[DRAFT] Carry On Sailing

[Candlewhisper Archive]

There's so many issues possible about "is this military tech obsolete?", but I thought one about aircraft carriers had some humour potential. Tell me what you think:

FIRST:

TITLE:
Carry On Sailing

VALIDITY:
large armed forces,
adult maybe because of option 1.

DESCRIPTION:
Rival nation Blackacre has announced that is is planning to decommission all its aircraft carriers. This decision has not come from any desire for pacifism, but rather from a strategic assessment that they have become obsolete in modern warfare.

OPTION 1
"Blackacre could well be tactically correct / forward-thinking," says former navy man Jock Wayne-Carr, who is now a successful author of military thrillers. "Decades ago air power / technological advances made battleships obsolete, and now long range missile strikes / drone tactics are soon to render aircraft carriers an expensive waste of money. An obsession with Top Gun heroism is leaving our military in the dark ages! You need to redirect those funds / resources into drone technology, perhaps replacing flat-top supercarriers with small minimally-crewed / autonomous deployment platforms that are submersible / airborne, in order to deliver drones / tactical ordnance into warzones / theatres of war. I'm talking rapid insertion / deep penetration. Which incidentally is the topic of my latest thriller / fiction."
OUTCOME:
navy uniforms are painted on

OPTION 2
"Carriers project strength and presence," booms Admiral Ffont-Bittocks, whose abdominal girth projects over his desk as he rises angrily to his feet. "They extend our strike reach, and provide a base for surveillance operations, and can help deliver air superiority in contested zones. For sure, against nations like Blackacre, Daguo and the United Federation there are tactical limitations, but major world powers are not the only targets for military force. There's peacekeeping operations, keeping less-developed rogue states in check, and making war on small nations that threaten our national interests. But most importantly, 65,000 tonne carriers make a big impression. They give authority!"
OUTCOME:
military strategy involves using sledgehammers to crack walnuts

OPTION 3 - if no WMDs
"I gotta say, do we need a navy at all, in a world where ICBMs exist?" asks Major 'Thin' Pickens-Kong, adjusting his Stetson. "What @@NAME@@ needs is good ole-fashioned nukes, and lots of 'em, and no-one'll dare look funny at us, ya hear? Get rid of our boats, and build WMDs! Nook-lear combat, toe to toe with the baddies! That's how a real man fights."
OUTCOME:
@@DEMONYM@@ peacekeeping mostly involves delivering "rest in peace"

OPTION 4 - if WMDs
"I gotta say, do we need a navy at all, in a world where ICBMs exist?" asks Major Slim Kong, enthusiastically waving his cowboy hat in the air. "What @@NAME@@ needs is more good ole-fashioned nukes, and lots of 'em, and no-one'll dare look funny at us, ya hear? Get rid of our boats, and build more WMDs! Nook-lear combat, toe to toe with the baddies! That's how a real man fights."
OUTCOME:
@@DEMONYM@@ peacekeeping mostly involves delivering "rest in peace"

OPTION 5
"Carriers are expensive, drones are expensive, nuclear missiles are expensive," moans your Treasury Minister, pulling her hair out. "Words, however, are cheap. I mean, literally cheap. Not metaphorically. Or figuratively. Or ironically. I get mixed up what those terms mean. I mean to say let's cut back on the military across the board, and try diplomacy for a change."
OUTCOME:
thanks to budget cutbacks soldiers literally "speak softly and carry a big stick"

[Outer Sparta]

Interesting premise, especially since I never thought aircraft carriers would be obsolete given that irl, they still somewhat play an important part in national militaries, particularly the US. Even China has growing plans to build more carriers. On NS, it's a whole different story.

What about an option enabling your military to conduct research and development on extraterrestrial warfare since that apparently is possible on NS? Now that'll be something for the sci-fi enthusiasts to like and your military is well-prepared for the 22nd century or whatever.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Carriers probably aren't obsolete yet, but there's certainly folk who think that day isn't far off.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... iers-52937
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/ ... n-missiles
https://www.wired.com/2011/06/are-aircr ... -obsolete/

There's room for counterargument, of course, which is why I think there's issue potential in the question.

I could, however, make it more about the viability of supercarriers specifically...

[Trotterdam]

The only way I can see carriers becoming obsolete is if either (A) combat aircraft in general become obsolete, or (B) aircraft technology improves to the point that they can circumnavigate the world without needing to refuel.

(B) strikes me as extremely unlikely. (A) is more plausible, but it would require missiles to be able to completely replace bombers in every circumstance. (Fighters aren't too useful without bombers for them to shoot down.)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fair points. I may redraft to emphasise the economic arguments for transitioning to smaller carriers rather than concentrating all that force projection in one place. I don't want to bog the issue down too much though, but as it reads at present I don't think it seems to be selling the idea that they MIGHT be obsolete.

I'd point out for context though that there were arguments against battleships being obsolete for decades after they became obsolete, thanks to the natural momentum and status quo bias of military organisations.

Regardless, the flaw is in the writing, and I'll try to fix that. Replacing the word obsolete with inefficient may be a good start...

[Gonswanza]

Tossing my hat in for a mild nitpick here, option 3's outcome sounds like it would employ the "WMDs" policy, removing the "No/Anti-WMD" policy if that is present, as it infers that the country will begin stockpiling and producing a nuclear arsenal.

Also, option 1's outcome could be reworded to "Navy uniforms come secondhand from garbage bins"/"Navy uniforms are literal rags from scrap bins" to try to make this more SFW, instead of implying that everyone is naked and hence adding a massive boost to the "nudity" stat.

[Outer Sparta]

Fair points. I may redraft to emphasise the economic arguments for transitioning to smaller carriers rather than concentrating all that force projection in one place. I don't want to bog the issue down too much though, but as it reads at present I don't think it seems to be selling the idea that they MIGHT be obsolete.

I'd point out for context though that there were arguments against battleships being obsolete for decades after they became obsolete, thanks to the natural momentum and status quo bias of military organisations.

Regardless, the flaw is in the writing, and I'll try to fix that. Replacing the word obsolete with inefficient may be a good start...

For most militaries, it'll definitely be an issue of cost and what kinds of new military technologies will be cheaper and more efficient. There's obviously one option where you just cut back your military spending, but I think you should experiment with one that talks about smaller carriers.

[Trotterdam]

Fair points. I may redraft to emphasise the economic arguments for transitioning to smaller carriers rather than concentrating all that force projection in one place.

That's a lot more reasonable. Small carriers are still carriers.

I don't know much about the merits of a few super-ships versus larger numbers of small ships, but I can imagine some arguments either way.

[Gonswanza]

Fair points. I may redraft to emphasise the economic arguments for transitioning to smaller carriers rather than concentrating all that force projection in one place. I don't want to bog the issue down too much though, but as it reads at present I don't think it seems to be selling the idea that they MIGHT be obsolete.

I'd point out for context though that there were arguments against battleships being obsolete for decades after they became obsolete, thanks to the natural momentum and status quo bias of military organisations.

Regardless, the flaw is in the writing, and I'll try to fix that. Replacing the word obsolete with inefficient may be a good start...

For most militaries, it'll definitely be an issue of cost and what kinds of new military technologies will be cheaper and more efficient. There's obviously one option where you just cut back your military spending, but I think you should experiment with one that talks about smaller carriers.

That would imply using fast attack carriers to replace supercarriers... The latter being dated, but still somewhat capable with the right aircraft and heavy modernization efforts.

[Random Country 453632]

/bump

[Outer Sparta]

/bump

Why are you bumping another person's draft? Unless you are Candlewhisper themselves, that's not a good move to do.

[Random Country 453632]

/bump

Why are you bumping another person's draft? Unless you are Candlewhisper themselves, that's not a good move to do.

It fell to the second page

[Outer Sparta]

Why are you bumping another person's draft? Unless you are Candlewhisper themselves, that's not a good move to do.

It fell to the second page

It's frowned upon to bump somebody else's work. It's their work, not yours. If you do so, then it may be viewed as gravedigging since the OP might be busy, tabled their draft, or is research more and has put off any work (with that case mostly in the WA).

[Random Country 453632]

It fell to the second page

It's frowned upon to bump somebody else's work. It's their work, not yours. If you do so, then it may be viewed as gravedigging since the OP might be busy, tabled their draft, or is research more and has put off any work (with that case mostly in the WA).

Oh, okay. Sorry