4 ms·

Imagine this scenario: China decides it's time to take back Taiwan into the motherland, and invades and occupies the country. (China has been setting up this s

Imagine this scenario: China decides it's time to take back Taiwan into the motherland, and invades and occupies the country. (China has been setting up this scenario for many years) Can we send an aircraft carrier in? No, we risk that missile. Check. Alternately, we send in the aircraft carrier, it is destroyed, what then? We nuke a population center? Unlikely. Without missile defense, we are powerless. Kind of like not having air support during WWII. Check Mate.

Semiapies 18y ago
Going by historical policy, we'd have the carrier group in the waters beforehand if there was any sign of impending hostility. An attack on the carrier would probably result in retaliation against military targets. That wouldn't need to be nuclear. We still have rather a few submarines for use against capital ships, invasion ships, etc. If they can do it, we can: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited... Sadly, the very point of a stealthy submarine makes it useless for what a carrier group does very well - signify military presence and imply the willingness to use it. Of course, carrier groups often include submarines. Perhaps in the future, carrier groups will have more submarines to get around the ballistic missile threat. Take out the carrier, and you've just blasted off the visible part of the iceberg, no more.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Is there anything -- besides looking badass -- that carriers do that couldn't be done by a swarm of submarines or stealthed high-speed catamarans equipped with cruise missiles, SAM, and drones?
  - davatk 18y ago
    Support air to air combat?
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      If you have enough SAMs, why do you need air to air? Also, if your SAM launchers are stealthed and mobile at high speed, they aren't going to be so easy to take out.
  - Semiapies 18y ago
    Support AWACS, drop Marines in somewhere by helicopter, support midair refueling for bombers that can drop bigger bombs than a catamaran-launched cruise missile can. Also, spreading out thousands of crewmembers on a swarm of small surface craft would be much more of a logistics challenge for supply than a smaller number of bigger craft (as in a carrier group).
jacoblyles 18y ago
And there goes $400 billion of annual trade with the US and $1 trillion in US treasury reserves. I can't think of a scenario where the military invasion of Taiwan passes cost/benefit analysis for China, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. The Chinese government strikes me as one of the more rational ones.
- raganwald 18y ago
  In 2009, economics plays a bigger part than military strategy. Once the American cupboard is bare, however... All bets are off.

Semiapies 18y ago

Going by historical policy, we'd have the carrier group in the waters beforehand if there was any sign of impending hostility. An attack on the carrier would probably result in retaliation against military targets. That wouldn't need to be nuclear. We still have rather a few submarines for use against capital ships, invasion ships, etc. If they can do it, we can: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited... Sadly, the very point of a stealthy submarine makes it useless for what a carrier group does very well - signify military presence and imply the willingness to use it. Of course, carrier groups often include submarines. Perhaps in the future, carrier groups will have more submarines to get around the ballistic missile threat. Take out the carrier, and you've just blasted off the visible part of the iceberg, no more.

stcredzero 18y ago
Is there anything -- besides looking badass -- that carriers do that couldn't be done by a swarm of submarines or stealthed high-speed catamarans equipped with cruise missiles, SAM, and drones?
- davatk 18y ago
  Support air to air combat?
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    If you have enough SAMs, why do you need air to air? Also, if your SAM launchers are stealthed and mobile at high speed, they aren't going to be so easy to take out.
- Semiapies 18y ago
  Support AWACS, drop Marines in somewhere by helicopter, support midair refueling for bombers that can drop bigger bombs than a catamaran-launched cruise missile can. Also, spreading out thousands of crewmembers on a swarm of small surface craft would be much more of a logistics challenge for supply than a smaller number of bigger craft (as in a carrier group).

jacoblyles 18y ago

And there goes $400 billion of annual trade with the US and $1 trillion in US treasury reserves. I can't think of a scenario where the military invasion of Taiwan passes cost/benefit analysis for China, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. The Chinese government strikes me as one of the more rational ones.

raganwald 18y ago
In 2009, economics plays a bigger part than military strategy. Once the American cupboard is bare, however... All bets are off.