Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (299408)	4/2/2009 3:02:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794396

That modern anti-ship missiles are far ahead of ship defenses Ahead perhaps, far ahead? Not in my opinion, esp. considering the carriers can striker from well beyond the range of most anti-ship missiles. I do think that the balance has been moving in the direction of the offense with more supersonic and/or highly maneuverable cruise missiles, and China trying to field an anti-ship ballistic missile, but I don't think that the advantage will necessarily keep shifting that way. Also the carriers aren't just about passive defense, but can initiate attack, or counter attack. In the Gulf the carriers might have to withdraw, if only because of the confined waters, and the fact that even a moderate or relatively small risk of losing a carrier would be considered unacceptable in anything short of a major war scenario (which such a risk would be unavoidable).