posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:24 PM
Of course the carriers are vulnerable. They have been vulnerable for the last half century. (I'm speaking of the nukes.) Yet they have been engaged
in every major conflict during this time. They've been in the Middle East for ages. Now they are there more or less two at a time. They have been
major players in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf. They can be anywhere in a few days with an "air force" more powerful than 90% of countries. (Yeah,
that's completely jingoistic, but the point is that they can and are.)
And yet, not a one has so much as been fired upon.
Basically they are 100,000 tons of sovereign American territory that can go anywhere in the world. No one, including the US Navy, thinks a Carrier
Strike Group is invulnerable. For someone to point out that the "carriers really are vulnerable" is kind of a moot point. Yet they float, doing
their job (such as it is) for decade after decade.
In an all-out conflict then no doubt the carriers would be exposed and even sunk. But we haven't had an all-out conflict. We don't want one. The
conflicts have been regional in nature--fortunately. Hopefully they'll stay that way.
And so those "vulnerable" carriers continue to do their job without harm or even threat to themselves, month after month, year after year, decade
after decade. They have a defensive shield that works well enough, and even though you can say, "Well, the Chinese have a carrier killer missile!"
or some other kind of threat you've read about somewhere, it doesn't really matter because they are not used.
If they ARE used, we've got much bigger problem than a few carriers. YOU are as vulnerable as they are.
So when, in your infintite expertise, you feel compelled to point out that carriers really are vulnerable, please understand that what you say is