USA vs the World

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Tyrannical said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

starcraft said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.

The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters

Thats where "Star Wars" comes in. Shooting down ICBMs is just it's public purpose. I'm sure it can just as easily shoot planes down too. :)

"Star wars" doesn't work though