4 ms·

I'm curious as to your thoughts on how big war machines do not provide safety, and why the thought that they do is only fetishism of the military?

mikepurvis 8y ago
Can't speak for big war machines in general, but aircraft carriers specifically are a relic of the cold war and have only maintained relevance in recent decades because the US has only ever been involved in massively asymmetrical conflicts. In a modern open battle between evenly matched opponents, the carriers would all be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the second day. EDIT to add— found the article I was looking for, about the economics and battle realities of carriers: "Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said." Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-571c8dad2f29 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-b...
- cglace 8y ago
  If a country were to take out all of our carriers I'm pretty sure nukes would be flying. At that point does it matter?
  - Someone 8y ago
    I think it’s more likely that an enemy will take out one carrier, after which the other ones will be kept out of the danger zone, thus becoming useless. That’s what happened with the Tirpitz after the Bismarck was sunk. I think that situation is analogous because Bismarck’s demise was due to an attack with relatively cheap weapons (torpedo bombers) with a longer range than Bismarck’s guns, just as people predict modern air carriers don’t stand a chance against relatively cheap rockets because those rockets have a longer range than the airplanes on the carriers.
  - danmaz74 8y ago
    That's exactly the point - no, it wouldn't matter. So, why spend so much for something that wouldn't matter? For the asymmetric conflicts that are actually being fought, you don't need so many carriers.

mikepurvis 8y ago

Can't speak for big war machines in general, but aircraft carriers specifically are a relic of the cold war and have only maintained relevance in recent decades because the US has only ever been involved in massively asymmetrical conflicts. In a modern open battle between evenly matched opponents, the carriers would all be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the second day. EDIT to add— found the article I was looking for, about the economics and battle realities of carriers: "Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said." Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-571c8dad2f29 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-big-mistake-b...

cglace 8y ago
If a country were to take out all of our carriers I'm pretty sure nukes would be flying. At that point does it matter?
- Someone 8y ago
  I think it’s more likely that an enemy will take out one carrier, after which the other ones will be kept out of the danger zone, thus becoming useless. That’s what happened with the Tirpitz after the Bismarck was sunk. I think that situation is analogous because Bismarck’s demise was due to an attack with relatively cheap weapons (torpedo bombers) with a longer range than Bismarck’s guns, just as people predict modern air carriers don’t stand a chance against relatively cheap rockets because those rockets have a longer range than the airplanes on the carriers.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  That's exactly the point - no, it wouldn't matter. So, why spend so much for something that wouldn't matter? For the asymmetric conflicts that are actually being fought, you don't need so many carriers.