Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/25/2025 5:25:00 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
A single DF-21D warhead striking a carrier’s flight deck would be a mission-kill. It wouldn’t sink the ship, but it would crack the deck, making it impossible to launch or recover aircraft. The carrier, for all intents and purposes, would be out of the fight. Several successful hits could very well sink the vessel, resulting in the tragic loss of over 5,000 American sailors and a $13 billion national asset. It would be a Pearl Harbor-level catastrophe, a blow from which American prestige might never recover.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
In an era of hypersonic nuclear warheads, rods of God, MOABs, FOABs, subs with nukes on them, military grade lasers, and possible nuclear tipped drones,...the aircraft carrier will have limited use.
Come to think about it...boots on the ground would have no use...cause the country they are trying to fight for could be completely destroyed while the soldiers were out and about.
So why has the Ukraine war lasted so long?
Yup—carriers are amazing...
Until there is a real hot war with a major power.
As we transition to one the other will be necessarily phased out.
Wideband jamming will eliminate that threat.
We've been under invasion for twenty years, and American citizens have been too pecker whipped to do anything about it...
Laser weapons will even that out once again.
Its still not going to be cheaper until significant build capacity exists in space.
Tungsten Rods to be able to do the kind of damage you’d want have to be accelerated, not merely dropped from orbit. So We’re talking large power based platforms with launchers.
“You pick the label but tell me what is the policy of estrangement from NATO?”
We all know that NATO has not ever paid its way and have relied on the U S for protection. My knowledge of NATO derives from what Mike Benz says about it, and he gives receipts..
“Terminating cooperation with 5Is?”
These countries conspired with the CIA to further its coup attempts against Trump. Why should Trump trust them?
“Antagonism of Canada? Of Denmark?”
How is that isolationism? Canada has destroyed itself economically, along with Britian. (I was stunned; Britian has decreased its North Sea oil production by 70% to save the climate). Canada has rid itself of heavy industry to save the climate.
“What is your label for fortress America from Panama to Greenland?”
I call it furthering national security. The Chinese control the Panama Canal due to the utter stupidity of Carter and the Senators who enabled him, and China and Russia have designs on controlling the Artic and can Denmark keep either country from gaining control of Greenland?
Sinking a US carrier with a loss of potentially 5,000 American sailors, would invite a massive escalation of the conflict potentially to the use of tactical nukes. Would China risk the potential of a nuclear conflict for territorial gains? When Biden was supposedly POTUS, the Chinese could seriously consider seizing Tiawan knowing that the Biden response would likely be weak and appeasing. A Trump response could be expected to be swift and devastating.
Manifest Destiny? 
-PJ
This is why there will never be another war between major powers.
But I should caveat that with the fact that no one really knows.
When one smart, military trained adversary is up against another, other factors can apply. Fighting spirit, quality and quantity of troops, air power, naval presence, industrial strength, political will, national unity (or discord), quality of leadership, etc. etc.
Before every major world power conflict there were those who said it would never happen, it would take years to finish, it would be over by Christmas, one country would stomp another, another country would give up, etc., etc.
Everyone has an opinion, but maybe nothing will prevail like even the best, most educated opinion because human endeavor is so fickle, prone to intangibles and just plain luck.
For more than fifty years I have been arguing with people who say we don’t need______ anymore because wars now are “push button” wars.
So says the CCP-paid mouthpiece — since China simply cannot build a carrier.
One Navy flyer explained to me that the aircraft carrier was six acres of sovereign territory that can appear anywhere in the world. Compare this with land-based aircraft, which first must be in striking distance of the target. We must own the land or obtain basing rights with understanding we intend to attack. This six acres can hold a near endless array of weapons.
Here comes the Raytheon mouthpiece again. The NSJ. The MIC propaganda hole.
Yes, at both ends.
I have said this before. In a real war ships are just sitting targets now because of modern technology.
Nuclear doesn’t move food to shelves. Diesel trucks do that.
Electric trucks? They just don’t have the muscle to move food and the refrigeration of the food at the same time. Not without recharge every couple of hours requiring 12 hours to do so.
It will probably require wires over the entire highway system to power food-hauling trucks powered by nuclear. And of course wires over every acre of farmland that runs tractors.
Then there is that nasty problem of the US having 30 years of Uranium reserves at current consumption. Consumption which would what, double or triple as we depend on it?
Dead of peritonitis in three days. Just follow it.
At some point, the navy brass is going to realize that 10 drone carriers are superior to 1 Ford-class CVN. And you can probably get the former for about the cost of the latter.
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.