Ships with the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group and John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group transit the Philippine Sea on November 16, 2018. Petty Officer 3rd Class Connor Loessin
Robert Farley, National Interest: If a Navy Aircraft Carrier Was Ever Sunk, World War III Begins
A horrible thing.
Key point: The destruction of a carrier would kill thousands and lead to a swift response.
Since the 1950s, the supercarrier has been the most visible representation of U.S. military power and maritime hegemony. Although supercarriers have participated in nearly every military conflict since the commissioning of USS Forrestal in 1955, no carrier has come under determined attack from a capable opponent. In part, this is because supercarriers are very difficult to attack, but the symbolic grandeur of the massive ships also plays a role; no one wants to know what the United States might do if one of its carriers came under attack.
What would happen if a foe attacked a United States Navy (USN) aircraft carrier during a conflict? How would the United States react, and how would it respond?
Read more ....
WNU Editor: A sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier would definitely result in a massive response. In short. The gloves will be taken off. And if a nuclear weapon was used in sinking an aircraft carrier, expect a nuclear response.
5 comments:
Very likely an attack on a US carrier is part of a country launching WWIII. The attack likely would be far broader than anything the Japanese did on December 7, 1941.
So it’s a bit of a tautology to say sinking a carrier starts WWII.
All are wrong. It would not need to be an attack larger than pearl harbour nor would it necessarily lead to WW3. Face palm time all around! :D
The reason why we are not all dead yet is because thankfully none of you is in office. Phew.
You react to all events in a measured response unless you bring ego into the play. That's why I always advocate to not taunt or ridicule those you need to kill. It leads to worse.
Anyways. Say 3,000 souls get lost. That's the equivalent of 9/11.
A few observations:
1) 9/11 didn't start WW3
2) the financial loses in 9/11 were two magnitudes higher than even the most expensive aircraft carrier. .losses were above 1 Trillion
3) a measured response took place after 9/11 and after pearl harbour. Pearl harbour did not start ww2,it was well underway @nazi Germany
And finally we all know that China is well capable of sinking an aircraft carrier (at least on paper) in their home theatre. It would take as little as 3-4 rockets.
So yeah guys, please go back to school and don't run for office. Thhhhaaahhannks
What the above anonymous commentator fails to realize in the fallacy of the flawed logical argument he puts forward is:
9/11 was not caused by State actors. Which is not the same as trying to say that the Taliban/AQ are going to get an equal measured response vs a nation like China.
So trying to use 9/11 as the basis of your reasoning is heavily flawed; it doesn't come down to maths or value. It comes down to political perception and the reality of a State actor willingly sinking a US Carrier; a massive military asset.
If you think terrorists hijacking a plane and ramming it into the Twin Towers is the same thing as a State actor sinking a US Carrier; then your thought process is out of whack.
So let me say this; I believe it is you that should go back to school, and stay away from engaging in such debates, and if you do, at least put forward an intelligent argument.
Ouch...
Someone got sand in his vag haha
1) it was used as an example if severity that outmatched the scenario by several magnitudes. On top, Saudi Arabia was involved - a state actor. But point taken
2) the scenario above did NOT specify state actor necessity in their formulation. Just the"destruction"would cause ww3. You did make it a necessity @state actor, dumbo :)
Play again? I'm sure you're a Democrat, you trigger easy
Post a Comment