Seriously, what's up with the naval deployments?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

I have absolutely ZERO military background, so I have no idea whether the recent naval maneuverings are unusual, or mean anything at all.

But apparently, we now have 10 Carrier Groups out at sea, leaving only 2 in port. http://www.rense.com/general53/port.htm

(Disclaimer: I pretty much loathe Rense, as one may often find at his site various paranoid anti-semitic rants, but the information in this one particular post seems to come from mostly mainstream sources.)

So I figure I can maybe take advantage of the DU Brain Trust. Can anybody with more military knowledge than me (a very lax standard indeed!) enlighten me as to how unusual this is, or does anybody have any plausible non-tinfoil explanations of this? (I already know the tinfoil ones).

[I thought so.]

1. Here is a good site.

Its the second story.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

[Taylor Mason Powell]

4. Yeah, I saw that...

So the theory is that it's a "fleet response plan," an exercise designed to show the world that we can indeed be everywhere at once, and very quickly?

Does that make sense?

[stavka]

65. Here's a "federal" site

http://www.wtop2.com/index.php?nid=109&sid=107807

[hiphopnation]

2. A google searched

turned up this one that claims they're just "tests".

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_04/8097.html

[Taylor Mason Powell]

5. Right, that's the San Diego article...

I guess I just wanted to see if there were any military types around here who have any doubts about the asserted rationale. Because it seems to me the massive scale of this deployment, as well as its practically worldwide scope, has raised some eyebrows. But perhaps not.

[hiphopnation]

9. Seems big to me....

(from the article)

"Seven aircraft carriers – more than half the nation‘s flattops"

Half of the nations flattops?!?! But, alas, I am no military expert either.

BTW, that knock at your front door are just some officers from the Office of Total Information Awareness who wish to discuss this matter with you further. Please let them in and and cooperate.

:tinfoilhat:

[Taylor Mason Powell]

11. OMG, how did you know???

Did Reverend Moon tip you off?

:hi:

[TO Kid]

3. NATO exercise

NATO is carrying out and exercise near the Carolinas. Warnings have gone out to boaters and airmen that part of the exercise will include attempts to jam GPS signals.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

6. But why would you need practically the entire Naval Fleet

for a NATO exercise?

[sangha]

28. It's to make a show of strength

to send the message that even though our army is mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, that doesn't mean we can't project power anywhere else.

[Skip Intro]

35. to whom?

[lanparty]

45. We can defeat any navy in the world.

But are army is kinda mired down. Thats the thing about naval power. It's mostly only useful against OTHER navies.

[kiahzero]

54. Carrier groups and long-range artillery

Other than that, yeah.

[lanparty]

57. We COULD shut down all shipping across the world ...

But the irony is that we DEPEND on it. Kinda defeats the offensive capability of a Navy, doesn't it???

[Pepperbelly]

61. Our naval doctrine is actually designed to do the opposite ...

to keep the sea lanes open.

Except for blockades, of course.

[Minstrel Boy]

44. Not just the Carolinas.

Most battle groups are heading to the Western Pacific.

[lanparty]

46. KOREA!!!!

But the troops are coming out of Korea.

It could be a sign to China that we are looking after Taiwan. Of course, China couldn't stand up to a tenth of our Navy. They couldn't take Taiwan by force. Thought they COULD destroy it. That would cut off our supply of electronics.

[Minstrel Boy]

50. Could be. And I think that troops pulling back from the DMZ

and a number leaving Korea actually supports the case that it could be. When/if the US hits Korea I doubt it'll be a land war. It'll be a massive, unrelenting bombing campaign.

Also, Russia is, right now, conducting an "unprecedented" (lot of that going on) deployment of forces from Europe to its Far East, including 200 tanks. Strengthen its Korean border? Undoubtedly, if Korea is in the crosshairs, Putin would have got a head's up.

Korea's just announced the successful testing of an engine capable of carrying a warhead to North America. There's all the reason Bush needs to pump his arm, say "feels good!" and tell America it's opened another front in the war on terra.

[lanparty]

56. Do you believe it though???

Jeez, you kinda wish we had all those extra troops if invasion of Korea became necessary. Kim Il Jung (Lil Kim) is a ten time the psycho as Hussein.

Of course, the key to that operation would be locating and destroying their nukes as part of the first strike. It would suck if Seoul was destroyed.

[Minstrel Boy]

70. That's why I don't think it'll be a land war.

The North Korean army is formidable. A massive, pre-emptive air attack is more likely. Though if it doesn't wipe out the North Korean threat to the South and Japan, this could go nuclear fast.

Do I believe it? I'll believe it when I see it, but it won't surprise me.

[SayitAintSo]

66. A friend of mines son just deployed out of Charleston SC

on an aircraft carrier - gone for a year and 1/2. Can't tell his family where or what.

[TexasMexican]

7. Meteors...

they are going to hit so they all went out to see to survive the tsunamis.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

8. Right, right.

That's exactly what I thought. Thanks!


:-)

[Capn Sunshine]

12. according to the meteor heads

:tinfoilhat: the first signs in the sky this was going to happen were due between June 6 and June 8 2004.

Anything happen to distract us ? I can't think of anything.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

13. No, nothing unusual here... :-)

(although if I remember correctly, the meteorheads' prediction was of some sort of a massive dust cloud blanketing the earth, which sounds to me like the sort of thing no state funeral could distract from.)

[onethatcares]

21. thanx, that made me laugh out loud. n/t

none

[TexasMexican]

25. According to my friend stationed in Alaska...

he is in the Airforce, the northern lights could be seen brightly on June 5th, which is supposidly unusually because its supposed to appear mostly in the winter, according to him. But thats about it.

I'll still wait till June 20th or so, when supposidly the first object is gonna hit.

I'm not actually preparing for anything because its probably all shens, but I will probably buy another box of .45 ammo just in case. :P

[JM]

10. A few reasons

With the RNC and DNC coming up, parking carrier groups off the coast of say Iran, Syria, and other coutries that may try to hit us or support those who does two things

1) It sets us up for a strike within minutes of being hit
2) It sends a message telling those who want to try something that we are already prepared to respond.
3) I tells those who would screw with Iraq after sovereignty is handed over to lay off.

I only hope we take a few seconds to check targets as opposed to the present strategery of "Ready, Fire, Aim"

JM

[junker]

14. The deployment is not just the US of A and 93% of US navyis out of port

quite the oddity...navies all over the planet are putting out to sea or are there.

a curiousity to be sure...

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHUE_HAZARDS.htm

discussion of elements as a logic puzzle

[thecrow]

68. Link doesn't work for me :(

[T Town Jake]

24. I hadn't thought along those lines...

...thanks for pointing that out. I think you're absolutely right.

[sangha]

29. All navies do exercises in the spring

During the other seasons, the ocean is not as cooperative.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. Not to this extent. These ocean-going "maneuvers" are massive.

[SayitAintSo]

69. Good point .... n/t

[Pepperbelly]

15. it's pretty damned unusual ... what was even more unusual was ...

that only one of them was in the yards for overhaul.

But hey ... most of them are Nimitz Class so they're fairly new ...

[librechik]

16. as I recall, most of the fleet was out on maneuvers

instead of anchored in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941. Did they have a hint?

[Pepperbelly]

18. The carriers were at sea but the battle wagons ...

were tied up on Battleship Row. And some crusisers, destroyers, etc.

[mckara]

17. They Must Have Extra Money in the Budget...

and want to burn it up buying fuel for the screening ships in the battlegroups. Don't you just love a government that borrows money to run the government and then runs a huge exercise so they'll have to replenish their fuel supplies when oil is selling at an all-time high? I think I smell a rat...

[newyawker99]

31. Hi mckara!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[stavka]

38. ...or they are worried about sailors not re-enlisting

[kentuck]

19. To move 12,500 troops from South Korea to Iraq?

would be my guess??

[Taylor Mason Powell]

20. Really?

You would need 93% of the US Navy for 12000 troops?

Sounds a little "overkill" to me... but you never know...

[jmowreader]

22. Carriers are the wrong kind of ships for that

You'd want to use Roll On/Roll Off cargo ships.

My guess: some sort of naval blockade is afoot.

[Pepperbelly]

26. Long way around for the East coast ships ...

They probably have a few Amphib ready groups to move some but odds are, they'd just fly them. Much faster.

[scarletwoman]

23. I don't have a link handy, but there was a recent report that China

is conducting naval "exercises" in the Taiwan Strait this summer. Don't know if it's related or not.

Btw, in trying to see if I could find the news article about China (which was first posted here at DU a couple weeks or so ago), I came up with this page of results containing some VERY interesting stories: China naval exercise

sw

[sangha]

30. Yes, that is related to these military exercises

IMO, this deployment is meant as a show of strength to other nations, with the message being that while our army may be occupied that doesn't mean we can't project our power elsewhere. China is one the recipients of this message. One of the other carrier groups is headed to W Africa to send a message to them.

[stavka]

40. Simple Gun Boat Diplomacy

park a carrier group off the coast of a nation we haven't menaced in a while, and they get the message -

"Despite our problems in Iraq, we can take out your airforce, your navy, your air defense, and you major infrastructure in a week" - so don't think about doing anything stupid.

[Pepperbelly]

27. It seems that EVERYBODY has put to sea ...

A cursory Google search revealed that all of NATO is participating in whatever is going on as is Australia. Curiously, some French troops are involved but I didn't find a French Naval presence.

http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=british+naval+exercise

http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=russian+naval+exercise&btnG=Search+News

http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=australian+naval+exercise&btnG=Search+News

[stavka]

37. You may be on to something

I read this in a recent local newspaper

Even the Austrian Navy is no longer in port.

There was also something about an unexpected departure of a senior Naval Captain. His governness, and his seven children are also missing!

[Rebellious Republican]

32. Something may be up, this could be a show of force, a warning

so to speak. The first question out of a presidents mouth in a time of crisis is " Where is the nearest carrier task force". Here is why...
I was part of an expeditonary force in Beirut in "83".

NAVAL EXPEDITIONARY FORCES The Navy and Marine Corps provide naval expeditionary forces as part of a joint force. These forces are organized to ac- accomplish a specific objective in a foreign country.3 They are designed to project military power ashore from the sea, to include the establishment of a landing force on foreign soil if needed, and thus to operate in the littoral regions. Naval expeditionary forces combine the complementary but distinct capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps. Through attack aircraft, surface fire support, sea-launched cruise missiles, and special-warfare forces, Navy forces provide the capability to attack targets in the littorals, and they provide the capability to deploy, land, and sustain expeditionary forces ashore. Navy forces contribute the seaward element of naval expeditionary power projection. Marine forces contribute landing forces, the landward extension of naval expeditionary power. Landing forces include not only ground combat forces but also Marine aviation and logistics elements that can operate from expeditionary land as well as sea bases.4 In addition to projecting landing forces ashore, deployed Marine aviation forces can also strike targets ashore operating from aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. Naval forces operating in international waters can minimize military and political liabilities. Naval expeditionary forces are self-contained, able to conduct most military operations with- out external support. Operating from the sea, naval expeditionary forces can maintain a presence in an area almost indefinitely, eliminating the need for ground-based staging and reducing the influence that host nations or other local powers can exert on U.S. policy initiatives. Naval expeditionary forces are unencumbered by the treaties and access agreements that land-based forces require to operate overseas.5 through forward presence and deployability, naval expeditionary forces provide a rapid response to many crises or potential crises. Naval forces are typically the first to arrive at the scene of a crisis. As part of a joint force, they can serve as enabling forces by stabilizing a situation and preparing for follow on operations. Naval expeditionary forces offer the combatant commander a flexible range of options in the support of national interests, covering peacetime missions, crisis, and conflict. They can offer a visible deterrent presence in full view of potential aggressors or can operate from over the horizon to minimize political provocation or gain operational surprise and security. They can perform missions ranging from humanitarian assistance to forcible entry. They have the flexibility to project power inland to a significant depth at the time and place of their own choosing.
http://www.tpub.com/content/USMC/mpdpub3/css/mpdpub3_69.htm

[KoKo]

33. Quote: "Naval forces are unencumbered by treaties.....(sound familiar?)

Naval expeditionary forces are unencumbered by the treaties and access agreements that land-based forces require to operate overseas.5 through forward presence and deployability, naval expeditionary forces provide a rapid response to many crises or potential crises. Naval forces are typically the first to arrive at the scene of a crisis. As part of a joint force, they can serve as enabling forces by stabilizing a situation and preparing for follow on operations. Naval expeditionary forces offer the combatant commander a flexible range of options in the support of national interests, covering peacetime missions, crisis, and conflict. They can offer a visible deterrent presence in full view of potential aggressors or can operate from over the horizon to minimize political provocation or gain operational surprise and security. They can perform missions ranging from humanitarian assistance to forcible entry. They have the flexibility to project power inland to a significant depth at the time and place of their own choosing.

[sangha]

34. That may be a little misleading

I believe that that applies only when the ships are in international waters, where no nations laws apply. There's no jurisdiction there, so treaties can't be binding on them when they're at sea. However, I'm unsure. Maybe someone here knows more about this and can provide some definitive info.

[stavka]

36. ...but

The Ship itself is national territory. (Even if in foreign waters, US sailors are protected and controlled by US law)

You can gamble on cruise ships because they are really Liberian, Norwegian, and Panamanian territory etc.

[Rebellious Republican]

47. uh, not necessarily ....

Cruisespose of this hearing is to discuss H.R. 316, the Cruises-to-Nowhere Act of 1999, introduced by Representative Frank Wolf on January 6, 1999. Under existing Federal law, offshore gaming on a vessel in international waters is legal unless a state passes a law specifically prohibiting the activity. H.R. 316 is intended to reverse this situation, and allow states to use state laws that prohibit land-based casino gaming to prohibit gambling aboard “cruises-to-nowhere”.
Cruises-to-nowhere operate predominately in Florida, where there are approximately 30 vessels, currently conducting day cruises where gambling is conducted in international waters. At least 20 of these vessels operate under the U.S.-flag. The Florida offshore gaming market is nearly saturated, and day cruise operators are looking to other states for new opportunities. Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, and other coastal states are under consideration by operators of cruises-to-nowhere as potential sites
http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/hearing/07-28-99/07-28-99memo.html

[stavka]

48. I'd be shocked if any nation's Govs/Courts

I'd be shocked if any nation's Govs/Courts would give crap about what a US state said about offshore gambling

[Rebellious Republican]

52. Sorry I left out an important piece, I edited after you replied...

my bad, this is what I intended for you to see, sorry. Note the US Flagged Part...
:toast:

Cruises-to-nowhere operate predominately in Florida, where there are approximately 30 vessels, currently conducting day cruises where gambling is conducted in international waters. At least 20 of these vessels operate under the U.S.-flag. The Florida offshore gaming market is nearly saturated, and day cruise operators are looking to other states for new opportunities. Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, and other coastal states are under consideration by operators of cruises-to-nowhere as potential sites
http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/hearing/07-28-99/07-28-99memo...

[Rebellious Republican]

39. That is what that means, also take into consideration that the

attack aircraft have a more direct route. Lessening the need to ask permission to fly through someones air space. Say like France during the Bombing of Libya in "86", when they would not allow our bombers to fly over France en route from England to to bomb Libya!

Asked about anti-French feelings in the United States, Villepin said, ``We've known that in the past. I've known that in the past. I was in the French embassy (in Washington) in `86 when happened the crisis of Libya.'' Thank you, Mr. Minister, for reminding us that in 1986 France, true to form, tried to encumber one of the most effective blows ever struck against terrorism--the bombing raid President Reagan ordered in response to Libyan involvement in a terrorist bombing targeting Americans in Berlin. France denied U.S. planes fly-over rights
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/printgw20030307.shtml

On April 15, 1986, 19 warplanes of the U.S. Air Force took off from their bases in Great Britain and flew to Libya, whereupon the F111 pilots bombed the private house of Muammar Qadhafi and murdered his little two-year-old daughter.
At least 100 other people – including civilian men, women and children – were slaughtered as the heroic U.S. Air Force pilots bombed private homes and mosques all over Tripoli and Benghazi.
They actually managed to hit a military target too, the Al-Azizia barracks, which was Qadhafi's headquarters. On April 16 the American pilots who perpetrated these war crimes openly admitted that the purpose of the attack had been to assassinate Qadhafi.
For years prior to this outrage the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government had been trying to murder the popular Libyan leader. Navy jets from the U.S. Sixth Fleet had repeatedly violated Libyan airspace while Navy ships violated Libyan territorial waters in bullying attempts to provoke a reaction.
The U.S. Navy shot down Libyan planes over Libyan territory, and sank Libyan Coast Guard boats in Libyan territorial waters. Here are some of the highlights of this American terror campaign:
In the summer of 1980 the CIA attempted to shoot down the plane of Qadhafi as he was on a flight to Eastern Europe. An Italian plane flying over Ostika was mistakenly shot down instead.
http://www.doublestandards.org/usmurder.html#libya





On edit: Sorry about having to use a RW source (Townhall) for the first link, googled and thats what came up, to tired to find one better!

[stavka]

41. The Green Prince

Interesting you mention the Green Prince.

We have heard a lot about his attempts at the Saudi Family lately - too bad Pres. Reagan's death overshadowed. Maybe a swift kick and Libya will be a card to play as success for the current administration?

What about Mindinao? Yemen?

Take out small players and win, and you too can be like the great Reagan.

[Rebellious Republican]

You may be on to something there stavka!

:think:

[seemslikeadream]

42. There maybe something to look at here

10 of 12 US carriers are now at sea
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1753441

Something big coming. Something bad. Very soon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1701699

MAJOR naval exercises - should we be paying attention?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1685819

[leftchick]

49. cripes, seems.....

I go on vacation for a week and come back to this. Thanks for the links, I think.. :scared:

[seemslikeadream]

55. Did you miss this? I didn't see you there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=602189

kick it once it's not locked yet! 322 you could be 323

and tighten that seat belt!


and then make sure you see this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1774320

[leftchick]

62. holy ....

fuck! Thanks yet again seems. Sheesh, I have a LOT of catching up to do!

:)

[Minstrel Boy]

43. Here's a pretty interesting analysis -

and a very smart "fringe" site I just discovered - http://www.halfpasthuman.com

06.10.2004
A Little Puzzle in Logic

If the navies of the world were putting to sea en masse (10 carrier groups out from USofA alone - 93 per cent of ALL USofA naval ships at sea? - offical stats,

and if the Federal Reserve Bank was force feeding liquidity into the system unexpectedly at rates that exceeded the post-911 period,

then a few reasonably sound deductions might be made of this....

but first, our assumptions:

1) navies put to sea when they expect severe weather;

2) experience proves its very expensive to keep your navies at sea for any length of time, and the poorer the country, the shorter is this time;

3) navies do *not* put to sea en masse for war, especially nuclear war (think about it, easy to find, and a few large nukes et voila, no collateral damage other than fishes, and no more navy);

4) the Fed forcing money into the system has a short term, limited effect, likely on the order of less than 2 months cycle time (money velocity through the system);

so our deductions might be as follows:

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHUE_HAZARDS.htm

[leyton]

51. Excess lint in the abdominal area, I suppose.

Oh, my bad. You said naval, not navel. Hmmm... who knows?

[hiphopnation]

53. buh boom

CRASH!!

:D

[leftofthedial]

58. nothing to see here

move along

[seemslikeadream]

60. from doni_georgia

doni_georgia (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #21

30. Tinfoil hat alert


Apparently mariners on the east coast of the US have been warned that their GPS navigational systems will not work over the next week or so. Supposedly the Pentagon is testing some kind of jamming device that screws up the navigational systems that are GPS-based.
I'd been wondering what was really going on. I wonder if these two items are related...most likely not, but it came to mind immediately as I read through this thread.
Just my $0.02

Mac in Ga

[Minstrel Boy]

63. Something more:

"Besides that mystery, here is a piece of news for you. I just spoke with one of our people in Hawaii for over an hour as she described to me how the Pacific Fleet has been fully outfitted for war, and everything with an engine has been heading out to sea with sealed orders including those that were just beginning their six month shore rotation. Also, each little group of ships is headed out in many different directions. Could that be a clue or what?"
http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

[seemslikeadream]

64. more

LunaC (627 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #30

34. GPS recently jammed in Alaska


Locals were concerned about hikers getting lost. Whatever is going on, it's already happening and - apparently - on both Coasts.

[Minstrel Boy]

67. "...this is only a test..."

Boaters will be unable to rely on Global Positioning System equipment and possibly cell phones this weekend.

The Department of Defense is testing electronic jamming equipment that could affect cell phones and GPS systems on the immediate North Carolina coastline to about 50 miles out to sea.

The interference could go as far south as Florida.
http://www.nbc17.com/military/3409360/detail.html

[seemslikeadream]

71. Photo of the New Zealand meteorite

Meteor crashes in to New Zealand home
3.27PM, Sun Jun 13 2004


A family living in New Zealand had a surprise visit this weekend when a meteorite crashed through the roof of their house in an Auckland suburb.

Scientists were initially sceptical, but have now agreed that the rock - weighing more than a kilo - came from space.

Home owner Brenda Archer said: ""There was just a huge explosion and we looked around and there was just dust everywhere and I thought 'oh no, there's been an explosion or Phil's got something on the roof and its fallen through'."
more
http://www.itv.com/news/1236643.html