First, NOBODY has ever even seen a TEST of the DF-21 against a stationary target, much less a mobile one at 30kts.
Secondly, does anyone really believe the US would not first neutralize any strike capability before coming in range of it...during a known time of conflict? Does anyone really believe the combined strike capability of Naval Air, US Airforce and Naval missiles would not be able to neutralize a ballistic strike capability? A DF-21 is not a small target.
Thirdly, everyone seems to forget: The Price of a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is Total War. Nukes and all.
And, who wants to go there against the USA?
It is my opinion, however, that retaliation is no longer guaranteed given the current regime. Something said about being able to "absorb a strike"?
Scuds. Iraq.
Well stated.
People like to say carriers have to get in missile range to use their striking power. Well stop and think a minute of all the times carriers had to get in range of proven anti ship capability... Pearl Harbor? Their carriers were within range of our anti ship capability.
Heck look at darn near every pacific war battle with carriers. If our carrier planes were attacking another carrier, or anything on land, then our carriers were at risk of destruction. And sometimes that risk was realized. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable. Over half the carriers lost in WW2 were killed by subs. One even got jumped by some cruisers. There is a reason Taffy 3 was so badass, because those guys were in deep ****. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable, but that does not make them USELESS. It never has and maybe it never will. Carriers HAVE been in missile range of the enemy during shooting wars.
“Thirdly, everyone seems to forget: The Price of a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is Total War. Nukes and all.
And, who wants to go there against the USA? “
Who is the President?