4 ms·
> Why though? I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed. Honestly (and unfortuna
by cj 2y ago
> Why though?
I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed.
Honestly (and unfortunately) if anyone actually did destroy a US aircraft carrier, the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.
- thriftwy 2y ago> the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating. The thing is, not many things in the world cost more than an aircraft carrier. What's you're going to blow up? Also, how, short of strategic nuclear war.
- anigbrowl 2y agoQuite. It's hard to see retaliation against a civilian target in a direct response to a military loss, and if an aircraft carrier is sunk in theater there might not be sufficient capacity to respond immediately against military targets.
- DeathArrow 2y ago>I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Why? ICBMs are good enough and much cheaper. Also, launching missiles from submarines can be very effective.
- pjc50 2y agoEveryone gave up on putting nukes on planes: too vulnerable, and quite capable of crashing on their own during routine operations. They're all on ICBMs.
- linschn 2y agoFrance does carry their tactical nukes on the Rafale.