Why don't we have land based anti ship missiles?

>>35021192
you only have obsolete harpoon no df21 carrier killer

>>35021431
2 cancer cells have been deposited in your lungs

>>35021456
how did you know i am smoking RIGHT NOW!

>>35021192

Its maynly a historical thing, your amhibious forces (USMC) has allways had an offencive focus.

Other nations have theirs as part of, or derived from their costal artillery, wich was mainly a defencive force.

>>35021192
Because we have 2 of the biggest navy's in the world. The Coast guard is #5 and their feet is a joke

>>35021510

The coast guard however is just armed with 57mm guns at most and would be BTFO by any real navy. They just have a lot of ships
.

>>35021192

we have submarines are aircraft that can do the job that the poor countries cannot.

>>35021526
Some of the bigger ships mount 5" guns, and all of the cutters and larger are capable of carrying and using torpedoes both shipborne and helicopter-borne. Some of the newer cutters have holds to mount VLS, although I don't think any actually have the modules installed.

>>35021192
simply put, no unfriendly nation has credible blue water navy to contest the seas, hence a land based anti-ship missile is useless as the carrier based assets are far more then enough to handle literally all our rivals simultaneously. Give china a decade or two, and then there will be sufficient need for a land based antiship missile to shut down all the straits around China.

Because we have the worlds largest navy.

>>35022866
And the largest air force.

And the second largest air force.

There's no realistic threat to US coast, so coastal artillery, already an outdated and stupid concept if you aren't Denmark, would be useless to the US.