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: carranza2 who wrote (464322)	1/10/2012 11:31:43 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

A fleet of subs with cruise missiles is in my opinion much more effective than an exposed and horribly expensive carrier. This is why you see the second rate countries go this route.

To: carranza2 who wrote (464322)	1/10/2012 11:47:35 AM
From: robert a belfer	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793964

<I would think that satellite surveillance might make it very difficult to hide a carrier task force nowadays. > Yea, it was hard in the 80's also but we worked hard at it and succeeded. You have a mostly valid point WRT anti-ship ballistic missiles. As best as I can recall that was the reason the Navy gave for cancelling a new ship program after 10 years and a billion in R&D. I do question your statement about needing to protect a billion dollar ship with 100% effectiveness. That would be nice but it is a WARSHIP.