Politics

A mission from Whiteman or Ellsworth to strike a target in Iran is a 20-30 hour sortie for a two-man crew. To sustain a B1 over that type of range takes six to eight tankers - more outward bound than homeward due to the ordnance load (more and bigger bombs equals less fuel). Moreover, those tankers have to fly from basses along the way if they are going to carry enough fuel to matter to a bomber (US, UK/Europe, and the Middle East). A two ship mission could double the number of tanker sorties.

That sort of demand upon crew, strike aircraft, and the tanker fleet can only be maintained a relatively short time. Hence, the need for regional basing, regardless of the exact location is essential for any sustained operation.

Our critical national interests - unhindered access to natural resource zones and trading partners - does not change, but the local politics that affect basing rights constantly do so. Hence, we are constantly testing the soil for other options. For instance, I participated in the initial negotiations to secure Al Udied Air Base as the location for the CENTCOM forward headquarters in 1999/2000. For playing wack a mole with terrorist organizations it has proven invaluable, but in a conflict with Iran, having the regional headquarters on the frontline is less than ideal. Qatar recently agreed to a 10 year extension of the Defense cooperation agreement which includes a $38 billon Qatar funded hardening of the site. Still, it will remain vulnerable as a staging hub for air assets.

Again, from open sources and simple military operational and logistics assumptions, an operating base in East Africa would be far easier to defend from any Iranian attack while also providing direct overwatch of the other major regional navigational choke point bordering Yemen.
From the peanut gallery. Why don’t we use ICBMs carrying massive conventional payloads on Iranian targets? Specifically their underground nuclear weapon processing sites. Much quicker I would imagine but probably much more costly?
 
Last edited:
From the peanut gallery. Why don’t we use ICBMs carrying massive conventional payloads on Iranian targets? Specifically their underground nuclear weapon processing sites. Much quicker I would imagine but probably much more costly?
An ICBM launch would set off alarms worldwide.
 
The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the p.o.s family tree.

FB_IMG_1783643272532.jpg
 
Probably, but didn’t North Korea launch a couple?
Splash downs in the sea. International courtesy dictates notifying other countries of a test launch.
The U.S launching an active ICBM to Iran would trigger early warning systems around the world.
Lots of chaos would be triggered by that type of launch, and the State department international hot line phones would blow up
 
From the peanut gallery. Why don’t we use ICBMs carrying massive conventional payloads on Iranian targets? Specifically their underground nuclear weapon processing sites. Much quicker I would imagine but probably much more costly?
Last ones manufactured were in 1978 though they have been modernized as time went by. We can't replace any we shoot until a full replacement system LGM-35A Sentinel system comes online which is not projected to be operational until 2030.

Not to mention that is like using a .22 sabot with a .500 NE.
 
A mission from Whiteman or Ellsworth to strike a target in Iran is a 20-30 hour sortie for a two-man crew. To sustain a B1 over that type of range takes six to eight tankers - more outward bound than homeward due to the ordnance load (more and bigger bombs equals less fuel). Moreover, those tankers have to fly from basses along the way if they are going to carry enough fuel to matter to a bomber (US, UK/Europe, and the Middle East). A two ship mission could double the number of tanker sorties.

That sort of demand upon crew, strike aircraft, and the tanker fleet can only be maintained a relatively short time. Hence, the need for regional basing, regardless of the exact location is essential for any sustained operation.

Our critical national interests - unhindered access to natural resource zones and trading partners - does not change, but the local politics that affect basing rights constantly do so. Hence, we are constantly testing the soil for other options. For instance, I participated in the initial negotiations to secure Al Udied Air Base as the location for the CENTCOM forward headquarters in 1999/2000. For playing wack a mole with terrorist organizations it has proven invaluable, but in a conflict with Iran, having the regional headquarters on the frontline is less than ideal. Qatar recently agreed to a 10 year extension of the Defense cooperation agreement which includes a $38 billon Qatar funded hardening of the site. Still, it will remain vulnerable as a staging hub for air assets.

Again, from open sources and simple military operational and logistics assumptions, an operating base in East Africa would be far easier to defend from any Iranian attack while also providing direct overwatch of the other major regional navigational choke point bordering Yemen.

I just started reading a new book release, “DOOM 34.” It’s a first hand account of the B-52 mission that started Desert Storm, written by a crew member on one of the bombers. Seven B-52s launched out of Barksdale AFB, loaded with the then new CALCM (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile). Those 7 B-52s met 14 KC-135s that launched from the Azores. That’s right, two tankers for each B-52. All told, the bombers required 4 refuelings during the 32 hour round trip mission to Iraq and back. No gas, no glory!
 
From the peanut gallery. Why don’t we use ICBMs carrying massive conventional payloads on Iranian targets? Specifically their underground nuclear weapon processing sites. Much quicker I would imagine but probably much more costly?
First, we have no conventional warheads for our ICBMs. Second, we only have 400 Minuteman III missiles, for which the nuclear payloads of each are preplanned into a number of potential scenarios. Hence, each has a critical role to play in nuclear deterrence. Third, the nuclear warhead of a Minuteman weighs less than 1000 lbs delivering a 300-350 kt blast. As a conventional explosive, a thousand pounds is not exactly "massive." As a conventional explosive, a single F-15 E Strike Eagle can carry up to four thousand pound JDAM bombs and deliver them with exact accuracy - a B-2 can carry 16. Finally, as @Tanks suggests, using a critical strategic asset to try and attack a target that can be serviced with perfect accuracy by an F-15 E is overkill with an irreplicable asset. There is no Minuteman assembly line, and the new Sentinel is still in test phase. The basic missile will cost $162 million each. A thousand pound JDAM costs $25,000-$30,000. An F-15 E ran about $40 mil each, but will have delivered a lot of JDAMS in its lifetime as will the F-35 and B-21. Finally, as others have noted, launching ICBMs would make our adversaries very nervous.
 
Any deal made by Iran isn't worth the paper it's written on if the IRGC/religious fanatics are still in control. Two options:1. Withdraw from Iran but keep sanctions in place and holds on their monetary system- with the promise that the US reserves the right to bomb into oblivion any site determined to be a nuclear threat. Iran can do what it wants with regard to the strait since US and non-Arab nations produce sufficient oil & LNG to supply the free world. Option 2: Military takeover of oil production facilities in Iran, clear the strait and eliminate anything that is a threat to free passage, multi-national operation to remove the IRGC/fanatics from power..

Not sure which President Trump will choose- both have risks.
 
First, we have no conventional warheads for our ICBMs. Second, we only have 400 Minuteman III missiles, for which the nuclear payloads of each are preplanned into a number of potential scenarios. Hence, each has a critical role to play in nuclear deterrence. Third, the nuclear warhead of a Minuteman weighs less than 1000 lbs delivering a 300-350 kt blast. As a conventional explosive, a thousand pounds is not exactly "massive." As a conventional explosive, a single F-15 E Strike Eagle can carry up to four thousand pound JDAM bombs and deliver them with exact accuracy - a B-2 can carry 16. Finally, as @Tanks suggests, using a critical strategic asset to try and attack a target that can be serviced with perfect accuracy by an F-15 E is overkill with an irreplicable asset. There is no Minuteman assembly line, and the new Sentinel is still in test phase. The basic missile will cost $162 million each. A thousand pound JDAM costs $25,000-$30,000. An F-15 E ran about $40 mil each, but will have delivered a lot of JDAMS in its lifetime as will the F-35 and B-21. Finally, as others have noted, launching ICBMs would make our adversaries very nervous.

1000% spot on.

There are several other options in the US arsenal that arent nearly as vital, fairly easy to replace, much cheaper, and can deliver more ordnance than a a minuteman III or a trident, etc..

For example, a block 4 tomahawk can deliver a 1000 lb warhead (roughly the same capacity as a minute man), is still in production.. we have about 4000 of them in inventory at the moment (actual number classified.. but thats what is publicly disclosed).. can be replaced literally in days.. and costs roughly $2.5M per shot including the warhead as opposed to the cost of a Sentinel (once it comes online) at $162M a launch (for the missile alone, without the warhead)...
 
Any deal made by Iran isn't worth the paper it's written on if the IRGC/religious fanatics are still in control. Two options:1. Withdraw from Iran but keep sanctions in place and holds on their monetary system- with the promise that the US reserves the right to bomb into oblivion any site determined to be a nuclear threat. Iran can do what it wants with regard to the strait since US and non-Arab nations produce sufficient oil & LNG to supply the free world. Option 2: Military takeover of oil production facilities in Iran, clear the strait and eliminate anything that is a threat to free passage, multi-national operation to remove the IRGC/fanatics from power..

Not sure which President Trump will choose- both have risks.
Both options suck…. I hope someone (or a group of someone’s) come up with a better solution
 
“The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself!”

This crap is so tiring and unnecessary. Act like an effing adult and ditch the name calling.
 
As I have no doubt indirectly indicated here more than once, there is no group of people whom I more genuinely hold in contempt than those who are doing their best to eradicate the sacrifices of the South and erase its history. Typically, these are the uneducated who know nothing of history or warfare, and in their ignorance are unable to comprehend a past unburdened by the certainty of their present. The result was the overreach of the Biden minions, who like the Taliban, saw virtue in attempting to destroy the history of a people.

I was reading a fairly new account of the battle of Petersburg and the subsequent final actions of the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia leading to the surrender at Appomattox. In it was Joshua Chamberlain's description of the event that has been published in many other volumes, and clearly was never on the reading list of any member of the modern democrat party.

Joshua Chamberlain was one of the great Federal heroes of the War Between the States. It was he and his Maine Regiment that held Little Round Top literally to the last round on the evening of the second day at Gettysburg, saving the Union Army from envelopment, and possible defeat. One of his opponents during the battle was John B. Gordon of Georgia who commanded a brigade during the battle. Both were grievously wounded during the war, both survived to return to the battlefield, with both ending the conflict as general officers. Both were at Appomattox where Gordon led the last attack by Confederate troops against Union forces, buying time for the negotiations between Lee and Grant.

Chamberlain was chosen by Grant to receive the actual surrender of the Confederate Army. Gordon was chosen by Lee to lead the Confederate troops in that ceremony. Chamberlain's description follows.

The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured? Instructions had been given, and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier's salutation, from the "order arms" to the old "carry"—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!

Would that the woke had some small love and respect for their nation and history to balance their zeal in hoping to destroy its culture.
 
As I have no doubt indirectly indicated here more than once, there is no group of people whom I more genuinely hold in contempt than those who are doing their best to eradicate the sacrifices of the South and erase its history. Typically, these are the uneducated who know nothing of history or warfare, and in their ignorance are unable to comprehend a past unburdened by the certainty of their present. The result was the overreach of the Biden minions, who like the Taliban, saw virtue in attempting to destroy the history of a people.

I was reading a fairly new account of the battle of Petersburg and the subsequent final actions of the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia leading to the surrender at Appomattox. In it was Joshua Chamberlain's description of the event that has been published in many other volumes, and clearly was never on the reading list of any member of the modern democrat party.

Joshua Chamberlain was one of the great Federal heroes of the War Between the States. It was he and his Maine Regiment that held Little Round Top literally to the last round on the evening of the second day at Gettysburg, saving the Union Army from envelopment, and possible defeat. One of his opponents during the battle was John B. Gordon of Georgia who commanded a brigade during the battle. Both were grievously wounded during the war, both survived to return to the battlefield, with both ending the conflict as general officers. Both were at Appomattox where Gordon led the last attack by Confederate troops against Union forces, buying time for the negotiations between Lee and Grant.

Chamberlain was chosen by Grant to receive the actual surrender of the Confederate Army. Gordon was chosen by Lee to lead the Confederate troops in that ceremony. Chamberlain's description follows.

The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured? Instructions had been given, and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier's salutation, from the "order arms" to the old "carry"—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!

Would that the woke had some small love and respect for their nation and history to balance their zeal in hoping to destroy its culture.

Thank you for sharing that! Am I correct in remembering that, after holding Little Round Top, Chamberlain and his men were moved to the center to give them respite, which them put them directly in the path of Pickett’s charge?
 
Thank you for sharing that! Am I correct in remembering that, after holding Little Round Top, Chamberlain and his men were moved to the center to give them respite, which them put them directly in the path of Pickett’s charge?
Indeed.

After the war and Georgia's emergence from reconstruction, Gordon would serve as both a two-term governor and as a US Senator. Chamberlain went home to Maine to also serve as governor and then president of Bowdouin College. He eventually died of an infection of the terrible wound he suffered during the war in 1914 at the age of 95. Gordon died in 1904 at the age of 71. More than 50,000 attended his funeral and memorial service.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
68,892
Messages
1,534,026
Members
158,166
Latest member
Douglasstisk
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Huntforever wrote on dhoover's profile.
You’re the 2nd person on this thread from Arkansas. I live in Benton.

Do you hunt out of state much?
having a great season so far
having a great season so far
 
Top