Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers, Setting Up U.S. For Something BIG

So now you get it and are already forming retaliation plans. This sitting duck target could be the final star to align that makes some foreign power say let's do this, this really gives us an edge. It's just stupid to dangle bait like this and dare someone to bite. As for other ships you do understand that carriers are the backbone of our navy right?

 

1. And the cycle of retaliation is exactly why the Russians wouldn't risk nuking our carriers to begin with. There's no stopping point, the cycle continues with greater and greater escalation until full strategic release. That "edge" wouldn't exist.

2. Carriers aren't the backbone of our navy in a nuclear war. Subs are.

 

1: Your opinion is noted but irrelevant. You can't dangle bait under the guise of "they wouldn't dare"

2:"Nuclear powered aircraft carriers have been the backbone of the United States Navy since 1961, when the U.S.S. Enterprise was deployed. These ships have steamed hundreds of thousands of hours, fought in several conflicts, and have given America three acres of mobile sovereign territory without major incident for 40 years."

http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee460/jaa/index.html

"The Aircraft Carrier - The Backbone of Aero-Sea Warfare"

http://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1942-12/aircraft-carrier-backbone-aero-sea-warfare

 

1. How is it irrelevant? Do you not believe in treating risk as an actual measure of realism? It isn't realistic that Russia would start a nuclear war just so they can kill our carriers.

2. In a nuclear conflict, a carrier is just a floating target that might get off one strike before its obliterated.

 

Russia would not start a war so they could kill our carriers. Russia might start a war if they were prone to do so if they could start it with an opening salvo that destroyed the backbone of our naval forces. Why risk that? Why present such a target rich environment?

 

That opening salvo would be the start of a nuclear war in which those carriers would be totally irrelevant. What would Russia gain when the cycle of retaliatory strikes ends up annihilating every city in their country within a few days?

 

US sends special forces to RUSSIAN BORDER as Nato is poised to strike back against Vladimir Putin’s ‘aggression’

Hey, maybe Obama is having them all fitted with anti-Trump twitter filters!

 

You may want to do some reading on this subject. The days of the mutually assured destruction doctrine may be coming to a close.

"Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagon’s favorite thinktank. The Cold War “firebreaks” between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscow’s feeble post-Soviet military, "

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/no-longer-unthinkable-should-us-ready-for-limited-nuclear-war/

 

And what stops the single tactical nuclear strike from becoming a cycle of tactical nuclear strikes that then become strategic strikes?

Where is this magical barrier that prevents the escalation? There isn't one.

 

No actually all has seen your assuming BS. Funny how you can't ever get over in any threads I put up. So save that BS to.....the record speaks for itself. And you aren't playing unhinged in any of mine.

Remember your words....and then remember only fools rush in.

 

Yet, it was explained that the Eisenhower was conducting operations in the Atlantic on the 28th and making for Port. So now where was it on the 1st?

 

Yet it took you until how many pages in the thread until you jumped in. Imagine that.

Wheres that link from 2013 you were babbling about? Were still waiting. How many days will it take for you to get us that link.

 

LOL! Valerie? Is that you - again?

 

Isn't mobilizing troops on a border an act of war? How did WW I start?

 

I usually stay away from troll theads.

 

It shouldn't make a difference you don't do to well anytime I show up. Like I said....and have shown. Not even on your best day.

 

WWI started because of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.

And now for all you panty wetters out there that are screaming about a surgical nuclear strike on the carriers while they are inport. I would like you to consider several things..............

Number one. Norfolk VA and Tidewater area don't just have a naval base there. There is also NAS Norfolk, NAS Oceana, as well as NAB Little Creek, and some secret Air Force base as well. There is a LOT of firepower, both defensive as well as offensive that is concentrated there. So defense of the area really isn't an issue.

Second, consider the FACT that carriers are based on 18 month cycles, and due to various factors, sometimes those cycles are messed with and the moons align once in a great while, and all 5 are in Norfolk at the same time. Happened before back in 1997 Jul, and it also made a GREAT picture to see that much power in one place.

Civilians squealed about it back then, not understanding that sometimes the schedules all fall funny, and these things happen. Probably won't happen again for another 18 years, so calm down.

 

An Austrian Arch Duke was assassinated in Serbia and oddly, the Austrians objected.

 

OK, so you don't have a credible scenario.

*It has to be at leas 4 missiles. Do your research.

*NATO sees Russia's ports empty of ships and does....nothing. Sure totally credible.

Three nuclear missiles destroy all US sea power, allowing a Navy made up largely of ageing & poorly maintained ships to dominate the seas. All US subs magically lose their ability to sink Russian ships; all Marine carriers somehow cease to exist; the 80+ US Cruisers & destroyers in existence all disappear; all NATO navies with their carriers etc. & the Japanese Navy also cease to exist.

*Russia is now at war with NATO, Japan & sundry US allies (like Australia).

*Russia dominates the seas with one carrier that can't fly aircraft, a handful of cruisers, 15 destroyers & a bunch of Corvettes

*Somehow Russia launches all these nukes & simultaneously destroys all these ships without starting WW3.

Yep, completely credible scenario. If this is all you've got (and it seems to be) then you are just trolling or you don't understand the concept of 'credible'.

 

LOL! Scan back. I have not commented on the risk to the carriers.

The war started because of the mobilization on the borders. The mobilization occurred because of the assassination. A strike force moblilized on a border often provokes war - quickly.

 

Correct. But the anger and the objection did not lead directly to war. The mobilization of armies on the borders led directly to war.

 

This this could be a thread subject in and of itself but in the context of this thread the fact that limited nuclear wars are becoming more of an option to more countries makes grouping our military resources like our carrier fleet, not too smart.

 

First off are you saying these bases have an impenetrable missle defense? Secondly how smart is it to present a target like this? I'm sure there were people like me saying that putting our entire fleet in Pearl harbor was a bad idea as tensions mounted with Japan and I'm equally sure there were people like you calling them panty wetters. Learn from history or repeat it.

 

Your rose colored glasses assessment of reality is noted and rejected

 

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. The war games that claim they are possible rely on fiat to claim that retaliation would not occur.