(01-23-2012 03:29 PM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:08 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Maybe if conservatives were more on the "GET THE **** OFF OIL" train we could just laugh at them. But nope, gotta knock every attempt to find a new source of fuel for transportation.

Because none of them work or are efficient enough to be pratical. Spending $50k on a Prius and watching your home electric bill go through the roof as the electric company goes full tilt just to charge the damn thing doesn't do anything other than ease the tremendous guilt people feel over something they have very, very little control over. Meanwhile, Al Gore flies from mansion to mansion in his private jet while he's telling you to take a bike to work in sub-zero weather.

Don't people realize that the electric generating plants are powered by coal, oil, or natural gas turbines?? Where do they think the electricity comes from? Ban the coal plants and watch your electric bill rise! Makes sense to me!

Nuclear power seems the ideal choice to me. I realize there's drawbacks, but better than sending money to the middle east / Venezuela. Making progress on Solar, wind, etc.. but I haven't seen enough proof to justify it yet over nuclear. DrTorch is the expert around here, right? What's his opinion?

(01-23-2012 03:48 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:29 PM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:08 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Maybe if conservatives were more on the "GET THE **** OFF OIL" train we could just laugh at them. But nope, gotta knock every attempt to find a new source of fuel for transportation.

Because none of them work or are efficient enough to be pratical. Spending $50k on a Prius and watching your home electric bill go through the roof as the electric company goes full tilt just to charge the damn thing doesn't do anything other than ease the tremendous guilt people feel over something they have very, very little control over. Meanwhile, Al Gore flies from mansion to mansion in his private jet while he's telling you to take a bike to work in sub-zero weather.

Don't people realize that the electric generating plants are powered by coal, oil, or natural gas turbines?? Where do they think the electricity comes from? Ban the coal plants and watch your electric bill rise! Makes sense to me!

Nuclear power seems the ideal choice to me. I realize there's drawbacks, but better than sending money to the middle east / Venezuela. Making progress on Solar, wind, etc.. but I haven't seen enough proof to justify it yet over nuclear. DrTorch is the expert around here, right? What's his opinion?

Um even nuclear plants need coal, naturl gas or oil to get the turbines rolling, then the nuclear fuel keeps them spinning. D'Oh!

There is no electricity generated that does not get its start without fossil fuels.

Hence the need for exploration and production domestically. Don't the greenies know that their iPads and iphones won't work without electricity. Twitter, etc. doesn't work without electricity? Without fossil fuels, no electricity can be generated? Are they THAT stupid?

Why don't they go live on Mackinac Island to live the life with no cars.

(Steps down off soapbox)

I have no problem with electricity, I have a problem with us sending OUR MOTHERFUCKING ENEMIES trillions of dollars to buy their stuff, then having to go to war with them when we don't like how they want to sell it. So unless we can drill domestically and fuel our transportation needs, we need to figure out a new way to drive to work, and fast. I don't get how neocons can hate Muzzies so much and be so pro America, yet send them trillions of dollars yet have a problem when investing in green technology produced domestically. Maybe instead of tearing down the Chevy Volt they should be sharing interest in it so that it keeps improving and pushing for nuclear so that we can run them. But nope, they want to keep sending our money to the people they hate. Jesus it isn't that hard. Keep our money here!

(01-23-2012 11:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:52 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  2. Let's sit this one out and let Europe and China start playing World Police.

This... Lets work with Canada to get KeyStone Built. But Oil is fungible, even if we get 100% of ours from CA shutting down Hormuz screws our economy.

China doesn't give a crap about some EU embargo. They'll just trade with them anyway. And Europe couldn't sustain the operations over Libya if we hadn't basically done everything but pull the triggers.

Maybe the second carrier group will serve a different purpose. Maybe Israel has had enough with the Iranian nuclear program and advised the US it's going to take it out. Could these carriers be in place to protect US interests in the region if that happens?

(01-23-2012 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe the second carrier group will serve a different purpose. Maybe Israel has had enough with the Iranian nuclear program and advised the US it's going to take it out. Could these carriers be in place to protect US interests in the region if that happens?

You have two battle groups as insurance. Plus whats left of the Iranian Air Force can't intercept two air strikes coming from different directions

(01-23-2012 08:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe the second carrier group will serve a different purpose. Maybe Israel has had enough with the Iranian nuclear program and advised the US it's going to take it out. Could these carriers be in place to protect US interests in the region if that happens?

You have two battle groups as insurance. Plus whats left of the Iranian Air Force can't intercept two air strikes coming from different directions

Do we need pilots to fly those missions, or will cruise missiles do the job until their air force kaput?

(01-23-2012 08:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 08:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe the second carrier group will serve a different purpose. Maybe Israel has had enough with the Iranian nuclear program and advised the US it's going to take it out. Could these carriers be in place to protect US interests in the region if that happens?

You have two battle groups as insurance. Plus whats left of the Iranian Air Force can't intercept two air strikes coming from different directions

Do we need pilots to fly those missions, or will cruise missiles do the job until their air force kaput?

I figure maybe a few cruise missiles but also could be used for emergency landing strip for Israel's F-16's if some can't make the return trip.

(01-23-2012 08:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 08:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 08:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe the second carrier group will serve a different purpose. Maybe Israel has had enough with the Iranian nuclear program and advised the US it's going to take it out. Could these carriers be in place to protect US interests in the region if that happens?

You have two battle groups as insurance. Plus whats left of the Iranian Air Force can't intercept two air strikes coming from different directions

Do we need pilots to fly those missions, or will cruise missiles do the job until their air force kaput?

I figure maybe a few cruise missiles but also could be used for emergency landing strip for Israel's F-16's if some can't make the return trip.

Israeli F-16s won't be making carrier landings without tailhooks. They will us Saudi bases if they need them.

The USS Georgia a SSGN loaded with 150 Tomahawks was at Diego Garcia on January 10, so she is prowling the neighborhood.

That's enough to waste every Iranian Airbase south of Tehran

This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

(01-23-2012 08:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Do we need pilots to fly those missions,

(01-23-2012 11:37 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 08:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Do we need pilots to fly those missions,

Lol....you know what I meant.

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

That's why they sailed through... Just to put Iranians on notice that they don't scare us.

Of course every sensor we had in the Persian Gulf was picking up Iranian radar signals and watching what Iranian units did what

Obabba efforts to weaken the US are paying off. A success.

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

Against an enemy like Iran, I think a carrier group will be able to handle it okay. But no question the risk is higher in more confined waters.

And the Gulf is more confined than may be obvious for several reasons. It's pretty narrow. There is a lot of reefing, and a number of offshore platforms. That may place some severe restrictions on aircraft launches. When you go to flight quarters, you need enough good water in front of you to be able to complete the launch, and there are places in the Gulf where that is a problem. Also, if you're launching aircraft and there's a 200,000 ton tanker ahead, he's not going to be able to maneuver too much because of the above considerations, and you're not going to be able to maneuver and keep launching, so it gets complicated.

(01-24-2012 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

Against an enemy like Iran, I think a carrier group will be able to handle it okay. But no question the risk is higher in more confined waters.

And the Gulf is more confined than may be obvious for several reasons. It's pretty narrow. There is a lot of reefing, and a number of offshore platforms. That may place some severe restrictions on aircraft launches. When you go to flight quarters, you need enough good water in front of you to be able to complete the launch, and there are places in the Gulf where that is a problem. Also, if you're launching aircraft and there's a 200,000 ton tanker ahead, he's not going to be able to maneuver too much because of the above considerations, and you're not going to be able to maneuver and keep launching, so it gets complicated.

Granted its not the Pacific...but its not small either...I think they would be just fine.

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

I think you underestimate how many caves are on the east coast of that Gulf and just how portable land to ship missile launchers get.

Not saying they could take the whole group but only a fool thinks the group is completely secure and only the heir to the kingdom of fools would bet on it.