Guest Authors

Iran, Nukes, and Oil


The entire Report can be viewed here.


# RMELibby 2012-01-18 14:09
I'm sorry, but Gen McCaffrey often has his own agenda. He told the BBC in March 2003 that the INITIAL invasion of Iraq (not the subsequent occupation) could cost the lives of 3,000 U.S. troops. And a few years back on a trip to Havana he parroted Cuban talking points on terrorism and other issues. He's a legend in his own mind and whatever he says should be taken with several grains of salt.
Reply | Report to administrator
+1 # RE: Iran, Nukes, and Oilhaamerhed 2012-01-19 00:14
Arm Chair Admiral McCaffrey should stick to ground pounding. Carriers are machines of power projection. Even though the considerations of Iran's prowess may seem concerning they are still conventional. (Remember seeing the USS Stark limp home? Compartmentaliz ation and damage control kept her afloat.) ASW & EW modules will do there job- not only on the carrier; but, in the entire battle group. Airwings will provide superiority in ANY theater. It is my opinion the Stennis Battle Group would cripple any threat from Iran by cluding any ground based anti-ship threat. All the BIG GUNS are in the NAVY :D
Reply | Report to administrator
# RE: RE: Iran, Nukes, and Oilhaamerhed 2012-01-19 00:43
(edit: modules will do THEIR jobs) don't have to take me word...a bit of research material;
Reply | Report to administrator
+1 # Lt Col, USAFTommy Targets 2012-01-19 02:49
Agree with most of your assertions, but you do need Stealth B-2s with MOAB and
F-22s for true Air Superiority! Trust me on that one!
Reply | Report to administrator
# RE: Lt Col, USAFhaamerhed 2012-01-19 03:02
I agree, Tommy, Sir. I rest assured the Stennis will NOT be our only dog in it if it comes to a fight. I'm irritated when our military is second guessed by our media and pundits suggesting we're past our limits...politi cs are politics but please allow us to WIN a fight when our enemies beg for it. I know what we're capable of, I think Iran is asking for us to show them.
Reply | Report to administrator
# RE: Iran, Nukes, and OilMike Doyle 2012-01-26 02:50
Dunno about dismissing Gen. McCaffrey's assessment entirely. Not claiming any particular kind of expertise, but my impression is that the mullahs: a) don't give a rusty four-letter word about their own casualties, so long as they can make a Great Satan boogeyman to buffalo their citizens with; b) don't give a rusty four-letter-wor d about their own casualties, so long as they can put some shorts in the rest of the world's circuits; c) don't give a rusty four-letter-wor d about their own casualties, so long as the Faithful can strike some sort of blow against the evil unbelievers, and the sellout Arab countries dealing with the evil unbelievers; and d) don't give a rusty four-letter-wor d about their own casualties, period. (Yes, I acknowledge a certain rhetorical repetition, but my point is that Iran's government is like a lot of other pisspot totalitarian regimes: they'll hold out to the last peasant... Rational behavior from their government is not to be expected or depended upon.)

Sure, in a slugfest, we'd take 'em apart like a cheap wristwatch. But it seems unlikely we could keep the Straits of Hormuz safe for civilian shipping while we did it. McCaffrey seems pessimistic about the cost. of doing so, but that doesn't mean he's wrong
Reply | Report to administrator

Add comment

Due to the large amount of spam, all comments will be moderated before publication. Please be patient if you do not see your comment right away. Registered users who login first will have their comments posted immediately.

Security code

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time gifts are available through PayPal or




My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:


You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins