Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carriers in the Gulf: Risky?
Message-ID: <1991Jan21.035206.3540@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 21 Jan 91 03:52:06 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator)
In-Reply-To: message from elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu

|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.

It should be noted that neither carrier is in the Gulf at the same time. 
Both carriers rotate between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman/Arabian
Sea area.

Gary
---
    UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow   | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389
 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom                | Vancouver, Wa
 ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van
InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com        | Vancouver Apple Users Group