They will probably lose a few more high ranking officials as well while that goes on.....a fact that is likely not lost on the top Iranian leaders tasked with making the ultimate decision on such matters.

Worst case--its only closed for a relatively short period of time while the Iranian military assets in the area are destroyed. Once its reasonably safe, I think we will see a restart of convoy style movement through the straight under a coalition naval escort until a full cease fire agreement is reached. Its not going to be the end of the world---but we could see a short term spike in energy prices due to the move.

We could sink their entire navy in less than a day, but the straight is narrow enough that they can attack ships with truck mounted missies from shore, or drones. Same playbook the houthis have, but better armed.

Without troops on the ground to secure the Iranian coast 50+ miles inland we will always have the occasional truck mounted anti ship missle get rolled out of a cave and launched.

It’s only 21 miles at the narrow point, no way to stay out of range.

Correct. But its also going to be necessary for the launchers to expose themselves in a relatively small area---and they will need to target without much radar help because those radars are going to be one of the fist things that get destroyed. So---a constant overlord air presence is going to quickly degrade their ability to target ships. Remember, the reason the Houthies were able to stay in business despite the bombing is because Iran was sending them the targeting data. The Iranians are going to very quickly lose the ability to target anything if they really decide to close the straight. Secondly, the convoy escorts will be there (perhaps also supported by a combat air patrol) to take down any shots the Iranians are able to make (assuming the world decides its even necessary to run the blockade). Initially, it sounds like it would be very easy for them to block the straight (and it probably would be early on)---but the reality is it would be very costly---and almost impossible for them to keep it closed for very long on their own.

(06-22-2025 06:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:20 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 01:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  And they not only want their nuclear program destroyed, but also their navy.

I didn't think Iran had much of a Navy, but in fact, they do.

Quote:Yes, Iran has a navy, and it's comprised of two main branches: the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN). The IRIN is part of the regular Iranian military, while the IRGCN is a separate branch with its own command structure.

Here's a more detailed look:

IRIN:
This is the larger of the two naval forces, and it focuses on traditional naval warfare, including submarines, frigates, and other surface combatants.

IRGCN:
The IRGCN focuses on defending Iran's territorial waters and coastal areas, often employing smaller, faster attack craft and potentially asymmetric warfare tactics.

Recent Developments:
Both naval branches have been expanding and modernizing their capabilities, including acquiring new submarines, missile-armed warships, and drone technology.

Global Presence:
While traditionally focused on the Persian Gulf, Iran has been expanding its naval presence, including sending ships to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Submarine Fleet:
Iran possesses a significant submarine force, including both domestically produced and Soviet-era submarines.

Does Iran really want to see her entire Navy smoked? They surely know that will be the cost of attempting to close the Straight of Hormuz. They can close it for a short period of time----but their navy getting dusted and their missile batteries along the cost getting turned into scrap metal will largely end their ability to close the Straight. They will probably lose a few more high ranking officials as well while that goes on.....a fact that is likely not lost on the top Iranian leaders tasked with making the ultimate decision on such matters.

Worst case--its only closed for a relatively short period of time while the Iranian military assets in the area are destroyed. Once its reasonably safe, I think we will see a restart of convoy style movement through the straight under a coalition naval escort until a full cease fire agreement is reached. Its not going to be the end of the world---but we could see a short term spike in energy prices due to the move.

We could sink their entire navy in less than a day, but the straight is narrow enough that they can attack ships with truck mounted missies from shore, or drones. Same playbook the houthis have, but better armed.

Without troops on the ground to secure the Iranian coast 50+ miles inland we will always have the occasional truck mounted anti ship missle get rolled out of a cave and launched.

It’s only 21 miles at the narrow point, no way to stay out of range.

Correct. But its also going to be necessary for the launchers to expose themselves in a relatively small area---and they will need to target without much radar help because those radars are going to be one of the fist things that get destroyed. So---a constant overlord air presence is going to quickly degrade their ability to target ships. Remember, the reason the Houthies were able to stay in business despite the bombing is because Iran was sending them the targeting data. The Iranians are going to very quickly lose the ability to target anything if they really decide to close the straight. Secondly, the convoy escorts will be there (perhaps also supported by a combat air patrol) to take down any shots the Iranians are able to make (assuming the world decides its even necessary to run the blockade). Initially, it sounds like it would be very easy for them to block the straight (and it probably would be early on)---but the reality is it would be very costly---and almost impossible for them to keep it closed for very long on their own.

If you don’t care which ship you hit they could upgrade the shead drones to image pattern matching and train them on ship outlines (Ukraine did this with Russian bear bomber images). This would keep you from having to fire up radar and call down a retaliatory strike.


I agree with your point that there is a lot we can do to mitigate and respond to the threat, and it will go down over time as they run it of launchers, missiles, drones. But I also think it would be a lingering long term threat that pops up occasionally and would be hard to completely eliminate due to the mobile nature of their weapons.

(06-22-2025 06:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think there is political scheming between branches over overlapping mission capabilities and tasking.

Your entire worldview exists only in a fantasy world.

That is the single biggest problem with you far left kooks, you just can't accept reality so you create your own alternate reality and never leave that fantasy world.

Thank you for yet another on topic contribution to this post. Good job.

He's not wrong. >_>

Besides, Trump contacted congressional leadership. It's not his fault Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House, didn't pick up. That's on Jeffries himself. Not only that, but Article II Section 2 outlines that the President can take military action without Congressional approval provided there is a threat to national security. And y'all think Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through utilizing enriched uranium doesn't fit that? What a load of crap.

(06-22-2025 07:07 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 06:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think there is political scheming between branches over overlapping mission capabilities and tasking.

Your entire worldview exists only in a fantasy world.

That is the single biggest problem with you far left kooks, you just can't accept reality so you create your own alternate reality and never leave that fantasy world.

Thank you for yet another on topic contribution to this post. Good job.

He's not wrong. >_>

Besides, Trump contacted congressional leadership. It's not his fault Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House, didn't pick up. That's on Jeffries himself. Not only that, but Article II Section 2 outlines that the President can take military action without Congressional approval provided there is a threat to national security. And y'all think Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through utilizing enriched uranium doesn't fit that? What a load of crap.

And now quote where I said anything about any of that, besides agreeing that Trump can take limited military action over a short period of time (60 or 90 days) before congressional approval is required.

Your post is the one creating your own fantasy world where you make up stuff I said.

(06-22-2025 07:30 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 07:07 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 06:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 05:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think there is political scheming between branches over overlapping mission capabilities and tasking.

Your entire worldview exists only in a fantasy world.

That is the single biggest problem with you far left kooks, you just can't accept reality so you create your own alternate reality and never leave that fantasy world.

Thank you for yet another on topic contribution to this post. Good job.

He's not wrong. >_>

Besides, Trump contacted congressional leadership. It's not his fault Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House, didn't pick up. That's on Jeffries himself. Not only that, but Article II Section 2 outlines that the President can take military action without Congressional approval provided there is a threat to national security. And y'all think Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through utilizing enriched uranium doesn't fit that? What a load of crap.

And now quote where I said anything about any of that, besides agreeing that Trump can take limited military action over a short period of time (60 or 90 days) before congressional approval is required.

Your post is the one creating your own fantasy world where you make up stuff I said.

That was a commentary on your side of the aisle as a whole. The fact some of your so-called leaders are spouting the whole "Unconstitutional" bullcrap is rather telling. If you really do agree with us that Trump used his Constitutional authority to do this, call your party leadership and tell them they're wrong. (But you won't. So yeah, I said what I said. Gotta problem with it?)

John Yoo said on Levin tonight that all this uproar about Trump needing Congress to declare war, is ridiculous.

He said the United States has declared war exactly 5 times in its history, yet it has initiated deadly force through military action over 100 times.

What is the difference?

Declaring war is actually a formal legal document that defines the current relationship between two countries. Congress does that.

Initiating military action is what a US President does when he deems it crucial to protect national security, which is his job under the Constitution.