Ukraine / Russia

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
9,330
Location
Twin Cities
As a nuclear power it's not so much about big battles as projecting power and deploying assets. We'd likely be launching nukes before we started losing carriers is kinda the point I'm making.

The only country that could literally present a full-scale war vs us at this point is China. If China provokes such war no doubt they will have a plan to hit our carriers in the pacific early - long before we would go nukes.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,300
Location
Boston
The only country that could literally present a full-scale war vs us at this point is China. If China provokes such war no doubt they will have a plan to hit our carriers in the pacific early - long before we would go nukes.

I think the only way your sinking a carrier is through "terrorism" or something with some sort of plausible deniability.

That kinda act is just too likely to cause a nuclear response, and you can't get them all so it becomes a zero sum game.

Say China did invade Taiwan and we did get involved, and they did sink a carrier... what's the proportional response that doesn't involve nukes?

It's essentially the whole point of nukes, it has to be a proxy war or things have to be settle diplomatically because there is no way to insure a proportional and limited response, we either side can end existence in minutes.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
2,570
Location
CO
I think the only way your sinking a carrier is through "terrorism" or something with some sort of plausible deniability.

That kinda act is just too likely to cause a nuclear response, and you can't get them all so it becomes a zero sum game.

Say China did invade Taiwan and we did get involved, and they did sink a carrier... what's the proportional response that doesn't involve nukes?

It's essentially the whole point of nukes, it has to be a proxy war or things have to be settle diplomatically because there is no way to insure a proportional and limited response, we either side can end existence in minutes.

that's not really in a our doctrine of nuclear use is it? seems it would be an irrational resposne.

engaging in conventional warfare brings with it the risk of loss of an aircraft carrier in my mind. i can't see america seeing that as a good reason to end the world with a nuclear response.

it might shift us from simply defending taiwan to literally trying to decimate every aspect of the chinese military as possible.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
9,330
Location
Twin Cities
I think the only way your sinking a carrier is through "terrorism" or something with some sort of plausible deniability.

That kinda act is just too likely to cause a nuclear response, and you can't get them all so it becomes a zero sum game.

Say China did invade Taiwan and we did get involved, and they did sink a carrier... what's the proportional response that doesn't involve nukes?

It's essentially the whole point of nukes, it has to be a proxy war or things have to be settle diplomatically because there is no way to insure a proportional and limited response, we either side can end existence in minutes.
Actual war is not about tit-for-tat escalation. It is about winning or losing, and losing some carriers early would not take us to nuclear, we would continue to try to in fact win conventionally. Only if conventional became a clear loser (or if china escalated first) would we go nuke.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,300
Location
Boston
that's not really in a our doctrine of nuclear use is it? seems it would be an irrational resposne.

engaging in conventional warfare brings with it the risk of loss of an aircraft carrier in my mind. i can't see america seeing that as a good reason to end the world with a nuclear response.

it might shift us from simply defending taiwan to literally trying to decimate every aspect of the chinese military as possible.
We don't really have a doctrine of nuclear use, but if you killed 4500 US soldiers there is no way you're avoiding a war... so...

Which is why nuclear powers don't engage in wars.

Now if say... I dk Algeria sunk a carrier, no we wouldn't nuke them, but they don't have nukes so it's a different playbook. We could destroy their entire navy in response, and in response to that they would do nothing.

But if we did that to China... then they might nuke us.

Anyway it's the whole point on nuclear deterrents, and why Iran, North Korea, etc all want nukes.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
8,452
Location
Wenatchee
Actual war is not about tit-for-tat escalation. It is about winning or losing, and losing some carriers early would not take us to nuclear, we would continue to try to in fact win conventionally. Only if conventional became a clear loser (or if china escalated first) would we go nuke.
I disagree, look at it from China's point of view, if they start to lose a conventional war they may go nuclear as you indicated the US might do in that same situation. You absolutely want to be the first to go nuclear if that's the direction it's going to go, not the second.
 

LWC55

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,040
Location
North TX
I disagree, look at it from China's point of view, if they start to lose a conventional war they may go nuclear as you indicated the US might do in that same situation. You absolutely want to be the first to go nuclear if that's the direction it's going to go, not the second.
Why would any of these globalist GoZillionaires ever feel the need to go nuclear and virtually destroy the planet. That would be an end to them and their gravy train. How would that benefit the ones with the power to pull the trigger?
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,300
Location
Boston
Actual war is not about tit-for-tat escalation. It is about winning or losing, and losing some carriers early would not take us to nuclear, we would continue to try to in fact win conventionally. Only if conventional became a clear loser (or if china escalated first) would we go nuke.
Both agree and totally disagree... which might mean we are talking past each other a bit.

It is about winning or losing <> we would continue to try to in fact win conventionally

There is no scenario where we declare war on China were things doesn't go sideways, in like a total war... ie WWII kind of war.

"Only if conventional became a clear loser"... right no country with nukes would allow themselves to lose a war, period full stop. If there is even a remote possibility of loss... nukes.

That being said if you take "total war" off the table and reframe it to discrete goals/targets/ conflict then absolutely the rules of conventional war apply, and nuclear state actor would be willing to "lose" and not go nuclear... so for instance the US would take an L in Taiwan or Ukraine.

The whole idea of proxy wars make this even "safer" as there is a metaphorical cut out between the two nuclear powers even though Chinese and US troops have absolutely engaged each other directly in Vietnam and Korea.

But like there is no way we go 10 rounds in the pacific with ships and China lands in AK or HI... nukes just make that a zero sum game as eventually one side starts to lose and then they pull the nuke card, and if that's your last card it's your first card... thinking 10 moves ahead yada yada yada.

But back to Carriers, I think near peers would be very worried about having a proxy/ discrete war go to far if they targeted a carrier. I think if China sunk the Ronald Regan in say a conflict about Taiwan, we might do something like nuke their base in Djibouti via sub. Kinda proportionate and would show we are serious about our arsenals then they would deescalate.

From the Chinese point of view it would likely make more sense to hammer the destroyers in the group and then have us pull back.

Anyway all hypotheticals... but I think as Ukraine/Vietnam/Korea etc have all shown. We aren't really taking about total war anymore, it's how to be effective in limited discrete operations.
 
Last edited:

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
8,452
Location
Wenatchee
Why would any of these globalist GoZillionaires ever feel the need to go nuclear and virtually destroy the planet. That would be an end to them and their gravy train. How would that benefit the ones with the power to pull the trigger?
I don't think the GoZillionaires are running the show in a war. But I like the term.

I see two people, ones that want power, so they go into politics
Ones that want to be GoZillionaires, they just focus on making money and influencing the right politicians to achieve that end.

I know people will disagree with that idea, and argue the politicians are also greedy and trying to scam more money, which is true too, but not GoZillionaire money. I don't think you can achieve both ends, not in America.

And to answer the actual question, which I failed to do the first attempt. EGO, that why. Ego is a powerful drug that convinces people to do all kinds of irrational things.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,677
Location
Montana
Again this is kinda goes to context, and what is war in the modern era.

A war like Ukraine is just not going to happen between nuclear powers, that being said if you just snapped your fingers and made all the nukes disappear then every country but the US is at a massive disadvantage as they completely lack the infrastructure to deliver and deploy assets.

Carriers are just floating bases, I think your comment is a bit more applicable to capital ships which is why battle ships, heavy destroyers, and even cruisers have disappeared.

As a nuclear power it's not so much about big battles as projecting power and deploying assets. We'd likely be launching nukes before we started losing carriers is kinda the point I'm making. It's also why we have bases all over the place + lily pads. Especially when you compare our deployments to Russia.


View attachment 233645
View attachment 233646

A pretty good assessment of military "might". IMO, this tops NYLiberal Times or FOXConservative News and the vast variations of such.

<Excerpt> "At present, even huge congressional largesse couldn’t produce the navy the United States needs — there simply isn’t adequate shipbuilding capacity in the country."

Referenced in the review:
 

Scott85

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,655
@VikingsGuy you are right, the carrier is no match for a missile but that’s why there’s destroyers and cruisers with AEGIS providing protection for the whole fleet.

@wllm do you really think the Military Sealift Command and Air Mobility Command isn’t capable of delivering anything anywhere to keep the fight going?
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
9,330
Location
Twin Cities
@VikingsGuy you are right, the carrier is no match for a missile but that’s why there’s destroyers and cruisers with AEGIS providing protection for the whole fleet.

@wllm do you really think the Military Sealift Command and Air Mobility Command isn’t capable of delivering anything anywhere to keep the fight going?
I am admittedly no an expert but to me it just feels like carriers are going to be the WW3 version of battleships in WW2 - all build up, but then displaced in “modern warfare”.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,300
Location
Boston
I am admittedly no an expert but to me it just feels like carriers are going to be the WW3 version of battleships in WW2 - all build up, but then displaced in “modern warfare”.
Probably... but there is something about parking the death star in front of Alderaan... certainly effective at tamping down uprisings in your Empire, and to your earlier point I think it's an apt metaphor ;)

 

Benfromalbuquerque

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
459
I am admittedly no an expert but to me it just feels like carriers are going to be the WW3 version of battleships in WW2 - all build up, but then displaced in “modern warfare”.
I’m partial to the Percheron, always thought they were impressive and trim looking mounts. Though even with Belgians our cavalry would be primed for the next mounted charge into ranks.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
9,330
Location
Twin Cities
Probably... but there is something about parking the death star in front of Alderaan... certainly effective at tamping down uprisings in your Empire, and to your earlier point I think it's an apt metaphor ;)

And you saw how things ended up for both Death Stars, right?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,659
Messages
1,658,449
Members
32,065
Latest member
jjentringer
Top