5 ms·
I'm pretty sure you are basically right. An aircraft carrier is more a floating base that allows you to project power in a part of the globe that you would not
by Jd 15y ago
I'm pretty sure you are basically right. An aircraft carrier is more a floating base that allows you to project power in a part of the globe that you would not otherwise have access to. Presumably you are projecting power against a power that does not have the military capability to sink your aircraft carrier at a distance (e.g. Libya, Iraq, Iran). China could, for instance, use the aircraft carrier to help its interests in Africa, just as the US has been doing (in the eyes of some skeptics) in the Middle East.
Another related fact is that military build-ups are very fuzzy these days given the amorphous nature of modern warfare. Sponsorship of private corporate armies in contested countries (a la cold war) is more likely than open conflict, because no one wants to risk destablizing everything (and if one were to go that way, nuclear weapons would suddenly be on the table). If a country and associated military can provide some logistical support without overt action, they can maintain plausible deniability (the sort of thing we are doing in Libya, for example, or our highly successful Bay of Pigs operation).
- palish 15y agoAh, yes, you're correct. Also, "(and if one were to go that way, nuclear weapons would suddenly be on the table)." --- Do we have any practical defense against nukes? I guess the answer is no. I was just reading The War Nerd (link posted further down by Bokonist). In the article, the US Naval Institute says "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack." Since ships are essentially floating cities, that implies that cities have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. Therefore, neither side would use nuclear weapons.
- RainFlutter 15y agoYou're basically paraphrasing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.
- icarus_drowning 15y agoBallistic missiles v. Aircraft Carriers seems like overkill, especially when it is fairly trivial to outfit submarines with nuclear torpedos (I can't find any that are listed as active in the U.S. arsenal, but we've had them before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo ). EDIT: What was I thinking? A nuclear-tipped cruise missile is even better.
- Jd 15y agoI believe there are two basic parameters here: (1) range (2) expense. The basic principles (as est. in Taiwan related war games, as in other places) is that if you send enough missiles (e.g. spamming) no matter how good your missile defense system is, some will get through. Which is to say, when it comes to missiles defense has not kept up with offense and "mutually assured destruction" remains a policy even with relatively incapable nuclear powers. There are a variety of missiles which could potentially sink an aircraft carrier. ICBM has the longest range with the largest expense. Torpedoes (not really a missile) have a much shorter range so presumably the old principle applies -- if you can keep subs at a distance your carrier will be safe. In other words, what you want to hit a carrier is the cheapest missiles where the launching platform (which could be a sub) are outside the range of the enemy, to present the largest quantity of missiles in order to overwhelm the defenses of the carrier. ICBMs are most likely not the best way to do this, given their expense, but are worth bringing up since the basic principle is the same as in the cold war (shoot lots of ICBMS at a city/country to assure that some will get through). Also, I believe whether or not any of the armaments are nuclear is fairly irrelevant since a non-nuclear missile (or two or three) can sink a carrier easily enough. That said, sooner or later someone (e.g. N. Korea) will use a nuke, and then all bets are off.
- brudgers 15y ago>"I can't find any that are listed as active in the U.S. arsenal" Nuclear torpedoes usually sink two ships - one of them is the target.