Transiting the Suez Canal

@Bumbles not just in power, but gives them a chance to regroup, rearm and re-attack.

@helenS Thank goodness. A UN resolution. Everything will be fine now...😷

@helenS
Sadly, you are correct. It's not quite like the 1920s and 1930s, but Donald Trump is the principle (but not the only) reason for the surge in isolationism.

@SatyrService

“A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”
- John A Shedd 1928

@beckyromero
yes. but that is not the point or the case
it belongs At Sea
not an a shooting gallery that is only 205 meters wide ann easy target
not enough room to turn the ship around

Did you serve in the navy?
from where do You get your opinion?

Me? a life at Sea and My entire family served in the US military
and continual interaction with members of the armed services


THE POINT IS


what national interest is there, that supersedes the Real Purpose of that task force

@SatyrService

As I said in another post, I would have sent Reagan from Japan to the Arabian Sea and sent Vinson to relieve her. But the Navy feels two aircraft carriers are needed right now in the western Pacific and so Vinson instead has joined Reagan. That it was decided to sent Eisenhower quickly to the Arabia peninsula instead of shifting carriers from the Pacific no doubt has something to do with assessments and the need of a show of force towards China, North Korea or both.

But there are always going to be choke points. Whether it be Gibraltar, the Suez and Panama Canals, the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Malacca Strait or the GIUK gap.

You simply can't get everywhere without going thru somewhere that has an elevated risk.

In this case, sending Eisenhower thru the Suez Canal is likely a pre-cursor to airstrikes against the Houthis and possibly later against Iran (along with missile strikes from the Ohio-class SSGN). The risk of the battlegroup going into the Red Sea has been deemed an acceptable one when balanced against the need for urgency. I agree with that assessment.

If to lessen the risk to the level you seem to want, then you have to avoid the Malacca Strait as well to get to the Arabia Sea. Then I suppose you could send Roosevelt down from California and across the Pacific and take the long way around southern Australia and maybe visit the penguins in Antarctica before heading into the Indian Ocean.

Good thing you weren't around advising SHAEF in June 1944. Based on your recommendations, the world would still be waiting for an Allied cross-Channel invasion of Fortress Europe. Then again, the UK would have probably been knocked out of the war because you would have felt it too risky to send supplies across the Atlantic given the U-boat threat.

@AthrillatheHunt Stand up for what - carpet bombing innocent civilians?

@whowasthatmaskedman U boats at 50 paces... 8-)

@AthrillatheHunt in a VERY stupid way...


Look At the Suez canal... Where is it?
yeah right where all the rogue nations, and terrorist assets are very much In range

maybe you don't get the risk assessment.

A MULTI BILLION weapons system a nationally important defense asset?
in a place where any old ww2 field gun can hit it
when cheap RPG's, and antitank missiles can tear it up


would YOU put it there?

@independentone Israel has been a puppet state of the USA since formation in 1948.

@zonavar68 then Netanyahu better do as he is told and provide humanitarian aid and call for a "pause" in the bombing.

@independentone There is a difference between Americas public message and their real message to Netanyahu..😷