Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia
- Thread starter esalla
- Start date
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #103
Dayton said that. Imagine being that dumbDayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.
Nobody but you has said that. Stop listening to those voices in your head, they're not real.
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
No, he didn't. Now you're just lying.Dayton said that. Imagine being that dumbDayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.
Nobody but you has said that. Stop listening to those voices in your head, they're not real.
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Anytime you feel up to quiting
You're getting less and less coherent by the day. Have you switched from cheap booze to bathtub meth?
Meathead
Diamond Member
Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.
Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.www.theamericanconservative.com
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.taskandpurpose.com
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
Last edited:
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #107
All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
Meathead
Diamond Member
But the attack would be launched, right?All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
As I said, they are offensive weapons.
You'll get it soon, maybe.
Dick Foster
Platinum Member
A real full scale all out brawl will be fought with ICBMs with nuclear warheads and everybody loses. We've still got plenty enough to do the job and so do they. The job being to wipe so called human civilization from the face of the earth. As Eisenstein said he wasn't exactly sure what weapons would be used to fight WWIII, he was quite sure that WWIV would be fought with clubs.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Meathead
Diamond Member
We get that. But you have to deal with reality. "MAD" has kept the peace between great powers for over 70 years. That's a fact. You have to deal with the tactical as well as strategic. ACs are part of both and largely unique in that way.A real full scale all out brawl will be fought with ICBMs with nuclear warheads and everybody loses. We've still got plenty enough to do the job and so do they. The job being to wipe so called human civilization from the face of the earth. As Eisenstein said he wasn't exactly sure what weapons would be used to fight WWIII, he was quite sure that WWIV would be fought with clubs.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Meathead
Diamond Member
No, carriers are also part of the strategic arsenal, capable of delivering strategic weapons from far closer to targets with planes which are capable of avoiding defenses. However, here I thought you were a complete moron. But before you get uppity, you're still a sleazebag.Mutual Assured Destruction makes an all-out war highly unlikely. Aircraft Carriers are designed for limited and proxy wars.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #113
Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situationBut the attack would be launched, right?All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
As I said, they are offensive weapons.
You'll get it soon, maybe.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #116
So would your trailer genius. My point is that a carrier can never be used and you just agreed without knowing suchAnd China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
Wrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.So would your trailer genius.And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #118
If a carrier is used to defend Taiwan the carrier will be sunk. As for China not having nukes, you are really a very uneducated fool, as china has land sea and air nukesWrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.So would your trailer genius.And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
PS bye the way, the usa does not have the capacity to win a nuke war either
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/SOENQGKDRRFS7O6KCC4WCAEY5A.jpg)
China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says
China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a new report.
www.defensenews.com
Fact Sheet: China's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Updated October 19, 2023 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) began its nuclear weapons program in the 1950s with significant help from the Soviet Union, which contributed advisors and technical equipment. When Sino-Soviet relations cooled at the end of that decade, China moved forward on its...
armscontrolcenter.org
Last edited:
Meathead
Diamond Member
No, certainly not if the AC was alerted to attack, which it would invariable be. The carrier could launch nuclear-armed piloted aircraft from a point far closer than any ICBM and at equidistant from any incoming missile. If you understand anything, there is still a reason that trained individuals can react far better than a missile or drone.Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situationBut the attack would be launched, right?All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
As I said, they are offensive weapons.
You'll get it soon, maybe.
Regardless, I am tiring of this.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #120
Attack aircraft do not shoot down hypersonic missiles. 1.7 miles per secondNo, certainly not if the AC was alerted to attack, which it would invariable be. The carrier could launch nuclear-armed piloted aircraft from a point far closer than any ICBM and at equidistant from any incoming missile. If you understand anything, there is still a reason that trained individuals can react far better than a missile or drone.Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situationBut the attack would be launched, right?All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attackIncorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.
As I said, they are offensive weapons.
You'll get it soon, maybe.
Regardless, I am tiring of this.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 646
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 528
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 254
- Views
- 13K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 23
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 255
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 131
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 193
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8530
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-