The USA has a number of conventional powered carriers, we just don’t call them that. For that matter, the Russians don’t call the Kuznetsov a carrier either. Has nothing to do with the fuel - theirs is just an old rusting piece of junk.

With human sacrifice, no less (at least for the mustang side).

Did you miss the article on how difficult it is to actually sink a supercarrier? Never-mind the list of ships that have been hit but survived (USS Stark for one). Even the Gen. Belgrano, a former US ww2 light cruiser, sunk in the Falklands conflict, took more than one torpedo to sink. Even then, the second torpedo…

You’re way off base there. The only thing that would take out a ship of that size with appropriate armoring is a nuke, and that’s going to take out any number of ships. Even unarmored, a supercarrier takes more hits to sink than a destroyer.

1992 would be the last time a battleship fired on an enemy target (including use of the main guns), in Desert Storm. They were retired afterward, which is why they haven’t since.

And even then, both Yamato class ships took a ridiculous number of hits before they finally sank.

Now I want to see Torch’s take on the subject. :)

The rationale for a larger ship would be some combination of better power generation for advanced weapons, and better survivability. When we’re talking about something the size of a modern warship, you’re not going to make it harder to hit by going to destroyer size. A larger ship can beer better armored and have more…

For one, that’s no more so the case with thus than any other big ship, including the carriers. It would also arguably be more survivable than said carriers, so, explain exactly why you think the Navy would refuse to sail it into real battle?

This is the internet, where every fictional character is banging every other fictional character, somewhere in someone or other’s fanfic.

Lucio is definitely suave enough to pull this off, even if we mere mortals would look like complete idiots in it. :)

RIP, 007.

I happen to have been one of those soldiers, and one who was stationed in Korea no less. Perhaps you should educate yourself by talking to some of them. We’re not keen on fighting North Korea because of solid reasons, not because we’re a bunch of pansies. Yes, we’d “win”, but only at terrible cost in human lives,…

A single hit? Yeah, no - not sort of nukes, which are game over for anyone. Consider just how much damage it took to sink Japan’s Yamato class - 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs. Most modern antiship missiles wouldn’t do more than scratch the paint. That’s not why we moved on from battleships, it’s more that they were too…

Squirrels - bushy tailed tree rat.

Even if it isn’t, you’re often better off continuing straight ahead (and braking of course) . Damage from the collision with say a deer is bad, but running off the road into larger, harder objects (trees, other cars etc) can be more dangerous, not to mention that the deer may get itself out of the way.

Like I want to watch a movie about what I see everyday in my morning commute.

Yes, absolutely (I spent 2 years stationed there as well). The current situation isn’t “good”, but nobody has any better suggestions right now, and everyone more or less is capable of living with the status quo for the time being. We’ll see if that applies to Trump though.

It’s a possibility, but thus far all NK cyber attacks have been hands off/plausible deniability type deals. My worry is that Kim would feel the need for a more concrete, visible response to satisfy his generals.

Yes. This is “normal” going back decades. What isn’t normal is Trump. My worry is that somewhere between his whole bully/”alpha male”/etc bit being unable to quietly back off, taking this as a challenge, the whole Obama derangement syndrome bit of blaming Obama for not stopping NK’s nuke tests in the past, and his…