I’m not talking about some sort of hypothetical dogfight or ground assault, I’m talking about the hundreds of attacks that have actually occured in the region. Drones have done that and done it well. And in ways that fighter jets could not (i.e. unobserved, after hours of recon, with several people able to analyze the real-time intelligence and make attack decisions. And with no risk to US lives).
ETA: Naw…not worth it.
Fortunately, ignorance like this isn’t dictating policy.
Let’s go to the tape!
If you specifically meant “because of North Korea’s geographical location and/or political structure.” you should have specified. I responded to what it appeared you wrote, that a country full of starving people poses a laughable threat.
Well, how far back do you want to go? The Koreans have a much bigger and older beef with the Chinese and Japanese. I guess if you cut off the time period narrowly to “60 years ago to now,” and insist on considering the entire geopolitical picture, we’re going to be here a while. You asked what carriers were protecting “us” from – this week, these carriers indeed make it impossible for the people who threatened “us” this week to carry out that threat. That’s all I was addressing – I made no pretense of defending the number or cost of the carriers – or the US military-industrial complex, for that matter.
Annnnd there you go, tarring me with that.
Just because I understand some historical truths about human conflict doesn’t mean I approve of murder. Just because I understand how superorganisms like nation-states interact doesn’t mean I approve. Just because I know how the technology functions doesn’t mean I manufacture it.
How would you be able to tell if I’m thinking carefully? So far you’ve just assumed I’m a hawk, a defense contractor, and that I don’t know anything about the history of the Koreas.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
How would you be able to tell if I’m thinking carefully? So far you’ve just assumed I’m a hawk, a defense contractor, and that I don’t know anything about the history of the Koreas.
[/QUOTE]
He assumes anyone who argues with him is a right winger…so, I guess that means you too. 
His arguments are full of ignorance and his own special form of partisan bias, so there is really no point in addressing him or them…and considering his arguments about Korea, it’s pretty clear that HE doesn’t know or care about the history, context or reality. He knows what he knows, and he knows it well.
So far we have disagreed on opinion, if I am ignorant of a fact feel free to point it out, don’t just claim I am ignorant and declare victory. So far you have no facts.
After you declared victory up thread, and your main contribution is your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is a right winger and a conservative, what would be the point? When you bring some (hell, any) facts to the discussion and lay off the ridiculous labels and foam flecked screeds then I’d be happy to discuss it with you. I disagree with Magiver, pretty fundamentally on this issue obviously, yet I have no problem discussing the topic with him. Your latest reply to my earlier post was so fraught with ignorance and rantage that there just is no point in parsing it to reply.
There may not be a reason. The GlobalHawk UAV is almost the size of a fighter plane. But it’s almost as expensive too.
Or just use a Tomahawk cruise missile.
“Foam flecked screeds”
“Rantage”
Excellent.
I didn’t say starving and/or poor countries are disinclined to attack the U.S. I’m not sure how you parsed that I even made that claim from what I said. What I said was, how a bunch of poor starving people are not staved off from attacking the U.S. because of aircraft carriers. Also, if our assets were not in poor ass NK’s neck of the woods, we wouldn’t have anyone there for them to attack, this is fairly common sense.
You did not parse what I said correctly.
Again, I snap my fingers and we don’t have any aircraft carriers. Tell me what North Korea does to harm the U.S. suddenly that we have no aircraft carriers, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
You are by definition a hawk if you approve of America spending over 3x it’s military spending than it’s next competitor, while having piss poor infrastructure and healthcare for it’s citizens. By definition.
Well, the US wouldn’t have anyone there to be attacked. On the other hand, one of our allies, you know the actual country that specifically asked for us to be there so they don’t get over-run by North Korea, would still be there…for about a day or so.
Don’t tell me you believe North Korea’s nuclear program is to develop affordable energy.
Tell me how AIRCRAFT CARRIERS are the difference between Pyongyang nuking the U.S. and not. Have fun dancing.
Context is everything.
How old are you, rogerbox? And what education or experience do you have when it comes to national security and foreign policy? You sound like my niece during her college years, regurgitating whatever knee-jerk liberal agenda her school or cohort was espousing. She was convinced what she was saying made sense, until I started questioning what she was saying and asking her if she knew the history behind it and what would likely happen if she had her way. She didn’t have a clue and admitted as much, but she was nevertheless convinced she was right. You remind me of that.
In any case, apparently you are similarly not interested or open to differing viewpoints on this. You are not interested in getting smarter on the subject. If you were, you may wonder why still use carrier battle groups the way we do–I mean, really, have all of the policymakers over the last 50 years been that stupid? I’m open to the idea that our battle groups have a limited life span. In the age of mach 5 drone squadrons, then it’s a likely scenario. But we’re so far away from that, pontificating about the subject as if it’s right around the corner is laughable.
Are you open to the possibility that our battle groups effectively carry out what our foreign policy asks of them and further our national interests? Our do you want to continue carrying on like a willfully ignorant teenager?
They don’t, all by themselves. That’s the part you fail to understand. They are all part of the projection of US power and the deterrent our armed forces have on nations such as North Korea.
But, I can hear you say, we have nukes. Yeah, we do…and, guess what? We had them during the Korean war too. Yet that didn’t stop the North from invading the South. The didn’t stop Saddam from invading Kuwait either. And, again I can hear you say, our carriers didn’t stop it either. Nope, they didn’t…but I’ll tell you what they did in both cases. They allowed the US to get in heavy blows early in the conflict, and provide sustained air strike capability throughout the war. In the case of the first Gulf War they acted as a serious deterrent in the early phase when Saddam might have been tempted to go for Saudi as well.
Today, part of the threat that the US poses to a country like North Korea comes from the fact that we have carrier task forces that could go in and strike targets. Part of our deterrent comes from our subs, part comes from our air force, part comes from our army and marine corps. Part comes from those nukes, but contrary to Magiver’s assertions it’s a pretty small part, since basically everyone knows we aren’t going to use nukes unless someone uses them on us first…and no one is going to use theirs first either, as they know what that would mean. At any rate, it’s all a package deal. No one is saying that carriers alone protect our freedom or some other trite dippy shit like that.
So, do you get that part now? Not asking for you to agree, just asking if you get it…if the concept has sunk through. You can think it’s all right wing propaganda from conservatives or whatever, but do you understand the basic premise? Shall we put to bed the strawman that carriers alone prevent the North from nuking the South now, or do you need more explanation that no one is saying that?
North Korea doesn’t strike me as the best case to be made for the continuing necessity of carriers, what with the proximity of US air bases in South Korea and Japan.
I won’t argue that carriers have outlived their usefulness yet, but I think it’s inevitable that they will eventually be made obsolete by advances in long range drones and guided missiles. I also predict that US politicians and defense contractors will make sure they stay in service long after that has happened.
A top-end military aircraft needs a pilot because its entire purpose is to be capable of defeating its peers. If all you have is a drone air force and you get in a fight with a country at the same level of technology & infrastructure, you have a very big problem, because drones can be rendered combat-ineffective just by pushing enough current through an antenna.
To be able to reliably operate in an an area of serious electronic warfare, the aircraft needs to be fully autonomous instead of remotely controlled. It’ll be another decade, if not three, before computers are strong enough to be capable of complex real-time tasks like visual navigation and targeting, and there’s no unjammable communications breakthrough in the works that’s practical for military aircraft use, so for the forseeable future, the only viable control system is an onboard human.
…which is a shame, because the aircraft could be -much- more capable if they didn’t have to have to limit handling and compromise construction so that a squishy meatsack inside can stay conscious and see things.
I’ll ignore your rude comment and answer the question anyway. Aircraft carriers are rather large, rather quick sea vessels. They have these nifty little things on them called aircraft, thus the term aircraft carrier. Those aircraft have weaponry that North Korea can only dream of having. North Korea’s ruler may be just a little boy with absolutely no experience; however, the North Korea military is not unaware that the US carriers can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could.
Okay, I’ve decided not to ignore your rude comment. Here’s my response to that: Instead of making foolish comments, try to learn a bit about the subject at hand so you can avoid posting nonsense on the issue.
how is that an example of a threat to the United states?
Because drones are much cheaper to operate and are the perfect weapon to deliver ordinance on demand. The days of flying long hours and strafing trains are over.
What’s technologically difficult about it? Seriously. If there was a need for a stealth fighter on a carrier 30 years ago it would have been developed. When you look at a carrier’s use since WW-II it’s been as a portable runway for police work. That’s it in a nutshell. It may be over simplified but that’s the role of the carrier. The battleship has been replaced by missile cruisers.
The Predator is better suited for close support than a traditional fighter. For the reasons stated above. They are not a replacement for fighters (yet) but they are very effective at deploying weapons on-demand. If you look at any military engagement in the last 20 years it’s been the same tactic. we send in planes to jam and attack radar and communications and then send in attack aircraft to remove air threats. After that everything else is done by flying bomb racks. Hell, the B-52 makes a formidable anti-tank platform capable of taking out an entire armored division with one plane using CBU-97’s.
I’m not suggesting fighter jets are obsolete, it’s just that their role has been narrowed somewhat by advances in other technologies and simple economics. A fighter jet can stay up for a couple of hours. A drone can stay up 36 hours. For less operating cost you have 18 times the coverage time. If you think about it, fighters are now the support vehicle for the drone because it requires theater air superiority to operate a drone.