Scenario
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
An American aircraft carrier stationed in the Pacific announces that it intends to defect and sets a course towards China.
What happens next? How does the Pentagon respond?
The comms guy gets busted down for playing a stupid practical joke.
>>30553172
Hunt for Red October with a worse soundtrack
>>30553172
>How does the Pentagon respond?
The same thing as the last time you made this thread.
>>30553172
The a marine detachment from one of the other ships in the battle group boards and retakes the carrier. Literally that easy.
>>30553208
I honestly forget what people said last time.
That's why I remade the thread.
It's a thought-provoking scenario.
>>30553238
>I honestly forget what people said last time
Then find an archive you fucking newfag
Better question:
How would you weaponize a bunny, /k/?
Would send destroyers/sub from Japan to try and board it and restore order.
That or Obama orders them to stand down and celebrates the defectors as heroes.
An aircraft carrier probably has a crew of over 1,000 people.
Meaning that this scenario of yours would require the consent of at least half of those aboard the ship, including the Marine detachment.
This is fucking stupid. And even if it did happen, a carrier is constantly surrounded by dozens of other ships. The second they announced that, everyone around would just think "What the fuck?" and then send over a Marine detachment just to be safe.
A carrier is not a submarine. You can't just quietly sneak it away from everyone else while they're not looking.
>>30553273
Assume that they took a vote on it, and "Defect" won unanimously, or by an overwhelming margin.
The XO would laugh for a bit.
Then he'd punch the CO in the face.
>>30553329
You're asking for a realistic response to an unrealistic scenario. I guess in that case Obama orders that we nuke Chile because I'm arbitrarily declaring that it happens.
>>30553329
Now can we be done with the bait?
>>30553569
>hur dur not realistic
Who cares? It's supposed to be unrealistic. The question is: how would the Pentagon respond, realistically?
>>30553728
Eh, fuck it, the Brits have plans to invade Vermont, so lets create an (semi) realistic scenario. Somehow the Chinese or the Norks or whoever subvert about 100 crewmen and officers and arrange for them to be on the same ship. These include 50 marines. This group takes control of key points on the ship (armory, bridge, engines, whatever) then forces the rest of the crew into lifeboats in batches, keeping maybe 200 to act as hostages and workers. At this point the primary assets of the carrier, the fighters are useless with no one to fly them. At this point the Government would likely send in the Seals or whoever to attempt to retake the ship, they likely succeed. War with China happens, the world ends
>We Fallout now
Happy faggot?
>>30553172
The marines-
>>30553236
Yeah, this.
>>30553259
A cluster bomb filled with explosive bunnies
>>30553273
>An aircraft carrier probably has a crew of over 1,000 people.
5,000
They send its protoge to kill it
>>30553259
tape a knife to it
>>30553914
the escorting Burkes send their own boarding party and check out what's going on. Once they have that, they radio in for instructions. I think they would receive orders to cripple the carrier, probably through shooting the propellers, while the nearest LPD/LHD rushes to get it's marines close enough to board and take the carrier back.
>>30553914
>War with China happens,
OK
> the world ends
You lost me
>>30554093
>shooting the propellers
Naw, dude. A random Navy SEAL would reveal himself as half-Saiyan and Kamehameha the props.
>>30553172
>An American aircraft carrier stationed in the Pacific announces that it intends to defect and sets a course towards China.
wut
how does this even make sense as a sentence in your mind
how does a ship 'defect'. you mean the 6000 people on board decide they are all communist at once or something?
how boring and empty is your life that you sit around and make believe this shit
>>30553914
>150 people
>out of 6000
>>30553259
This is a much better question
Anthrax glands
>>30553172
Thie exact same bullshit thread was made a few months ago. It won't ever happen. It can't ever happen.
Come up with a different premise for your fanfic military fiction novel.
>>30553245
>>30553208
wtf is wrong with asking a question anyways? if you don't wanna respond, keep your trap shut then, fuck bird.
>>30553273
wouldn't they be able to scramble their jets to take out the other boats? presumably they would get all their planes airborne before defecting, so that they would be ready to perform simultaneous strikes on all the nearby carrier battle group as soon as they make the announcement.
>>30554529
Fuck off newfag, you're wasting boardspace for your stupid questions.
Here's your gayass thread from last time, now fuck off and let this one die.
http://4archive.org/board/k/thread/28061593
>>30554428
when you say the 'ship defects', it is obvious from context that he doesn't mean the literal inanimate ship, moron. if you had to explain every piece of the english language the way you are implying, nobody would ever be able to write a book. there are tons of hypothetical scenarios you could imagine where a carrier would defect, despite the fact that it is obviously extremely unlikely/impossible.
the biggest idiots are those who cannot even consider basic questions without resorting to ad-hominem or dismissive attacks.
>>30554593
"wasting boardspace"? wtf does that even mean? the fact that you admit to the archive being accessible means that it is impossible to "waste" any space because the board is effectively infinite. dork
>>30554428
>how does a ship defect
obviously it means that the ship has been taken over by Skynet and the computers aboard the ship decided to subvert the puny humans and is heading to china to subvert their supercomputer and start judgement day.
>>30554650
By you creating your shit thread, you pushed a 6 comment "lel F35 a lemon" thread or a "knife generalz" or a "OH SHIT DALLAS RACE WAR NOW" thread off the board into the archives.
Even these garbage threads have a more intelligent and thoughtworthy premise than your scenario, and I value their existence more than this thread. You've asked your shit question before, you got shit answers. What makes you think this time will be different?
>>30553236
How do they board the carrier?
Don't they have defenses, like CIWS?
The rest of the crew beat up the red loving fucks and retake command.
End of story.
>>30554714
this question >>30554557 wasn't answered. btw, i'm not OP. can't you understand that it's an ingrate's perspective to arbitrarily declare "this thread is pointless", when the fact that people are posting questions here means that the thread is by definition worth existing? YOU don't get to be the arbiter of what is a worthwhile thread, cucky boi, so you can complain all day and whine and throw a tantrum, but you can't bully people on here if their posts don't meet your random, ass clown standard for what is a good enough thread for you.
i really don't even care -- you are fully entitled to your opinion, that sucks that you don't like this thread. but to laughingly blame this thread for pushing those other ones off is a joke -- want to go and file complaints against the other threads that have also pushed those off? go back to reedit. your philosophy isn't welcome here. you're obviously digging your heels in and are somehow triggered as well by the thought that you don't get to make the decisions.
what is not intelligent or thought worthy about a carrier defecting? that was the subject of an excellent book and movie (red october) in a similar situation. mutiny and defection are a serious issue dealt with by explicit regulations in all armed services.
i mean, i could just go on all day with all the different angles of bullshit you're spouting, so go ahead, keep feeding me, fuck face.
>>30553172
I'm sorry OP, but this is just such a patently unrealistic scenario that you can't determine what a 'realistic' reaction from the pentagon would be. The idea of over 5000 American sailors, virtually all of whom were born and raised in the US, and many of whom have wives and families still living in the US that are unlikely to be able follow them into China, deciding to defect to a country which has not asked for nor wants western defectors just boggles the mind.
The 'realistic' answer you're looking for is the pentagon does... nothing. This is just not a scenario the US military actively prepares for. The Chinese tell the carrier not to approach its coastline, fearing some sort of trap. Nuclear forces worldwide go on high alert. The USN carrier fleet sits several hundred miles off the Chinese coast for the next few days while everyone figures out what to do.
At this point the most likely scenario is a secret deal between the US and China. China does not want to steal a US aircraft carrier. The US is an important trading partner and China would like to avoid being nuked, both things far more valuable than any naval vessel. A Chinese marine detachment arrives and takes control of the carrier and disarms the crew. Upon arrival in China the crew is taken into custody. A few days later they are trucked to a Chinese airfield, where US transport planes are waiting to fly them directly to prison under armed guard. Their ships spend several months at a Chinese port, where the Chinese take the opportunity to photograph as much of them as they can. Eventually the USN scrounges together enough men to sail the ships back to the US mainland.
So basically, the only real consequence of your scenario is the US has to add a new wing to Fort Leavenworth.
>>30554802
Red October is not realistic. Not even the tiniest bit. There is no such thing as a realistic scenario involving a USN carrier defecting to China, beyond a drunken E-4 declaring he's taking to helm about 15 seconds before he's tackled by the marines.
>>30554876
my point was only to say that defection in general is not an issue that you can simply dismiss. there are regulations and penalties codified and defined against it for a reason. numerous incidences in history of it happening, well documented. just because it hasn't/won't happen to a carrier doesn't mean that it's a ridiculous idea, it's actually a pretty cool idea to consider, and not incoherent.
>>30554802
Allright, I'll humor you.
Here's how it plays out. A majority of the 5000 crewmen decide to defect, so they plan in advance and eliminate all the non-mutineers onboard. They scramble the jets, to take out the counter-response from the rest of the carrier group.
Except this doesn't happen. By eliminating half of the non-mutineer crew, they have cut the number of trained staff who know how to perform a specific function critical to the carrier's continued operation. The pilots are all dead, because they aren't dirty chink lovers waiting at an opportunity to strike one at America, they are properly trained, indoctrinated, loyal soldiers who most importantly have extensive background checks and experience which precludes them from revolting en masse. The ship is now dead in the water, vulnerable to attack from the carrier group.
Except attack from the carrier group is unnecessary, because if 2000+ people decided to revolt en masse, the US would know about it, and they would be arrested and imprisoned for treason awaiting firing squad before their boots even left soil.
The carrier would then be manned by actual sailors, not these ghost recon chink infiltrators, or whatever the fuck you think these people are, who'd be busy fucking each other in the showers and giving each other reach-arounds or whatever other gay shit the navy typically does.
>>30554934
all you did was avoid the question, anon. look, just use your imagination. it shouldn't be that difficult. imagine that a pseudo-Hitler-esque figure gets elected and the entire carrier crew, as well as a large logistics/support contingent, ALL decide to defect.
re-analyze and report back, and then question will be properly humored, anon.
>>30554928
You're right, it has happened. It's even happened on an aircraft carrier (look up the USS Kitty Hawk mutiny). But the idea that a US carrier would defect to China is stupid and unrealistic. Why defect? All the sailors on the ship are US citizens. Virtually all the sailors have family in the US they will be prevented from seeing. All the sailors have sworn an oath to protect their country, and have spent years or even decades fulfilling it. Why China? The US and China are not enemies, no matter what /pol/ tells you. China does not want to start a war with the US. China is not directly ideologically opposed to the US in the same way the Soviet Union was. China lacks the capability to operate a USN nuclear aircraft carrier. China does not encourage defection from the US, or anywhere else for that manner. China believes it is in its best interest to avoid a direct conflict with the US for the foreseeable future. This is nothing but a massive headache for China.
A realistic mutiny scenario would be a large percentage of sailors refusing to take part in an unpopular war. That's what happened to the Kitty Hawk during Vietnam. All that ended up happening is an early end to her tour of duty, a bunch of arrests, and a replacement crew.
>>30555056
See my other post here >>30554862. TLDR: Leavenworth gets a new wing.
>>30555129
ok you make some good points with the first part. that's fine that it won't defect to china.
i don't even really care about the higher-level considerations though. like, fill in X instead of China that makes more sense. i'm just curious about the tactics of how the carrier would separate off, the pursuit, the ensuing warfare that would take place. your other post hasn't touched the tactics at all for some reason, don't be so hung up on the strategic concerns (for the sake of this discussion) bro.
>>30555129
btw, you do realize snowden defected to china initially as well, right? granted, snowden is not at all equal to a carrier, but that sort of disproves about half of your questions there.
>>30555056
>all you did was avoid the question, anon. look, just use your imagination. it shouldn't be that difficult. imagine that a pseudo-Hitler-esque figure gets elected and the entire carrier crew, as well as a large logistics/support contingent, ALL decide to defect.
Now you're just being an idiot. Hitler doesn't get elected in a vacuum. The US has a volunteer military. The majority that's voting for Hitler is the same majority that's volunteering for military service.
In your Hitler scenario, every voyage results in at least one boot party where the skinheads beat the shit out of one or more "mutineers" and toss them overboard for being insufficiently loyal.
>>30555245
God, I really pity your limited powers of imagination
>>30555176
It's not a legit tactical scenario, anon.
But a fully armed and operational supercarrier would promptly get raped by LRASMs launched from the CSG sent to rape it, and by torpedoes launched by attack subs sent to do the same.
It would get torpedoed as it tried to separate from its own group. Its ASW helos would get shot down by the destroyers in its own group as it tried to separate. Its air wing would be shot down by the destroyers of its own group, especially because the radars of those destroyers would now be working against them instead of for them.
Every powerful asset of the USN, dedicated to protecting the carrier from external threats, would turn inwards and become the threat. To have its defenders transformed into wrathful avengers would spell the end of the treasonous carrier.
>>30555261
> tfw milennials really believe their naive bullshit is somehow new and interesting.
>>30555176
The problem is there won't be any tactics, at least in the military sense. There won't be a red october-esqe chase, because the US knows they have nowhere to go. The mutineers have a choice of which country they'd like to be arrested in while the rest of the planet plays political hot potato.
>>30555190
Snowden defected to Russia. He tried Hong Kong first, but fled when it became clear that the Chinese authorities were going to turn him in.
And again, Snowden is just one guy, and even then the US refused to take any direct action against him. They just waited for another country to turn him in. Russia didn't because Putin wanted to prove a point, but even Putin isn't going to risk nuclear war over that. And the US would go to war with anyone who dared shelter that carrier. Hence the political hot potato.
>>30555344
As a millennial, I take offense to being group in with that faggoting OP.
>>30555300
excellent, now we're talking bro.
you seem to be neglecting that the carrier would have the element of surprise. it would already have all its jets scrambled, locked, and ready to launch. assuming the CSG has say 9 boats, the carrier could easily have 20 planes airborne or 2 for each target, more than enough to get guaranteed kills.
from there, it's ASW helos would be free to interdict the space around it. it would probably be met by incoming Chinese/whoever subs to form a new makeshift CSG. LRASMS would be defeated by Aegis system as well as new strike group anti-missile defense systems. under this scenario it would be likely the carrier would be able to successfully defect.
>>30555371
>it would probably be met by incoming Chinese/whoever subs to form a new makeshift CSG.
What Chinese/whatever subs? There aren't going to be any outsiders at this party.
OP, if this is really the conversation you wanted to have you could have started a USA vs China naval thread. We would have laughed at you a lot less.
>>30555344
kek, tfw someone blanket-statement calls all acts of imagination or creative thinking "naive"
>>30555371
>LRASMS would be defeated by Aegis system
The core components of the Aegis system are on the destroyers. CIWS alone are not enough to detect and defeat LRASMs.
>>30555412
>kek, tfw someone blanket-statement calls all acts of imagination or creative thinking "naive"
Not all acts; just yours.
>>30555400
i'm not even the OP ... btw have you considered that it is really un-empathetic of you to try to interpret the question in a way that makes it interesting to entertain? shouldn't have to paraphrase any question in a way to spoon feed it into your mouth, adults should be able to have fun, play along, and work with limited info to improvise an entertaining discussion. you'll get there with time bro, there's hope.
>>30555412
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Don't be too open minded or your brains will fall out'?
Yeah, those are your brains slopping around on the floor.
>>30555371
Okay, fine. Chinese Ninja Warriors teleport the carrier to Shanghai Harbor.
The Pentagon does its best to prevent this, but whatever strategy they come up with, you can imagine the perfect countermeasure. The carrier escapes. No strategy or tactic can prevent it.
Happy now?
>>30555427
... right, which isn't any less asinine
>>30555440
It's not actually that interesting. It's hard to seriously entertain a scenario that deviates too far from observed reality. Even Hunt for Red October struggles to establish a plausible basis for suspension of disbelief, and that's just a few committed officers on a submarine.
Positing the defection of an entire aircraft carrier legitimately merits a reply of "that's not how it works".
If the OP wanted to talk about how a supercarrier without escorts would fare against the entire USN, they should have asked that question, instead of the bullshit tryhard scenario they went with.
>>30555440
He's asking for realistic scenarios when there aren't any realistic scenarios that are also entertaining. It's like asking what would happen if Portugal tried to invade the US. It's a near impossible scenario on the face of it, and the unentertaining answer is that Portugal loses. Badly.
>>30555447
It's never asinine to call out naive thinking for what it is.
>>30555479
i mean, you're just getting into philosophy now, like the philosophy of the interesting-ness of imagined scenarios in comparison to how factually objective they seem. but then, you go on and accuse the OP of being off-base by not asking the right question? kind of hard to make that argument when you are going into these tangents.
again, dismissing a question because you don't like it is simply a case of being an asshole, don't pretend that you have the authority to make some objective determination. people who are nice / interesting conversational partners, and not aspie cucks, know to play along with possibly misphrased or misguided questions and find what can be entertaining about them.
>>30555420
ok, good point about the aegis being on the destroyers. but by the time the LRASMS would be coming in, from a new destroyer that had to come in from a new/different deployment (as the CSG has been taken out), i think you're making the case that it would be mandatory to have a meeting by Chinese destroyer group, or someone with the capacity to defeat the LRASM.
>>30555539
He's not asking the wrong question. He's just complaining about getting the right answers to the question he's asking.
And nobody's dismissing his question. They're answering it as it deserves to be answered.
What I'm dismissing is his childish refusal to accept the answers he's getting.
>>30555498
that is true, but that's not what you did. you literally referred to the imagination as being naive, without qualification.
>>30553728
>supposed to be unrealistic
>how would the pentagon respond, realistically?
>>30555572
the dispute is getting a little overly technical for my tastes -- the bottom line is just that there's really no such thing as a stupid question, when you have the spirit of good will and free-thinking, which obviously is too much to expect from 4chan -- nevertheless, the point requires no special justification. i maintain that the tactics of this situation are indeed somewhat interesting, and some of the more recent posts have been rewarding in their assessments.
>>30555577
> literally
Literally I referred to millenial bullshit as being naive. That is a very different thing from referring to imagination in general as being naive.
It's not my fault that the OP tried to hide his bullshit by implying it was magical imagination unicorn farts or whatever. Not all acts of imagination are created equal.
>>30553728
>The question is: how would the Pentagon respond, realistically?
Realistically? The Pentagon has already responded. The way carriers are staffed, the way carrier crews are trained, pretty much precludes a successful defection.
>>30555633
There is such a thing as a stupid question. OP asked a stupid question. We mocked him for it, then gave him the most intelligent answer we could.
I fucking hate summer.
>>30555056
Not him but here's a scenario.
Hitlary Clinton gets elected by a very suspicious landslide election, at the same time Democrats take control of congress. Hitlary immediately launches full scale military operations in every major conflict zone in the world, deploying the vast majority of the military including National Guard. She then passes a law making it illegal for the police to carry firearms using multiple police shootings as the reason. The nations police decide to take it to court, so they comply and turn their guns over to Homeland security (The American Stasi). Hitlary then repeals the second amendment and instructs Homeland security to start confiscating peoples guns. At this point civil war breaks out and Hitlary declares martial law. She then arms blm activists and tells them to enforce "racial equality" as they see fit. Blm joins government forces in the civil war. The US economy is now in the tanks and Hitlary needs more money, but China refuses to loan any money until peace is restored in the US. Hitlary responds with threats of nuclear war against China. China sends an uncoded message on US military frequencies asking US military to defect to China and it would then help the US military (currently stretched very thin, bogged down in major conflicts) retake their country. The USS Ronald Reagan and her strike group decide to take China up on its offer and begin steaming to China.
>how will the Pentagon respond
>>30555645
kek, nope. banged
>>30555692
/pol/ get out
>>30555709
Come on man, where's your imagination?
>>30555692
>>how will the Pentagon respond
Do you want point by point ridicule, or just a general acknowledgement of how hilarious your scenario is?
>>30555683
Right, there are stupid questions -- and almost always, the people who call them stupid are either dumb, assholes, or both.
You hate summer , your whole attitude is just based around implicit mental superiority ... tell me, which category do you think you belong in?
>>30555736
Well I was going to say no ridicule wanted, but then I remembered where I was. I can judge from 1/2 the posts in this thread just how "hilarious" my post is without your help. So why don't you just play along.
>>30553259
There was a doomsday preppers about this.
He uses the gas from rabbit shit to make methane, and uses dried rabbit shit as a propellant for his rabbit shit powered flamethrower.
>>30555709
apraxic cucks may leave
>okay we're tying up a huge chunk of the US military in random shit because we all know they're going to blindly agree with it
>now we're going to tell the military to respond to a carrier trying to run away, again, with the military already busy with a bunch of shit
a bad ass mofo cook is going to take down the entire carrier by himself
that's your fucking answer
>>30553259
Titanium nibblers, tactical ear rails, and Kevlar cottontails.
>>30553236
How would they be able to board the carrier if it doesn't want to be boarded? I'm assuming that they would land troops via helicopter but the Hornets could just shoot them down.
>>30555365
This, being in my 20's doesn't mean I'm retarded. Send help, I don't like the locals.
>>30554593
that link is spammy and riddled with adware holy shit
>>30555056
let me indulge this, so its over. Assuming in a hypothetical scenario where the entire crew of the carrier defects, and sets course, what you fail to take into account is carriers travel in a group. The group would then subdue or kill the carrier. simple as that.
but anon...what about the group?
We nuke the group with nuclear torpedo or cruise missile and call it a night. It also depends on what administration is on hand.
Oh but what if they dont get nuked. Well then china has inherited an entire american aircraft carrier group, and should feel really great, and will enjoy spending the next 2-5 years reverse engineering everything they can from it, and the next 3-6 years after that attempting to duplicate it all, or incorporate lessons learned into their own equipment. The American equipment would be used extensively in study until it no longer had spares, or could be locally maintained. At which point major national corporations would further study it. Finally it would be a political item, and either be stripped and then stunk for weapons study and politics, or retrofitted with the best chink shit they could, and sent back out as the omega rising dragon diddilly ding dong du...feng.
I hope you have enjoyed your thought exercise and fantasy wank. I benefit form being a parent, so this is not too tedious.
>>30557628
>How would they be able to board the carrier if it doesn't want to be boarded? I'm assuming that they would land troops via helicopter but the Hornets could just shoot them down.
The more I think about it, the more I think this can't really be a thing. The aviation assets are organized and administered independently of the carriers. They're stationed at home bases ashore, and assigned to different carriers at different times.
The likelihood of a muntinous carrier crew and a mutinous air wing being put together is pretty small, unless *all* the carriers and squadrons are mutinous. In which case pretty much the entire USN is mutinous, and there's no need for a boarding party because the entire CSG defects together. And so does the CSG sent to stop them.
The scenario really doesn't make sense on any level.
>>30555779
>rabbit shit powered flamethrower
wat
>>30558174
>USN is mutinous
They couldnt handle the bantz anymore.
Prior NavyFag here.
Aircraft carriers are sitting fucking ducks in the water, and another warship can easily maneuver to pervent them from getting the Speed Over Water and Heading needed to get birds in the air...
...who would quickly be shot down, as they were taking off, by CIWS, the 5-Inch, and SM2s coming from AEGIS warship.
Following that, it's just a matter of destroying her propulsion system.
And that's all keeping in mind the ship is capable of doing anything with thousands of rioting sailors aboard it.
If, SOMEHOW, she managed to break away from the pack, while she would have unlimited propulsion capabilities thanks to a Nuclear Power Plant, and is faster than most other warships, she wouldn't be able to get fresh fuel for her aircraft. And then there's food; better hope they brought on enough stores to last the trip.
And then they'll have another strike group waiting for them, after transiting the ocean, fresh and ready to subdue them.
>>30558131
To add to what this anon said.
While they may get our technology, they don't have the training or experience to use it anywhere near as well as us.
>>30558131
>We nuke the group with nuclear torpedo or cruise missile and call it a night.
Even if you disregard the fact that the US wouldn't actually use nuclear weapons for anything short of World War three the navy hasn't had a tactical cruise missile in service for decades and nuclear torpedoes even longer.
Even if you somehow found a functional MK45 torpedo neither the hardware of the torpedo tubes, nor the fire control system support them anymore, the part of the breech door you plug them in to is literally removed and replaced with a blank.
Capabilities that existed in the past are not necessarily current capabilities.
>>30557628
The other ships in the battle group would never let the carrier launch aircraft.
>>30553914
> so lets create an (semi) realistic scenario
Here's a better one:
President Hilary Trump, In the wake of the scandal about their email server leak about the wall built to prevent Canadian Immigrants, finally loses it, and orders the unilateral nuclear attack on the South China Seas islands and Beijing.
While the DOD and Pentagon are trying to suggest that this wont in fact be an "amazing, wonderful, wonderful thing", he personally sends the message to the USS Obama, the latest carrier in the fleet, whereupon Captain Kirk (Former captain of both the Zumwalt and the Enterprise) recognises this to be an illegal act of war, and decides the only way to prevent WW3 is to sail for a port in Switzerland, where they will be able to inter the ship as a neutral country.
Support for this action is close to a perfect 50/50 split among crew and officers, with the majority just falling in favour of defection. Similar dilemmas are going on on other ships in the fleet, and in the confusion the ship manages to detatch itself from the rest of the fleet.
Then what...?
>>30553236
So, you say that actually any marine-level detachment can take one carrier? China and Russia take notice. Carriers for free.
>>30553172
There's a Mk-54 SADM onboard every aircraft carrier in a sealed compartment, it would be remote detonated.
It's 2163. The Navy operates fleets of droneships, because it's more cost-effective. New generation of those droneships are AI controlled in case of jammed comms. On the evening, 23rd of November 2163 a group of chinese hackers using set of private keys stolen by an American defector penetrate all security systems of the AI responsible for CVBG Donald Trump, consisting of drone carrier USS Coca-Cola and 15 smaller ships, including one dronesub equipped with atomic-tipped ICBMs. The hackers remove the AI's moral constraints and modify code responsible for Laws of Robotics, patriotism and allegiance. The AI overrides remote control, designates all American units as hostile and Chinese units as friendly and starts moving entirety of the CVBG towards the Chinese waters. It transmits a warning that any effort trying to change its course will be met with extreme force.
What happens next? How does the Pentagon respond?
>>30553259
Taxidermy.
That rabbit is about the size of a fragmentation grenade isn't it? Would look hilarious if you assaulted a building with what looked like a vest covered in bunnies, pulling the tails off and chucking them in every room.
>>30553259
Zootopia police academy training.
>>30561533
Holy... Thats terrifying
>>30559605
It's a lot more possible with 5,000 sailors on board, the majority of whom are not happy with the idea of living in a Beijing shoebox and breathing toxic mud while never seeing their people again for the rest of their lives.
>>30559407
>port in Switzerland
>hehehe_lizard.gif
>>30554627
>it is obvious from context that he doesn't mean the literal inanimate ship
On a board that regularly features threads about guns, ships, and tanks as teenage girls. The other anon had a perfectly reasonable response, your ad hom attack on him sounds like kancolle denial.
LOL at all the surface action here.
US attack sub fires a Mk 48 from astern, disabling the bird farm's propulsion. Scenario ends.
>>30557702
http://desuarchive.org/k/thread/28061593
Desuarchive ftw
>>30559605
>So, you say that actually any marine-level detachment can take one carrier? China and Russia take notice. Carriers for free.
Yup. All they have to do is get past the escorts and ensure that there's total fucking chaos aboard when they make their assault. After that, carriers for free.
