- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2024
I remain skeptical of people who edgepost these fantasies. They would make terrific agents of some ideological org assigned to tone police public discussion.
Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.
- Iniciador del tema Mister Fister
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
diroama
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2019
Is Trump personally going to be invading Kharg island, or leading the charge on an amphibious assault of the coast of southern Iran to secure the Strait of Hormuz?
How much bravery does it take to order other people to do that, exactly?
- Registrado
- 3 de Mayo, 2024
Violent scenes from Nabatieh, southern Lebanon.
Fox News uploaded a list of assassinated Iranian leaders with the “targets” remaining in the regime.
The moment Israeli airstrikes struck the Al-Qasmieh Bridge in southern Lebanon.
Multiple cluster impacts in Holon, Israel.
- Registrado
- 25 de Feb, 2024
I just call them retarded faggots and move on, I suggest everyone else should too, it's not like they make any actually convincing arguments.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2020
Literally all Trump requested was that they send a few extra assets to both prove to Iran that their intimidation tactics don't work and to give confidence to the transport tankers.
Iran's last attempt didn't even actually hit the ship, but they still refuse to step even one toe out of line after Iran proved that they were lying about having missiles that can hit them.
I'm not saying every head of state should strap on their combat boots, but something to prove they aren't Iran's bitch would be nice.
- Registrado
- 24 de Mayo, 2021
Is it really a matter of "bravery" or "cowardice"? The fact is, the US put out the call for help and got punked out and hung out to dry. Our "allies" are no longer afraid of disobeying the USA's military might. You can say they were never any help anyway, or are weak, say whatever you want. Point is that USA is no longer the big dog calling the shots and everyone on Earth can see it.
- Registrado
- 3 de Mayo, 2024
Shrapnel/cluster munitions fell in several areas of central Israel.
diroama
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2019
It's not a matter of bravery or cowardice. That was exactly my point.
America should have put out this call to help before insulting and threatening the same people it wants help from now regarding the previous times they had given the help requested, and immersing itself in a conflict it has let get out of control.
Perhaps if the USA had sought counsel from somebody other than Israel the consequences of what it intended to do could have been pointed out before it was too late.
The situation is outside of America's control and the jewish tail is wagging the American dog.
CRUBRANGERLSTEINZHAJJAVIF
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 2 de Ago, 2021
a lot.
- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2024
I submit Israel and Iran both believe they are engaged in a holy war and don't really care about consequences.
Iran kept up a fight at this pace for decades with Iraq. They can probably keep this up, too. We better send that signal soon that US Oil interests are safeguarded so the revolutionaries can come out of hiding and be the boots on the ground.
- Registrado
- 25 de Feb, 2024
Yeah, I have a feeling that this war has become something no one else can really wrangle anymore, Iranian, Israeli, nor American, and despite Trump's attempts that everything is totally fine, the worst is yet to come.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 31 de Mayo, 2020
Retarded take, Israel is secular and rational hence why they haven't used a nuke. Iran is obsessed with madhism.
Iraq was a peer power, the US military isn't. The Americans are holding back.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2020
It never was. From the moment the strikes first started, Iran would never stop without America and Israel having to perform insane capitulations that they would never accept.
Likewise, Iran will never accept any negotiations from America/Israel because both sides have fundamentally opposing goals.
In other news, Iran released footage of them missing striking an F-15, as if it were some sort of victory.
- Registrado
- 17 de Dic, 2019
The problem is we're dealing with fundie retards talking about "strategic martyrdom" who might think losing the war but giving some civilians in some country moderately involved with the enemy cancer in 30 years is totally worth it
- Registrado
- 25 de Feb, 2024
- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2024
lol maybe in comparison to Iran.
It's way too early for this shit. Peace be with you.
- Registrado
- 18 de Jul, 2017
He's sort of right. This is the issue of "Jews" as an ethnic group, and "Jews" as a religious organization. Israel very explicitly sets itself up as "Jews, as an ethnicity". But that sort of just follows with the religion since all Ethnic Jews are either agnostic non practicing of the religion all the way hardcore hasids who strap tiny torah's to their forehead.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2020
- Registrado
- 31 de Mayo, 2020
I know how Israelis think, the war against Iran is not religious at all. They see it as removing an evil regime that's threatening them and oppressing the people of Iran.
Lapid hates religious people but supports this war, something he wouldn't do if it were religious.
- Registrado
- 24 de Mayo, 2021
What do you guys think? Is this bullshit? Is the Ford really the best in class carrier and will it really be unusable for 14 months? How mission critical is it?
U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Might Be Out of Action for 14 Months
U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Might Be Out of Action for 14 Months
Summary and Key Points: Defense analyst Jack Buckby warns that the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) faces a potential 12-to-14-month maintenance period after being sidelined by a March 12 laundry room fire.
-Currently docked at Souda Bay, Crete, the first-in-class supercarrier has completed a grueling nine-month deployment supporting over 7,000 strikes against Iran.
-The fire displaced 100 berths, compounding a massive backlog of deferred maintenance on advanced systems like EMALS and AAG.
-This “maintenance debt” threatens the U.S. Navy’s global carrier availability at a critical strategic juncture, testing the resilience of the newest 100,000-ton nuclear-powered platform.
The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has been pulled from active operations in the Red Sea and sent to Naval Support Activity Souda Bay in Crete following a March 12 onboard fire and mounting system strain after months of sustained combat operations.
The fire, which broke out in the ship’s main laundry area, injured sailors, damaged living spaces, and required hours of firefighting and recovery efforts.
After nearly nine months at sea – one of the longest and most demanding deployments in recent Navy history – there is growing concern that the Ford could now enter an extended maintenance period.
Between fire damage and deferred maintenance, on top of the long deployment, there is a real risk that the carrier could be out of action for an extended period of time – potentially as long as 12 to 14 months.
At a time when U.S. carrier availability is already under pressure, the potential loss of the Navy’s most advanced platform could prove to be a significant problem.
USS Gerald R. Ford is the lead ship of the Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carriers, a next-generation design intended to replace the Nimitz-class and define the future of U.S. naval aviation.
Commissioned in 2017, the roughly 100,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier is designed to carry more than 75 aircraft and over 5,000 personnel.
The ship incorporates major technological changes, including the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), both designed to increase sortie generation rates and reduce manpower requirements compared to legacy systems.
These innovations are central to the Navy’s long-term carrier strategy but have also introduced complexity and reliability challenges since the ship entered service.
Any extended downtime for the Ford is far from ideal, carrying implications beyond a single hull. This is, after all, the first vessel of its platform, and any extended downtime might affect confidence in the class as a whole.
The Ford has had a demanding deployment so far. The carrier has been active for roughly nine months, operating first in the Caribbean before being redirected to the Middle East, where it has supported sustained U.S. operations against Iran.
Since February 28, U.S. forces have conducted more than 7,000 strikes as part of the campaign, with the Ford playing a central role in launching air operations and maintaining a continuous presence in the region.
There has been no regular deployment, either. The ship has been required to sustain high sortie generation and integrate with other U.S. air assets, and there has been continuous operational pressure placed on the platform in a clearly high-threat environment. The deployment has also been extended multiple times, pushing the ship toward what may become one of the longest deployments in modern Navy history.
That has all taken a measurable toll on the vessel, with persistent issues with onboard systems like its plumbing, along with broader concerns about crew fatigue and equipment wear after months without full maintenance. Put simply, the Ford has been operating at a level that accelerates degradation across its mechanical systems, but also human performance.
The immediate trigger for the ship’s withdrawal was the March 12 fire, which originated in the ship’s laundry facilities and spread through adjacent areas. The incident affected roughly 100 berths and resulted in nearly 200 sailors being treated for smoke exposure, with at least one requiring evacuation.
Although the Navy confirmed that propulsion systems were unaffected and the carrier remained operational, the scale of the incident forced a reassessment of the ship’s condition.
The fire isn’t the only reason the repairs are required – it’s really just the straw that broke the camel’s back. It came after months of high operational tempo and known system issues, with no chance for maintenance.
Under normal conditions, post-deployment maintenance for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can take several months, even without major damage. Historical examples show that complex overhauls or major repair periods can extend well beyond a year, depending on scope and system upgrades.
In the case of Ford, several factors point to it being a longer timeline. First, the ship is a first-in-class platform with known challenges across multiple systems, meaning maintenance is already going to be more complex. Second, the extended deployment has created a backlog of deferred work that must now be addressed in a single maintenance period. Third, the fire itself caused structural and habitability damage that will require repair alongside the routine engineering work. Nothing about this is routine.
When these factors are combined, the possibility of a 12-14 month downtime seems perfectly plausible, even if it hasn ot been officially confirmed. Prolonged deployments come with a cost, and this could be it.
-Currently docked at Souda Bay, Crete, the first-in-class supercarrier has completed a grueling nine-month deployment supporting over 7,000 strikes against Iran.
-The fire displaced 100 berths, compounding a massive backlog of deferred maintenance on advanced systems like EMALS and AAG.
-This “maintenance debt” threatens the U.S. Navy’s global carrier availability at a critical strategic juncture, testing the resilience of the newest 100,000-ton nuclear-powered platform.
The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has been pulled from active operations in the Red Sea and sent to Naval Support Activity Souda Bay in Crete following a March 12 onboard fire and mounting system strain after months of sustained combat operations.
The fire, which broke out in the ship’s main laundry area, injured sailors, damaged living spaces, and required hours of firefighting and recovery efforts.
After nearly nine months at sea – one of the longest and most demanding deployments in recent Navy history – there is growing concern that the Ford could now enter an extended maintenance period.
Between fire damage and deferred maintenance, on top of the long deployment, there is a real risk that the carrier could be out of action for an extended period of time – potentially as long as 12 to 14 months.
At a time when U.S. carrier availability is already under pressure, the potential loss of the Navy’s most advanced platform could prove to be a significant problem.
USS Gerald R. Ford is the lead ship of the Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carriers, a next-generation design intended to replace the Nimitz-class and define the future of U.S. naval aviation.
Commissioned in 2017, the roughly 100,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier is designed to carry more than 75 aircraft and over 5,000 personnel.
The ship incorporates major technological changes, including the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), both designed to increase sortie generation rates and reduce manpower requirements compared to legacy systems.
These innovations are central to the Navy’s long-term carrier strategy but have also introduced complexity and reliability challenges since the ship entered service.
Any extended downtime for the Ford is far from ideal, carrying implications beyond a single hull. This is, after all, the first vessel of its platform, and any extended downtime might affect confidence in the class as a whole.
The Ford has had a demanding deployment so far. The carrier has been active for roughly nine months, operating first in the Caribbean before being redirected to the Middle East, where it has supported sustained U.S. operations against Iran.
Since February 28, U.S. forces have conducted more than 7,000 strikes as part of the campaign, with the Ford playing a central role in launching air operations and maintaining a continuous presence in the region.
There has been no regular deployment, either. The ship has been required to sustain high sortie generation and integrate with other U.S. air assets, and there has been continuous operational pressure placed on the platform in a clearly high-threat environment. The deployment has also been extended multiple times, pushing the ship toward what may become one of the longest deployments in modern Navy history.
That has all taken a measurable toll on the vessel, with persistent issues with onboard systems like its plumbing, along with broader concerns about crew fatigue and equipment wear after months without full maintenance. Put simply, the Ford has been operating at a level that accelerates degradation across its mechanical systems, but also human performance.
The immediate trigger for the ship’s withdrawal was the March 12 fire, which originated in the ship’s laundry facilities and spread through adjacent areas. The incident affected roughly 100 berths and resulted in nearly 200 sailors being treated for smoke exposure, with at least one requiring evacuation.
Although the Navy confirmed that propulsion systems were unaffected and the carrier remained operational, the scale of the incident forced a reassessment of the ship’s condition.
The fire isn’t the only reason the repairs are required – it’s really just the straw that broke the camel’s back. It came after months of high operational tempo and known system issues, with no chance for maintenance.
Under normal conditions, post-deployment maintenance for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can take several months, even without major damage. Historical examples show that complex overhauls or major repair periods can extend well beyond a year, depending on scope and system upgrades.
In the case of Ford, several factors point to it being a longer timeline. First, the ship is a first-in-class platform with known challenges across multiple systems, meaning maintenance is already going to be more complex. Second, the extended deployment has created a backlog of deferred work that must now be addressed in a single maintenance period. Third, the fire itself caused structural and habitability damage that will require repair alongside the routine engineering work. Nothing about this is routine.
When these factors are combined, the possibility of a 12-14 month downtime seems perfectly plausible, even if it hasn ot been officially confirmed. Prolonged deployments come with a cost, and this could be it.