US - Iran - Israel | Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd-28th | Discussions

[teekay99]

Actually sinking a aircraft carrier which houses nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear response, not conventional. Aircraft carrier is appart of triad. You attack nuclear systems you get a plenty of nukes shoved up your ass to put it bluntly.

Iran sinks a aircraft carrier and suddenly your going to have vast sprawling sheets of green irradiated glass across vast areas of the Iranian landscape. This isn't wishful thinking, this is pretty open/public knowledge of the resulting consequences of a nation sinking a aircraft carrier.

Nuclear response does not require being nuked. Simply attacking nuclear triad/response infrastructure can warrant a nuclear attack. Aircraft carriers are a corner stone to the nuclear triad infrastructure.

It's an interesting thought experiment. I see your point but I don't think the US would respond with nukes. It lowers the threshold for other countries involved in other conflicts, like Russia in Ukraine or China against US or Japanese assets in the event of a Taiwan invasion. Right now, those theaters can be possibly contained conventionally. Why do something rash now that opens the door for similar types of actions against our adversaries later?

 

[NuclearID]

don't think the US would respond with nukes.

It's not what we wish buddy... It's pretty open knowledge of US military planning since the cold war which is... is a attack on nuclear triad or a aircraft carrier (which houses nuclear weapons) results in a nuclear response and is looked no different then a nuclear attack even if a nuclear weapon wasn't used.

So yes. Most likely Iran would receive a nuclear exchange in return. The real question is how many or how far the US will and what will be the targets. I'd assume not cities and just military targets.

 

[NuclearID]

It's not what we wish buddy... It's pretty open knowledge of US military planning since the cold war which is... is a attack on nuclear triad or a aircraft carrier (which houses nuclear weapons) results in a nuclear response and is looked no different then a nuclear attack even if a nuclear weapon wasn't used.

So yes. Most likely Iran would receive a nuclear exchange in return. The real question is how many or how far the US will and what will be the targets. I'd assume not cities and just military targets.

It's funny all these Russian and Iranian trolls rooting for Iran to sink an aircraft carrier when it will result in the inevitable nuclear exchange over Iranian military targets. Again not really a secret since the cold war, which is the US policy regarding attacks on nuclear triad/aircraft carriers.

But these trolls are as dumb as a bag of . So wouldn't expect them to think even one step ahead or know much of anything.

 

[Yingyang]

It's funny all these Russian and Iranian trolls rooting for Iran to sink an aircraft carrier when it will result in the inevitable nuclear exchange over Iranian military targets. Again not really a secret since the cold war, which is the US policy regarding attacks on nuclear triad/aircraft carriers.

But these trolls are as dumb as a bag of . So wouldn't expect them to think even one step ahead or know much of anything.

I call BS

 

[NuclearID]

I call BS

See everyone?

 

[Yingyang]

See everyone?

This is not new for you. We had this discussion before and the Directors opinion shut you down.

 

[Yingyang]

Now obviously no one so far has a reasonable answer to the question. Deflect deflect.

 

[teekay99]

It's not what we wish buddy... It's pretty open knowledge of US military planning since the cold war which is... is a attack on nuclear triad or a aircraft carrier (which houses nuclear weapons) results in a nuclear response and is looked no different then a nuclear attack even if a nuclear weapon wasn't used.

So yes. Most likely Iran would receive a nuclear exchange in return. The real question is how many or how far the US will and what will be the targets. I'd assume not cities and just military targets.

I am just not so sure. We might be derailing this thread and may need to take it up in another thread. However, in a really quick search, I could not find anything in US military doctrine that guarantees that destroying a carrier results in a nuclear response. From what I found, I am not sure the US would "automatically" respond to a conventional attack on a carrier with nukes as it would result in runaway escalation, something the US military does not like. We can continue this discussion in another thread if desired.

Circling back to Iran - from what I found, the US would most certainly respond to Iran if they sunk a carrier. It would rapidly result in a conventional escalation. But in order to Iran to succeed at this, they would need to somehow circumvent the other assets in the carrier group. The question is, does Iran have that capability without using a nuke of their own somehow?

 

[NuclearID]

I am just not so sure. We might be derailing this thread and may need to take it up in another thread. However, in a really quick search, I could not find anything in US military doctrine that guarantees that destroying a carrier results in a nuclear response. From what I found, I am not sure the US would "automatically" respond to a conventional attack on a carrier with nukes as it would result in runaway escalation, something the US military does not like. We can continue this discussion in another thread if desired.

Circling back to Iran - from what I found, the US would most certainly respond to Iran if they sunk a carrier. It would rapidly result in a conventional escalation. But in order to Iran to succeed at this, they would need to somehow circumvent the other assets in the carrier group. The question is, does Iran have that capability without using a nuke of their own somehow?

It's pretty simple. You destroy US nuclear weapons on top of destroying apart of the US nuclear triad, can most definitely result in a nuclear response, not guaranteed, but it is definitely a very real option.

No US military planning is public. But since the cold war, retired officers, politicians have always hinted this is the case. One of those open secrets like Israel's nuclear program.

Destruction of US nuclear weapons and or the destruction of any party of our nuclear triad and a nuclear response is on the table automatically. Not guaranteed, but it's a very real option.

With Trump at the wheel. I'd just assume we may very well take that option that will absolutely be presented to him in such a scenario.

 

[teekay99]

It's pretty simple. You destroy US nuclear weapons on top of destroying apart of the US nuclear triad, can most definitely result in a nuclear response, not guaranteed, but it is definitely a very real option.

No US military planning is public. But since the cold war, retired officers, politicians have always hinted this is the case. Destruction of US nuclear weapons and or the destruction of any party of our nuclear triad and a nuclear response is on the table automatically. Not guaranteed, but it's a very real option.

I concede that an nuclear response to Iran's sinking of a carrier is an option. But it may violate the idea of proportional response, which is a concept that is baked into US doctrine. Truth be told, for the sake of our sailors serving on carriers worldwide, I hope we never have to find out.

 

[Yingyang]

I am just not so sure. We might be derailing this thread and may need to take it up in another thread. However, in a really quick search, I could not find anything in US military doctrine that guarantees that destroying a carrier results in a nuclear response. From what I found, I am not sure the US would "automatically" respond to a conventional attack on a carrier with nukes as it would result in runaway escalation, something the US military does not like. We can continue this discussion in another thread if desired.

Circling back to Iran - from what I found, the US would most certainly respond to Iran if they sunk a carrier. It would rapidly result in a conventional escalation. But in order to Iran to succeed at this, they would need to somehow circumvent the other assets in the carrier group. The question is, does Iran have that capability without using a nuke of their own somehow?

Intelligence specialist ?
Oh wait a minute he will provide this common knowledge with legitimate evidence soon considering his title. Pity he hasn't offered official recovery plans for question at hand. Typical response under pressure i guess as usual.

 

[NuclearID]

We might be derailing this thread

Think this debate is pretty on brand or related to current Iran crisis. So unless staff think otherwise gonna keep it here.

 

[teekay99]

Intelligence specialist ?
Oh wait a minute he will provide this common knowledge with legitimate evidence soon considering his title. Pity he hasn't offered official recovery plans for question at hand. Typical response under pressure i guess as usual.

Hey now.... let's keep it professional. @NuclearID does bring up some valid points, and given President Trump's strong position, @NuclearID position is not outside of the realm of possibility. You and I may disagree that a nuclear response would occur as a result of sinking a US carrier. But let's make an argument for that, or focus our retorts at the argument expressed by @NuclearID to keep this thread clean and productive.

Also note that I didn't cite my sources either in my response.

 

[NuclearID]

Hey now.... let's keep it professional. @NuclearID does bring up some valid points, and given President Trump's strong position, @NuclearID position is not outside of the realm of possibility. You and I may disagree that a nuclear response would occur as a result of sinking a US carrier. But lets make an argument for that, or focus our retorts at the argument expressed by @NuclearID to keep this thread clean and productive.

Also note that I didn't cite my sources either in my response.

Oh don't worry. I'm just having fun. ^_^ but fine. I'll stop. Very unproductive of me. Bad me. Old habits die hard I suppose.

 

[NuclearID]

I concede that an nuclear response to Iran's sinking of a carrier is an option. But it may violate the idea of proportional response, which is a concept that is baked into US doctrine. Truth be told, for the sake of our sailors serving on carriers worldwide, I hope we never have to find out.

Also to be clear. In case some are confused attacking an aircraft carrier does not warrant a nuclear response. Sinking it does. There's a difference between attacking an aircraft carrier and actually sinking one. Thought that goes without saying. But forget a lot of people here who english isn't their first language so wanted to be extra coincise here.

 

[Snowfall]

Also to be clear. In case some are confused attacking an aircraft carrier does not warrant a nuclear response. Sinking it does. There's a difference between attacking an aircraft carrier and actually sinking one. Thought that goes without saying. But forget a lot of people here who english isn't their first language so wanted to be extra coincise here.

I think the odds of Iran managing to sink a U.S. carrier are so slim that the thought doesn’t even cross my mind.

 

[NuclearID]

I think the odds of Iran managing to sink a U.S. carrier are so slim that the thought doesn’t even cross my mind.

Agreed. Even a direct hit can't sink a aircraft carrier. Iran would somehow have to hit it like... Dozens of times successfully and not just hitting the upper decks which... I just don't see how for them. Even if they had a secret short stockpile of accurate ballistic missiles that could hit the hull and not just the deck... the odds are just... Laughable at best. I'd be more worried about a asteroid hitting my house.

No. The only nuclear risk here is a dirty bomb or somehow Iran managing to truck in a nuclear device to Israel. Which is equally laughable. The latter. The former is actually pretty real scary threat, a dirty bomb that is.

 

[Snowfall]

No. The only nuclear risk here is a dirty bomb or somehow Iran managing to truck in a nuclear device to Israel. Which is equally laughable. The latter. The former is actually pretty real scary threat, a dirty bomb that is.

This would be a one way ticket to the world finding out whether Israel actually has those nukes they claim to not have .

 

[NuclearID]

evidence

FACTS, SOURCES:

Major non-nuclear strike on US nuclear forces or nuclear command-and-control could put nuclear use “on the table” is consistent with publicly stated US declaratory policy.

The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review explicitly says the US would only consider nuclear employment in “extreme circumstances,” and then spells out that “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” can qualify, including attacks on US or allied nuclear forces and their command-and-control / warning / attack-assessment capabilities.

https://aiaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.pdf

Granted the US does not confirm nor deny they house nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers. But if a government neither confirms nor denies something (looking at you Israel) than we can automatically assume it's a resounding yes there are nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

It's pretty simple. You destroy US nuclear weapons on top of destroying apart of the US nuclear triad, can most definitely result in a nuclear response, not guaranteed, but it is definitely a very real option.

A nuclear response is an option to anything. It's just a matter of proportion. Some events are more likely to invite a nuclear response than others.

Will the US respond to the sinking of an aircraft carrier with nuclear weapons? Ehhh...I don't think so. Not when there are other options available. The geopolitical ramifications are too great for the US to respond with that kind of force.

Plus, drop a bomb on Iran and where does that fallout go? You think Afghanistan or Pakistan will be happy about that?