>U.S.S. Carl Vincent (not pictured) is sent to Sea of Japan

>Implying that wouldnt be viewed as the 2nd pearl harbor and the chinks get the wrath of god cast upon them

>>33824465

>uss carl vincent

that seems like it would be a bit confusing with the other carrier, uss carl vinson.

>>33824465
There is no way to "sneak attack" with an DF-21D, the CBG will see it coming the moment it is fired.

Furthermore, unless it is a nuke, you are not sinking a carrier with the DF-21D, even multiple hits. I doubt it would actually penetrate much farther than the armored flight deck.

>>33824465
>Ally betrays you and launches a surprise attack causing massive casualties
>The public responds to this with anything other than anger
I'm not sure there is an easier way to provoke a democracy into a war than claiming to be its friend and then stabbing it in the back.

>Has the United States gone about our Naval doctrine all wrong?
If the fault of your doctrine is that a traitorous ally can perfidiously murder a large number of your people the problem isn't really fixable.

>>33824504
Ahh yes, I sowwy /k/ I not make mistake again. Very good.
>>33824533
Well, we're not sure of that yet because it hasn't been used against a real target.

>>33824554
We are sure based upon the payload it carries.

>>33824465

>China stabs United States in the back

The US could lose the whole of California and it would be 100% ready to kick China's current government out at will and replace it with the RoC's. Japan has shown you do not betray freedomland.

>>33824750
>Japan has shown you do not betray freedomland.
And Japan wasn't even pretending to be our friends at the time.

Bump for discussion

>>33824927
There's no real discussion to be had. The scenario OP posted is retarded and has already been debunked in less than 10 posts. OP can't even be assed to know the name of the carrier he's referring to. You really think he's magically come up with carrier-killing scenario?

>>33824465
>Backstabbing United States
China will instantly lost its biggest foreign investor, market and all the money invested to Wall Street.
What China gains would be? A nominal victory of sinking an aircraft carrier? It's not worthwhile even if they can take control of NK AND Taiwan in the process.

>>33824465
>Japan sinks 8 nearing obsolescence battleships
>Gets nuked twice and occupied until the 70's
>China sinks carrier
>Expect disproportionate nuclear response

>>33824465
>as many men are lost in an instant as the entire Afghan War
>what is evacuation
>what are liferafts

>>33826543
Liferafts will have no way of shooting down China's second wave of supersonic "dinghy killer" missiles.

File: 1491956957511.jpg (921KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 1920x1080px

>tfw a war game scenario has already calculated that an asymmetric strategy against a carrier battle group would take out the carrier and 15 other ships
>China could do this easily
>OP is still a retard because he got the name wrong

There have been several military strategists who have said that Super Carriers are a greater liability than they're worth... but on the bright side the more that get sunk the better it is for the military budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

File: DF-21D trajectory.jpg (15KB, 550x387px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 550x387px

>>33824533
>There is no way to "sneak attack" with an DF-21D
Depends on what you consider a "sneak attack."
>the CBG will see it coming the moment it is fired.
Not quite, though the ballistic trajectory does give a good bit of advanced warning. A CBG could post E-2s on picket along the edge of Chinese airspace and look about 200 miles into China (further for beyond-the-horizon air search, rather than "moment it's fired"), but the E-2 hasn't really been developed for ballistic missile detection yet, and it would still need to communicate the info back to the rest of the CBG.

All of this stuff is at least somewhat susceptible to jamming too, but jamming emissions may compromise the "sneak" aspect of your "sneak attack." That and the surface-based radars of a CBG are very powerful and will still have considerable burn-through range (though I'm not so sure the same can be said for the E-2s comms and datalink).

SBIRS, while not part of the CBG or even the Navy, is one asset that could reliably detect the DF-21D at the moment of launch - but again this has to be communicated to the CBG somehow for a response to be made.

Another last-ditch indication that the CBG is being attacked would be ESM signals from the DF-21D's own terminal guidance radar. The CBG (and in particular, the specific ship being targeted) could pick up these emissions and possibly attempt to jam them (which shouldn't be difficult considering the missile's small radar and the considerable ranges involved) and deploy chaff. A hardkill interception may not even be necessary if the missile's seeker can be foiled during this narrow window of opportunity before reentry blackout sets in.

>unless it is a nuke, you are not sinking a carrier with the DF-21D
I'm inclined to agree, mainly because a direct-hit might be rather challenging with such high closure rates and reentry blackout, and a near miss with a non-nuclear warhead isn't going to sink a carrier.

File: 1351900328421.jpg (89KB, 500x652px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x652px

>>33824465
As I understand it sinking an American carrier will take the war 'strategic' in a hurry.

File: 1479289391599.jpg (16KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 351x329px

>>33826680
>citing MC02
>calling other people retarded

China gains literally nothing in this scenario and pisses everyone off.

Battleships were constantly risked and used in WW2.

>>33826868
This. Sinking a single carrier could easily result in more US KIA than the war in Iraq. They wouldn't be getting a strongly worded letter in response.

>>33827210
Also consider that the carriers carried nuclear weapons for most of the cold war "until we totally took them off, we promise *wink*" attacking one would result in the loss of a nuclear weapon which combined with the loss of life would result in an absolute hell storm.

China signed a no first use treaty for nukes. America never did likely never will. So either China uses a nuke and we can freely use them back at that point OR we get so mad that President Trump orders a strike before the carrier has even finished sinking.

With Trump in charge I think there is a much higher chance for a nuclear response should a nation make a massive conventional attack on the US or our assets.

>>33827080
>not an argument

>>33826680
>the more that get sunk the better for the military budget

He's not wrong

>>33827292
With Trump, there's nukes in the air before the abandon ship order is even given.

File: 1459299208205.png (155KB, 976x366px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 976x366px

>>33827314
MC02 involved the opposition force cheating by having "motorcycle messengers" moving at the speed of light and putting missiles on boats that were significantly smaller than them among countless other things. Then you had operational concerns, like the fact that the scripted exercise let Van Riper know exactly where and when things were going to happen, allowing him to avoid the biggest issue that America's foes generally run into - ISR. The exercise was intended to test a computer system, and was scripted for that purpose. But Van Riper thought he needed to teach the DoD a lesson by wasting millions of dollars ruining a simulation, and when he rightfully got reprimanded for it, he whined to the media, knowing they'd have no idea what they were talking about and would love to peddle the story of "the military's doing something dumb!"

There are real threats to the USN from asymmetric threats, but citing MC02 is as sure a sign that someone knows jack shit about military doctrine beyond memes as the "nazis could have won if they did X" meme is a sign that someone knows nothing but pop history.

>>33827485
It also happened almost two decades ago. We are getting to the point where even it's intention is outdated.

File: 1488397225156.jpg (430KB, 1080x763px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1080x763px

>>33824465
>North Korea levels Seoul with artillery barrage
W R O N G
R
O
N
G
We've had counter battery artillery crews drilling in and around Seoul since the cease fire. The NorKs would get off a few dozen shots before they got their shit pushed in.

>>33824465
>lack of will by the U.S. Public

Where did this meme come from? Nam?

I am pretty sure the result of China attacking the US would be a giant crater where China used to be, we would not take that sitting down. I am pretty sure we would have gangs hanging anyone who disagrees with curbstomping China into the ground.

>>33824465

Just economically that idea is so bewilderingly stupid I don't even know how you could propose it. Say China is somehow able to do exactly what you propose. What then? Their biggest trade partner stops trading with them immediately and declares the trillion plus dollars of US debt China holds invalid. Seriously it evaporates overnight. To say nothing of US allies which are now duty bound to do the same. North Korea is not worth that to China. Most likely scenario is China invades the Norks to install a sympathetic government the second they cross the line.

>>33826587
we need to outfit all survival dingheys with anti-ballistic missile launchers

>>33828127
RWDS FINALLY

>>33828110
That and Obummer.

File: di.jpg (125KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x532px

>>33824465

We'll be fine.

>>33828110
>>33830661

More like the media since 2003.

>>33826307
>Expect disproportionate nuclear response
That's the only point I'd disagree with you. China is a nuclear power, the response would be conventional. I wouldn't put my life savings on it but I'd put a modest amount of money on it.

>>33826729
>>the CBG will see it coming the moment it is fired.
>Not quite
I'd be prepared to believe that there were satellites watching Chinese mobile launchers at all times during an exercise like this, certainly everything in a wide area around the CBG. There's no way the Pentagon trusts China *that* much.

>>33827137
>China gains literally nothing in this scenario and pisses everyone off.
Also this, China is many things but they're a rational actor.

>>33826543
>>33826587
kek

>>33828110
>>lack of will by the U.S. Public
>Where did this meme come from? Nam?
It's just part of the general "things were better in the good old days when men were men and cosmoline was for handjobs".

I don't think it's not a /pol/ degeneracy thing or MSM or political at all; it's just that literally every generation thinks that they were simultaneously better, tougher, nicer, poorer and richer than these kids today have it.

>>33824799
They were trying to be friends. The US said fuck off though.

>>33824465

>North Korea levels Seoul with artillery barrage

Stopped reading there. Why do so many people overestimate the Nork's artillery while at the same time completely ignore Worst Korea's counter battery capabilities AND the US air strike capabilities?

>>33831399
>China is a nuclear power, the response would be conventional. I wouldn't put my life savings on it but I'd put a modest amount of money on it.
China is a second rate nuclear power. Their retaliatory strike ability is pathetic. The only thing they have for retaliation is their couple SSBN subs.
Almost a guarantee any action near Best Korea will have US SSBN sub(s) close enough for a short range strike. Launching a mass of DF-21 at a US CSG would justify a quick launch from those SSBN at all their nuclear and strategic targets and Trump likely wouldn't hesitate to authorize that strike if Mattis and some other advisors recommended it.

File: north-korea-artillery.png (633KB, 1280x1517px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1280x1517px

>>33831513

The conventional wisdom is to assume the worst-case scenario, in which case DPRK throw weight would be about 2kt (artillery and missiles) at countervalue targets in the first hour.

In other words, while I agree that the danger is overhyped by the media and experts, an unrestrained attack or counterattack from the North could still result in thousands being killed in ROK and Japan. Maybe more if unconventional weapons were involved. It would be chaos.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate

>>33824465
Why would the USN be caught off guard in the middle of an active shooting war? If NK is launching a barrage against Seoul, the Navy is active and DefCon 2

>>33831565

>The only thing they have for retaliation is their couple SSBN subs.
Since when does China have an operational submarine deterrent? The most likely threat is that information on the Chinese land arsenal is inaccurate and incomplete.

>>33824554
You retards who actually think anyone can harm the US Navy are retards. Russia = btfo, China = btfo, North Korea = extrememely btfo, India = btfo, pakistan = btfo, england = btfo, afghanistan = btfo, iraq = btfo, iran = btfo, saudishits = btfo, slavshits = btfo, germany = btfo. Anyone standing in the way of US interests = btfo

Fuck it feels good to be an American.

>>33824465

Different scenerio.

>US carrier sunk
>great loss of life
>piss of citizens of the United States
>cryhavocletslipthedogsofwar.jpeg
>Proceed to curb-stomp the slant eyed bastards for what they did
>go home
>grab beer
>it was a wunderbar day

>>33831796

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/pacoms-harris-urges-more-subs-pgms-ships-at-hasc/
>Pacific Command may not spend munitions as fast as CENTCOM, but what it does use more than any other U.S. war command is submarines. PACOM today only has 50 percent of what it estimates it needs to keep tabs on North Korea, Chinese and Russian undersea activity.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-to-fly-dod-hill-focus-on-readiness/
>More than 60 percent of Navy and Marine Corps strike fighters are out of service, the Navy confirmed today. While 62 percent of fighters are effectively grounded, the overall figure for all naval aircraft is 53 percent.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/355-ship-navy-takes-at-least-18-years-cbo/
>“Fast” is a relative term, since 2032 is the earliest date Labs sees for a 355-ship fleet, and even then it’s not the 355 ships the Navy says it wants.

Congress has been fucking the Navy for a long time, and they'll be fucking it for a long time to come.

>sinking a carrier
What did he mean by this?

>>33831828
>The greatest military force in the history of the world isn't satisfied with resting on its laurels and wants to improve itself
>This is a bad thing

>>33831565
While the Chinese nuclear arsenal is mostly a map changer as opposed to civilization ending hellgate of destruction that is the russian/american stock, they do shelter what little they have extremely well. Mind you, they never had the benefits of having their own dedicated thinktank toward these issues during the cold war (just in case you couldn't tell from their plethora of awful decisions made back then), but if there's anything that the chinese leadership believes in it's tunnels.

>>33831871

The crisis isn't a lack of motivation among the people who serve; it's that half their necessary shit is non-existent or inoperable. And there isn't enough money to fix this problem by a long shot.

>>33824465
I have a cousin on that ship right now so I hope not.

>>33824465
>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public
what haha, this troll
nukes are already flying by the time public could get mad. is this a china intelligence gathering thread

>>33824495
this. i swear to fucking god if literally any single one of those ships is sunk i will enlist the next day and kill 100 shitskin chink anime loving faggots myself

>>33824465
>>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public to keep fighting after as many men are lost in an instant as the entire Afghan War

Why are people always assuming that ?

The Germans assumed it for WW1, thinking they could get away with sinking boats because US citizens would be against committing to a ground war.

The Japs assumed it for WW2, thinking that Pearl Harbour would be enough to convince the USA to stop involving themselves in the Pacific and to resume trade because "they have a soft belly".

The Nonks (and Stalin...) assumed it for the Korean War, thinking the US citizens wouldn't support yet another costly war for some far away piece of land without any strategic value.

The Vietnamese assumed that US citizens would grow tired of the war quickly if they inflicted enough casualties... and it took fucking 10 years for the people to really start protesting and another 10 years for it to work !!

Really, starting a war with the (not so) Sleeping Giant with the idea that it will be too much of a pussy to bother fighting back once bled a little is just asking to be carpet bombed.

>>33832357
agreed. they have no idea what the fuck will happen if they kill any of our boys over seas. japan found out the hard (nuclear/thousands dead) way.

>>33832538
Especially these days with so many vets that would love to get a fat paycheck from reenlistment/private security/blackwater work.

There are more bloodthirsty americans now than ever.

>>33824465

>Carl Vincent sinks
>US Public losing all will
>not getting righteously angry

I think its near enough time for another war to distract the populace from the growing domestic problems

>>33827933
the problem is those first shells might be chemical shells. the risk is very very high in Seoul for about the first 6 hours of the Korean peninsula going hot.

>>33824465
>by some miracle they sink the ship
>all hands lost
>6062 men, twice as many as 9/11
>6062 men from all across the US with families in almost every major city
>china would see a us military with the public backing and surge in enlistment that would rival WW2
>china would either be glass or be ready to enter a ground war with a country that will basically go into "total war" mode.

its would be a long and costly war but there is no way china could handle the US in a total war scenario, and that's no even accounting for the support from the UK, Canada, France, Japan and every other small European country that would get involved.

>>33832832

>6062

Where in the good fuck do they fit them all, and what are they all doing.
That's goddamn insane, I can't wrap my head around that number

>>33824465
>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public to keep fighting
Are you a Japanese person in 1941? Its just going to awake the sleeping obese giant

>>33832853
They're big and deep

>>33832853
think about this... that's 1 nuclear aircraft carrier... we have 10

>>33832853

Fitting that number of people is easy, each crew member only needs a bed and a small amount of space for living in. kind of like those Japanese capsule hotels, everything else (food, showers, laundry, entertainment) can be provided communally.

Simply sailing & running the ships systems (like nuclear reactors, propulsion, maintainance) needs a lot of crew. Nearly half of those aboard are related to the aircraft, with so many aircraft and aircraft types that requires a lot of supporting personnel. There are crew who need to support the rest of the crew. Then finally remember that a super-carrier is the lead ship of a fleet, it carries out many roles related to command & intelligence, and as the largest vessel is in the best position to provide things like complex surgery and medical treatment for the rest of the fleet or troops ashore.

Also, USN super-carriers are intentionally "over-manned" by design. By carrying more crew, the carrier is able to sustain a deployment for many months with fewer crew fatigue issues, and in the case of taking serious damage either from an accident (like the USS Forrestal fire) or enemy action (eg AShM, torpedo, sea-mine) more crew can mean better damage control, and even continued combat operations of the vessel if necessary.

>>33831705

Now THIS is what I would expect from a North Korean all out artillery attack.

Still devastating in loss of life, but the whole "Seoul will be leveled" bit thrown out.

>>33824569
This. Given what we know about the DF21D, one missile is incapable of delivering enough damage to a carrier to present a realistic threat of a sinking. It would take upward of a half dozen hits before you start getting into the possibility of a sinking.

Good luck with that.

>>33826587
Inflatable chaff is a thing.

>>33826680
Wait...

You're really using MC 2K as the source for your argument? Who's the retard?

>>33824495
>This muh 2nd Pearl Harbor argument again
The US doesn't have balls to do anything about a nuclear state. Americans will overthrow the government and sign a peace treaty if even one of these rusted washtubs they call "super"carriers will be sunk by any country with nukes.

>>33827314
No argument necessary. The fact that you're using MC2K as the basis of your claim is ample evidence that you have no clue of the subject matter.

>>33828110
>Where did this meme come from?

A bone deep and fundamental failure to grasp the most common and most basic elements of our culture.

>>33834144
But isn't that precisely what the Japs thought in 1941? I forgot if it worked out for them or not... I wonder...

>>33831418
I remember when the internet was a large turtle with wings of gold, and we liked it that way.

>>33824465

It's far more likely that the Chinks will stab the Norks in the back and swarm across the Yalu in order to maintain a buffer territory.

>>33834607
>Japs in 1941
>A nuclear state

>>33824465
China will never try that in the first place. And you have to be pants on head retarded to think the US would just walk away after the loss of a carrier. Sinking a carrier isn't going to result in some short anger response, it will result in you getting nuked.

>>33834144

lol

>>33826587
Yes, because if an unprovoked strike on an aircraft carrier by a country with ratified ally treatises won't galvanize the US population for a war of annihilation, committing dozens of warcrimes in the span of 10 minutes certainly will.

>>33832774
Chemical shells containing mustard gas and that's about it.

Norks don't have sarin, VG, or VX. They have an extremely limited stockpile of ancient tabun gas, which may or may not still be any good due to age and piss-poor storage.

Moreover they don't have airburst capability.

Mustard and tabun are heavier than air. The artillery shells would produce a ~50m no-go zone around where they hit until the next time it rains and that's about it. Fatalities would be extremely low and mainly related to structural collapse and flying debris from direct hits.

Chemical munitions other than VG and VX are primarily a psychological weapon, their lethality rates are ABYSMAL under the best of circumstances. Even VG or VX is still not great, on par with regular HE artillery under normal conditions and much more likely to be ineffective due to terrain or weather.

>>33834626
>implying it wasn't better when the internet was just two spiders fighting in an arena and the whole village would bet their pinecones on the winner

>>33824465
>>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public to keep fighting after as many men are lost in an instant as the entire Afghan War
You do not understand the mindset of the American people.

>>33831705
>thousands being killed in ROK and Japan
Literally who cares? Sounds like Not My Problem.

>>33832853
You need all those people to work the rigging. That's why we use press gangs.

>>33824465
>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public to keep fighting after as many men are lost in an instant as the entire Afghan War

Do you understand the difference between an extended occupation like Afghanistan and a first strike by a conventional military power like what you're proposing? Attacking US military or civilian assets unprovoked is the most surefire way to get the entire US public to actually agree on something. That something being that they are going to burn your entire country to the ground.

>>33835075
Jeeze, those were the days.

>>33824465
>I don't understand the will of the American people.
The post.

>>33835667
kek

>>33824465
>>China stabs United States in the back, launches several DF-21 missiles at U.S.S. Carl Vincent
>>china stabs it's largest economic partner, shatters it's own economy and get's nuked to oblivion by a submarine

>>33826729
>Not quite,
US has DSP sats that would detect the launch. They Command and control facilities on the carrier allow for data linking of their data.

>>33826680
If you bothered to attack this with a critical mind, you would have learned the following:
1) The simulation software that is used to determine the interaction of weapon systems, JSAF, was flawed and could not handle neutral targets. So they turned off the Navys defensive systems in the model.
2) MC02 was not designed to evaluate tactics, but rather a new concept called netcentric warfare. What Van Riper did was the same as if you showed up to football practice and prepared to practice punt returns, but the other side kept running regular plays.

But why should you actually question what you read on the internet, amirite?


>>33831399
>China is a nuclear power,
They are vulnerable to a first strike.

>>33831872
>they do shelter what little they have extremely well.
Not really.

The 3000 km of tunnel thing is a myth.

>>33835926
With as few nukes as China has, they'd not need more than a single kilometer of tunnel to store them.

But that's beside the point since a nuke in a tunnel is worthless. They can't deploy a nuke if they're all cowering in tunnels.

>>33832774
North Korea doesn't have guns with chemical capability capable of reaching Seoul.

>>33834927
How do you know?
Sarin and VX are very dangerous to handle but not that hard to make

>>33834785
Well maybe not then, but they became one overnight in 1945

>>33837151
>easy to make
Maybe for stronk wyte man

>>33834927
Of course the norks have nerve gas. They've made their own illegal nukes, why the fuck would they balk at nerve gas? Pull your head out of your ass.

So, skip the missiles. How about floating a bunch of AIP subs out where you think the carrier group is going to be? If you get lucky, your silent, floating in the water torpedo delivery system can get off a shot.
The downside to announcing where we're going.

File: motherfuckingcarriers.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>33824465
dude, no. all america does when it gets hit is get really fucking mad
>pearl harbor
>9/11
>every other attack since
>the fucking MOAB
seriously, if these niggers nuked a carrier, recruiters would be going through contracts by the fucking pound.
assuming we didn't MAD the shit out of china, anyway

>>33835348
Upvoted

If the plan was to make the US public lose interest wouldn't the better choice be to NOT kill a massive number of Americans in a single betrayal and instead turn the Korean War II into a long drawn out conflict?

>>33831116
the fuck happened there?

>>33834927
>Norks don't have sarin, VG, or VX. They have an extremely limited stockpile of ancient tabun gas, which may or may not still be any good due to age and piss-poor storage.


The US government currents position is that they have mustard, sarin and vx along with possibly anthrax. However the most likely scenario would be that these weapons are employed defensively as area denial against advancing troops.

>>33834927
>Norks don't have sarin, VG, or VX.
Then what did they use to kill tubby leader's dear half-bro?

>>33824465
So in other words your scenario is as follows.
>China agrees to work with US ending decades of tensions
>finally gets to remove PR problem next door maybe take the territory if it goes well
>decides to turn and attack the largest military in the world
>sinks one carrier group
>CHN High Command prays to god that their international reputation will be the only thing that gets destroyed due to this

>>33842136
/thread

>>33824465
>China sinks a carrier
>WWIII doesnt happen
read more books senpai

>>33824465
>Carl Vincent
>Vincent

>>33842795
the first guy to ask the question 'how much taxpayer money do you have to spend on defense to get an aircraft carrier named after you'.

>>33841752

USS Fife

You think the carrier is the only thing we have off coast? That's just the dog and pony show to keep everyone distracted from the subs waiting for someone to sneeze.

File: loose_lips__sink_carriers.jpg (106KB, 900x582px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 900x582px

>>33824465
Pic related is about as likely as
>War is over due to lack of will by the U.S. Public to keep fighting after as many men are lost in an instant as the entire Afghan War

Americans get really fucking angry when sucker-punched.

>>33840833

Saying that it is heading to Korea means a huge area of water. Even if they put every single one of their Romeos out to sea (their midget submarines don't have the range), and these ancient submarines were not detected (putting to sea, and getting into position), the chance that they will simply run across the carrier within the CSG is minuscule.

Then, even if the carrier does pass close enough to a waiting sub (they don't have the long range wake-homing torpedoes), before they run out of food/water/fuel, torpedo countermeasures (I'm not sure if CVN-70 has the torpedo hard kill system, but it did have a PIA in 2015) have a good chance of taking out the threat while the carrier moves away and ASW assets move in.

>>33824465

>USS CARLS JR

>>33834144
dude north korea is hardly a fucking threat to the US. their missles are so fucking outdated we would shoot them down with a laser before they even fucking hit the target. they are on 80's tech while we are living in the future. if NK tries anything we sent the rangers and marines in and we topple their pathetic military in less than 10 days

File: image.jpg (88KB, 758x575px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 758x575px

Never gonna happen
US Carriers have a force field
And they can fly into low earth orbit.

>>33843838
>we sent the rangers and marines in
No.

Infantry is the last thing that happens because it's the fairest thing that can happen.

The US infantry is good, sure. But ground assets are the one area that the Norks aren't completely outclassed in. So it won't be done until everything that the US has and the Norks don't, has been used to the point where there is no advantage left to be gained.

>>33831896
The level of corruption in military spending is fucking unconscionable.

500+ billion every year, and over 20% of it goes either missing or into "classified" research.

>>33824799
actually they were, and we still had limited trading connections with them.

>>33827359
Honestly, as there should be.

I fuckin despise that fat sack of shit, but if he pushes the button I'll be behind him 110% of the way.

>>33845295
>But ground assets are the one area that the Norks aren't completely outclassed in

Are you a special kind of stupid, Pvt. Pyle? It will be the same situation as the invasion of Hussain held Iraq. As soon as we start waving around our MRE's, they'll come 'a runnin'. Besides, what makes you think that a nice new cozy job for a few generals to assassinate the grorious reader and to help fight off the few remaining lotal subjects wont happen?

>Are Super Carriers the new Battleships? Are they too valuable to lose and are thus a bigger liability than they are an asset?

Interesting thought.

They could end up getting completely replaced by submarines.

>>33834144
Gr8 b8

>>33841752
.45 ACP to the bow.
Person responsible for it had to say sorry to the captain, in front of everyone else.

>>33824465
>>North Korea levels Seoul with artillery barrage

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/

>>33833859
That can be said for literally any anti-ship missile ever made, though.
How does the DF get through the CVBG's ABM defenses, or, more to the point, how is it supposed to search the ~300km^2 uncertainty zone caused by it's re-entry plasma sheath?