For Over 75 Years Whenever There's a World Crisis, One of the First Questions Asked at the White House Is, "Where Are the Carriers?"

@whowasthatmaskedman
U.S. CVs make a very problematic target for an adversary.

Given the blood and treasure the loss of a carrier would be to the United States, retaliation would be swift, certain and massive. An adversary would have to think long and hard about undertaking such an attack because the response would not be "proportional."

@beckyromero We agree.. Its not a target easily taken out but conventional means either. But a single nuclear device, even poorly aimed, could take out a whole carrier group. So a North Korea or Pakistan or Iran might well choose to be the Mouse that roars and take the chance.😷

@whowasthatmaskedman
And have most of their nation look like the surface of the moon?

It's always possible with an unstable regime.

But that's the whole purpose of deterrence. To make it clear to them what the consequences would be.

A carrier group would be spread out over hundreds of square miles of ocean. It's unlikely the nukes those nations have at this time could disable a carrier and its escorts. A Russian or Chinese nuke? Yes. But it would have to be one of their big ones.

@beckyromero Now thats where we differ. All a nation has to do is wait for a carrier group parked off its coast to laund a couple of sir strikes on its territory. (Say blowing up a nuclear research facility) and they have a "legitimate" excuse to eliminate the threat. It can hardly be considered a measured response to turn the whole country to blackened glass.
It would drag the world in on the wrong side of public opinion with every other nuclear power. And would make American carriers and business unwelcome globally.

@whowasthatmaskedman

Ah, but U.S. CVN's don't "park" off another nation's coast. They maximize their distance from the target and keep moving as to become a more difficult target themselves.

F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter carrier variant has a range of over 1200nm before refueling.

Your scenario had the adversary using nukes first. So really, in that case who would be on the wrong side of public opinion?

@beckyromero Having your Carrier task force (or two at times) parked in the Persian gulf IS "next door" when you belong on the other side of the planet and one doesnt even need a rocket to launch it from a home base. Just a little short range rocket launched from an anonymous cargo vessel 30 miles away will have it on top of the target before they can react. Creating enough muddying of waters to make a retaliatory strike a foreign relations nighmare. The carrier strike group was only ever a good strategic weapon when American influence was used to push back against Communist aggression in distant parts of the world. And it works againt asymetric warefare against forces that cant strike back at that range. But it is becoming the dinosaur of Military force, and a horribly expensive one.😷

@whowasthatmaskedman The U.S. military is still oriented to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe through the Fulda Gap. We could have a far more effective military for far less money if we reoriented to increase our Special Forces and infiltration of terror networks. Unfortunately, the defense contractors have our gadget-obsessed military by the throat.

@LeopoldBloom Agreed.. It is an issue of ALL militaries that they gear up to fight the previous war. When America ruled the world, so to speak this worked fine. But the real change is that America can no longer afford that kind of defence. It has to thing more locally for threats closer to home and push Special Ops solutions in distant places. Massed Boots on the ground in countries where you are not welcomed by the general population is just asking to be a target.😷

@whowasthatmaskedman
That's so 80s. 🤭

No need to send carriers into the Gulf anymore if the target is in Iran. We have the whole Indian Ocean to operate in. And our nuclear subs can go into the Gulf to launch tomahawks if necessary.

@beckyromero You may not realise this. But you are actually making my point for me. Why would America have any business in the Persian Gulf or the Indian ocean? This is the other side of the planet and neither body of Water extends to America,😷

@whowasthatmaskedman
Because we believe in freedom of the seas.

Freedom of the seas encourages the free trade of goods between nations. And trading nations on good terms generally do not go to war with each other. So freedom of the seas helps reduce the risk of war.

But you cannot have freedom of the seas if you allow rogue nations to deny that freedom to others.

@beckyromero I see. So you need a bunch of Carrier groups to patrol the worlds oceans to keep trade free and fair between all parties. I can see how a bunch of "Mavericks" in F18s is going to do that. And it seems like a really worthwhile use of taxpayers funds. Thats very generous of America to do that for us.😷

@beckyromero
One could also ask what business we had in the Coral Sea in 1942.

I mean one could ask that. 😉

@whowasthatmaskedman
We're glad to help!

@whowasthatmaskedman

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl1ZnSe_x6Q]

@beckyromero OK. Now you are getting desperate. First. The carrier then and its place in the technology of war was a vastly different thing. It has evolved a long way since then. And in the age of Nuclear weapons, drones and satellities is a dinosaur. Second, you were in the Coral Sea because of a little thing called "Pearl Harbour" and Brisbane Provided a solid forward base. You're Welcome. The fact is that American Military might in terms of Carriers is now a way to add Military might as an aggressor to foreign policy. Now that may not always ne a bad thing. But it is a questionable strategy to operate as policy. Particularly when your nation cant afford it.😷

@whowasthatmaskedman
We were attacked because we stood up for principle for a nation being ravaged half way across the world. I suppose one could say it was none of our business what the Japanese were doing in China. One could say that, I suppose. 😉


I believe we can and must afford it. It's a matter of prioritizing.

You can't build an aircraft carrier overnight. Which is why I advocate increasing the strength of our carrier force back up to 15.

Just because you own a gun to defend yourself and your family doesn't mean you have to use it if no threat arises. But if a threat does arise in the middle of the night and you don't have a gun, good luck. Because you're not going to be able to go and buy one on the spot and get back in time to save your family.

I suppose you could call the police.

You know: 800 - CALL - USA.

You'd just better hope someone like Donald Trump doesn't answer the phone.

@beckyromero Sorry. But that just isnt so. Americas contribution to helping the Chinese was the "Flying Tiger" Squadrons based in China. The reason for Pearl Harbour was the US trade embargo on Japan, halting steel, oil and other strategic exports and restricting Japans production, as well as closing the Panana Canal to Japanese shipping. These pressures led to Japan attempting to bring America to negotiations by taking command of the Pacific.
Prior to this America had stayed pretty much at home with its Military since the times of Teddy Roosevelt.

@whowasthatmaskedman

Correct. We stood up for principle because of what Japan was doing to China. THAT was the reason we imposed the trade embargo.

Take us out of the picture and things in the Pacific would have been far worse for what remained of the free world. And not just in the Pacific. The Kidō Butai would have wrecked havoc in the Indian Ocean, Australia would have been isolated on both coasts. The British could say good-bye to any oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. And the Ruskies wouldn't have gotten the supplies they desperately needed.

Did you know the U.S. Navy accounted for about two-thirds of Germany U-boat losses in the Battle of the Atlantic? Think the Brits could have made up the difference? Highly doubtful.

More U-boats on the prowl means greater losses for the Allies in the Atlantic. And no U.S. bombing campaign over Germany means greater German war production.

Heck, with a "let's-mind-our-own-business" attitude there's not even a push to build the atomic bomb. But, eventually, you could count on that the Nazis would have split the atom.

The outcome of that?

Is that a world you would have wanted to live in? Not me.

@whowasthatmaskedman Are you daft? Roosevelt sent the "White Fleet" around the world, basically shaking his dick at the other great powers to let them know that the USA was now a force to be reckoned with. And he was anything but an isolationist.

@LeopoldBloom
Teddy favored us getting into World War I, too, much earlier than Wilson.

@LeopoldBloom @whowasthatmaskedman

@beckyromero TR loved war, that's for sure.