Norks are being surly

[KD5NRH]

Okay, they can sink our carriers, destroy a full battle group.  But they and we know full well what that would mean.

Obama would send every ship and plane we have, loaded down with every sort of gift they could want.

He might include a card with a stern warning.

[Racehorse]

China is not interested in starting a war with us. Remember all that money we owe them? If they start a war with us their chances of collecting that debt drop to zero. The only way they start a war is if they are bent on some nationalist fantasy of global domination like Nazi Germany and Japan had. For right now, at least, they seem much more interested in getting rich.

This North Korea stuff is just the result of the Krazy Kims, in my opinion. China can't denounce it too aggressively as North Korea is at least a nominal ally. But they really don't want war with the U.S.

[AJ Dual]

At the risk of repeating myself from the redundant round-table thread... you all have it.

Two things:

1. They had just gotten caught with a new uranium enrichment program. EVERY TIME they feel the need to strengthen their position in talks/negotiations, they have an "incident" or blow something up, launch a rocket. They do this like clockwork. The ROK/U.S. just ought to offer the DRPK an old ship to blow up every time it happens instead, it's so predictable.

2. Jong Jr. or whatever his name is starting to be publicly groomed for succession. Maintaining the state of external crisis keeps things more secure internally against a coup etc.

I think that's really all there is to it.

Of course, the risk is always that even if the Nork's don't really "mean it", shooting at crap... it could blow up into something bigger oh so easily. And possibly not understanding a free democratic/capitalist nation, they may one day miscalculate when the ROK will just get tired of it and decide to end it once and for all.

[Jamisjockey]

We all know that the NK is financially bust. They can't feed their people.
Anyone know how much war making they can actually engage in? 
Obviously, I agree that they are just sabre rattling.  Coo Coo for coco puffs commies and all that.
But I'm wondering, if it were to escalate....without direct help from China, how much war could the Norks make?
War requires fuel and food.  Lots of it.

[tyme]

It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.

Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated?  Missile cruisers are where it's at.  I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.

What kinds of missions absolutely require planes vs guided (cruise) missiles, anyway?

[Jamisjockey]

It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.

Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated?  Missile cruisers are where it's at.  I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.

What kinds of missions absolutely require planes vs guided (cruise) missiles, anyway?

Most drones don't have the capacity of the average carrier fighter or attack aircraft.  I just don't think we're there yet.

[tyme]

For the cases where we really need manned planes in the air, aren't F35s pretty much designed to be a "good enough" option for most purposes?  If F35s can't handle something, do current carriers carry aircraft that are better suited, or would we send in cruise missiles, B2s, and F22s at that point anyway?

More directly: what will we be able to do with 8-9 active carriers with mostly F35s that we couldn't do with 5?  Other than a conventional war with Russia or half a dozen smaller wars (in which case in my non-military opinion we should be more selective or get out faster in other wars, rather than letting those sorts of small wars pile up)?

[French G.]

For the cases where we really need manned planes in the air, aren't F35s pretty much designed to be a "good enough" option for most purposes?  If F35s can't handle something, do current carriers carry aircraft that are better suited, or would we send in cruise missiles, B2s, and F22s at that point anyway?

Combat sustainability is why the carriers are there. A survivable airfield with weapons, fuel, food and parts. One that we don't need permission to establish somewhere. Flying an F22 or B2 12-24 hours one way to attack something is not too practical for very long.

[MicroBalrog]

It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.

Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated?  Missile cruisers are where it's at.  I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.

The place where an aircraft carrier has an advantage over a missile cruiser is this:

Sight.

Carrier aircraft, patrolling at a decent range from the ship, can extend your reaction and RADAR range by hundreds of kilometers (horizon distance kicks in). A carrier can strike out to 800, 900 kilometers against ships, and far more against fixed ground installations.

[vaskidmark]

Carriers and carrier task forces probably do not figure as much in current and  future global warfare, except as mop-up assurance the "the other guys" are well and truely dead.

Carriers are wonderful for carrying out disaster relief and other showings of the colors.  Their accompanying task force vessels enhance that capability.

Carriers on current and near-term future deployments also serve exceptionally well in keeping braggart Navy and Marine Corps aviators out of bars.  

IMHO the Norks are not going to invade or otherwise try to totally blow up ROK, Japan or any other place.  They appear to be so close to internal collapse that saber-rattling to try to extort food, energy and capital is moreso a death rattle.  Further, IMHO, the Chinese are starting to act like the Soviets did towards Cuba - cutting aid and financial support as well as political championship.  While China may have the natural resources and manpower, I do not see them being able to convert their ligt manufacturing and plastics industry into the heavy industry needed to support a major East Pacific war, let alone a global war.

I'm not sure but the odds seem to be that the Russians, now that they have lost their sattelites, both do not have the industrial capacity or the desire to convert from peacetime capitalistic industry to wartime industry.

The Norks are much like the Iranians, except there is no Israel nearby to nuke them into a glass-covered desert.

I'm not thinking that the current administration would ever consider this, but some future administration is going to finally decide if we are going to continue being the international Bruce Lee who beats up every bully, but does not actually kill them, or if we are going to go full Chuck Norris and rip their heads off.  Either that or join the EU as a junior partner.

stay safe.