6 ms·

A funny thing about modern military theory is that drills and tests like these have helped ensure that another major world war will happen again, and why major

A funny thing about modern military theory is that drills and tests like these have helped ensure that another major world war will happen again, and why major world conflict abruptly dropped to 0 in the 1940s. So yes, these tests probably aren't great for the environment, but these things directly prevent thousands of bombs being dropped in World War 3.

justinator 5y ago
I honestly think having several thousand nuclear warheads still pointed at various targets is what's really stopping WWIII. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in any major conflict and they know it. They're fine if your adversary is working a level or two above the stone age, which is the type of wars we've been fighting.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Sitting ducks? You have any idea how hard it is to find a carrier if you don't already know where to look? The ocean is a pretty big place, carriers move pretty quickly, and spy satellites only have a relatively narrow cone of view with enough resolution to detect one from orbit. Even if you found one visually, guiding a missile to accurately strike a moving carrier is extremely difficult. It's one reason China's much touted "carrier killer" missiles are less of a threat than the Chinese would like. While they could theoretically sink a carrier they rely on a complex system of satellites and radar to guide a missile in, disruption of any one piece of that system (remember the US has successfully tested anti-satellite weapons) and you won't be scoring any hits. Never mind the multi-layered missile defense systems that all carrier battle groups run with, which wouldn't be a guarantee but would have a chance. The most those missiles would is force the carriers to stay further away from the Chinese coast, which given the range of modern aircraft isn't that much of a burden if we're talking sea control. As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? Plus how hard is it to track the location of a huge ship like that… is it that hard?
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      > Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? A supercarrier would not sink from a nuclear airblast in the general vicinity. In 1946, the US performed an experiment to see how such an airblast would destroy or damage ships, in the operation Crossroads, test Able. The bomb was a 23 kT one (so a bit higher yield than Hiroshima). It detonated at a hight of 158m. The light aircraft carrier USS Independence (10k tons) was only about 500m from the point of the detonation, and although severely damaged, it did not sink. The fleet carrier USS Saratoga (37k tons) was about 2 km from point zero. It suffered even less damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_target_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_targ...
      - beambot 5y ago
        Even if the ship survived, can the crew survive at less than 500m from ground zero?
        slavik81 5y ago
        Quite possibly. The classic nuclear weapons did their damage mostly through heat and pressure. They were relatively ineffective against troops in armoured vehicles, which is why alternatives like the neutron bomb were developed. That said, the Hiroshima bomb was small by modern standards. A single Minuteman III missile can carry three W78 warheads, each with a yield of ~340 kT. China has similar nuclear capabilities. It would be an unmitigated global catastrophe if those sorts of missiles started flying. Nobody would be safe.
    - scottLobster 5y ago
      If we're talking nukes maybe (although if we're talking nukes carriers are largely irrelevant and nuclear missile subs become the primary threat), but once again the ocean is big. However huge the ship is, your search space is far larger. Even getting a siting from orbit could potentially be disrupted by weather. In the case of the pacific ocean you're literally looking for a moving football field in ~60 million square miles of ocean. Carriers in wartime wouldn't be sailing in straight lines over long distances either. National interest had a good line about it: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-sink-aircraft-carrier-99487 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-s... "And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles." Binkov on YouTube did a good analysis of the threats modern carriers face as of last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s TLDR there are some technologies likely to show up in a decade or so that may make carriers harder to use, but would hardly render them obsolete. As for conventional missiles, Binkov also did a good analysis on how many missiles it would theoretically take to take out a single AEGIS equipped destroyer. Carrier battle groups would have multiple such destroyers in addition to their own missile defense and those of other accompanying ships. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  Not sure about the sitting ducks part. Carriers have mini iron domes to protect themselves from incoming ballistic missiles. Not to mention that they are moving targets, often themselves loaded with nuclear armed missiles (in case of an actual war). They are a very very effective way to project power. It takes a lot to down one and in the process, the enemy will take a tremendous amount of damage.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Indeed, but it is far more complex than that. William Spanial (prof) has a full course on Nuclear Proliferation that's on-going on YT, I highly recommend academic and rigorious take on this topic than the random hoo haa on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEtRacEW7ttnq1W https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEt...
Gustomaximus 5y ago
80 million people died in WW2 so I dont think we can say there was reduced world conflict in the 40's For the second half when it did reduce I'd say that is more because nations were exhausted from WW2, countries saw the horror of war more than ever before and started with increasing commitment to United Nations and nuclear weapons. Maybe Ive misread what your were trying to say...
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I meant that the 40s were the last major conflict. I could have just said “since WW2” but sometimes people don’t realize that it’s 2021 and 1945 was almost a century ago.
anticodon 5y ago
Aircraft carriers are a tool to plunder weak countries. Carriers are offensive weapons, not defensive. That's why only USA has aircraft carriers: parasitizing on the world resources requires a huge offensive force that has to be regularly used to send a message: "Don't try to resist if we want your resources". They have almost zero contribution to the prevention of another major world war.
- cturner 5y ago
  US carrier groups are the main defence against the ccp’s slow-push into its neighbour’s territory. This test may signal the CCP that their current generation of long-range anti-ship cruise missiles are less of a deterrant for US presence in the international waters called the South China Sea than expected. This should be encouraging to all ASEAN members, and the rest of the Quad. Good book just out on the dynamics in the region, /Red Zone/ by Peter Hartcher.
  - anticodon 5y ago
    What has US to do with China neighboring territories that are located on the other half of the globe away from US?.. Same for Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam.
    - cturner 5y ago
      It is not equivalent. The US presence in the west pacific is welcomed by almost all the countries in the region, including Vietnam. All of the countries supporting the US presence want to see the current rules-based order continue, and are alarmed by the CCP's illegal territory grabs. There is no analogy with US engagement in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or the Vietnam War. That the US is a long way away is also not significant - several of its largest trading partners are in the region, and it has long-standing treaty obligations to many countries. US security guarantees have served non-proliferation goals since the second world war, and everyone wins from this: lower investments in military, less risk of rogue nuclear weapons, simpler strategic calculations than if every small country had nuclear weapons.
- 5y ago

justinator 5y ago

I honestly think having several thousand nuclear warheads still pointed at various targets is what's really stopping WWIII. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in any major conflict and they know it. They're fine if your adversary is working a level or two above the stone age, which is the type of wars we've been fighting.

scottLobster 5y ago
Sitting ducks? You have any idea how hard it is to find a carrier if you don't already know where to look? The ocean is a pretty big place, carriers move pretty quickly, and spy satellites only have a relatively narrow cone of view with enough resolution to detect one from orbit. Even if you found one visually, guiding a missile to accurately strike a moving carrier is extremely difficult. It's one reason China's much touted "carrier killer" missiles are less of a threat than the Chinese would like. While they could theoretically sink a carrier they rely on a complex system of satellites and radar to guide a missile in, disruption of any one piece of that system (remember the US has successfully tested anti-satellite weapons) and you won't be scoring any hits. Never mind the multi-layered missile defense systems that all carrier battle groups run with, which wouldn't be a guarantee but would have a chance. The most those missiles would is force the carriers to stay further away from the Chinese coast, which given the range of modern aircraft isn't that much of a burden if we're talking sea control. As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? Plus how hard is it to track the location of a huge ship like that… is it that hard?
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? A supercarrier would not sink from a nuclear airblast in the general vicinity. In 1946, the US performed an experiment to see how such an airblast would destroy or damage ships, in the operation Crossroads, test Able. The bomb was a 23 kT one (so a bit higher yield than Hiroshima). It detonated at a hight of 158m. The light aircraft carrier USS Independence (10k tons) was only about 500m from the point of the detonation, and although severely damaged, it did not sink. The fleet carrier USS Saratoga (37k tons) was about 2 km from point zero. It suffered even less damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_target_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_targ...
    - beambot 5y ago
      Even if the ship survived, can the crew survive at less than 500m from ground zero?
      - slavik81 5y ago
        Quite possibly. The classic nuclear weapons did their damage mostly through heat and pressure. They were relatively ineffective against troops in armoured vehicles, which is why alternatives like the neutron bomb were developed. That said, the Hiroshima bomb was small by modern standards. A single Minuteman III missile can carry three W78 warheads, each with a yield of ~340 kT. China has similar nuclear capabilities. It would be an unmitigated global catastrophe if those sorts of missiles started flying. Nobody would be safe.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    If we're talking nukes maybe (although if we're talking nukes carriers are largely irrelevant and nuclear missile subs become the primary threat), but once again the ocean is big. However huge the ship is, your search space is far larger. Even getting a siting from orbit could potentially be disrupted by weather. In the case of the pacific ocean you're literally looking for a moving football field in ~60 million square miles of ocean. Carriers in wartime wouldn't be sailing in straight lines over long distances either. National interest had a good line about it: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-sink-aircraft-carrier-99487 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-s... "And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles." Binkov on YouTube did a good analysis of the threats modern carriers face as of last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s TLDR there are some technologies likely to show up in a decade or so that may make carriers harder to use, but would hardly render them obsolete. As for conventional missiles, Binkov also did a good analysis on how many missiles it would theoretically take to take out a single AEGIS equipped destroyer. Carrier battle groups would have multiple such destroyers in addition to their own missile defense and those of other accompanying ships. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4
kumarvvr 5y ago
Not sure about the sitting ducks part. Carriers have mini iron domes to protect themselves from incoming ballistic missiles. Not to mention that they are moving targets, often themselves loaded with nuclear armed missiles (in case of an actual war). They are a very very effective way to project power. It takes a lot to down one and in the process, the enemy will take a tremendous amount of damage.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Indeed, but it is far more complex than that. William Spanial (prof) has a full course on Nuclear Proliferation that's on-going on YT, I highly recommend academic and rigorious take on this topic than the random hoo haa on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEtRacEW7ttnq1W https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEt...

Gustomaximus 5y ago

80 million people died in WW2 so I dont think we can say there was reduced world conflict in the 40's For the second half when it did reduce I'd say that is more because nations were exhausted from WW2, countries saw the horror of war more than ever before and started with increasing commitment to United Nations and nuclear weapons. Maybe Ive misread what your were trying to say...

thehappypm 5y ago
I meant that the 40s were the last major conflict. I could have just said “since WW2” but sometimes people don’t realize that it’s 2021 and 1945 was almost a century ago.

anticodon 5y ago

Aircraft carriers are a tool to plunder weak countries. Carriers are offensive weapons, not defensive. That's why only USA has aircraft carriers: parasitizing on the world resources requires a huge offensive force that has to be regularly used to send a message: "Don't try to resist if we want your resources". They have almost zero contribution to the prevention of another major world war.

cturner 5y ago
US carrier groups are the main defence against the ccp’s slow-push into its neighbour’s territory. This test may signal the CCP that their current generation of long-range anti-ship cruise missiles are less of a deterrant for US presence in the international waters called the South China Sea than expected. This should be encouraging to all ASEAN members, and the rest of the Quad. Good book just out on the dynamics in the region, /Red Zone/ by Peter Hartcher.
- anticodon 5y ago
  What has US to do with China neighboring territories that are located on the other half of the globe away from US?.. Same for Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam.
  - cturner 5y ago
    It is not equivalent. The US presence in the west pacific is welcomed by almost all the countries in the region, including Vietnam. All of the countries supporting the US presence want to see the current rules-based order continue, and are alarmed by the CCP's illegal territory grabs. There is no analogy with US engagement in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or the Vietnam War. That the US is a long way away is also not significant - several of its largest trading partners are in the region, and it has long-standing treaty obligations to many countries. US security guarantees have served non-proliferation goals since the second world war, and everyone wins from this: lower investments in military, less risk of rogue nuclear weapons, simpler strategic calculations than if every small country had nuclear weapons.
5y ago