Comment: Ehh, I'll believe it when I see it.

(See in situ)

Ehh, I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it, for a lot of reasons - especially the reasons delineated in the original post. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, at all. I agree that the MIC is angling toward war with Iran, but I do not believe for one second they're about to pull a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident that would involve crippling a carrier battle group. The loss in blood and treasure would be enough to give even the most cynical hegemon pause. Carriers do not grow on trees, and those very vessels are a lynchpin in their strategy of global control. Plus, I've seen several of these stories posted on the DP in the past year or so. Just about every time a new battle group enters the Persian Gulf, in fact.

1. It's headed to the Strait of Hormuz/Persian Gulf.

Just like almost every USN carrier on WestPac since at least the 1970's. Nothing shocking there.

2. There is an Iranian War Games planned to coincide with the arrival of the USS Stennis

Was the wargame planned to coincide with CVN-74's arrival, or was the arrival planned to coincide with the wargame? The Navy has shown in the past it is deadly serious about keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to shipping at all times. Look up Operation Praying Mantis for an example of how seriously the Navy takes this sort of thing. It doesn't have to be some sort of silly false flag operation. It could just be the USN blowing the Iranian navy out of the water again. That's assuming such a thing is in the offing. I sincerely doubt it is, given the geopolitical consequences.

3. The USS John C. Stennis has been destroyed/Crippled/ or Sank in SEVERAL Movies and Video Games:

I saw a movie once where a giant ape climbed the Empire State Building and fought US air assets. I saw another one where hostile aliens blew up the White House and the President personally led the counterattack in an F/A-18. I don't think either of those will happen, either.

4. Its sinking would kill 3,000+ Sailors. A higher death-toll than 9/11 or 11 years in Afghanistan

That is a very, very modest estimate. Carriers don't travel alone. They have an entire armada of cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines and frigates as a screen against aircraft, missiles and small boats. A hostile force would need to penetrate that very formidable aegis in order to so much as scratch the haze gray paint on the Stennis. Should that ship be sunk, there would be many other ships sunk at the same time. A more accurate estimate of casualties would reach into the tens of thousands.

5. Attack while its still dark (whose to say what happened?) Everyone was asleep/Night-vision cameras were down/No one was at their post/right at shift change/Crew was distracted from previous night/New Year's Eve.

Honestly, the original poster doesn't know anything about how ships at sea operate. Watch a movie or something, seriously. Having served in the US Navy, I can tell you that every single one of the above suppositions is complete balderdash. When a warship is at sea, a fair portion of the ship's company is awake at any one point in time. There is also something called radar - it's been around since before World War II. It pretty much allows you to see in the dark through the use of radio waves. There are eyes on the radar scopes 24/7 while underway. Also, unlike landlubbers, sailors underway wouldn't be celebrating New Years Eve or be distracted in any other way, especially in a potentially hostile area like the Arabian Gulf.

6. America wakes up to visceral morning TV imagery of the USS Eisenhower's smoking ruin slipping below the water. What if it was the morning the new Congress gets sworn in?

If an American carrier was sunk, it would be war, yes. I for one do not believe that anyone within the MIC is suicidal enough to sacrifice something so dear to start a war. A destroyer or a cruiser isolated from a large fleet? Perhaps. Not an aircraft carrier. That removes the immediate return-fire that the American public would demand. This isn't 1941. Our populace isn't willing to wait a year or two to hit back.

7. Its sinking will cause instant war-drums & sweeping nationalism: "REMEMBER THE Stennis!"

Well, yeah. And who could blame anyone for feeling that way? Thousands of Americans dead, and one of the prides of our fleet at the bottom of the sea? Any right-thinking (albeit ill-informed) person would demand retribution. Freedom of the seas has been one of the bedrock principles of our republic since its earliest days. We have fought through diplomatic and naval means throughout our history to keep the trade lanes open and neutral. That's just plain good business.

8. Opportunity for the elimination of a LOT of loose-end Military Officers/contractors who could be could be invited onboard right before the sinking (for New Years?)

Yeah, that's just not the way things work. There aren't New Year's parties aboard ships at sea. There might be a note in the ship's log that a new year has occurred, and the officer of the deck may wax a bit poetic with the entry, but that's pretty much all that will occur. If a sailor isn't on watch, odds are he's in his rack fast asleep.

9. Opportunity for the vaulting of a Raymond Shaw/Sgt. Brody-type for heroism/groomed for office.

That's a real reach.

10. That whole region/Mossad are just waiting for a spark to light the inferno.

That whole region relies on ships being able to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in order to make money, and the Israelis, for all their bluster, want nothing less than to inflame the burgeoning Islamist movement that surrounds them. It doesn't make sense.

11. Wreckage/combat operations would seal off the Straight of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz is not the drain in your bathtub. It is 21 miles wide at its narrowest. The widest supertanker in the world could turn doughnuts in the Strait while recovery operations were going on and not come within spitting distance of any other ship. The only way to close the Strait is to mine it. Should someone do that, there are assets in the area which are equipped to deal with that contingency without much trouble.

Honestly, this whole proposition wouldn't make a good B-movie. Anyone who knows how the Navy works and especially how US Naval operations in that part of the world works will recognize this as bad, uninformed fiction. I would advocate that people take things on with a gigantic grain of salt. Read what they say and then do your own research. A lot of it is a nugget of truth surrounded by a gigantic mass of tinfoil-shrouded nonsense. It is good to be vigilant against the military-industrial complex. It is bad to listen to hucksters and snake oil salesman as a consequence.