3 ms·

except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely inef

by hugh3 15y ago

except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious high priority There are 190-odd countries in the world. The US Navy's aircraft carriers are extremely effective against at least 185 of 'em. All the countries with a "remotely comparable force" also have nuclear weapons, so if the US ever winds up in a full-on shooting war with one of them then it's all over for both sides anyway. No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be that vulnerable.

philwelch 15y ago
1000 anti-ship missiles cost far less than an aircraft carrier with crew and aircraft aboard. There are a number of non-nuclear powers with the ability to launch 1000 anti-ship missiles against an American task force.
- hugh3 15y ago
  How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier? Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? With a hundred small boats > And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier? With civilians on board > Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war. Yep, nothing better to start a war on the right foot than civilian massacre.
latch 15y ago
No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be that vulnerable. Isn't that like saying Hoover Dam has never been destroyed, so it can't be that vulnerable? I'm not sure that there have been serious attempts to destroy either (is my point).

by hugh3 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago

1000 anti-ship missiles cost far less than an aircraft carrier with crew and aircraft aboard. There are a number of non-nuclear powers with the ability to launch 1000 anti-ship missiles against an American task force.

hugh3 15y ago
How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier? Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? With a hundred small boats > And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier? With civilians on board > Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war. Yep, nothing better to start a war on the right foot than civilian massacre.

latch 15y ago

No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be that vulnerable. Isn't that like saying Hoover Dam has never been destroyed, so it can't be that vulnerable? I'm not sure that there have been serious attempts to destroy either (is my point).