The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2385

The relationship between the government and superheroes is essentially a game between institutional rationality and personal charisma. This contradiction stems from the inevitability of checks and balances on power, and also reflects the public's expectations for an idealized leader.

Superheroes often attract followers through personal charisma, but modern governments rely on institutionalized operations. For example, the "I can't do without you" rhetoric of a certain "big brother" directly conflicts with the term limits and checks and balances mechanism designed into the US Constitution. The difference in background and governing logic also exposes the contradiction between individual decision-making and systemic governance.

At the same time, the public may become dependent on short-term policy benefits, but in the long run, over-reliance on individuals may weaken the democratic system.

The actions of superheroes undermine judicial independence and other such behaviors, essentially reducing national governance to personal political maneuvering and threatening the principle of separation of powers.

Superheroes often act as "saviors" in crisis situations, but they lack professionalism.

This is a very real problem. Superheroes may satisfy some of the public's needs, but they can't solve all of them. They can give people psychological satisfaction, but the problem is that a nation and its people can't live on emotions! We all live in the real world!
Firstly, a large country has many provinces. Because of its size, it also experiences many accidents. With such a vast land area and so many people, who knows what might happen in any place? Therefore, managing the central government of a large country is more difficult and involves more issues than managing smaller countries, where one can simply drive around and inspect twice a day. These issues include ethnic issues, religious issues, livelihood issues, public security issues, taxation issues, water conservancy issues, food issues, chemical safety issues, locust plagues, food safety issues, border issues, financial difficulties, diplomatic issues, judicial issues, education issues, medical issues, business negotiations issues, immunization issues, auditing issues, and economic issues, among others. The problems of a large country are comprehensive, numerous, and complex, while small countries don't need to consider so many issues. People in small countries often have a small-country mentality, believing that their country has never encountered many problems and therefore doesn't need to worry about them. But large countries are different; they need to consider all aspects. It's impossible to be perfect in every way. Everyone has only one brain, so they must focus on the main contradictions. Small countries, on the other hand, have the opportunity to do a good job in all aspects of society. This is what refinement is. For example, if your house is only 50 square meters, it's relatively easy to make the rooms very refined. If your house is 2000 square meters, it's more difficult to make every place in the house very refined. We also know how difficult it is for people living in villas to clean all the rooms, while you can probably clean a small apartment in twenty minutes.

A large country cannot be all-encompassing; it can only grasp the main contradictions and carry out work in a point-to-area manner. A small country, on the other hand, can implement any decree immediately across the country, so in terms of execution, small countries are faster. A large country, like a large ship, cannot change its orders frequently; it must steer steadily and adjust its course gradually. Some problems that are problems for a small country are not problems for a large country. Just like the human body, a 2-meter-tall strong man with a cut of a few centimeters heals quickly, while a 1.5-meter-tall person with a cut of a few centimeters must pay attention. The most difficult thing for a large country is to increase the GDP of the entire population and raise the income of the entire population. Because of the large population, it is difficult for a single industry to prosper. It is necessary to do well and make many industries strong. Many companies may grow quickly by taking advantage of the advantages of a large country, but whether they are strong or not is another matter. That is, whether the per capita income has increased.

In short, there are many complexities. Superheroes seem wonderful, but in reality, in many ways, they are no match for politicians.

Of course, all of these are a bit grandiose and empty talk.

Ultimately, it comes down to the distribution of power.

In short, no one wanted Kay to get involved in the game of power, and the military didn't want its interests to be harmed.

Ultimately, regardless of whether God-given Island succeeds or not, the government will still have to fund the US military, since the US itself feels insecure without its navy. So, given this, why introduce superheroes as a 'competitor'?

Isn't this just making things difficult for yourself?
"Then what should we do?"

Benjamin asked irritably.

Damn it, it's been days, and these people have been sitting here without coming up with a single reasonable solution.

"The other side of the sea has almost pushed the multilateral agreement to a substantive stage! Are we going to wait until their mining fleet lands on the island before we're still arguing here?"

time does not wait.

The major power across the sea is even less likely to wait for a reaction from the United States.

"I have an idea," the military quickly offered a solution they had already prepared.

"Say!"

"Remember S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Helicarrier?"

S.H.I.E.L.D. has created many high-tech weapons, although... after evaluation, these weapons were deemed worthless.

For example, S.H.I.E.L.D. once researched giant mechs, well, humanoid ones, like Gundam... This thing was described by the military as a large toy!

Regarding mechs, let's take a look at what kind of mech is best suited for actual combat.

Let's first look at the humanoid form. The anthropomorphic shape doesn't seem well-suited to modern warfare needs. Firstly, the bipedal locomotion is far slower and less energy-efficient than wheeled locomotion. The contact area with the ground is too small, resulting in excessive pressure and a tendency to sink into soft ground. The upright walking form makes the body too tall, creating a large vulnerable area. It's too easy to be hit. While the hands are flexible, they're not essential since weapons aren't thrown, and the joint flexibility is far less than the speed of rotating mechanisms. Therefore, these aspects need modification. First, replace the bipedal locomotion with wheeled locomotion, which would be much faster and more efficient. However, even with wheels, the contact area with the ground is still insufficient, and the pressure is still high. Therefore, more wheels are needed, ideally with planks underneath. This increases the contact area with the ground, reduces pressure, and improves mobility. Placing planks under the wheels, with the planks automatically moving forward, allows the wheels to always travel on the planks. This increases the contact area, improves friction to prevent slippage, and prevents sinking into soft ground, allowing for easy passage over small potholes and obstacles.

This thing is called a track. Double tracks have a larger surface area and are easier to turn. Therefore, the motion mechanism is a double track.

Since the goal is to reduce the area hit by bullets, then don't walk upright. Shorten your height and reduce your height. Lie directly on the movement mechanism and put the power unit in the middle of the tracks.

The overall height is much lower, making it relatively safer.

Modern warfare firepower delivery is no longer about throwing muscle tissue, so fragile joints are unnecessary. To ensure all-around engagement, a 360° rotating platform seems more practical. The platform should be equipped with modern weapons, ideally a cannon, which is fast and has a greater delivery capability. Machine guns can also be added laterally. If needed, drone launchers can be easily added. Since it primarily houses the cannon, we can call it a turret. Besides carrying weapons, the turret is also the highest point of the mech, making it suitable for mounting observation and aiming equipment. On the battlefield, you can't operate naked; external armor is essential. Fortunately, modern technology is advanced enough that the chassis and weapon platform are armored. Previously, steel plates were used, but now composite armor is available—effective and lightweight—so we've incorporated it. Moving, firing, and locating the enemy all at once is impossible for one person; several people are needed to coordinate—three or four, all housed within the mech, each with their own role: command, pilot, and fire.

By the way, since everyone is hiding inside the armored hull, observation relies on sensors on top, so the turret is equipped with many sensors. Thus, a completely new weapon suitable for modern warfare was born. Actually, it was invented a hundred years ago, but the British inventors, for secrecy, called this mech suitable for modern warfare a "water tank," so we still call it that today. Moreover, back then, there was no experience, so the structure wasn't very scientific. Through many years of experience accumulation, the old water tank has gradually evolved into its current form.

Yeah, we call this thing a tank now...

Next up is the air carrier.

What's the point of investing massive amounts of manpower, resources, and money in building a flying space-based aircraft carrier? At altitudes of tens of thousands of meters, the atmospheric pressure and composition are unsuitable for human survival. The carrier's interior must be completely sealed off from the outside world, and crew members working on deck must wear oxygen masks and special clothing, making operations even more difficult. Furthermore, with the continuous development of missile technology and the emergence of various advanced missiles, what if the space-based carrier were destroyed by dozens of missiles? Wouldn't that be a net loss? Some might ask, can't it carry anti-missile weapons? However, aerial platforms are inherently limited, unlike ground-based systems. A super space-based carrier built at a cost of hundreds of billions could be shot down by weapons costing billions. At sea, the Earth's curvature can mitigate detection by large land-based radars, but in the air, it's completely exposed to the enemy. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of building a space-based carrier is very low. Whether it's even worth building is also a crucial factor.

Moreover, an aircraft carrier is not just a single carrier, but a system. What does "system" mean? A system means that this module not only includes the aircraft carrier itself, but also carrier-based aircraft, escort warships, and a series of supporting facilities such as satellites, logistics support, and forward operating bases. And a system serves a purpose. Simply put, if I build such a flying aircraft carrier, does the system derived from it have any practical value?
Did S.H.I.E.L.D. build it?
The answer is no!
It doesn't even have a matching escort ship!
Relying solely on aircraft carriers to strike targets... wait, do you even know how big an aircraft carrier is?
Such a large target doesn't even need radar; it can be seen with the naked eye!

No escort... what were they thinking?

Do you know how strong the air defense network of a typical US aircraft carrier battle group is?

2艘提康德罗加（122X2）+4艘阿利伯克（96X4）有628个垂发。

Assuming three-quarters of the missiles are Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) and the remaining half are ESSM (Emergency Safe Missiles), then the ship could carry 471 SM-6 missiles and 628 ESSM missiles, totaling 1099 anti-aircraft missiles. This doesn't even include the 21 SeaRAM tubes on each ship. Even assuming a 90% interception rate (two anti-aircraft missiles per aircraft), this would easily allow the ship to intercept over 400 targets.

Moreover, even ignoring all of these factors, simply having an airborne aircraft carrier doesn't significantly improve overall combat effectiveness and is therefore meaningless.

An aircraft carrier's primary combat capability comes from its aircraft. While there's a difference between sea-based and air-based takeoffs and landings, the difference in range isn't critical. Furthermore, since both rely on aircraft, a carrier taking to the air doesn't necessarily translate to higher strike or air defense efficiency; instead, it incurs extremely high costs. Frankly speaking, the cost of building one airborne carrier could build three or four seaborne carriers. And the overall difference isn't significant—the only difference is that the airborne carrier is slightly faster, but how much difference is there compared to fighter jets capable of speeds of several Mach or even faster? War isn't something you can simply decide to wage, and weapons aren't necessarily powerful just because they're built. Even with the worst current technology, sending a 5000-ton payload into the air under extreme conditions is still achievable. Theoretically, a 2000-ton aircraft could be built, but there's no demand for it. If airborne carriers truly offered such a significant advantage, humanity would have researched them long ago. What is their strategic value? If it can only be used without having the technology, then it won't be much different from an ordinary aircraft carrier. In fact, because it currently lacks experience in using aircraft carriers in the air and in building supporting carrier battle groups and carrier-based aircraft, it will be unable to exert its combat capabilities for a period of time (more than ten years).

It's worth noting that the Liaoning entered service 12 years ago, but it wasn't until 17 years ago that it truly became combat-ready. This is something we can learn from the US military. If you give the US military something they haven't even tried, expecting them to master it within 10 years is a bit risky. They might as well use that time to build an aircraft carrier.

If they really wanted to fight, they would have built eight nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

Would it be useful for me to get a Gipsy Danger? Would it be useful for me to get a Gundam? Would it be useful for me to get my hands on a weapon from some other company? No, don't even think about it. There are far more people smarter than you. If it were useful, they would have already gone and worked on it.

Those people at S.H.I.E.L.D.... I really don't know how to describe them. Even the US military is heartbroken. Damn it, you can't just waste money like that!

These are all huge toys!

Actually, considering the responsibilities of S.H.I.E.L.D., it's clear that what they're doing is in line with their own requirements.

After all, they weren't a real army; they were an intelligence organization.

Since there's no need for large-scale wars and not that much demand, the coolest and most stylish design is naturally the best choice.

Let me ask you this: if an aircraft carrier flew right over your head, wouldn't you be shocked?

Shocked!

The goal has been achieved.

The same principle applies to giant mechs.

"Isn't that thing useless in actual combat?"

Benjamin said, frowning.

S.H.I.E.L.D.'s airship factory and several airships have been mothballed and have not yet been dismantled... because dismantling them would be too expensive.