[Rush104]

Originally Posted by timbo

OK I should have said "consistently stopped the BIG one!" - There is no doubt in my mind that if we did not have the deterrent then WW3 would have happened some time in the last 50 years.

That is a good point. Like someone pointed out in an earlier post, it depends on how one defines "effectiveness".

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Rush104

I would say a ballistic missile sub is of very limited effectiveness. You cannot use it (as armed) in a conventional conflict. Even if it was used with conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, launching those missiles could be mistaken for a nuclear launch, with the attendant consequences.

SSBN's are a very effective strategic deterrent and the most effective weapon on the planet mainly because no country would want to be on the receiving end

As for conventional warfare, four of the earlier Ohio Class submarines are being adapted from their former SSBN usage to each carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles providing each with a similar capacity to a current battle group but with much more stealth - seems pretty effective to me

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

SSBN's are a very effective strategic deterrent and the most effective weapon on the planet mainly because no country would want to be on the receiving end

As for conventional warfare, four of the earlier Ohio Class submarines are being adapted from their former SSBN usage to each carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles providing each with a similar capacity to a current battle group but with much more stealth - seems pretty effective to me

That's true about the modified Ohios- this will allow them to be used in a conventional conflict.
As far as the boomers still carrying nukes- their deterrent effect is beyond question. But, again, they won't be used in a conventional war. Therefore, the actual combat effectiveness cannot be evaluated.
And if they ever were used, would anybody be left around to debate just how effective they were?

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by smartd

Other than Shawn, who posted the qualities of the individual airman, soldier, seaman, no other posting has convinced me that the nuclear carrier is not the system I want.
airplanes...fighters, bombers, stealth recon, anti sub, helo,..... got 'em
Marines/sailors/airmen and individual equipment...... got 'em, .....about 6.000 of 'em
Can I kill your sub?..... probably
Can I project force inland..... yes
Can I take a small air force, small army and naval force just about anywhere in the world,.... yup
Can I take out your strategic weapons yep
Can I make you pay if you screw with me... yes

Can you take me out, yes, but I will ruin your day.

Sorry chief, but my sub will have your carrier for breakfast -- then be contemplating the best way to serve up your country for lunch.

[smartd]

Originally Posted by JustPlaneNuttz

Sorry chief, but my sub will have your carrier for breakfast -- then be contemplating the best way to serve up your country for lunch.

Surely you forget the anti-submarine capabilities of carriers and their air wings.
Then of course you would have to penetrate my battle group which also includes one of those undersea stealthy things called attack subs,.... bang.... you're dead.

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by smartd

Surely you forget the anti-submarine capabilities of carriers and their air wings.
Then of course you would have to penetrate my battle group which also includes one of those undersea stealthy things called attack subs,.... bang.... you're dead.

Oh, I forgot -- carriers are an assemblage of weapons whereas a sub is only one (LOL!). Let me get another beer from the fridge and I'll show you get fried (ROTFLMAO!) Have a great weekend!