Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Korea Threatens to Sink a U.S. Carrier. Could They?
Popular Mechanics ^ | 4/24 | Kyle Mizokami

Posted on 04/25/2017 6:43:22 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue

In the end, North Korea has an even bigger and more basic problem: It couldn't actually find a carrier if it wanted to. The country has shore-based radars, but those have limited range and a carrier can easily stay out of range. A carrier's aircraft and escorts will shoot down or sink any of North Korea's aircraft, drones, submarines, or surface ships before they gets with sensor range of the mother ship. While this isn't guaranteed in every scenario, North Korea's antiquated equipment is easily to detect.

(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: nknukes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: mad_as_he$$
I believe they could. A well coordinated strike with multiple missiles aimed at one target simultaneously would likely strike it's target.
41 posted on 04/25/2017 8:34:41 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

Never underestimate determination and improvisation. They have submarines with hydrophones. A CBG makes a lot of noise. A nuke exploded in the middle of which would do quite a bit of damage.


42 posted on 04/25/2017 8:43:14 AM PDT by PLMerite (Lord, let me die fighting lions. Amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg
Ask the relatives of the Japanese civilians who were “collateral damage” in World War II as a consequence of the attack on Pearl Harbor

The decisions to incinerate Japanese cities were not made within days of the Pearl Harbor attack. They were made after 3 years of bloody, savage warfare and in the context of unsupportable (to Americans) losses on the battlefields in the Central and SW Pacific areas of operation. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, our war aims were to sweep the seas of the IJN and to thereby compel surrender to our long-term goals in East Asia.

I do not believe that Roosevelt would have ordered the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on December 8, 1941, and I bet you don't, either.

43 posted on 04/25/2017 8:59:58 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Die Gedanken sind Frei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I hope you are right.


44 posted on 04/25/2017 9:31:32 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lower Deck

You are probably right. Un is not playing with a full deck so who knows what he might do.


45 posted on 04/25/2017 9:37:48 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

46 posted on 04/25/2017 10:04:29 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Deportation mayhem is just birthing pains for a new America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lower Deck

“If true then how do they spot a carrier in the Sea of Japan if the satellite is over the U.S.?”

Well, prick, do you understand the concept of orbit, as in a satellite that orbits above the earth, which requires a trajectory that transverses across the surface of the earth?


47 posted on 04/25/2017 10:22:22 AM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I didn’t write anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But surely you have heard of the Doolitle raid, the 75th anniversary of which was celebrated last week. There was certainly civilian “collateral damage” from that attack on Tokyo, which was slightly more than four months after Pearl Harbor. From an article on historynet.com:

http://www.historynet.com/aftermath-doolittle-raid-reexamined.htm

“Even as crews were recovering American dead from Pearl Harbor’s oily waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was demanding that his senior military leaders take the fight to Tokyo. As Army Air Forces chief Lieutenant General Henry Arnold later wrote, ‘The president was insistent that we find ways and means of carrying home to Japan proper, in the form of a bombing raid, the real meaning of war.’”

That raid provoked the Japanese to attack Midway, and we know how that turned out for them.


48 posted on 04/25/2017 11:26:41 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
"Before we get too confident we should ask the 46 dead of the Cheonan."

Yep. Norks used a mini-sub to put a charge /torpedo beneath Cheonan's keel, amidships. Blew the vessel not just in half, but into three big pieces.

Might not sink a carrier -- but would render it hors de combat for years -- if not scrap it...

49 posted on 04/25/2017 8:15:59 PM PDT by TXnMA (Scuttle our captured ship, the US Pueblo -- with a MOAB!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Yeah, Einstein the only collateral damage would be the 5000 plus sailors on the carrier alone. I'm sure our retaliation would be tailored primarily to take out military targets and personnel. This wouldn't be a Johnson / McNamara FUBAR.
50 posted on 04/28/2017 6:49:55 AM PDT by MCRD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson