AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
I think he's counting the LPHs which can act as baby carriers.Might wanna look that number up again. The US only has 11 carriers (but that still outnumbers all other countries).
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.
I think he's counting the LPHs which can act as baby carriers.Might wanna look that number up again. The US only has 11 carriers (but that still outnumbers all other countries).
Wars have been effectively over in less than a week.
Really? Wars have been effectively over in less than a week? Name me a war (other than the Israeli 6 day war) that was over in less than a week. I can't think of a single war that the US was in that lasted less than several years. WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan for instance. All of them were several years long. And exactly what are you smoking to make you even consider the possibility of a war between two superpowers being over in less than a week? Wanna talk about the current war between Russia and the Ukraine? Putin was saying that it would be over in less than a week, yet here we are several months later, and hostilities are still going on. You obviously know zip point squat about military operations, or even the military for that matter, based on your idiotic posts.
The Football War for one.
Regarding superpowers there were a number of projections of the Soviet led Warsaw Pact invading West Gemany where the bulk of the fighting lasted less than a week.
Last two on that list.
The last 2 on your list weren't really wars, they were invasions, one was won, the other wasn't. Same with the Football War, it was a brief conflict, not really a war. And, like I said, if there actually was a war between the US and China, it would last a hell of a lot longer than just a week. You still sound like an idiot for fearing China and their 3 carriers, as well as when you try to speak about war.
Basically, you are saying you can reclassify anything as "not really a war" in order to justify your conclusions.
Note that the last two you casually dismiss required U.S. carriers to operate combat missions.
Your link from Wiki states that it is a list of "conflicts, invasions, and wars participated in by the US Armed Forces since it's creation in 1775". It specifically states it's including everything conflict related, not just wars. And no, the last 2 weren't wars, they were invasions (as listed by Wiki).
And the carriers weren't there because they were specifically needed, they were part of the battle group that they sent.
Why would those battle groups have been sent if they weren't needed?
A battle group is a collection of several ships, of which a carrier is a part of. They didn't need the carrier per se (planes weren't launched to bomb things), they just needed the firepower of the battle group.
At Grenada, the aircraft from the Independence I think it did indeed bomb targets on the island.
They weren't the main attack force. The main attack came from ground troops, and the air strikes were mainly from attack helicopters and C-130's. The A-6's that attacked did so because they were available for use, but Navy pilots weren't the main aerial strike force.
But they were there and they used them. So obviously they had a role to play.
The NYT has a pay wall, dumbass!read the NYT piece on the topic in their latest issue
There was nothing wrong with that software It was simple operator error.China has the operating software to our fleet. Remember those mysterious crashes of Navy vessels when Trump first became President, when the Captain could not control his ship?