>>6485246

Nukes at sea have been a reality for literally 5 decades, anon.

Carriers DO have a defense against attacks from nuke ballistic and/or cruise missiles. In fact, it's a 2-part defense. The first part is, simply, tiny-ship-big-ocean. Carriers routinely evade satellite detection by using weather fronts, known satellite tracks/capabilities, etc., for planning their courses.

Part 1 summary - if you can't find 'em, you can't nuke 'em.

The 2nd part of the defense is that the carrier is the fastest ship in the ocean, by A LOT. I've seen carriers "walk down" cruisers and destroyers at flank speed on calm waters and just blow past them. Their advertised top speed, like the cruisers and destroyers, is always "33 kts". It's actually quite a bit more. Cruisers/destroyers can reach speeds upwards of 45 kts, and conservative estimates of carrier speeds are roughly 20kts faster than that.

And since the "road" is pretty flat at sea, in every direction, the carrier has nearly unlimited options in which to skedaddle away from an impact point at a rate of speed that puts it over-the-horizon from the hyper-cruise missile, and well away from the impact point of a ballistic missile (BM's are aimed at fixed points - they don't have mid-course or terminal guidance to attack maneuvering targets).

Part 2 summary - carriers can get outa dodge fast.

Perfect defenses? No. Substantial? Yes.

>>6485514

A torp detonated below ANY ship is a concern.

That's how they work. We've known it for decades also. Torps aren't designed to strike ships the way they did in WW2…they detonate below the hull, creating an air pocket that rapidly rises to the surface. The ship sits suspended on the surface of the ocean by means of displacement (if you've ever floated a needle on the surface of a glass of water, that's how displacement works.) Well, without the water to displace, a pocket of air is now below the ship - and it's not going to be suspended on that!

So the ship literally cracks in half as it "falls into" that hole of air underneath it…and sinks muy rapidly. Loss of all hands is actually a fairly likely outcome in those cases. Vid related

>>6485624

Compleat bullshit. Airborne EW systems don't have enough power to completely blind an AEGIS ship, and they sure as hell can't shut it's engines down.

Don't spend all your rubles in one place, Komerad.

>>6485668

Pic 3, she looks like a red lawn dart. Too bad somebuddy doesn't pick 'er up and hurl her skyward about a hunnerd feet…

I'd get a kick out of seeing how much of her would get burried face-first before the rest of her goes splat. And the red dress would make cleanup less obviously messy.

>>6485658

Low five, Bruh. Drink to the foam

>>6485652

Not. One. Bit.

It pains me to say it, but it would actually be a blessed relief in a small sense. A lot less suffering of trapped sailors drowning or slowly suffocating.

May that never come to pass.

>>6485764

And you haven't even scratched the surface of all the other proofs out there…

0% is just not a good enough way to express it. If you went outside, dug a hole about 30 feet deep, and then threw a "0%" sign in and buried it, THAT might actually express the percentage in a way that most people could understand. Feels an' all that, ya know.

>>6485779

Ok, so you're good at math, but the English thing, you don't do too good.

I was strongly agreeing with you

Re-read. And this time don't try to mentally convert it to octal.

>>6485805

Fair winds