From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #135 Article-I.D.: ucb.1455 Posted: Fri Jul 2 08:12:00 1982 Received: Sat Jul 3 01:53:04 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Thu Jul 1 01:31:47 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: The Utility of Big Carriers US defenses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 July 1982 02:20-EDT From: James A. CoxSubject: The Utility of Big Carriers In general, I agree with Steve Bellovin's assessment of our defense priorities. However, I think he errs in at least one important respect: his opposition to big Nimitz-class carriers. Some observers of the Falkland Islands conflict have learned the following lesson: that expensive, modern ships like the destroyer Sheffield are extremely vulnerable to (relatively) cheap systems like the Super Ententard/Exocet combination. These people conclude that Nimitz-like carriers are "sitting ducks." Instead, we should build smaller, less expensive ships (especially carriers), like the British carriers in the Falklands expedition. What should have been learned, however, is the importance of airborne warning systems. There is one reason, and one reason only, why the Argentine Exocet missiles were so effective: the British were not able to detect the planes which launched them in time to do anything about them. British carriers you see, unlike large American carriers, are too small to carry planes such as American AWACS, which would have been able to detect Argentine planes while they were still out of missile range. A modern carrier battle group is devoted almost exclusively to the job of protecting the carrier. With the airborne warning systems, carriers are \not/ that easy to kill. Nuclear weapons would do it, of course, but their use would entail much more serious consequences than the loss of a carrier battle group. As for offensive capibility, there is nothing afloat which can rival a Nimitz-class carrier. Naturally these carriers cost a great deal of money. But in actual battle it would prove much more costly not to have them. ------------------------------ Date: 1 July 1982 02:30-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: US defenses Do we really want to absorb Canada and Mexico into the U.S.? With regard to the latter, I suspect you spoke without considering all the important effects such an action would have on our security. And I see no more reason for the development of a Cuban-style government in Canada than I do for the development of one in the U.S. Perhaps you were being facaetious? ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************