3 ms·
The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to d
by vacri 10y ago
The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to destroy your biggest ship but not be concerned about MAD. I mean, it's a bit hard to do an "oops, my finger slipped!" with the kind of arsenal it would take to destroy a carrier (like the OP's thousand $1M missiles).
- uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y agoThe issue is that we look at MAD as the end of the world. It's not (for countries). There were battle plans in place for an invasion of NATO/Warsaw pact
- zigzigzag 10y agoHardly. State of the art missiles have been sold to countries that don't have nukes.
- hga 10y agoAren't you assuming that only one of these missiles hitting it would "destroy" it? They're rather big, and we gained a lot of experience in WWII in making fleet carriers fairly survivable in the face of big hits. And those carried fuel oil for their boilers and gasoline for their planes, naval jet fuel isn't quite so volatile as the later.