It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
If an American carrier is ever sunk by any weapon system, I pity the nation that does it. Look what happened to Japan. Nuclear power or not the response would be brutal.



[edit on 13-12-2008 by Blue_Jay33]




posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If an American carrier is ever sunk by any weapon system, I pity the nation that does it. Look what happened to Japan. Nuclear power or not the response would be brutal.
[edit on 13-12-2008 by Blue_Jay33]
Why Can't an enemy sink an American carrier when it is initiating an attack on another nation half way across the world ? You mean America can invade/attack any country they so wished and not expect to be attacked ? Are Countries not allowed to defend themselves ? Are you saying that ?

What is not brutal about an American invasion/attack, against a brutal american respond when enemy retaliate by sinking their carrier launching apparatus of destruction ? What is there for the intented enemey to loose either way ?

WWII Japan is a bad example, since America is more likely to be acting the part of Japan. It's only the "Free and Balanced" American propaganda News agencies singing a bias and slanted view, leading the way.

I think you should reflect on your Imperium mindset that "USA owns the world".

[edit on 14-12-2008 by mobydog]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mobydog
 


I am not saying I agree with American policy, I don't, but their responses in the past show what they would do. Whatever country does it would have there military infostructure wiped out within days.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 
Well, I don't agree. Nearly every third world country's infrastructure was targeted by any US so-called "Intervention. They just called it "collateral Damage".

In Japan's case, it was the attack on US Homeland that triggered the respond - Like every other countries with retaliation capabilties would. It's called revenge. Something Third world countries can't afford nor has the resources. What other countries ever mounted an attack on US homeland ? Iraq ? Afghanistan ? Most of the 9/11 are Saudi, and my son's civil engineering faculty can't even agree on how the hell WTC7 came down the way it did, or even why it did ?

I don't think China is a "cake walk" or "Be back by Christmas" theme. They tried that in Korea... and I don't believe in Carrier layered defense being invincible. All they need is one missile hit and you have hell of a fire on board... The whole ship is laden and spread out with aircraft lubes and fuel... out of action.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by mobydog]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If an American carrier is ever sunk by any weapon system, I pity the nation that does it. Look what happened to Japan. Nuclear power or not the response would be brutal.



[edit on 13-12-2008 by Blue_Jay33]


I think you'd do better to consider whether the US can afford to lose a carrier. It would cause a national trauma...and it would not be the last ship to be destroyed.

4,000 dead and the US is ready to quit Iraq, that should tell you something.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If an American carrier is ever sunk by any weapon system, I pity the nation that does it. Look what happened to Japan. Nuclear power or not the response would be brutal.



[edit on 13-12-2008 by Blue_Jay33]
And thats your problem of NOT understanding, if it's a nuke power it will result in a counter strike that will be BRUTALISED back if U.S.A. decides to attack "brutally" as you say.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by mobydog
 


I am not saying I agree with American policy, I don't, but their responses in the past show what they would do. Whatever country does it would have there military infostructure wiped out within days.
I mean you do understand that Russia has the capacity to "WIPE OUT" U.S.A.'s military in days also don't you


[edit on 14-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 


no thats not the way warfare works in the real world - the response would be a measured one , not open a can of woopass ; if china sank a US carrier in the taiwan straits , when china goes after taiwan - and the usa nuked china - i ask you this - would you like to glow in the dark when china nukes the USA right back? or do you think they would use conventional weapons and bomb the airfields or bases of the attackers careful not to take it to the next level.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 121200

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by mobydog
 


I am not saying I agree with American policy, I don't, but their responses in the past show what they would do. Whatever country does it would have there military infostructure wiped out within days.
I mean you do understand that Russia has the capacity ti "WIPE OUT" U.S.A.'s military in days also don't you




Post like this serve no purpose. Russia would wipe out the US military in a few days? Is that what you are saying?



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   


4,000 dead and the US is ready to quit Iraq, that should tell you something.


Keeping in mind only a minority of Americans have any desire to be there, let alone the furor over its legitimacy, and the constant propaganda and ill news coming out of it..

Keep in mind we invaded two countries, initiating regime change and dropped tens of millions of munitions in response to an attack that killed 2,000+ with no clear source.

Imagine being an identifiable nation who attacks a symbol of military prestige and kills thousands of service men.

There is no diplomacy in the world that would quell the call for revenge, and remember that attacking what is essentially a military base worth billions, and killing thousands, is an act of war. There is no 'Oops' when it comes to Supercarriers.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Iblis
 


Funny thing about the Oops on the supercarrier, it would require massive resources to simply sink a carrier, let alone bypass the carrier battle group to get close enough to completely sink one.

They're built for one thing, survivability, take out it's flight deck and Control center and you halt flight operations, but I doubt anyone will succeed in sinking a carrier.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by 121200
 


no thats not the way warfare works in the real world - the response would be a measured one , not open a can of woopass ; if china sank a US carrier in the taiwan straits , when china goes after taiwan - and the usa nuked china - i ask you this - would you like to glow in the dark when china nukes the USA right back? or do you think they would use conventional weapons and bomb the airfields or bases of the attackers careful not to take it to the next level.
He said that the country that sank a U.S. Cairrer would have it's military destroyed with in days, and I'm saying if it was Rus taht sank the Carrier and U.S.'s response was to massivly attack thier bases the response would be the same (nuke or conventional), and thats a FACT wheather YOU believe it or not.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by Iblis
 


Funny thing about the Oops on the supercarrier, it would require massive resources to simply sink a carrier, let alone bypass the carrier battle group to get close enough to completely sink one.

They're built for one thing, survivability, take out it's flight deck and Control center and you halt flight operations, but I doubt anyone will succeed in sinking a carrier.

Shattered OUT...
Who told you that a simple anti-ship missile with a nuke warhead will get the job done.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 


thats not the way the real world works - maybe on counter strike or other computer game it does , but the real world is something different; if the US lost a carrier then the response would be a measured one - destroy the airbase the aircraft came from.

or do YOU want to DIE in a NUCLEAR war.

oh look i can use capitals in sentences as well



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Do you understand what I was saying if you do, then your respons should have been for him, not me, but as usualy you DON'T



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


There are no aircraft carriers in COUNTER STRIKE.




[edit on 15/12/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Aircraft Carrier vs. AWP?

That'd be a sight.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



capabilities that China does not yet posses.


How do you know Mr.Smarty-Pants?

Does China pass everything by you first - or confide in you personally?

Sorry man, but I truly despise people who talk like know-it-alls - Especially about military secrets and capabilities of other countries!

Try adding in a *IN MY OPINION* to your posts in the future unless you can prove how you know the information you purport to be true.


We have no real idea the capabilities China might or might not possess in regards to their military capabilities or lack there of.

If nothing else this post generated many questions concerning China, and, just what steps they're going to take concerning the USA, the new President and the fact the USA owes them trillions of dollars that cannot be paid back.


*P*E*A*C*E*




[edit on 15-12-2008 by silo13]



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Keeping in mind only a minority of Americans have any desire to be there, let alone the furor over its legitimacy, and the constant propaganda and ill news coming out of it..


What constant negative propaganda and ill news? How could the news coverage by any more one sided than it is without removing any pretense that the US is in fact a somewhat free society?

What furor of it's legitimacy are we talking about here? The one where even the guard dog of western imperialism , the UN, have condemned this war as illegal? What we need, for a change, is the United states occupied by UN 'peacekeepers'; see how they like it.


Keep in mind we invaded two countries, initiating regime change and dropped tens of millions of munitions in response to an attack that killed 2,000+ with no clear source.


In fact the US government do not need such pretexts to invaded countries so frankly they couldn't have asked for anything more than this large scale attack. Since i at least know that these were no mere 'terrorist' ( as identified as people who do not represent the interest of a particular government) i am fairly confident that the US government can not and will not always respond with force against foreign governments who kill it's citizens. What it has done in the past and will continue to do in the future is to fight nations it can defeat ( and then still sometimes 'lose') and hide the attacks by first world nations as best it can without declaring war or even instigating or reinforcing economic warfare.


Imagine being an identifiable nation who attacks a symbol of military prestige and kills thousands of service men.


So say we find that the Rf and China were behind the attacks of 9-11? What would the US government have done or what could they do?


There is no diplomacy in the world that would quell the call for revenge, and remember that attacking what is essentially a military base worth billions, and killing thousands, is an act of war. There is no 'Oops' when it comes to Supercarriers.


Right and they would go to war with a nation that could in fact destroy their power base merely out of 'conviction', right. These people are in power to serve vested interest and as far as i can tell most of the interests would be in no way served with a nuclear war that leaves ten or hundreds of millions of Americans dead. These guys would perpetually obscure the identity of the true attackers and blame terrorist. They would then raise the pentagon budget massively and build more aircraft carriers, attack submarines, Air superiority fighters and strike fighters because we all know you really need those things in a war against terrorist who have no such forces.

Admittedly these type of arms procurements can be explained by other means ( intelligence &military industrial complex ) but if they are procured to in fact fight 'terrorist' it's most certainly Russian or Chinese state sponsored terrorism and not guys in caves.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 



We have no real idea the capabilities China might or might not possess in regards to their military capabilities or lack there of.


Nice fall - back arguement you've got there. Next time I get stuck you know what I'm going to say? "We have no real idea the capabilities nation xx might or might not possess in regards to their military capabilities or lack there of."



Uh, maybe as explained on pages one, two, three, and four...? Perhaps? Or maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps nothing on this site is correct, as it's all hearsay you know? We don't know for sure? How do you destroy a carrier hauling it at 35 knots, then attempt to destroy it with a ballistic missile? Do you know what ballistic means? What if the carrier changes course? How do you launch a missile at something when you cannot see it?

[edit on 15/12/2008 by C0bzz]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join