America's Aircraft carriers invincible??!!??
By JIM STONE
"Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia's anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America's Pacific Fleet."
My comment: America's navy has never done battle with a nuclear state. And if anyone in the U.S. power structure is having twisted dreams about nukes not being used against them if they attack China or Russia, they had better wake up. FACT: 1 nuke = 1 entire U.S. naval fleet. OPINION: In a war against Russia and China, the U.S. might as well throw all naval forces straight in the trash, the Navy only works against those who never developed nuclear weapons. Even North Korea would take the Navy out and to think otherwise is to dream.
See this report for a good laugh. Sorry, the navy is doing NADA against Russia!
Let's get specific here:
The Baker nuclear test was only 20 kilotons and sank 8 ships on the spot, and five of them were battleships. Another ship sunk was an aircraft carrier with a second aircraft carrier so destroyed it was later scuttled. FOLKS, THAT WAS 20 KILOTONS, NK has bigger. I am not kidding when I say the U.S. Navy can't go against a nuclear power, and that it is going to be a quickly scrapped POS if anyone is stupid enough to use it in a war against China or Russia, or even North Korea.
Let's get into more specifics here - just so people understand this - 20 kilotons is only 1/1000th the power of 20 megatons. Russia has a full power version of Tsar Bomba that is over 100 megatons. In a real war, the Navy is useless. Even small Russian "popcorn nukes" they'd set off for fun have much more power than what would be needed to eliminate the U.S. Navy. And what does the U.S. use to put boots on the ground, tanks on the ground, and everything else on the ground? THE NAVY. Absent the Navy, all military movements have to happen on land. You can't efficiently use the air force to do it because everything is too heavy. And easy to shoot down, no cargo plane is going to go up against even an antiquated Russian S300 missile system which was "cool" over a decade ago. AUTOMATICALLY, IN A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, AMERICA LOSES. The only thing that can possibly happen is America stops fighting, and Russia stops fighting. Without naval power to deliver the war machine, war can't happen on terms people are willing to deal with. It will not be like taking out a pathetic Arab state.
Bottom line: Any claim that the U.S. Navy is "invincible" in this day and age is only appropriate from the town drunk as last words before he passes out in front of the library. To hear that from any U.S. military official borders on appalling. If the U.S. military really has become arrogant enough to claim "invincible" it is going to get it's @ss handed to it in a paper bag if there ever is a real war.
By JIM STONE
"Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia's anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America's Pacific Fleet."
My comment: America's navy has never done battle with a nuclear state. And if anyone in the U.S. power structure is having twisted dreams about nukes not being used against them if they attack China or Russia, they had better wake up. FACT: 1 nuke = 1 entire U.S. naval fleet. OPINION: In a war against Russia and China, the U.S. might as well throw all naval forces straight in the trash, the Navy only works against those who never developed nuclear weapons. Even North Korea would take the Navy out and to think otherwise is to dream.
See this report for a good laugh. Sorry, the navy is doing NADA against Russia!
Let's get specific here:
The Baker nuclear test was only 20 kilotons and sank 8 ships on the spot, and five of them were battleships. Another ship sunk was an aircraft carrier with a second aircraft carrier so destroyed it was later scuttled. FOLKS, THAT WAS 20 KILOTONS, NK has bigger. I am not kidding when I say the U.S. Navy can't go against a nuclear power, and that it is going to be a quickly scrapped POS if anyone is stupid enough to use it in a war against China or Russia, or even North Korea.
Let's get into more specifics here - just so people understand this - 20 kilotons is only 1/1000th the power of 20 megatons. Russia has a full power version of Tsar Bomba that is over 100 megatons. In a real war, the Navy is useless. Even small Russian "popcorn nukes" they'd set off for fun have much more power than what would be needed to eliminate the U.S. Navy. And what does the U.S. use to put boots on the ground, tanks on the ground, and everything else on the ground? THE NAVY. Absent the Navy, all military movements have to happen on land. You can't efficiently use the air force to do it because everything is too heavy. And easy to shoot down, no cargo plane is going to go up against even an antiquated Russian S300 missile system which was "cool" over a decade ago. AUTOMATICALLY, IN A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, AMERICA LOSES. The only thing that can possibly happen is America stops fighting, and Russia stops fighting. Without naval power to deliver the war machine, war can't happen on terms people are willing to deal with. It will not be like taking out a pathetic Arab state.
Bottom line: Any claim that the U.S. Navy is "invincible" in this day and age is only appropriate from the town drunk as last words before he passes out in front of the library. To hear that from any U.S. military official borders on appalling. If the U.S. military really has become arrogant enough to claim "invincible" it is going to get it's @ss handed to it in a paper bag if there ever is a real war.