Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia

[Jarlaxle]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

Yes, though getting them there would be the issue. I suspect two or three bunker-busters into the dam face would breach it.

 

[Camp]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

Yes, though getting them there would be the issue. I suspect two or three bunker-busters into the dam face would breach it.

How many sub-launched cruise missiles would it require?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.

So would your trailer genius.

Wrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.

If a carrier is used to defend Taiwan the carrier will be sunk. As for China not having nukes, you are really a very uneducated fool, as china has land sea and air nukes

PS bye the way, the usa does not have the capacity to win a nuke war either

China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says

China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a new report.

www.defensenews.com

Fact Sheet: China's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Updated October 19, 2023 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) began its nuclear weapons program in the 1950s with significant help from the Soviet Union, which contributed advisors and technical equipment. When Sino-Soviet relations cooled at the end of that decade, China moved forward on its...

armscontrolcenter.org

China has around 320 nuclear warheads, most are low-powered tactical type weapons. The USA has over 5,000 warheads. China will do nothing to provoke a all-out war with the USA and sinking a strategic asset like a carrier would likely result in a limited nuclear retaliation costing the Chinese the base that launched the attack.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.

So would your trailer genius.

Wrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.

If a carrier is used to defend Taiwan the carrier will be sunk. As for China not having nukes, you are really a very uneducated fool, as china has land sea and air nukes

PS bye the way, the usa does not have the capacity to win a nuke war either

China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says

China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a new report.

www.defensenews.com

Fact Sheet: China's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Updated October 19, 2023 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) began its nuclear weapons program in the 1950s with significant help from the Soviet Union, which contributed advisors and technical equipment. When Sino-Soviet relations cooled at the end of that decade, China moved forward on its...

armscontrolcenter.org

China has a small number of nukes and a very limited delivery ability. The US has over five thousand nukes and delivery systems that range from uninterceptable ICBMs accurate within tens of meters that carry multiple independently targeted warheads, to Ohio Class submarines that can’t be tracked and can nearly hit every Chinese target while tied to their docks.

How nukes does China have?

It is estimated that China has a stockpile of around 320 nuclear warheads. These weapons can be delivered by air, sea and land – completing a nuclear triad once China’s strategic bombers are deployed. While Beijing has long focused on maintaining a minimum deterrent, it is likely that its nuclear stockpile will increase in the next few decades. Additionally, if the United States continues to expand and strengthen its missile defense program, China may modify its nuclear posture to include a significantly larger nuclear force with the potential to strike the United States.

Air

Historically, the air-based component of the Chinese triad has been a low priority for the nation. China currently possesses a small number of air-based platforms for nuclear weapon delivery, but is expected to bring a new strategic bomber and air-launched ballistic missiles into operation. That may include the development of a new nuclear-capable subsonic strategic stealth bomber, the Xian H-20, which could enter service as early as 2025. This will be very similar to the U.S. B-2 bomber.

Sea

China has four Jin-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), with two more under construction. Each SSBN can carry up to 12 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) known as JL-2. These missiles are believed to have a range of 7,200 kilometers, which gives China the ability to target Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, India and Russia from Chinese waters. The only way for China to target the continental United States would be if the Jin-class submarines traveled deep into the Pacific Ocean, but they would most likely be noticed by U.S. Maritime Patrol Aircrafts.

Land

It is estimated that China currently has around 180 to 190 nuclear-capable land-based missiles that can deliver 220 nuclear warheads. In recent years, China has deployed three road-mobile nuclear-capable versions: the CSS-5 Mod 6, the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, and the DF-31AG intercontinental ballistic missile launcher. It is believed that the DF-15, first fielded in the 1990s, is China’s only nuclear-capable land-based short-range ballistic missile.

Which one do you not care if it hits your trailer

The PLAAF's "state of the art" bomber is a 1950's era Badger clone, they haven't even test flown a stealth aircraft, let alone a intercontinental bomber. The PLAN's SSBNs are allegedly so noisy they hurt the ears of USN sonarmen and are several generations behind the Ohios. So called "road mobile" missiles have been a failure for every nation that tried them.

 

[francoHFW]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

 

[francoHFW]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now

That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

We'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channel

 

[Dayton3]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

Yes, though getting them there would be the issue. I suspect two or three bunker-busters into the dam face would breach it.

How many sub-launched cruise missiles would it require?

Well, IIRC, U.S. Tomahawk sub launched cruise missiles only have a conventional warhead of about 1,000 lbs. (450 kilograms) which is fairly small all things considered. I think the U.S. air launched cruise missiles though have warheads of around 3,000 lbs. (1,350 kilograms give or take). So the air launched ones are much more powerful.

But these figures are from the early 1990s so I'm sure other variants could be designed and deployed.

 

[esalla]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now

That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

We'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channel

Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel wars

 

[francoHFW]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

Try and focus on the facts I'm giving you, brainwashed functional moron. Not your usual irrelevant GOP crap....

 

[esalla]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

Try and focus on the facts I'm giving you, brainwashed functional moron. Not your usual irrelevant GOP crap....

There are no facts in your post.

Got that numbnuts

 

[francoHFW]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

Try and focus on the facts I'm giving you, brainwashed functional moron. Not your usual irrelevant GOP crap....

And it will be known as the Trump flu the goddamn idiot. He screwed up the reaction to it all around the world -people who used to listen to us LOL.

 

[francoHFW]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

Try and focus on the facts I'm giving you, brainwashed functional moron. Not your usual irrelevant GOP crap....

There are no facts in your post.

Got that numbnuts

According to the only media in the entire world that agrees with your bologna, Rupert Murdoch Incorporated. The worst thing that has ever happened to the United States and the world in the last 70 years....

 

[francoHFW]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now

That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

We'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channel

Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel wars

I'm in favor of no more aircraft carriers and probably do away with a few of the oldest. We should cut defense spending by 10%, so we are no longer bigger than the next 10 countries or the rest of the world basically. Time to get back to business instead of bloviation....

 

[esalla]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

WE are at war with China..........................

Bologna. We just let them have Hong Kong the worst thing that's happened for decades period while bloviating about how tough we are while they're laughing all the way to the bank.... And our small farmers go bust. Everything you know is wrong brainwashed functional moron.

How many Americans died of the wuhan bat virus.

More or less than died in vietnam?

Yawn

Try and focus on the facts I'm giving you, brainwashed functional moron. Not your usual irrelevant GOP crap....

There are no facts in your post.

Got that numbnuts

According to the only media in the entire world that agrees with your bologna, Rupert Murdoch Incorporated. The worst thing that has ever happened to the United States and the world in the last 70 years....

More total lack of substance

 

[Taz]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.

If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.

China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.

By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".

China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...

Taiwan?

China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now

That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.

And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

We'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channel

Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel wars

I'm in favor of no more aircraft carriers and probably do away with a few of the oldest. We should cut defense spending by 10%, so we are no longer bigger than the next 10 countries or the rest of the world basically. Time to get back to business instead of bloviation....

The newest junk carrier does not have fully working elevators

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

 

[Taz]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

They didn't fight that one properly. They should have sent in Seal teams to get Osama. Fuck Afghanistan as a whole, it's a shithole.

 

[miketx]

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

Yes, you would be the leader.