View Single Post
Old 03-15-2010, 04:08 PM
sic1701 sic1701 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 93

Not having read the canon timeline of events and the sequence thereof (did this battle occur before or after, or during, the tactical nuclear escalation on land?) but understanding that somehow nearly all of the carriers need to be accounted for (i.e. sunk or damaged beyond repair, other than the handful mentioned in PacFlt and LantFlt) and not having had enough time to read through everything listed above, I am inclined to think that perhaps the Soviets used not one but several nuclear warheads against the CBGs.

After all, it's not like there was much in the way of civilian collateral damage on the high seas, the Motherland was being directly threatened, the Soviets needed to show who was boss, and nuclear escalation at sea is (or can be interpreted as) different than nuclear escalation on land. And I would think that the Soviets would gladly and cheerfully trade the entirety of the Red Banner Northern Fleet for the destruction of all effective American carrier power in that theater. If they can also mop up Navy ASW assets and portions of the Gator Navy in the process, so much the better. And a tersely worded statement threatening to escalate to nuclear weapons on land if the U.S. responds in kind by utilizing nukes on Kola Peninsula bases instead of being content to obliterate the Northern Fleet in a tit-for-tat might keep the nuclear portion at sea after all.

I may read through all of the above posts at a later time as well as read the actual timeline of events (which I cannot seem to find in any of the links) and arrive at a different conclusion, but if you want to eliminate several U.S. carrier battle groups from the table in one fell swoop, that might be a way to go.
Reply With Quote