Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ship-to-ship naval warfare has practically gone extinct since World War II. The Navy is mostly used as another Air Force that doesn't require either established airbases or amphetamines to carry out sorties. This is because the US and its allies have a preexisting status of unquestioned naval supremacy already. Russia's access to the sea is almost completely bottled up by geography and nobody else has built close to as many ships as we have. In this environment, the focus naturally shifts from sea warfare to using naval forces to attack land targets.

Also, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers require a lot of specialized shipyard and drydock infrastructure that doesn't really pay off if you're only going to build one or two of them. That's why the Charles de Gaulle has been so expensive and why the Royal Navy didn't go nuclear with the QE class. So it only really makes sense, in an alliance, for one country to shoulder the particular burden of operating all the supercarriers. And of all the countries that aren't allied with us, Russia isn't going to waste time building supercarriers because they can't reach the open ocean in wartime anyway and China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.



Russia's access to the sea is almost completely bottled up by geography and nobody else has built close to as many ships as we have. In this environment, the focus naturally shifts from sea warfare to using naval forces to attack land targets.

Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea are all key to the US's current global strategic game of keeping China bottled up behind the South China Sea. China's game plan consists of getting past this.

China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.

It would make sense that they would try and leverage the advantage of having their landmass nearby, to give "artillery support" with hypersonic anti-ship missiles to their naval forces facing the US forces in the South China Sea. If I were the US, I would be looking into shifting emphasis to submarine warfare in the South China Sea, including submarines emphasizing ship to ship missiles. I would also be re-implementing SOSUS style listening arrays in the area.


There are no U.S. military bases on Taiwan or the Philippines. Nor Thailand, for that matter. Japan and South Korea are both north of the South China Sea.

China's game plan started with building a navy for the first time in half a millennium. Their geopolitical interests are complex, but I'm pretty sure the immediate focus of their naval power has been and will be securing resources in the South China Sea and reclaiming Taiwan. They're not bottled up, it's just where their interests lie.


There are no U.S. military bases on Taiwan or the Philippines.

But we could still stage resources there. Just having a place to land gives benefits in terms of sortie rate. Also, in the event of a lead-up to conflict, these can be built in a hurry.

Japan and South Korea are both north of the South China Sea.

All the same, they are a part of the general US geopolitical strategy of keeping China bottled up behind the South China Sea. Are you trying to "debunk" what I'm saying by using unnecessary specificity? The US does have bases in those countries.

I'm pretty sure the immediate focus of their naval power has been and will be securing resources in the South China Sea and reclaiming Taiwan.

Sure. And if/when they claim Taiwan, China will have access to the oceans which can't be easily restricted, even by a world-dominating navy. They will be able to move hypersonic missile bases, naval bases, and airstrips there. The door will be open to them to start competing with the US as the global naval hegemon.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: