US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

Ahh thats wrong they had the uss Wisconsin & uss Missouri from 1986 till 1992 the were in commission before &,during the gulf war

America, having all that electronic gadgetry for warfare and defence, nothing that a nuclear air burst couldn't take out. So there you are, a couple of aircraft carriers steaming along to some predetermined position like chess pieces on a board, and just as they arrive, they are greeted with a nuclear air burst whose emp knocks out all electronics, leaving the ships and crew at the mercy of enemy planes. Russia or China would only need one sub to achieve this. The best tactic for war is to distract and to disarm, and Russia has already shown it can do that!

a reply to: elysiumfire

You realize that military equipment is shielded six ways from Sunday right? A single EMP is not going to take it out.

a reply to: elysiumfire
ive often wondered about this,
is that even possible?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Aegis,P8'S,drones,Hawkeye,Lamps....you've got to get close enough to let the emp off first

a reply to: autopat51

It could be done, but it would require a directed pulse, at extremely high power levels to burn through the shielding.

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
If the United States is so weak, why doesn't anyone attack instead of talk? It's because we would destroy them if they did.

Like the 22 Terrorist's back in 2001 ? from then to now the US has become a Rabid Psychotic Serial Killer who has been hell bent on invading more Countries than it usually did. I bet the Romans thought back in the day they were invincible as well.

If WW3 started I would be more worried of the Americans than any other nation, no other Country has used Nuclear weapons on civilians and the USA see's everyone and everything as a hostile enemy.

That's because they were the first. Anyone would have done it to end WWII, you bet your ass if the nazis, or ANYONE, got their first, they would have used them.

The us navy wouldn't last a week in Detroit !
Just saying

originally posted by: Denoli
The us navy wouldn't last a week in Detroit !
Just saying

I dont think they would last a week in Nevada

I think it's difficult to predict how the U.S armed forces would fare in a third world war, let alone the U.S. Navy.

The United States haven't faced a comparable military force since the Second World War. The nearest analogy I can think of is the British military at the outbreak of the First World War. Discounting the obvious size difference, the British hadn't faced a major European power in about 50-60 years. They had fought smaller forces such as in the Boer War, although they hadn't really needed such a huge military due to the Royal Navy.

I digress but basically I think it's hard to determine. The U.S. undoubtedly is incredibly hi-tech and they don't sit around twiddling their thumbs. A case in point is that the U.S. Navy is now using laser weapons, which although early days is quite an innovation. They always try to keep ahead of the competition to prevent any challenge to their power on land, sea. air, space or even online.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: elysiumfire

You realize that military equipment is shielded six ways from Sunday right? A single EMP is not going to take it out.

Not to mention the second Russia utilises a nuclear airburst to knock out a carrier group, Moscow gets nuked, and the world is destroyed.

a reply to: Answer

....and what makes you believe that? What you see on the Western Military Channel? LMAO

Next time you say something like this, just remember....the Soviet Union got to Nazi technology before the U.S. or Britain did. And it AAAALLLLLLLLL stems back to WW2 and recovered Nazi technology...if you cannot accept this then you will never understand these "private agendas."

a reply to: moeron60

And until they got access to better jet engines they had, and still have, trouble with jet engines. So your point is?

a reply to: Answer

The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.

No not quite that many, but certainly a technological advantage, especially the Virginia-class...

a reply to: khnum

Er, that'd be more like 10 carriers for the US, but you could add carrier-sized landing ships to those totals that likes of China don't really have.

a reply to: mazzroth

no country in the world can match its power on the seas and oceans of the world

No it's previous clear that's not the case...

a reply to: Morg234

Most fleet breakdowns consider the LHA/LHD class ships carriers. They're similar in size to carriers used by other nations, so they're lumped into that group.

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: Answer

The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.

No not quite that many, but certainly a technological advantage, especially the Virginia-class...

Id take a Astute class over a Virginia
You have 3 and soon to be 7 of those on your side.

a reply to: crazyewok

Virginia class boats? We have 11 currently in service, with a 12th scheduled for August. Four Block I, 6 Block II which were built in four sections, instead of 10, and one Block III which uses a Large Aperture Bow sonar array, and 2 VLS tubes of 6 missiles.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Virginia class boats? We have 11 currently in service, with a 12th scheduled for August.

No I was talking Astute.

We only have I think 3 built and another 4 to build for a fleet of 7


Plus point was to the above poster dont only do the Russians have Virginia subs to worry about but Astutes as well with are on par or if some reports are right have a slight edge.

I used the you to refer to the fact if SHTF with Russia our subs will be working with your subs.