4 ms·
> 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface shi
by forapurpose 9y ago
> 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete?
Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface ships do not have effective defenses (or will not, when the missile technology matures). Tech does become obsolete; it happened to boarding parties and battleships; aircraft carriers are 80 year old tech, the distance in time between the US Civil War and WWII, and they'll become obsolete some day. I sure hope my side isn't still depending on them when they do - that has been the end of many nations throughout history.
You may not believe it, but it's a pretty broad consensus among experts that I've read. Militaries are investing heavily in that outcome.
- j9461701 9y agoWhat militaries? Because France, the UK, India and China are all investing further in carriers. The broad consensus is demonstrably the opposite of what you're claiming. E pur si muove
- IntronExon 9y agoCarriers are still good for projecting political power at s great remove from the mainland of whichever country has them. They’re also effective if your adversary isn’t likely to be armed with swarms or hypersonic missiles.
- forapurpose 9y agoAgreed, and China's carriers are ineffective against U.S. or other advanced nations' naval power. The theory is that they are designed for lower-end targets and because China, wanting to be seen as a global power, wants the symbol of global naval power. Perception matters a lot in international affairs and politics: How many would take China seriously as a global naval power if they had no carriers, while the US, Russia, UK, France, and also India all do have them? People would perceive that China has not caught up yet.