Why do we care so much about air craft carriers? Why do we invest

>Why invest in tanks when they can be blown up
>Why invest in soldiers when they can be shot
>Why invest in airfields when they can be bombed
>Why invest in warships when they can be sunk

Ah, the childish logic of "if something isn't invincible, it's useless" and "if something is a threat, then it's definitely going to destroy x"

Because they carry aircraft.

>>32029968
> /k/ logic:
"Don't build mechs because they can be blown up"

File: 1476145275681.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>32029968

why invest in wars when they can be lost?

>>32029977
If that's all you've ever taken away from your "why don't we build mechs" threads it's no wonder you still think that's the only reason they don't exist.

>>32029968
Well yeah but we've built something too valuable to lose

>>32029946

>Why start a business when it could fail?
>Why get a job when you could be fired?
>Why even live, just kill yourself.

File: 1478710570051.jpg (241KB, 1200x901px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x901px

>>32029977

>>32030000
And you're basing this one what? Nothing? Your own ignorant assumption?

>>32029946
>Why do we care so much about air craft carriers?

if there so damn fragile, then why do russia and china want their own so bad?

>>32029946
Oh look it's this thread again... I wish there was a way to reply to b8 or retard threads without bumping it?

>>32030068
Do you seriously think losing even one carrier wouldn't have a severe negative impact on our military and our public image?

>>32030645

This was not argued, neither was it the point.

Provide citations for your thinking.

>>32030645
We lost air craft carriers in WWII and still won the war. I think we'll be fine if we lost one today. As unlikely as loosing one is.

>>32030067

Well, that's a good *start.* I'd add to that list myomers (which would make a bipedal motion system actually feasible in terms of battlefield robustness) and draw a few big circles around the high-energy compact power source, too. And a few more under "imagine what a tank could do with that power source."

Mecha basically require two things:

1. A minimum baseline of tech to make them workable at all (which is what that thing is listing.)
2. A role or niche in which the bipedal formfactor leverages those technologies better than anything else can.

No matter what awesome shit we cook up, we can always stick it on a tank, too. In the past we put big torpedoes on surface ships and gun turrets on subs. Now big torpedoes are (almost) all sub-only and gun turrets are only for ships. Why? Because we found that certain systems/tech just worked a hell of a lot better on particular formfactors. For mecha to make sense, we need new tech that not only makes them feasible, but tech that *wouldn't add much value if you bolted it to a tank.*

IMO, if you look at a mecha, they're all about being humanoid and shit. Neural control, artificial muscles (myomers) and all that shit? Mecha would be valuable because they'd have all the advantages of infantry, but scaled up enough to add armor and heavier weapons. Tanks are a mature technology and it's hard to see how we could drastically improve on them - mecha aren't going to replace them; they're going to evolve into their *own* niche. If tanks start to go the way warships did, and exploit economies of scale, getting bigger and bigger (this way lies Bolos) than mecha might offer a way to scale up infantry to stay competitive. Master Chief scaled up, pretty much.

>>32030645
Not what you said.

Because there isn't really an alternative power projection platform than the aircraft carrier, and while making all of them 100,000 t super-carriers probably isn't necessary, large carriers have capabilities you simply can't have on a small carrier.