I’m not sure exactly which threads you are talking about, but hypotheticals routinely get moved out of GQ. If those threads had been reported I might have moved them too.
In any case, I don’t know why you would want to “sneak by” a hypothetical in GQ. You’ll get knowledgeable replies in IMHO and GD.
By several light-years.
Leo, when in doubt, hypotheticals or counterfactual questions are probably better off in IMHO or GD than GQ.
Depends on how the US reacts. If we keep really cool, and I mean glacial, the world will not make a move. They will be scared of what weapon we just got that makes everything else obsolete. This is assuming the “vanish” scenario. “Inoperable” is a non-starter because the OP is way too vague. How does a carrier become “inoperable?” Even if it just floats there planes can land on it.
I think the immediate concern will be “WTF just happened?” Nobody’s going to try anything until they figure out how all those people and all that equipment was made to disappear.
Long term, I think the other NATO countries could pick up the slack in Europe and most of the world. The Middle East is currently in turmoil over domestic unrest, so Israel’s pretty safe. You’d probably see the countries in East Asia looking to get closer to Russia as a counterweight to China if American forces were out of the picture.
Iran’s balls grow really large. The Middle East will become a very nervous place as reality sets in, with all of the regional players now jockeying for power, or for many, survival as independent nations.
North Korea stares across the DMZ and foolishly ponders wether they can unify the peninsula.
Taiwan and Japan both open vaults in deep, hidden bunkers and bring out the plans for the nuclear weapons they secretly designed.
In just 2-3 days, I can’t see most places seeing a huge difference as far as safety & attacks are concerned, but sudden lack of jeeps & trucks would probably cripple the daily operation & mobility of our military. It’d also suck to be travelling along in one of those vehicles if it suddenly became inoperable, particularly the airborne kind.
I’d also hate to be sitting behind the barbed wire at a compound in Afghanistan once the other side figures out we can’t shoot back. Are we also assuming that knives don’t work? If not, we’d be stuck with hand-to-hand versus AK-47s, which suddenly makes the AK-47 a very sexy weapon. Heck, even against knives…
Leo you say this is ‘isolationism’ but you are really just proposing a scenario where the US has had a blow to it’s military might. The us would still have economic interest in not being isolationist.
Well, maybe a couple could, assuming the cables work, but nothing other than harriers or helicopters are taking off from it without the catapults working. And if the elevators don’t work, they can’t clear the flight deck, either.
This makes a pretty big difference. Contrary to the impression some people have, the vast majority of the US military is stationed in the continental US. Of the million-some active personnel in the US military, there’s only currently 100,000 or so overseas. A lot of the overseas presence in places that aren’t active combat zones are essentially logistical and while them vanishing would make deploying stateside units into a given area more difficult, I don’t think it would have a big effect on the deterrent value of the US military.
No, a plane doesn’t just land on a carrier. The flight deck is too short for a regular landing. Essentially the plane touches down on the flight deck and the carrier “catches” the plane with cables strung across the deck. The cables are attached to hydraulic cylinders, which are what stop the plane.
