I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
Those carriers are far from invincible.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
It did, and the US considered the outcome so concerning that they requested to lease the submarine (but not install a crew - Swedish sailors would operate it in the US navy). Since those were different times, with only mild insanity among US presidents, Sweden granted the request.
In 2004, the Swedish government received a request from the United States to lease HSwMS Gotland – Swedish-flagged, commanded and crewed, for one year for use in antisubmarine warfare exercises. The Swedish government granted this request in October 2004, with both navies signing a memorandum of understanding on 21 March 2005.[5][6] The lease was extended for another 12 months in 2006.[7][8][9] In July 2007, HSwMS Gotland departed San Diego for Sweden.[10]
I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
You mean like that time when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all the defenses and “sunk” the US carrier?
Or that time when Netherlands sub “sunk” one?
Or that time when Australia “sunk” one?
Or that time when Canada “sunk” one?
Those carriers are far from invincible.
The USA is historically bad at wars - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea - all lost despite their massive military spending.
The only wars they won in modern times are the ones where they received help from their EU NATO allies.
They’re only good at “strike and run away” operations, like the one in Venezuela.
If they can’t take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with NATO, with no certainty of winning.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Put up or shut up.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
It’s not.
Are they going to kill German & French troops to do that? If there are UK troops there then goodbye to hundreds of billions in AUKUS $ too.
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
Wasn’t it one of the Nordics that ‘sunk’ an American carried in drills a while back?
It did, and the US considered the outcome so concerning that they requested to lease the submarine (but not install a crew - Swedish sailors would operate it in the US navy). Since those were different times, with only mild insanity among US presidents, Sweden granted the request.
Wikipedia tells us:
One of? I thought it was several…