Our Allies Must Abandon America, For Their Own Good
The sooner our allies accept that America can no longer be trusted with global leadership, the better prepared they'll be for the turbulent times ahead.
Sorry this situation assumes that no one uses nukes. With nukes, yeah we can't do it. Without them I'm pretty sure we have enough carriers to shut down world shipping in three places at once.
And even without nukes, you think the whole world combined wouldn't be able to wipe out a few carriers, assuming they didn't just ignore them and take the longer way around? Tell me, in how many wars have modern US carriers fought ships from modern navies? Can you tell me how many anti-ship missiles a carrier and its screen could successfully defend against? What do you think about the report the US Navy released that said, in simulated war games, US naval ships were only able to stop attacks from a drone swarm roughly half the time? Now tell me which world superpower that might be hanging around the Indian ocean has invested billions in drone tech, and just launched their first drone aircraft carrier? A nation that is just one of several that now has drone carriers as warships?
Naval power has been significantly degraded in last couple of years. Ukraine has damaged Russian ships a fair bit away from its coast. Houthis have either damaged or scared off US ships from red sea. Nuclear missiles could always knock out an entire carrier fleet, and there is much less of a taboo for "purely military target", and there is no MAD retaliation justification if the fleet is far away from home country. Taboo is furthermore based on respecting a country/military as being underserved of losing.
The US military strength is exaggerated by reputation. It spends a lot on poor value equipment. Both Russian and US (Israel enhanced version) 5th gen aircraft have very shy use to cost and embarrassment of combat failure. It's debt levels are a threat to US financial stability, and so it was on a path to self destruction anyway.
I think you underestimate how many carrier groups we have. We underestimate it most of the time. No. I don't think that the rest of the world currently has the stockpile of munitions necessary to actually take on the US military and win without nukes. We might lose as many as 10 or 11 of the diesel carriers. The nuclear carriers would mostly survive them dumping everything they have at us, with current stockpiles. All told we might go from 24-25 current carriers down to 11-12. More than enough to blockade as long as we want, and shut global trade down. At that point every other military is fucked, because no one else has a blue water Navy.
You're out of your mind, and seriously overestimating the defensive powers of a carrier and its screen. There is no way even several carrier groups could blockade just the Indian ocean for a few weeks, even if the only nation that fought back was China. Even if they managed to shoot down everything thrown at it, there is absolutely no chance any several carrier groups combined could stand up to the many thousands of ship killing cruise missiles and drones, let alone traditional aircraft and naval vessels, that China alone could toss at them. They simply do not have the ammunition onboard to support that kind of mission, and no way for supply ships to resupply them fast enough to beat attrition.
Which is why the US is currently refurbishing old bases in the western pacific, so that we might have that ability in the future. The US military is saying we don't have the ability to fight an offensive war against China at this time, but what do they know? Obviously, some random person on Lemmy who has a hard-on for the US knows better, right?
I was willing to entertain your views before you resorted to ad-hominem attacks. I'm a former Captain of the USN that is still well respected. Looking at the data that I have had available to me, you are giving Russia and China far too much credit. We are done here.
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You should learn what words mean before you use them.
An ad hominem attack is a fallacious argument that criticizes a person instead of their argument.
No, an ad hominem is an argument that uses a personal attack to attempt to refute an opposing argument. So, if I say that your argument is invalid because you're a bootlicker, that's an ad hominem.
But if I say your argument is absurd, it has no merit whatsoever and it is nothing more than propagandist fantasy derived from nationalist zeal and a belief in American exceptionalism, and you're deranged for believing in such lunacy, then that's not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, there's the Fallacy fallacy, which states that just because an argument is fallacious, that it doesn't mean that it's a bad argument. There are plenty of ad hominems that are good arguments. For example, saying that nothing that comes out of Trump's mouth is worth listening to because he's a nazi is technically an ad hominem. It's also a good argument, because Trump is a nazi, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.