You must log in or register to comment.
Emotionally and psychologically, i need to see amerikkkan warships sink in my lifetime
Imagine getting a video of US carriers getting hit and Tel Aviv in the same day, we might actually break the site
If the US is getting media to report “weeks long back and forth” this is going to be a multi year quagmire.
That’s assuming the US still has the resources for a multiyear campaign after sending much of the stocks to Ukraine. There was a recent article talking about the abysmally low missile production, and how Ukraine is depleting the arsenal far faster than the US is able to replenish it. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/missile-defense-iran-attack/
By “back-and-forth strikes” we’re talking about strikes on US military bases and warships, right? I have to imagine the odds of Iranian missiles hitting mainland USA are minimal to none.
Strap me to a rocket and fire me at DC. I am ready!
Same but only if I get one arm free and a stetson hat glued to my hand
Correct, the only part of the US proper Iran can hit is Israel
Which is at least like the second or third most important seat of the pedo cabal. So I guess that does matter a lot.
Iran please sink a carrier
They don’t even need to sink a carrier, all they need to do is land a missile and the deck will be damaged and the carrier will be inoperable. They can’t risk having multi-million $ jets taking off on a damaged deck. Carriers are just behemoths to intimidate weak opponents, but faced with an opponent that can hit back, they are big expensive targets for a barrage of hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
If Iran sinks a carrier with the loss of a huge number of crew and billions of military hardware, it will be a total embarrassment for Amerikkka. A dying empire might resort to a horrific response.
The dying empire is already doing countless horrific things and will continue to, regardless of how much Iran fights back. So they may as well fight back
I’m talking about dropping a nuke, they’ve done it before.
This is my worst case but still plausible scenario fear. The US responds to a major vessel loss with a nuke on Tehran.
Why are nukes so much scarier than regular bombs and missiles btw? Gaza is flattened and no nukes were involved with that.
Because the US could do that with a single stealth bomber in one bombing run that can’t be defended against. To do the same with conventional bombs would take far longer and Iran’s air defenses and retaliation would make it too costly to maintain.
it is the most efficient way to remove a large number of yankee soldiers from existence
a real big anti-fascist actionCan someone explain to me why carriers are still considered a good naval ship when planes can now go farther be refueled in air and you basically have infinite options to build air strips if that wasn’t enough in a week?
Even though you can fly for 36 hours, it’s much nicer and easier to not do that. Imagine the strain on pilots if regular missions were to be long haul flights like the ones that were done to bomb Iran last time.
The whole thing about the battleship becoming less prominent and the carrier taking over goes back to WWII, and more to the point, Pearl Harbor effectively forcing the US Navy to rely on carriers to be the flagships of their fleets in the pacific.
In-air refueling has limits. Unless you want to be doing operation black buck shit where you have like 10 tankers refueling other tankers to get 1 bomber there, having a carrier dramatically reduces the range your jets need to fly.
It’s basically a floating airbase that has the ability to move into (or recede) from combat zones. They don’t really fit our war ethos right now anyway, they are designed to be part of an overwhelming strike in the event of total nuclear war
There’s also ego and competition between the branches and the navy is quite addicted to being an air power and will never acquiesce to going back to “just boats” ever again, if they have their way
Edit: you are totally correct about their redundancy, so I want to clarify: one of the perks of the carrier group is that by moving it won’t be as vulnerable during nuclear war, the enemy has to know where it is, NORAD will always be at NORAD etc
Losing a carrier isn’t just a loss to their “global war on terror/narcos/guys we don’t like” capacity, it’s also a loss to their “oh shit actual peer actual nuclear oh my god war” capacity
Part of me really wants to see that happen, but another part of my really doesn’t want to find out what happens when you blow up a small nuclear reactor in the middle of the ocean.
part of my really doesn’t want to find out what happens when you blow up a small nuclear reactor in the middle of the ocean.
Probably not all that much. It’s heavily shielded and I assume buried deep inside the structure (to the point that “refueling” it means “tear the ship up for a refit and replace the entire reactor while you’re at it, because it’s inaccessible and can’t be refueled”), so the ship itself being made to take on water and sink probably wouldn’t crack it open. I have to assume there are also failsafes to make it shut down in the event of catastrophic failure, if nothing else because having it trying to run when submerged may make salvage operations untenable.
It would likely be less of an overall problem than all the other extremely toxic bullshit they no doubt have on board, or the oil and fuel that the oil tankers and cargo ships that would no doubt also get targeted would spew out when cracked open.
Aircraft carriers carry a ton of jet fuel, oil, and diesel as well.
The U.S. military is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if President Donald Trump orders an attack,
