Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tomorrow you will watch the destruction of an American Aircraft Carrier
Northeast Intelligence Network ^ | 03/29/04 | Source

Posted on 03/29/2004 7:56:56 PM PST by Rightone

Edited on 07/27/2004 2:55:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-366 next last
To: PokeyJoe
It would still have to connect with the aircraft carrier - my guess is our professional sailors would knock it out of the sky before it connects.
61 posted on 03/29/2004 8:16:20 PM PST by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I realize all that. I'm just saying how I would attempt to do it if I were to attempt to do it - which I would not. I recognize things can veer off plan and you can instead end up in a cow pasture in Pennsylvania, or something..
62 posted on 03/29/2004 8:16:40 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bullish
the other possible idea - I had heard that AQ may have gotten their hands on some north korean anti-shipping mines, not sure if there was a FR thread on it from a few weeks back.
63 posted on 03/29/2004 8:16:43 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TopDog2
Maybe the carrier's own crew? A muslim infiltrator setting off a nuclear weapon??

Most logical, most credible and most likely.

64 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:06 PM PST by Indie (We don't need no steenkin' experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
Good Evening All-

"...Then again destroying WTC was a pretty tall order.."

***************

Despite the inane ramblings from Richard Clarke, we weren't prepared for the WTC to be attacked by a swarm of Islamic kooks. Unfortunately, the WTC was also not equipped with a Phalanx Close-In Weapons System mounted on the roof.

If those dirtbags had any juice, they would just attack the aircraft carrier...not posture and blather endlessly about it. They ain't got nothin' going on. Support our men and women in uniform as they shield us from these sandy punks.

~ Blue Jays ~

65 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:10 PM PST by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative
Did Debka weigh in on this yet?

I don't believe anything until Debka, Newsmax, WND, and Drudge confirm it.

Anyway, to take out a carrier, the Jihadis need a nuke. And if they had a nuke, they'd be far more likely to (attempt to) detonate it in a U.S. city than in the middle of a carrier battle group.

66 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:17 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
Or maybe Allah will do it himself, with a bolt of lightning out of his desert ass.
67 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:25 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rightone
The second Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) was laid down by the New York Ship Building Corp., Camden, N.J., 27 December 1956; and launched 21 May 1960, sponsored by Mrs. Neil H. McElroy; and commissioned 29 April 1961 at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard , Capt. William F. Bringle in command.

The Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) has been on active duty 43 years. Typically a US Navy ship has a active duty life span of 25 or 30 years before being decommissioned. US taxpayers are getting their moneys worth with the Kitty Hawk.

68 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:29 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
You obviously didn't read this article about Russian jets overlying a Navy carrier, did you?
69 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:31 PM PST by PokeyJoe (FreeBSD; The devil made me do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Indeed.
70 posted on 03/29/2004 8:17:33 PM PST by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Indie
Most logical, most credible and most likely.

That infiltrator would have to get through some very tough Marines, with assault rifles, first.

71 posted on 03/29/2004 8:18:34 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bullish
Yep, I would suspect that an aircaft carrier is pretty hard to sneak up on.
72 posted on 03/29/2004 8:18:36 PM PST by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Rightone
An aircraft carrier would definitely have to be considered a "hard" target in comparison to the many "soft" targets out there. If they could even damage one, it would be a major coup.
73 posted on 03/29/2004 8:18:47 PM PST by Rightone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

They have a history of crashing jetliners into their targets.

...and our Aegis cruisers have a history of shooting down airliners that get too close to the fleet.

74 posted on 03/29/2004 8:19:04 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
please read this article about Russian jets overlying the USS Kitty Hawk while she was refueling underway in the Sea of Japan.
75 posted on 03/29/2004 8:19:38 PM PST by PokeyJoe (FreeBSD; The devil made me do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul
HarryCaul wrote: What part of the world is Kitty Hawk in?

The Kitty Hawk is based at Yokosuka, Japan.

As of a couple of weeks ago she was out on manuvers and making a port call at Pusan So. Korea.

76 posted on 03/29/2004 8:20:02 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rightone
I think that tomorrow will pass with nothing out of the ordinary happening.
If there is an attack at least we won't have to debate who is at falt.
77 posted on 03/29/2004 8:20:05 PM PST by helen crump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe
Obviously not. But I still think Air Al Queda would have a hard time pulling this one off.
78 posted on 03/29/2004 8:20:21 PM PST by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
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.
79 posted on 03/29/2004 8:20:42 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TopDog2
Maybe the carrier's own crew? A muslim infiltrator setting off a nuclear weapon??

Check anyone with access to the kitchen and cooks!

80 posted on 03/29/2004 8:20:50 PM PST by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-366 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson