Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Hunt for Full-Spectrum ASW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    While the U.S. certainly has the option to respond to the loss of a CVN with nukes, the circumstances will dictate the response that actually occurs. I would expect that nuclear retaliation would be far more likely in the event of an ambush of a CVN in peacetime as opposed to losing one in the course of a fleet action in the middle of a conflict.

    Nukes are more of a political weapon than a military one. The U.S. currently has enough conventional power to achieve the same military objectives that a nuclear strike would against all but a handful of countries.


    If North Korea or Iran managed to get a submarine into position to take a shot at a CVN, and the torpedo managed to hit something critical resulting in the loss of the carrier, the type of response would be a political choice. Conventional U.S. attacks could achieve any military objective that a nuclear strike would. The choice would come down to whether the POTUS was willing to pay the moral and political costs of a nuclear strike against a much weaker foe in order to send a message.


    If Russia or China were involved, the waters are murkier because they have nukes of their own. Then you have to decide if you flatten a single city in retaliation or if you go for a full counterforce strike and hope the GMD picks up any stragglers you missed. On the other hand, a massive conventional retaliation may suffice while avoiding nuclear escalation.

    I’m not sure relying on the bombing of Japan in the 1940s is much help as a precedent today since nuclear weapons were not well understood at the time.

    Comment

    Working...
    X