"but that maintaining their existence encourages their use, leading inevitably to strategic and tactical blundering"

That's new, isn't it? Usually this hobby horse involves the waste of money and manpower, but I've never heard you mention that maintaining their existence would encourage their use. Wouldn't your beloved missile corps have the same problem?

"but that maintaining their existence encourages their use, leading inevitably to strategic and tactical blundering"

Any action undertaken by humans may result in a blunder. It has nothing to do with aircraft carriers as aircraft carriers and everything to do with our nature.

Posted by: Mikey at May 2, 2008 10:21 AM

Aircraft carriers are the most visible and spectacular demonstrations of American might and power. I don't know how many we need, but not having enough would be catastrophic for the whole world, even moreso than for us in particular.

Mine's bigger than yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_yachts_by_length

Bingo! The humans are the blunder.

Exactly. Dismantling the military but for missiles would encourage the use of the latter.

You fit a thousand carriers in a mushroom cloud.

"You fit a thousand carriers in a mushroom cloud."

There's actually an amusing story about how we inadvertantly revealed the yield of the nuke test at Bikini by releasing the aerial video that included several old WWII navy ships, including the Saratoga. Basically by putting a ruler down in the field it allows a trivial calculation of the yield through the propagation speed of the shockwave...

"Bingo! The humans are the blunder."

What are you talking about? See, this is how I know we're riding the hobby horse range - when it's like pulling teeth trying to get actual answers out of you. I think I'm getting your point, but if I am, then you're disregarding all that yap about being anti-human, so I just want to make sure.
You never did answer my question (another sign we're on the hobby horse).
Also, I know you're new to the Internet and all, but it's usually considered polite to either quote the person you're replying to (like I did) or address them by name. Especially given that your answers usually make no sense whatsoever, you're leaving your readers in the position of asking, "Was that bizarre non-answer directed at me or somebody else?" because you sure can't tell from context.

Bryan, but that's half the fun.

What could be more human than to not use any humans to fight your wars and to wage them so ferociously that folks will just cave rather than offer resistance?

No, I've always said that the problem with conventional military systems is that they foster conventional wars, thereby squandering our greatest advantage just so military brass can earn promotions instead of win wars efficiently.

We have 22 carriers (Wasp class included) and once the f-35 and uavs go online, those Wasps will be just as capable as a Nimitz or more so. I think the Navy sees this and wants to start the process on their end before someone else decides it for them.

Guys, you're going about this the wrong way. Just convince Mr. Telemetry here that there is nothing more beautiful than a CVN (I think that's the proper term) cutting through the ocean waters, and he'll want 20 of them, for cultural reasons alone.

We need them, primarily because missiles can't be recalled (and self-destructs are too risky).

Of course, if OJ loves his rockets so much, we might ask him which ones he likes best. The Minuteman III? Or a plain Jane Hellfire? And if he isn't keen on parking carriers in the Indian Ocean (or the Gulf), is he willing to fire hundreds of said rockets down on the Mog, on Bushehr, on an Al-Qaeda safe house in Karachi, on a flotilla of Iranian punts, or on a Chinese fleet blockading the Taiwan Strait? And just where will said rockets be fired from? A NAVY ship, perhaps?

Carriers are too important to be left to the whims of Congress (and Congressional staff). And the admirals. Better to keep them and watch the Chinese go bankrupt trying to keep up.

I like ratbert's idea. Bankrupt 'em. It worked once before.