Comments by "Roberta Reynolds" (@robertareynolds2124) on "Biden dares Putin as U.S dispatches 'world's biggest' warship to patrol North Atlantic | Watch" video.

@sunilsilva8204 they may have 'annexed' portions of UKRAINE but the hard part is keeping it. seems to be a problem for russia.
4
just like russia and peace dont mix either
3
@brianlowe3529 i hope so .they started it. ukraine is finishing it. there are no nato troops battling russia in ukraine
2
only russia uses surface combatants as submarines
2
no country knows where all the other countries subs are.
1
everything can be a target by anything. the question is- do you want to go to war trying to sink A US CARRIER? are you willing to pay the price for the retaliation? are you willing to suffer greatly?
1
@T-80БВМ 🇷🇺 Z O V start what?
1
@robertdlucas7418 you seem to miss the US point of power projection. the carriers allow the US to park over 70 top line aircraft off of a coast. the US has fought wars with its carriers. we don't fight russia or china every day, at least not yet. the carriers have been used constantly by the US for power projection and war. you try to make a point that just because a hypersonic missile exists that the US navy should return its carriers to port because you say they are 'obsolete'. you miss the point that they are used extensively around the world and can send a powerful message to anyone. if there is a war with china or russia, it will be nuclear and the whole world would be a casualty. the carriers still venture to the territorial waters of russia and china. that means they are in range of their missiles. torpedo's can sink ships. should we not build ships because of the torpedo threat? should we not build planes because of surface to air missiles? russia said the moskva sank because of bad weather. its a lie but it makes them feel good for some reason. should we stop building ships because of bad weather? our planners are not foolish and short sided. the foolish and shorted sighted ones are those that think if there is a countermeasure that everyone will just give up and go home. havent seen that yet, have you?
1
 @robertdlucas7418 it was a senile president that was defeated in his own mind. dont underestimate the ability of the US to strike against its enemies.
1
@Sridhar.Ananthanarayanan so we should go around provoking world powers to fight us? you fight the wars that need to be fought. you learn from them. you build coalitions. you exercise with likeminded nations. are you saying because we have not fought a 'real power' we will just roll over and die? really?
1
@thelonegerman2314 all it takes is 1 nuclear missile to destroy some countries.
1
@robertdlucas7418 they dont cost 13 billion each. yes, china's navy is bigger. doesnt mean they have a qualitative edge yet. the ford is the lead ship in a redesign of the aircraft carrier. new technology costs money. our needs are debated by the military and congress. why are you so worried about the carriers?
1
@robertdlucas7418 what part of the hypersonic missile envelope are you missing? american carriers are STILL operating within the range of chinese and russian hypersonic missiles. america has its carriers near russian and china. every ship is a target. you seem to miss the fact that america does not fight a war with them everyday or at all. the carriers have and still are being used as power projection forces across the world. what you are saying makes no sense. you are fixated on russia and its hypersonic missiles. american goals have been achieved with carriers. we are not short sighted. torpedos sink ships. planes sink ships. missiles shoot down planes. do we get rid of planes and ships then?
1
@koushiksaikia4867 and so russia's ships cant be sunk either?
1
@Ukraine40 yes. the physical shockwave is still a problem but the radiation made the ships uninhabitable during the nuclear weapons tests at bikini atoll
1
@Ukraine40 yes they are. the US tested nuclear weapons against navy ships in 1946 and 1947.
1
the aircraft carrier does not exist in a vacuum. you can debate all you want about sinking or trying to sink an aircraft carrier. there are other questions to answer about an attack on a US carrier. everything can be targeted. some attacks will succeed. such is the nature of war. the question is- do you want to go to war trying to sink A US CARRIER? are you willing to pay the price for the retaliation? are you and your country willing to suffer greatly? when the US retaliates, do you want a full-scale war? how much of YOUR navy and armed forces do you want to lose? debate all you want since it is an academic exercise. it makes absolutely no difference.
1