[jayef]

Could we say that such an attack would represent a significant escalation in the War on Terror? The only credible threat to destroy an aircraft carrier is a nuclear device. God forbid, but this would result in some serious slaughter being delivered upon terrorists everywhere.

[Quix]

I would hope retaliation would be swift and terminal. . .

but

HOW

AND

WHERE???

[Mr. Mojo]

God forbid, but this would result in some serious slaughter being delivered upon terrorists everywhere.

We are already in an all-out war against "terrorists everywhere." What more can we do on the offensive front? (On the defensive front, we could clamp down tight on border security. .....something that should've been done a long time ago). So the only thing left to do offensively is what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan -- take out terrorist-sponsoring (and harboring) regimes themselves. But who next? ....Syria?.....Iran? Or do we take out the center of Islam itself?

[TomasUSMC]

If the terrs sink a carrier what kind of escalation would you expect from the U.S.? We already have 120,000 troops in Iraq. Another 20,000 in Afghanistan. I would think that escalation would not be possible with the kinder gentler compassionate high moral ground type of combat we are employing.

I would advocate a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and knock off Syria and Iran with Nukes. I would say, we tried it the nice - turn your cheek way, and now it will be the - kill em all let whoeva sort em out. But hey thats just me.

[null and void]

this would result in some serious slaughter being delivered upon terrorists everywhere.

One can hope.