Help support TMP


POLL: Risking the Carriers


136 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP writes:

I agree with those who say, "If you aren't going to deploy them where needed, why build and maintain them at all?" And they obviously have many practical uses. That said, however, if the day comes when they can be trumped by a new weapon system that we don't see coming and cannot defend against, they will turn out to be simply another white elephant whose day has passed. This hasn't happened yet, but who's to say it never will? I bet there are entire departments of adversarial military establishments whose job it is to devise a strategy to take out American naval superiority in some efficient and asymmetrical way.


Back to the Homepage



1,102 hits since 21 Jun 2015
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
other (explain)
3
2%
bar of chart
yes, do not risk the carriers
12
9%
bar of chart
no, continue the current policy
103
76%
bar of chart
no opinion
18
13%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION
The U.S. currently operates its super-carriers in areas that expose them to risk from hostile Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) networks for example, the Persian Gulf.

The argument for the current policy is that using the carriers in this way ensures access to the "global commons" (international waterways) and helps to prevent war.

Critics claim that this indiscriminately puts the Fleet in harm's way.

Should the U.S. pull back its carriers from higher-risk areas?

Poll set up by Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian, based on this pre-poll discussion.