Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Just when will aircraft carriers become obsolete?" video.

The problem is that everyone will have to cut spending at the same time. As long as there are threats around, we will try to counter those threats. And as countries try to produce ever more advanced weaponry to counter the supremacy of the other, budgets rise or at the least stay high. This process only stops if all at the same time decide to back down and shrink their defence budget. Otherwise we risk falling behind, which could have significant geopolitical consequences that'll cost us dearly.
2
@Chuck_Hooks That's cute... you think 28.000 US troops have stopped a NK invasion and not the 464.000 man South Korea military. Next you're going to tell me a few thousand US troops have stopped a Russian invasion into Western Europe instead of the 1.6 million strong combined EU military. But you're absolutely right that the main aspect of the credible US deterrent is its expressive political support for South Korea (demonstrated by frequent training and such) and its actual technical capability to transport men and equipment there. The men stationed there now are useless. Nothing more than a political gesture that the US has SK's back.
1
Where are you even getting this from? Russia's strategy barely involves naval surface power. Western Europe alone would crush them, let alone with US support. They're mainly a land + air based military. All Russia cares about is being able to defend against carriers and that they can.
1
No, of course not. Who would cause an all out nuclear apocalypse because a fucking carrier sank? Even in Korea, when the US didn't have to deal with nuclear deterrence yet and a nuke was needed to prevent China from nabbing North Korea, the US decided against using it. The nuclear option is the absolute last option available and will of course not be used for a mere carrier.
1