Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

butwhatfor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 245 posts

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#121

Post by JackFr »

tpmx wrote: post #46
pmontra wrote: post #15

In other wargames: You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2]. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste... [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...

[1]: > Key Point: Why are we still building aircraft carriers when even Sweden can sink them? Oi. Still a fair question, though.

Because nothing else can do what they do.

Yes they’re expensive. Yes they’re more vulnerable than in the past. But they can do things nothing else can. Is there another cheaper way to set up a complete airbase wherever you want 10000 miles from home?

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#122

Post by lumost »

onepointsixC wrote: post #85
fmajid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborg... General Van Riper used low-tech but effective techniques like using motorcycle messengers to transmit orders in a way that could not be intercepted by US ELINT/COMINT or blocked by jamming. We are lucky Saddam did not have inventive Marine generals, because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his r…

You're missing the part where those motorcycle messengers move at the speed of light, that the speed boats used were tiny commercial ones which could have never loaded let alone fired the heavy cruise missiles used and that blue force's defenses were off because the simulator otherwise would unintentionally target civilian shipping and aviation. If the Iranians could have they would have done so already. There's a re…

> If the Iranians could have they would have done so already. There's a reason why they had resorted to militias and sectarian violence in Iraq instead.

A successful strike on a US carrier group would inevitably lead to large scale reprisals on both the attacking force and the nation launching the attack. Iran wouldn't kill a carrier just to prove they could, and would instead reserve such an attack for the event of a Carrier group attacking something of existential importance to the Iranian state.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#123

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

pmontra wrote: post #15

In other wargames: You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2]. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste... [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...

I don't think the USA ever intended to actually fight a war in the South China Sea. The carrier groups stationed there have always just been deterrents/security for USA allies (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan) to develop and prosper in the region. Which will have much greater long-term security benefits for the world and for USA.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#124

Post by cpleppert »

fatbird wrote: post #120
cpleppert wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.

People here keep citing the wargames with retired Gen. Riper, who sank the USN repeatedly from the perspective of a non-peer adversary using non-technological methods to organize, and disposable, low value swarming assets to overwhelm American defenses. Both Iraq and North Vietnam had patrol boat navies and the wherewithal to invest in attacking a carrier, but didn't.

I guess the simplest answer is they didn't launch an attack because they couldn't. Specialized torpedo boats cannot generally penetrate a destroyer or cruiser screen without assistance. There is no viable way to even get into position to threaten a carrier as such a movement will be detected on radar long before a threat materializes. Even when American ships engaged in offensive operations close to the north Vietnamese coast they came out on top in clashes involving patrol boats making a large offensive operation unappealing.

The red force in the millenium challenge had access to significant capabilities that Iraq and Vietnam did not have access to such as incredibly accurate anti-ship cruise missiles.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#125

Post by magicsmoke »

JackFr wrote: post #119
willhslade wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.

The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#126

Post by epicureanideal »

ansible wrote: post #105
onepointsixC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

Yes. By the end of the war, the USA had more carriers than then entire IJN surface fleet. Never mind all the cruisers, destroyers and such. And the fuel to run them. The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.

I wonder why the US doesn’t produce a bunch of WW2 style carriers with light aircraft or helicopters. I’m aware the US has several helicopter carriers, but I would imagine we could build dozens of the things for the price of a nuclear carrier. Obviously they wouldn’t stand up to a near peer competitor but they could be useful for small scale conflicts with far less advanced militaries, which seems to be the pattern lately.

Update: It looks like there are such things, called “amphibious assault ships”. Apparently there are 7 of this type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assaul... and 2 of a more recent type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_ass.... It seems they’re about the same length and overall size as a WW2 carrier.

So that’s interesting. So there are 11 large nuclear powered carriers and 9 of these smaller type. That’s already kind of a lot.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#127

Post by magicsmoke »

fighterpilot wrote: post #61
sthnblllII wrote: post #54

FDR goaded Japan into that attack by cutting off their oil and suppressed intelligence about the impending attack to ensure a decisive entry into WWII over the opposition of 90% of the American public. Having political leadership so opposed to the will of the people is a state US 'democracy' seems perpetually unable to end, re Iraq, Vietnam, WWI, WWII etc. Hearing US lecture governments that fight on behalf of their…

Do you have a cite for the suppression of US intelligence prior to the attack? The mainstream history sources I've read have suggested no such thing and led me to believe the US really was caught with their pants down. The Japanese sent an envoy to alert the US after the attack started, but while trying to maintain plausible deniability that they tried to make contact beforehand. Also why would you pin the fundamenta…

FDR didn't cut off Japan's oil because of their occupation of China. During Japan's occupation starting 1937 American companies were making plenty of war profits supplying oil and metal to Japan's military, with the US government only sending strongly worded letters.

Japan's oil was cut off in 1941 because they started seizing Southeast Asian colonies of European powers that had been occupied by Germany in 1940, and these colonies were significant suppliers of oil and rubber for the conflict in Europe. If Japan had limited its activities to China the US might have continued its war profiteering indefinitely.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#128

Post by lumost »

JackFr wrote: post #121
tpmx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1]: > Key Point: Why are we still building aircraft carriers when even Sweden can sink them? Oi. Still a fair question, though.

Because nothing else can do what they do. Yes they’re expensive. Yes they’re more vulnerable than in the past. But they can do things nothing else can. Is there another cheaper way to set up a complete airbase wherever you want 10000 miles from home?

A naive totaling of the Capex per CSG is roughly 24.3 Billion dollars. This does not include the cost of munitions.

An interesting question is whether you actually need a mobile airbase which necessitates large quantities of costly defensive weapons ( The new Ford carrier sails with 6 1.8 Billion dollar Arleigh-Burke class Destroyers ).

Considering a tomahawk costs roughly 1 million dollars, it may be more efficient for the Navy's power projection goals to use more portable missile platforms instead of a mobile airbase.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#129

Post by Aeolun »

ansible wrote: post #105
onepointsixC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

Yes. By the end of the war, the USA had more carriers than then entire IJN surface fleet. Never mind all the cruisers, destroyers and such. And the fuel to run them. The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.

I don’t think it was ever their goal to straight up fight the US. They just wanted the US standing navy ruined so that they could go about their business in the Pacific.

I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#130

Post by NotSammyHagar »

mc32 wrote: post #29
JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that Japan did not bomb native settlements and cities where civilians and natives lived - only the occupying force. Ah yes, Imperial Japan, known for it's incredible humanity toward civilians.

Yeah especially considering their attitude toward civilians in Nanking/Nanjing, Manchuria and The Philippines.

And Korea and everyone, right? The us had its racism, blocking of black pilots for most of the war, and rounding up and basically forcing the loss of businesses for Japanese Americans. It's painful to imagine my grandparents supported all those things too, cause I asked them. Imagine the after the war differences too.
Post reply on HN