Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My theory, this is maybe a message from US to de-escalate the situation in Israel "Our carriers are close to you and in target range, so you know there is not going to be war between us, so calm down the situation". Other what would be the point of getting them so close to Iran?
My theory, this is maybe a message from US to de-escalate the situation in Israel "Our carriers are close to you and in target range, so you know there is not going to be war between us, so calm down the situation". Other what would be the point of getting them so close to Iran?
You think pragmatic Iran would ever pre emptively attack a carrier battle group? There’s over 7,000 US soldiers in those groups.
You are talking 3x+ the casualties of Pearl Harbor. You might as well just ask to get bombed into the Stone Age at that point.
Zero point zero chance Iran would ever do that pre-emptively with zero provocation. Neither would China or Russia.
If you sink a battle group, you better be ready for WW3 because no ceasefire is coming without a wave of devastation rained down in return. Which will make it hard for the provocateur (Iran or China) to then back down, thus more punches thrown by each side.
Theoretically speaking; If Iran was observant to a constant (clearly visible) region-wide buildup of hostile American forces preparing for a comprehensive bombing campaign. Wouldn't the striking of said CSG be then warranted or at least put on the table as an option?
I know in this case, striking the CSG would be utterly stupid, but if circumstances were different; would it then make sense?
- where are the POWs