[Poohbah]

those 16" guns do a nice job

Assuming they actually hit the target (not guaranteed)...

and we wouldn't have to risk so many pilots.

First, the last time I checked, death in combat was an occupational hazard of accepting the King's Shilling.

Second, why are 40-50 pilots that much more valuable than 1,500 sailors you'd have to drive right up onto the North Korean coastline?

[hchutch]

I don't think the NKs have much that could work on a BB. Plus, you can hit the coastal defenses with SLAMs and HARMs, reducing the risk considerably, while 688s mine the ports.

That done, you start bombarding.

[Chemist_Geek]

those 16" guns do a nice job

Assuming they actually hit the target (not guaranteed)...

Neither are airstrikes, Poohbah, you oughta know that...

Second, why are 40-50 pilots that much more valuable than 1,500 sailors you'd have to drive right up onto the North Korean coastline?

Tradition! Iowa-class BBs shelled North Korea the last time they got real frisky. I figure that with a few Arleigh Burke tin cans to provide anti-air cover, one of our BBs would make quick work of the NK's nuclear weapons program.

Our lack of naval gunfire support scares the heck out of me. The Marines aren't going to have any artillery to speak of during a landing, just jets and their own mortars.

[kms61]

The "Bring Back The Battleships" thread is pretty much an ongoing one on the sci.military.naval newsgroup. The consensus there among some people who are VERY knowledgeable on things naval, is that de-mothballing the
battleships in the eighties was a bad idea then, and would be a worse idea now. They were a nightmare to keep operational, were a safety hazard to their crews, and didn't perform any function that couldn't already be done by other naval assets.

Their words, not mine.