The US has known this for a while. The fact that new Russian/Chinese hypersonic cruise missiles render US carriers into floating ducks. Because US has no defense against such weapons that fly at cruise algorythms and at speeds 5 times speed of sound.
This is the main reason US has recently updated their nuclear doctrine to say they have the right to respond to a conventional attack with nukes. They did not want to be put in the possition of losing a couple of carriers and then being forced to basically wave the white flag and call all carriers back home.
Releasing the new doctrine makes them ready for such event and they would wash their hands with it after nuking a dozen chinese or russian cities. Of course the doctrine does not take into account that most likely they would retaliate and it would mean the nd of civilization. But perhaps they can respond to any other country not named china or russia with success. Like Iran or N Korea
Question is. Is it a bit irresponsible of US to have our thousands of boys conducting missions in the cariers which basically could get sunk by a single missile??
Why keep the expansionism? Why not cut back until you develop proper protection??
This is why also probably congress basically handed the pentagon a trillion dollars and told them dont come back until you have a solution to this “problem”
But why not call back our boys in the meantime???
Reply With Quote
ma niga
