[Marxism] 21st century capital ships

[dave.walters at comcast.net]

Anthony, it appears as if you are responding to another post...which one?

"Among the countries with nukes, only those
with fusion weapons can really be counted as having
imperialist military might. India, Pakistan, China
and Israel don't cut the mustard, "

Really? I think not. In the history of sea warfare there 
have been no nukes employed. In almost every confrontation
the fact that some ships had nuclear weapons was wholly
irrelevant to the outcome of the battle(s) and that some were
nuclear propelled only provided a tactical advantage of 
indeterminate outcome.

Since 1945, only the Malvinas war directly confronted a neocolonial
power against a nuclear armed and nuclear propelled British
navy. The nuclear navy almost lost. In fact, I'd say it was more
the Argentines that lost than the British actually winning. The
Brits came very close to getting their asses whupped.

A British nuclear propelled sub used a conventional warhead
against the an Argentine battleship, sinking it and killing all those
aboard. Hardly an indictment of a non-nuclear power. More it 
shows how deadly submarines remain.

China, additionally, has no nuclear subs but has fusion weapons 
(I think the proper term here is 'thermonuclear', not fusion). It can 
land a nuke anywhere in the world, including the US Seventh Fleet.

The real advantage the US is this, IMO:
1. massive, overwhelming firepower in the form of
it's 11 or so carrier groups.
2. complete command and control anywhere in the world.
3. nuclear *powered* carriers, cruises and subs that don't
ever have to be refueled, practically speaking.
4. completely uninterrupted supply lines from anywhere
in the world through a world-wide network of bases both
land, sea and air based.

No one comes close to this, not even the French or the British, and
certainly not the Russians, who always, it seems, had the same
disadvantages that the German Kriegsmarine had in both world
wars.

My two cents. :)

David