Tomorrow you will watch the destruction of an American Aircraft Carrier

Northeast Intelligence Network ^ | 03/29/04 | Source

[Rightone]

Arabic posting:

[ASA Vet]

See post #298

[Quix]

Wellll, will hope and have prayed that nothing will come of it other than more terrorists getting caught and hopefully killed.

[null and void]

No. Unless it was directly beneath it. A 85,000 ton carrier isn't going to be moved by shockwaves from a few miles away if detonated underwater.

[Spook86]

The best--and perhaps only--opportunity for terrorists to attack a carrier would be while the vessel is in port, or in an extremely narrow, high-traffic passage like the Straits of Gibraltar, or the Moluccan Straits off Malaysia.

And even under those circumstances, it's a very iffy proposition. The carrier never sails alone; it's typically surrounded by at least one Aegis cruiser, 3-4 destroyers and frigates, support vessels and a Los Angeles-class submarine. Their job is to protect the carrier at all costs; the air defense zone for the carrier battle group extends out 400 miles with fighter patrols; the SAM zone goes out almost 100 miles with the SM-2 extended range missile. Factor in radar coverage from E-2C Hawkeyes, the Aegis cruisers and destroyers, plus real-time intel from national sources, and you've got one of the most heavily defended assets in the world--extremely difficult to attack.

The suitcase nuke option would be a possibility, but that would require Al Qaeda to plant someone among the ship's crew and smuggle the weapon onboard. I imagine the Navy has tightened its shipboard security in the wake of 9-11, and some the recent spy cases at Gitmo. The LNG carrier is also a possibility, and detonating one at close range could cause tremendous damage, but (again), how could you get one close enough for an attack. Slamming a Zodiac into the USS Cole in Aden was one thing; carrying out an attack with an LNG carrier or an explosive-laded cargo ship is another.

[LucyJo]

"The carrier's own weapons?"

My thought too. Sleepers, or turncoats, in our uniforms could do a tremendous amount of damage.

[Quix]

It's certainly a challenging time for the world and clearly for our country.

[Quix]

Thanks for sharing the dreams.

WOULD LOVE TO READ ALL OF THEM WHETHER ON FREEPMAIL OR HERE.

Glad you have such a Scriptural perspective.

BTW, they seem quite in sync with many more such dreams on the part of many more individuals.

Thanks.

[BiteMedems]

Nope it couldn't get within miles of a Carrier. When a Carrier is deployed it never travels alone, it is escorted by a Submarine squad and other Navy vessels. Our Navy ROCKS!

[null and void]

The Clinton impeachment was what? 6 years ago? And the 17th of a month. Tomorrow is the 30th, not the 17th. It's not even the 17th day on the Islamic calendar. Tomorrow is the 8th day of the 2nd month.

So the 17th on their calandar is the first day of Passover?

[labowski]

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of actually. I'm going straight to the store after work and pick that sucker up.

[Quix]

Would be OK with me.

Though I think we'd end up with MORE radicalized Moslems than we could handle as a result.

[TankerKC]

...what in AQ's arsenal could possibly get close enough to an aircraft carrier that could destroy it?

AO1 Mohammed?

[null and void]

Wow. That's impressive!

*shrug* It looks a lot like the one in my doctor's office. (Ex Navy flight surgeon)...

[null and void]

Northeast Intelligence Network operations cycle:

1. Announce doomsday.

2. Doomsday doesn't happen.

3. Take credit for preventing doomsday.

Kewl! A successful niche!

[null and void]

Newsflash: US aircraft carriers no longer carry nuclear weapons, and have not done so since 1991.

Riiiiiiight...

[null and void]

ping...did Kerry vote "for" or "against" building the ship?

He voted for it before he voted against it...

[Poohbah]

Ask the folks on the carrier.

The USN policy when nukes were carried was "Neither Confirm Nor Deny," usually just referred to as NCND.

Now, they'll tell you that they don't have 'em in the magazine, and thank God for that, because it leaves space for weapons that they'll actually use.

The reduction in the size of the aircraft carrier MARDETs is another clue.

[null and void]

OK, so they are on a nearby supply ship instead. Maybe. NCND...

[ampat]

I guess the KH will have her E-2's up with plenty of CAP.

[Poohbah]

OK, so they are on a nearby supply ship instead. Maybe. NCND...

Nope. Ask the folks on the AOE; they'll give you a flat "no."

Bush 41 ordered them removed from afloat units, and the Navy said "Hallelujah!"

Also, nobody on any of the Navy's surface ships is under the Personnel Reliability Program. The only folks who are under PRP are the SSBN crews.