3 ms·

Yes, and this begs the question... what kind of scenarios are we arming for? In a modern world of sophisticated international commerce, disrupting commerce see

by beat 7y ago

Yes, and this begs the question... what kind of scenarios are we arming for? In a modern world of sophisticated international commerce, disrupting commerce seems much more "war" than clash of military forces. Consider what I think of as a military flashpoint - the Strait of Hormuz. Some 25% of the world's oil flows through there, serving the hungry maw of Asian manufacturing superpowers. It's only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, and much of that isn't navigable. Really, there's a six mile wide path, filled with slow, lumbering, basically defenseless oil tankers. Any and all of them are vulnerable to the thousands of anti-ship missiles that line the shores on both sides, and a single burning oil tanker could close the strait completely. A supersonic anti-ship missile would take just seconds from launch to destroying a tanker. A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Moreover, the ease with which Iran or another power (or non-state entity) could close it makes too much saber-rattling vulnerable to mutual assured destruction. Just how long would our Asian allies and not-really-allies tolerate having their oil cut off so the US could pick a fight with Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or whomever?

tomohawk 7y ago
> A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Prevent? More like deter. The question would be do the Iranians think it would be worth the likely counter attack from a carrier battle group or two in order to shutdown the straits. Better than buying carriers at these prices would be energy independence from the middle east. That's pretty difficult since the east coast of the US is very reliant on middle eastern crude. The refineries there only refine that crude, and there is no way to get the needed fuel there from elsewhere in the US. Additionally, if the economies of the Far East were to crater due to idiocy on the part of Iran, the US and Europe would likely follow.
salawat 7y ago
Just wanted to point out, no one in their right mind should/would try to use a hypersonic missile for a "short-range" attack. The missile needs time to maneuver onto a vector to the target, and to accelerate. Once accelerated, it's not going to be drastically changing it's trajectory on anything resembling a "short" timescale, seeing as hypersonic turning radii are measured in miles. Rocket accelerated gliders this goes for doubly to avoid overshot. It just isn't a practical utilization of the delivery vehicle. Furthermore, the point of carrier's is air superiority, and force projection. That carrier is a mobile slab of sovereign soil from which all sorts of logistics can be dispatched from. It's the difference between "I could get bombed today," and pointing at the spec floating on the horizon, and saying "There's where the bomb that would get dropped on me today is," if that makes any sense.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  As an engineer, I think it'd be pretty easy for me to hit a tanker- just bring the missile in low, at an acute angle to the convoy (relatively thick broken line) and you're likely to hit one of them at least. Will I? No, but I totally could.
- beat 7y ago
  Is that really relevant, though? The point is, Iran can close the Strait anytime it wants. It can easily kill tankers, and there is approximately nothing we can do about it. Carriers don't change that, any more than a tank changes a hostage crisis. And it's not like we don't have plenty of friendly airbases in easy striking distance, either - in Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Putting American military response into Iran within minutes of an incident is trivial. What's hard is doing it in a way that completely prevents Iran from closing the Strait. When they have hundreds, maybe thousands of weapons capable of sinking a tanker, hidden all over that coast? They could shut down the Strait for months, even if we applied maximum force. Again, this is a hostage situation, with 25% of the world's oil (40% of the oil that is shipped internationally) as the hostage.

by beat 7y ago

tomohawk 7y ago

> A shiny new aircraft carrier is supposed to prevent that how, exactly? Prevent? More like deter. The question would be do the Iranians think it would be worth the likely counter attack from a carrier battle group or two in order to shutdown the straits. Better than buying carriers at these prices would be energy independence from the middle east. That's pretty difficult since the east coast of the US is very reliant on middle eastern crude. The refineries there only refine that crude, and there is no way to get the needed fuel there from elsewhere in the US. Additionally, if the economies of the Far East were to crater due to idiocy on the part of Iran, the US and Europe would likely follow.

salawat 7y ago

Just wanted to point out, no one in their right mind should/would try to use a hypersonic missile for a "short-range" attack. The missile needs time to maneuver onto a vector to the target, and to accelerate. Once accelerated, it's not going to be drastically changing it's trajectory on anything resembling a "short" timescale, seeing as hypersonic turning radii are measured in miles. Rocket accelerated gliders this goes for doubly to avoid overshot. It just isn't a practical utilization of the delivery vehicle. Furthermore, the point of carrier's is air superiority, and force projection. That carrier is a mobile slab of sovereign soil from which all sorts of logistics can be dispatched from. It's the difference between "I could get bombed today," and pointing at the spec floating on the horizon, and saying "There's where the bomb that would get dropped on me today is," if that makes any sense.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
As an engineer, I think it'd be pretty easy for me to hit a tanker- just bring the missile in low, at an acute angle to the convoy (relatively thick broken line) and you're likely to hit one of them at least. Will I? No, but I totally could.
beat 7y ago
Is that really relevant, though? The point is, Iran can close the Strait anytime it wants. It can easily kill tankers, and there is approximately nothing we can do about it. Carriers don't change that, any more than a tank changes a hostage crisis. And it's not like we don't have plenty of friendly airbases in easy striking distance, either - in Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Putting American military response into Iran within minutes of an incident is trivial. What's hard is doing it in a way that completely prevents Iran from closing the Strait. When they have hundreds, maybe thousands of weapons capable of sinking a tanker, hidden all over that coast? They could shut down the Strait for months, even if we applied maximum force. Again, this is a hostage situation, with 25% of the world's oil (40% of the oil that is shipped internationally) as the hostage.