Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Carriers in the Gulf: Risky?
Message-ID: <1991Jan18.001959.6230@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Jan 91 00:19:59 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner)


I was surprised to learn that CV's Midway and Ranger have been positioned
in the Persian Gulf.  This strikes me as fairly risky.  Although they are
no doubt heavily defended, both by their own fighters and by their escorts'
SAMs, it seems quite possible that a determined Iraqi air strike might
get through (with heavy losses) to one of them.  Since carriers can
sink and take a large crew with them, a successful attack on one is much
more serious in most respects (including political and psychological ones)
than a similarly successful attack on an airbase.

Such a success would probably be worth (to the Iraqi's) the loss of far
more aircraft than the carrier itself deployed, I would think.

Am I missing something here?  Is the Navy that confident that they can
stop any such potential Iraqi attack (even a pre-emptive one) with
essentially perfect efficiency?

Ed Turner			"Itsu nukera
phoenix!elturner		 soko tomo shirazu
				 oke no tsuki."
or
elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU            - Mabutsu 1874