3 ms·

Ah, 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

by palish 15y ago

Ah, 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 ago
You're basically paraphrasing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.
icarus_drowning 15y ago
Ballistic 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 ago
  I 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.

by palish 15y ago

RainFlutter 15y ago

You're basically paraphrasing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.

icarus_drowning 15y ago

Ballistic 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 ago
I 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.