I think it says that we wouldn’t attack China because they might nuke us, and even if they didn’t they might be able to take out our carrier groups with conventional weapons… but I’m not fluent in Magivese.
Indeed, China is the only major power the US has fought directly since World War II, the other wars since then have been against Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan, none of which qualifies as a major power.
China wasn’t a nuclear power until 1964 so that’s been the biggest contest we’ve had with carriers since WW-II.
Magiver. Still waiting for an answer for this:
Yah and I’m still waiting on answers from flyboy.
Just out of curiosity, do you see think all air force bases serve the same function and by extension have the same strategic target value?
And do you think a carrier costs the same as an Air Force runway and hangers?
Ok, if you’re still waiting for answers. Hopefully this is the last time I chime in here–you make me want to shove an icepick through my eye.
Of course any nation can say that–the whole point of your military is to further your national interests when diplomacy fails. And I didn’t mean to imply that we were invincible–I tried to allude to our difficulties in executing COIN as just one example of things we’re not great at. My point was that our military is capable of attacking any country (I’ll admit the anywhere, anytime is a stretch–in reality, there is a whole planning phase, followed by a period of logistical movements beforehand; but that’s not to say the carrier battle group in the Arabian Sea couldn’t launch an air strike against an Iranian target tomorrow). When I was memorizing vis recce for Russian aircraft, no one ever told me, “Don’t worry–we’ll never actually have to fight them, since they have nukes.” And as far as “simplistic and arrogant” goes, I could argue those two words describe the entirety of your posts.
You do have a point that we haven’t attacked a nuke-holding country. But then, I’m not sure when we should have. You use the EP-3 incident as an example, if I read your post right, of a time where maybe we should have released batteries. To that, I’d say that if you’re going to poke a bear, you’d better have exhausted all other options. Like diplomacy, which worked just fine for the crew of that plane.
Not sure what that reduction has to do with anything except changing geo-political landscape and better technology. And just because we haven’t doesn’t mean we a) ever needed to, or b) never will.
Exactly, if you’re talking about a nuclear threat. The carrier is not designed to counter nukes. That I had to type that sentence should be a clue as to how stupid this conversation is.
Uh… you’re saying this based on what? Your “common sense”? Is this the same “common sense” that has almost every other participant in this thread thinking you’re 14 years old? Is this the new Magiver Method of Warfare you keep spouting? We all just go straight to nukes?
See, if you’re trying to posit that using tankers with AF planes via tanking to accomplish the same type of remote strike a carrier can deliver–that’s just another example of how ridiculous your arguments are.
Well, I can’t argue with that, although I’m not sure what you mean by the short runway remark. It’s aircraft are design limited to take a lot of pounding on launch and landing, which takes up more weight and space than land-based aircraft. But, so what? We also tank and have these cool things called drop tanks, so we can boost our range a little when we need to. That doesn’t mean carriers are ineffective.
No, you still have it wrong. It is entirely a function of what it could/can do.
FB … You sir have way more patients than I. Question though, are you all really still focused on COIN? We (Army) are definitely shifting to DATE (which has COIN aspects but also goes back to basics re land warfare). I hate to be the ‘old guy’ but it makes me giggle a bit watching some of the post 9-11 soldiers try to work through problems without a secure supply line …they’ve never really had too, it’s interesting too watch. Most of the senior level leaders have though so there’s a lot of mentoring.
It’s been really interesting hearing XT, you and others talk here and for THAT magiver thanks 
The dynamic of Iran immediately changes when they become a nuclear nation.
The chances of you engaging Russian built aircraft is completely different than the idea of attacking Russia. One is a function of exported technology, the other puts a carrier at risk. This is your whole argument. You say it “could” happen. I’m saying that’s not the function of a carrier fleet. A carrier isn’t needed to attack Russia or China. A carrier isn’t needed to defend Europe or the US. They WERE needed in WW-II. It was the only practical method of creating an airbase where one didn’t exist. In an era where a threat is measured in minutes and hours a carrier has no practical way of moving anywhere in a timely manner. This doesn’t preclude the possibility they are closer to a threat and could be used in place of a land based mission.
Not sure what DATE is–I don’t recall seeing it in your FM 3.0, although COIN is in there. My situational awareness as to what’s going over there is two years old, when I was at Leavenworth. At that time, it was straight-up COIN. That it’s evolved (or devolved?) suggests that COIN was a bridge too far for us.
And I keep trying to emphasize that it’s fine for you to argue that theoretically, but not fine for you to simply declare, based on naught but “common sense” [or a lack thereof] and “relatives,” that such is our policy and that this is what we will or won’t do.
your argument is as theoretical as mine. A carrier “could” attack a major power.
Their function has changed since WW-II. We don’t need to establish bases in the Pacific rim. they’re already there. We don’t need to establish bases in Europe. They’re already there. We don’t need them to launch an attack on the major powers because that’s an insane proposition.
What’s left? If China decides they want Taiwan then the response will be the same as when they decided Hong Kong was theirs. We’re not going to attack them even though we “could”.
No, it’s not. It’s a tad more informed than yours.
No, it’s not. You have no basis on which to claim a carrier would be used to attack a major power. That’s a political decision. You prefaced such an opinion based on the existence of various military scenarios in place on how attacks would precede if so ordered.
I don’t care if you see it that way, I’m just hoping most others see it that way. I think I’ve demonstrated my credentials and hope that I’ve demonstrated how my credentials support my argument. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what you think, as you’ve demonstrated over and over again that you’re not open to considering any alternative viewpoint.
I don’t see where your credentials have any bearing on the political decisions behind the claims you’re making. You have yet to provide a scenario where we would attack a major power with a carrier (or anything else for that matter). Carriers are an extremely expensive holdover from a war that has since retired battleships. There is no practical use for a battleship. There is a practical use for a carrier. There are places we can’t easily set up camp without first establishing air superiority. Carriers are part of that function and that, as a matter of practicality, is limited to 3rd world nations.
You have no historical reference from which to make the claims you’re making but I’m fully open to an alternative viewpoint if you have a basis from which to make it.
2011 it was called FSO or full-spectrum operations. Now it’s called DATE or decisive action training environment. Its some (again this is all army shit – we’re doing it at Jmtc, Polk, ntc) its a lot of everything … Attack, defense, stability and COIN. This might sound odd but it’s oddly fun watching what I think the long range planners are doing with the past OEF ground forces.
I think your the first to say political decisions. Think about that.
I wasn’t aware that the military could act independently.
Seriously. No one said they could act independently … Dude you’re just trying to piss people at this point.
The transfer of Hong Kong to China was scheduled decades in advance by the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898 (Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory - Wikipedia) and the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 (Sino-British Joint Declaration - Wikipedia)
How is that at all similar to Taiwan?