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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

Aircraft Carrier vs. AWP?

That'd be a sight.

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