4 ms·

There is nothing stopping any nation with ICBMs from launching them at Washington DC, and with enough warheads one would hit, possibly all would hit. But it wou

by dm2 11y ago

There is nothing stopping any nation with ICBMs from launching them at Washington DC, and with enough warheads one would hit, possibly all would hit. But it would be suicide for the country that launched them. Yes, anti-ship missiles and rail-gun rounds would likely devastate a carrier group. Part of any strategy against a country with that capability would be to take out those targets first (NRO keeping watch on those locations, CIA and NSA helping out). Trillions of dollars are spent specifically to keep track of missiles, foreign troops, to improve defenses, and to improve first-strike capabilities. Even a rail-gun and anti-ship missile can possible be countered, there are a lot of people working on making it happen. Part of the deterrent is that we have battle-tested long-range radar systems that can detect where missiles are launched from. The US has dozens of nuclear and non-nuclear VERY VERY large bombs in every corner of Earth that would be used to absolutely destroy whatever launched that missile at a super-carrier. http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/50f5450069bedde11500000d-960/071218-f-3539l-001.jpg http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/50f5450069bedde1150... The reason to have war-games is to find weaknesses in strategy and defenses. If nothing else, I feel safer with a dozen super-carriers on constant patrol. Having aircraft available in a warzone in a way that carriers provide is invaluable. It's the reason the Marines have invested in their own smaller carriers (and the sole reason the F35 needs a VTOL version).

gnoway 11y ago
Well it's a good thing you feel safer. I was particularly concerned by this: "The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom in a very short span of time. The Navy stopped the war game, prohibited the red team from using these tactics and then reran the exercise declaring victory on the second day." If true, that's not 'finding weaknesses in strategy and defenses,' that's 'sticking your head in the sand.'
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  This is absolutely par for the course in training exercises. Several reasons occur immediately. The persons involved may want to cover their butts, and report a more positive outcome. OR, the value of training for failure is very limited in value; scenarios that allow everyone to practice their skills may fit the mission goals better. My son, while in the Army in Korea, led a 6-person team as 'insurgents' in an exercise against a company. After the scripted exercises they were allowed to do anything they wanted. Result: rear gate breached after a feint; company HQ tent blown up by 'suicide bomber' (only casualty on his side); and three quarters of the company killed by his roaming snipers. They only stopped the exercise when his 'insurgents' ran out of ammo. This exercise was of course never part of the after-action report :)
- dm2 11y ago
  If we already know a vulnerability exists, why allow it to be repeated if the goal is to find unknown vulnerabilities? It's not about winning the game, it's about finding weaknesses in defenses. You can't just "launch all nukes" every time in a war-game, everybody already knows that works. There is also the good chance that we do have the capability to defend against the specific scenario, but employing it is either too expensive, temporarily unavailable, or too secretive. Maybe the US Navy just wanted other nations to think that we can't detect submarines at those depths. Then in a war-time situation we can say, "oh, yeah, we were just bluffing, we can easily spot you at those depths". If the highly-public and multinational war-game involves testing the exact ranges of submarine detection, maybe they had good cause to stop the war-game, and it wasn't necessarily because of losing.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's also possible the red team was deviating from the rules of the scenario. These things are never free-for-alls, where you make up your tactics as you go. When you're moving that many ships and people unless it's somewhat coordinated you risk injuries and deaths. In a training exercise you're just trying to make sure everyone is doing what they're supposed to do. If the Navy wants to explore tactics and vulnerabilities computer simulations are a much better fit.

by dm2 11y ago

gnoway 11y ago

Well it's a good thing you feel safer. I was particularly concerned by this: "The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom in a very short span of time. The Navy stopped the war game, prohibited the red team from using these tactics and then reran the exercise declaring victory on the second day." If true, that's not 'finding weaknesses in strategy and defenses,' that's 'sticking your head in the sand.'

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
This is absolutely par for the course in training exercises. Several reasons occur immediately. The persons involved may want to cover their butts, and report a more positive outcome. OR, the value of training for failure is very limited in value; scenarios that allow everyone to practice their skills may fit the mission goals better. My son, while in the Army in Korea, led a 6-person team as 'insurgents' in an exercise against a company. After the scripted exercises they were allowed to do anything they wanted. Result: rear gate breached after a feint; company HQ tent blown up by 'suicide bomber' (only casualty on his side); and three quarters of the company killed by his roaming snipers. They only stopped the exercise when his 'insurgents' ran out of ammo. This exercise was of course never part of the after-action report :)
dm2 11y ago
If we already know a vulnerability exists, why allow it to be repeated if the goal is to find unknown vulnerabilities? It's not about winning the game, it's about finding weaknesses in defenses. You can't just "launch all nukes" every time in a war-game, everybody already knows that works. There is also the good chance that we do have the capability to defend against the specific scenario, but employing it is either too expensive, temporarily unavailable, or too secretive. Maybe the US Navy just wanted other nations to think that we can't detect submarines at those depths. Then in a war-time situation we can say, "oh, yeah, we were just bluffing, we can easily spot you at those depths". If the highly-public and multinational war-game involves testing the exact ranges of submarine detection, maybe they had good cause to stop the war-game, and it wasn't necessarily because of losing.
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's also possible the red team was deviating from the rules of the scenario. These things are never free-for-alls, where you make up your tactics as you go. When you're moving that many ships and people unless it's somewhat coordinated you risk injuries and deaths. In a training exercise you're just trying to make sure everyone is doing what they're supposed to do. If the Navy wants to explore tactics and vulnerabilities computer simulations are a much better fit.