Is our 12 carrier fleet a bad thing?

[GATOR MONROE]

and with 2 more on way over next 5 years does this seem to be overkill?

[MemphisTiger]

1. I don't think so...These ships are very versatile

If we got back to the way we should fight a war, which is from the air in my opinion like bosnia, we would need lose fewer of our soldiers lives. This, of course, depends on the type of war.

[punpirate]

2. Certainly, it's overkill...

... but that's what this country is best known for--wretched excess.

As long as people in this country think they're entitled to run the world, they'll continue to accept the military budgets they have, even if they break the country's economic back.

History doesn't speak well to this tendency. Trying to fight foreign wars and equip huge militaries on indebtedness has always resulted in the eventual demise of the nation as a world power. The Bushies have simply accelerated a process that has been going on since WWII.

There's a much larger price for being cops of the world than people realize.

[Harold]

99. I agree

Do we really need enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth more than once? No, unless we plan to take Mars and Jupiter down with us. Everything in the U.S. military is excessive.

[Aristus]

102. We need them. We need them in order to massively,

incontrovertibly win the shooting war. That way, when we stupidly, ineptly, arrogantly and short-sightedly lose the peace, we can say: "Yeah, but look how good we were on the battlefield!"

<Bitter sarcasm off>

[Jack_DeLeon]

3. We probably need more.

[GATOR MONROE]

4. not sure bout you jack

should we love you or report abuse????

[Pepperbelly]

8. I agree with the poster ...

We could easily use 6 more than the 12 in service and the 2 in the pipeline.

[HawkerHurricane]

44. The two 'in the pipeline...

are intended to be replacements. Strength will stay at 12, with one used as a 'trainer'.

[Stella_Artois]

60. Nice Skin

Sea Hurricane :)

[DoNotRefill]

6. Either we need more...

or readiness needs to be improved across the board.

We're rapidly approaching the point where NOBODY loves Americans. We need to look to our own defenses.

[Ravenseye]

34. If we continue the way we're going we'll need more.

Look there isn't a navy in the world that can stand up to us. The Russian navy even 10 years ago wouldn't have lasted long. The United States effectively rules the international waters of all the worlds oceans.

We don't need aircraft carriers for domestic protection. Land airbases are much easier and cheaper. Heck even the interstate highways are designed so that every so often it's straight and flat in order to be able to be used as airstrips.

What we need them for is to effectively assert ourselves overseas. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, we have to admit that there are times when we need to be able to project force. Aircraft carriers are mobile airbases we can put anywhere we want. With so many countries turning on us, and even the friendly ones often times being dangerous locations to have bases (mortar attacks, car bombs, anti-aircraft missles) what better place to have our planes than at sea.

I think it's fine.

Now increasing the submarine force? That's absurd.

[haele]

5. Two more over the next five years...

Will replace those that need to be decommissioned or will be facing decommissioning. There are at least four carriers that are around/over 30 years old, with one facing decommissioning soon. Since the 60's, the rule of thumb has been that Naval Ships are to be built with an obsolecence of 15 - 25 years due to the rapid transformation of technology. The cost to overhaul a reactor core on one of the older nuke carriers and extend it's "lifespan" is close to the cost of building a new one; so which is more cost effective?

Also, for every carrier out on deployment, there is one in the yards or in an extended availibility getting overhauled and one in post-overhaul/training that is getting ready to replace the one on deployment. A "twelve carrier" navy means that four carriers are being deployed at any one time.

Haele

[Pepperbelly]

10. It takes 3 to keep one on station ...

So that gives us an availability of approx 4 carriers at a given time. I think we could use 5 or 6 on station at any given time.

[bvar22]

68. Which social programs should we cut to pay for these monsters?

or should we steal the money from our children?

We are in deficit.

[quaker bill]

7. Yes, it is a bad thing.

Maintaining a position of absolute military dominance enables fools like Bush to believe that we can "go it alone". Therefore that is exactly what he does.

If we actually needed to have some allies, perhaps we would listen to them once in a while. It is called diplomacy and it would be a good thing.

[zmdem]

9. Who would these allies be?

I mean from a military point of view, as we are talking about aircraft carriers.

[Boosterman]

11. Hmmm

Britains got a nice navy. Not huge but well equipped and well trained. russia still has some naval power. Think its all old though. India has some naval power. However even with only 4 carriers available we have sufficient ability to project force. Our Navy could trounce everyone else combined just about. That seems more than sufficient. We just need to get out of friggin Iraq and the Navy will be fine.

[zmdem]

12. Britain, et. al.

Britain is an ally, and as you point out, one with a very nice military. Russia isn't the old Cold War adversary she used to be, but still not an ally. Our Navy is sufficient, as you say, tho' I don't know enough to say if the Iraqi war is the strain on the Navy as it is the Army.

[Boosterman]

13. Yeah I was throwing out potential allies

I also wanted to make a point about how powerful our navy is. Last I heard they were under strain too. Having a hard time meeting their other commitments and fighting in Iraq. I am sure there is a little less pressure on them than the Army. Probably just mumbling from upper brass anyway for appropriations time. ;)

[Massacure]

14. Russia's sunburn missiles can turn most U.S. ships into scrap metal.

Aircraft carriers included. I know Iran has some of those missiles. Sunburns are specifically designed to defeat the U.S. AEGIS system.

[Selatius]

17. Nuke-capable Sunburn missiles are no laughing matter

The Chinese now possess them as well and have them deployed in the Taiwan straits in case a shooting war erupts there and the US fleet decides to jump in.

[Stella_Artois]

20. Iran doesn't have the nuclear version

It may not have a nuclear weapon at all.

Of course, Bush may tout the fact that this missile *could* carry a nuclear warhead as reason to invade. It can of course, but only in the sense that a truck, aircraft, boat, or pretty much anything else can carry a nuclear device as well.

[Stella_Artois]

18. Sunburn isn't too much of a threat

It only has a range of 120Km or so, and it would take maybe 5 to sink a US fleet carrier.

If war with Iran was on cards the US would move out of the Persian Gulf and just pound the place from the safety of the Indian Ocean.

Very good at killing people, the US military.

[Massacure]

37. It only takes 1 to ruin the day though.

At the very least it would defintately give the the damage control people a very busy day.

[DoNotRefill]

39. Just like the T-80....

was designed to defeat the M1A1. That doesn't make it so.

[Selatius]

40. Haven't seen the T-82s, T-84s, or the T-90s, have you?

[DoNotRefill]

43. Even the T-90....

stands ZERO chance against the M1A1 in a fair fight.

[Selatius]

46. I not so sure I'd agree there

"ZERO chance" generally illicits a skeptical response from me in any situation, since even Iraqi resistance fighters armed with RPGs have been able to knock out M1s when they shoot at the rear.

IMHO, the T-82s and later stack up roughly equivalent to the M1. In the hands of well-trained crewmen, I have no doubt in my mind that we'd be looking at a battle where both sides would inflict heavy losses. Granted, I don't think anyone has seen an engagement between M1s and T-90s, but I'm not so confidant to believe it'd be a complete blowout.

[Massacure]

52. But the T-90 is a hell of a lot cheaper.

It goes back to the fundemental quality vs quantity thing.

[da_chimperor]

82. Exactly. In WWII a panther, tiger I or II would take out a sherman easily

but we had a lot more shermans than the germans had panthers or tigers. Good tactics and numerical superiority can really add up.

[bvar22]

69. Who fights fair?

The people we are trying to bully don't factor in the need to survive the first punch.
Gives them a tremendous advantage.

[Stella_Artois]

55. Sure have.

One on one at close range its more a matter of who fires first.

But if you take a company of each in good tank country and place them 4 miles apart which side would you want to be on ?

The latest M1 (actually the M1A2) is perhaps the finest battle tank every created. It had better be, for the money that it costs. They are networked together, what one sees they all see. It really is warfare for the X-Box generation.

[Pepperbelly]

48. Sunburns are pretty tough. Fast and low with a lot of punch BUT ...

just because when they designed them they intended to defeat Aegis doesn't mean that they will. Aegis is an awful tough nut to crack and the CIWS (phalynx) is pretty tough as well.

Unless they tip them with nukes.

In which case, we are all fucked anyway.

[quaker bill]

63. From a military point of view, ours is too large.

Yes, let's just pick the military apart and discuss one element at a time in the abstract.

What are aircraft carriers used for? My understanding is "force projection". Why do we need to project force around the planet?

In part, because we can. Our ability to project overwhelming miliarty force around the planet allows stooges like George W. Bush to adopt a "foriegn policy" (translation 'your with us or against us') that could not be sustained without the credible threat of military force.

Without this threat, we would have to adopt a policy that envisioned the US as part of the world rather than master of it.

Personally, I am for disarmament. Things being as they are right now, I would chose to start with the largest threat to world peace, specifically, George W. Bush.

[Forkboy]

15. 12? We need a HUNDRED!

We gotta be safe!

[bvar22]

16. There are only two kinds of ships in modern warfare:

1) Targets

2) Submarines


The USA is ushering in a new era of Corporate Colonialism, and the Aircraft Carrier is a tool to enforce Corporate orders in 3rd World countries.
They are hideously expensive and vulnerable to relative cheap countermeasures. They are good for Show of Force, and for enriching the MIC.

[Strelnikov_]

22. I Agree. There Will Not Be Much Left On The Surface If War Is Waged

on the high seas.

We need some carriers for the versatility they provide, but assuming they would last any length of time during full naval warfare is flawed planning.

[Pepperbelly]

49. no, you are wrong.

U.S. Submarines and targets. The others are so damned LOUD. Hear 'em coming for miles and miles.

[bvar22]

67. Some of the old (updated) WW2 Diesel electrics....

...are quieter than modern nuke subs, especially in local defense. Batteries are quieter than Nuke plants. Major limit, time submerged.

[Pepperbelly]

70. not to mention ...

Viking aircraft with sonarbouys. Those fuckers are good.

[driver8]

71. Diesels quieter than nuclear subs?

That doesn't make much sense. A nuclear reactor does not generate noise that I know of -- it is the turbines that turn the shaft that make noise and also the propellers. I cannot imagine an old diesel boat being quieter than today's nuclear submarines.

[Stella_Artois]

73. Its true.

Nuclear boats need to keep pumps running at all times to move reactor coolant around. Conventional boats can just turn everything off and sit dead in the water, totally silent. Even a 50 year old Russian Romeo class can do that.

This is why the US Navy is so worried about the threat they pose.

This all changes when they need to move however. I seriously doubt any Russian boat is quieter than a current US boat since their propellers are known to be less efficient.

Nuclear boats on the other hand have the massive advantage of being able to stay at sea until the food runs out. Diesel/Electric boats need fuel.

[jmowreader]

74. You're not running on diesel power when you're submerged

A diesel sub has a very large battery bank and an electric motor to turn the screw. When that boat is underwater, the biggest piece of its noise signature (assuming someone doesn't piss off the cook and get a pot slung past his head into the side of the boat) is the cavitation off the screw. This is why the US got so antsy when (IIRC) Hitachi sold the Soviets a precision grinding system that could make cavitation-free submarine screws.

On a nuclear boat, the screw is turned by a steam turbine. Steam turbines are quiet but not as quiet as electric motors.

[Stella_Artois]

77. Sort of

Read my previous. The only advantage of a conventional boat is that you can turn it off. Can't turn off fission.

[driver8]

84. turning off fission

You are partly right. You can turn off fission -- it is called a Reactor Scram. We used to run these drills all the time. Basically, the control rods drop (either manually operated or caused by plant malfunction of some sort). Once the control rods drop -- the reactor is shut down. You guys are right about the coolant pumps -- they are always going and removing heat from the core. Even when the Reactor is shut down the pumps are run to remove decay heat.

It's funny -- I went through Naval Nuclear Power school and qualified as a student on a submarine plant. I guess we never talked about the diesel subs that much. I knew they had to surface to recharge the battery and get rid of C02, but never thought about how quiet they are.
My dad was on diesel subs and said sometimes there was such a concentration of carbon dioxide that you couldn't light a cigarette.

I was a sub volunteer but ended up on a Nimitz class carrier -- the USS
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Regarding the amount of carriers we need, that is a tough question. I guess it depends on the type of wars to be fought. I have to say, they are an impressive show of force.

[Stella_Artois]

91. interesting

I had forgot about that. When a reactor is "scrammed" like that can it be restarted ?

WRT diesel boats didn't the Germans invent "Snorkel Tubes" for them in WWII so they don't need to surface to "breath" I assume this is still done today ?

[driver8]

98. re: interesting

Oh yeah, a scrammed reactor can be started. When they used to run drills on us, we sometimes scrammed the reactor a couple of times a night. We had a procedure known as a fast recovery startup -- if certain conditions were met, rods were latched, and pulled.

Following a scram, if a certain amount of time has passed and the reactor has not been started, then there are other procedures that are followed before startup can begin.

I was on a Nimitz class carrier which has 2 reactors. One reactor can supply enough power and steam to supply the whole ship and all of it's operations. The USS Enterprise has 8 reactors and is the only ship of it's kind. Submarines have one reactor -- so getting a sub's reactor started is a bit more critical than a carrier's.

[TyObe]

109. Snorkel mast

I'm pretty sure most subs have a snorkel mast. This is a big pipe that sticks up at the surface and allows the ship to take in fresh air while still being submerged. It's usually shorter than the periscopes by a couple of feet.

FWIW, it only works if the top of the sail is within about 10' of the surface. The snorkel mast is also super easy to locate with a decent radar.

[bvar22]

78. Nuke plants need high volume...

...water pumps that operate constantly. You can never turn them off. Nukes also need turbines to provide power and propulsion.

The only thing a submerged diesel electric sub need to operate is a battery and an electric motor....MUCH quieter than ANY Nuke Sub.


The ONLY place that a diesel electric would have a tactical advantage is in local defense, but it does have a large tactical advantage against the attackers in that role.

There are only two ways for the attacker to locate them.

1) A system of permanent sonar receivers that may be able to hear and tag(identify) them as they pass on their way to an ambush location. That would let the attacker know the general area.

2) MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector) Big metal detector that can be operated from aircraft. It is easily countered by the defenders by sinking obsolete ships and scrap metal in numerous areas.



A Diesel Electric sub, lying on the bottom in a coastal area in the path of an approaching Carrier (or fleet) is undetectable and would have a high probability of scoring a first kill. However, it would be a suicide shot.

China and Iran are known to operate these kinds of submarines.

[Stella_Artois]

79. This happened in 82

The Argentines had a boat sat on the bottom of Falkland Sound.

The Brits knew it was there, but were unable to place it exactly, although they did keep it supressed. The people on board it didn't feel like dying and kept themselves to themselves.

The incident caused a fair amount of professional hand wringing at the time, since the Brits were perhaps the finest ASW navy afloat at the time. If they couldn't kill it the US couldn't either.

[TyObe]

112. Somewhat quieter

A modern deisel can be quieter than a nuke boat. But they have to be able to sit on the bottom, so the sliver of ocean available to them is very limited. Lots of places it can't really be done while still being able to effectively attack (the Puget Sound and other places with a steeply sloping bottom).

A nuke fast attack can still find them. You can light them up with an active sonar search (however that reveils the hand that you're playing and isn't very stealthy). The nuke boat will already know the deisel is in the neighborhood (due to the limited time the deisel has on the battery).

The modern deisel, probably wouldn't have a good enough passive array to make good on it's accoustic advantage. It isn't going to be able to pick up a the modern nuke boat until it is too close. If the deisel shoots, it's going to get toasted in return. That pretty much applies even if they get lucky and pick up the nuke at longer ranges--the deisel just doesn't have the speed to get out of the way of the torpedo that the nuke boat is going to hurl down the bearing of the incoming weapon.

Ty

[MADem]

100. It IS true n/t

[sweetheart]

19. Antiques for Ebay

Long range air support from land bases can accomplish the same
thing, if absolute necessity arises (like war tends to be).

As well, submarines and ballistic missile deterrents protect the
nation's shores. Rather these carrier groups are legacies of
old thinking, that walking a bully around the neighborhood with a
big club is a way to provoke baddies... and that this is the way
to police an empire.

We can't afford it. The shores are defended. It's waste that
would so much be better afforded to schools, roads, and healthcare
for hard working citizens on the home front.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strelnikov_]

23. Actually, I Think A Lot Of People Here 'Have A Clue'

If you are looking for clueless, maybe you took the wrong turn to freeperland.

The denizens of that sewer still think the Iraq war has made us secure.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

27. Take a simple survey.

1)Search the archives at DU, and find out what we said would be the inevitable result if the US attemptd an Invasion opf Iraq.


2) Check out what the Pentagon, WashDC, NeroCons(intentional), MIC, and so called MEDIA military experts said would happen if we invaded Iraq.

Who ya gonna call?
Those who are repeatedly WRONG,
or those at DU.
BTW: Many of our residents ARE EXPERIENCED EXPERTS.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anakie]

29. so when will you be signing up??????

n/t

[Goathead]

30. I hate to tell you

Most of those young people going to Iraq are being trained to do one thing and that is kill. I seriously doubt if the majority of them could even point Iraq out on a map. Unfortunately the only thing their training will help them do when they get back will be flipping burgers at McDonald's or being a greeter at Wal-Mart. I have seen it happen on more than one occasion.

[tx_dem41]

54. You don't have much experience dealing with the military.....

Having worked with them on a daily basis for 20 yrs, I know that your statements are outrageously false. My company has hired hundreds of ex-military because in just about every case they are the best qualified to work with the systems and have the engineering expertise that we require.

It is possible to be against the war, and still have respect for the men forced to fight it. I wish more people here agreed with that.

[driver8]

72. Agreed, Tx Dem

I grew up in a military family -- my father was a career Navy man. I did six years in the Navy after college in the Navy Nuclear power program. Most of the guys I worked with in the Navy had jobs at power plants or co-generation plants before they got out. Many of them are managing facilities. My father was in Naval Intelligence and had several offers to work in Washington, DC when he got out.

I always hate the statement that since I am "against the war, I am against the troops." Nothing could be further from the truth. I have an incredible amount of respect for the men and women in the military -- it is not an easy life and, lets face it, the pay sucks!!

There are many jobs in the service that prepare you for careers outside the military.

[bvar22]

31. Those DUers who slogged through the patties...

...and hamlets in Viet Nam in another unnecessary war can come DAMN CLOSE to exactly what our grunts are going through in Iraq!

In fact, I would call THEM experts.
Would YOU????
(I double dog DARE you to answer my last question!)

[DS1]

53. No, your typical ground pounder isn't going to have enough of a

a handle on the economic and global politics and military capabability reviews to decide how many major assets we need afloat.

That's why we have a Senate Armed Forces committee, amoung other things.

[wuushew]

24. Any more than zero is too many

the goal of any navy is to project force and act as a tool of global economic hegemony. The massive build up of Amrican naval power prior to WWI was inspired by Alfred Thayer Mahan's book The Influence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783.

Since we no longer need to go an hunt Soviet ICBM subs why do we need any tools other than coast guard vessels to protect our waters and enforce martime law? The answer of course is power of the Neocons and the military industrial complex.

[unotrohombre]

32. What about China/Taiwan , North Korea/South Korea

Should we defend Taiwan or South Korea if attacked?
I still haven't decided what is a logical answer to that.
But, if Hillary (I firmly believe she will be our next Pres.) decides to defend, whom should decide what sort of military assets need to be maintained? And, when should they begin to plan for it?

[bvar22]

33. Defend them with WHAT?

Surely you don't believe that an aircraft carrier would survive in the China Sea if China doesn't want it there. If that conflict occurs, only the roaches and rats will survive.


As far as Hillary...... sorry man.
I'll respect you and welcome you to DU,
but I'm choking back my........

[wuushew]

41. The only difference is speed

South Korea is more than capable of defending against a North Korea attack across the DMZ. An American counter attack would be staged by forces shuttled in from Japan and else where.

Regarding Taiwan the same logic is apparent. The expense is speed. However why does such attack need to be immediate military reprisal? When Saddam invaded Kuwait the consequence was initially economic sanctions. Do you think that China whose economy is vitally relient on exports and imported energy could survive long without world markets or that any gains from the seizure of Taiwan would outweigh the lost revenue from economic sanctions?

A billion dollars here and a billion dollars there is another dollar that is not paid down on the national debt or another domestic social program that is under-funded. These sacrifices are real unlike the speculative and non-inevitable conflict with foreign powers.

[Selatius]

45. I feel that we WILL NOT defend Taiwan if they are attacked

It's not economically feasible for many big corporations to see the US government at war with another government that has control over some of the cheapest pools of labor in the world. Any war over Taiwan, I feel, will end with the occupation of Taiwan. I think the US will measure the costs and the benefits and decide to ditch Taiwan. I could be wrong, but this is how it seems at present, at least in my mind.

China is a rapidly expanding power both militarily and economically. As time goes on the costs of war will only increase as China's capabilities continue to grow. It will not be so easy to pledge to defend Taiwan in the future.

[tx_dem41]

56. Well, I for one, would feel completely safe with the coast guard

fleet defending our complete shoreline. :eyes:

[wuushew]

58. Defend against what?

Billions of dollars of military hardware to defend against attack by cargo container? Sounds like a law enforcement problem to me. There is no "war" against terrorism it is simply a higher scale of crime.

The era of conflict between nation states on traditional grounds is largely over. The United States and Europe no longer maintain global colonial empires and the need to maintain military outposts and sea links between them. Wealth in the post industrial age is generated by free markets and financial services not the outright seizure of land or resources. The larger and more polyglot the empire the quicker such a system falls.

Carriers are very expensive tools and if our role in the future to apply them in peacekeeping roles then I don't understand why we need so many, why we are the sole executives of that power or how they defend us when operating thousands of miles from American territorial waters.

[tx_dem41]

57. How did you feel about the U.S. military's role in ....

the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo?

[wuushew]

59. The Kosovo intervention was illegal

even so the air campaign was launched mainly via NATO airforce bases.

[Telly Savalas]

26. The only attack on U.S. soil...

in the last 50 years was made by a few guys armed with boxcutters and plane tickets. How is an expensive aircraft carrier supposed to be utilized to meet such threats?

[TahitiNut]

35. Gee... how many does the REST OF THE WORLD have?

Do we have enough to crush 'em all under our corporate boot? :eyes:

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Pepperbelly]

50. England, France, Russia, India ...

There might be others I am not aware of.

[knight_of_the_star]

36. Not enough

Not with how many enemies we are making. Unless Bush manages to keep his cock-swinging in check for the next four years (I think I'll be able to fly by flapping my arms before THAT happens) then we will need to double that number to effectively defend ourselves.

[Gyre]

38. "It's hard work"

pissing everybody off on the planet except for Tony Blair and Michael(?) Howard. Also kind of expensive I'm thinking. I sure wish we could get those pinheads to kick in some real support (ie, cash) and give us stiffs on the street a break.

Gyre

[Taxloss]

42. How many aircraft carriers would it have taken to prevent 911?

In the early 1900s, there were big fears in the UK that Germany was building Dreadnoughts faster than us, and would soon have more. People chanted for more in music halls. Within years, war came, and the dreadnoughts could not have been more of a sideshow. They were technological jokes. Jutland, the only major surface naval enagagement of WW1, was a charade, and an embarrassment for the Royal Navy. The British admiral commented "There seems to be something wrong with our damn ships today." And there was. Their captains were performing according to the plans worked out and simulated again, and again, and again in Naval colleges. The Germans weren't following the plan.

Meanwhile, in Flanders, warfare was being redefined at a cost of millions of lives.

Huge fleets of this kind are always obsolete. By their very definition, they are obsolete, because the enemy will see them and change their plans.

[Pepperbelly]

47. 4 on-station carriers does not constitute a "huge fleet" nor are they as .

vulnerable as many here paint them to be.

I was Navy ... 4 yrs active at the end of Viet Nam and 4 yrs in the Reserves. My son is a sailor right now, in Groten, CT. Carriers can be nailed but not by anything cheap or primitive. Boats can sometimes slip up on them but at the same time, the carriers protect themselves and they have a squadron of surface combatants AND subs to protect them.

Now why would the Navy want these relics? Because they are damned effective. Because they give a way to respond to problems that the 30 minutes of flight time that an ICBM takes is too fast and too blunt a tool.

[Stella_Artois]

61. Sure scrap them.

Then next time civil war errupts in some far away place we can just cross out fingers and hope that the neighboring countries allow American helicopters to land there after rescuing American citizens from a situtation that is no fault of their own.

[wuushew]

62. Does the United States have a good record on intervention?

Vietnam=failure
Central America=failure
Caribbean=failure
Somalia=failure
Rwanda=inaction/failure


I am sure you are aware that the United States contributes the least amount of international aid relative to size of any industrialized country. Seems to me this is money would provide far better returns than the money spent on the blackhole which is the defense department. I would like to see far more use of soft power over military force.

[Stella_Artois]

66. And ?

Next time some place starts tearing itself apart, i'll mail the US citizens there some aid packages. Maybe they can use them to barter free passage. Sure beats a helicopter lift.

Right ?

[wuushew]

76. How are Americans abroad our problem?

visiting or working in a foreign country means you submit to that country's sovereignty. If you are dumb enough to follow the all mighty dollar to places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia then that is no longer my problem.

[Stella_Artois]

81. Thats an interesting attitude

I'm sure aid workers working in volatile parts of the world will redouble their efforts. If they don't die of dumb first of all.

[wuushew]

83. Many of them are there because of religion

if they die because of their irrationality then I congratulate them on their impending martyrdom.

While there is a general need for western expertise what is needed more is material and financial assistance. To employ military force that may kill more people than it saves is neither logical nor ethical.

[Stella_Artois]

90. Really.

I work with voluntary agencies on a daily basis. Apart from the ones that have names such as "Christian Aid" the people that work there don't seem to be more religous than anyone else. Actually i can't remember anyone at CAID mentioning God at anytime anyway. You seem to see compassion as a weakness. I'm a different person to you.

[wuushew]

92. You are framing a false argument

Iwo Jima class amphibious assualt ship

Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average ~$32,500,000


vs.



Nimitz class super carrier

Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average ~$160,000,000

[Stella_Artois]

96. No, not really.

Never heard of a helicopter flying CAP for other helicopters. Have
you ?

Scrap the fixed wing carriers and the helo's can only operate if everyone plays nice and lets them. Want to rely on that ?

"Hey China, please stop bombing Taiwan so we can lift our civilians out!"

[wuushew]

97. Well what is it then? Third world shithole or WW3?

I don't like the unspoken assumption here that armed conflict with powers like China or Russia is somehow unavoidable. This represents a severe lack of imagination and lack of confidence in diplomacy. In this global economy who is this phantom power that will only cut off trade to the U.S.? This uber power itself somehow is not reliant on trade?

In any of your posts have you answered how much force can be justified in our military spending? Do you see any areas that merit cuts? If global supremacy is in itself a valid objective who are we to frown on powers like Iran who have legitimate reasons for developing nuclear weapons. Are you advocating yet another tired defense of American exceptionalism?

[Stella_Artois]

104. Talk about missing the point

The whole reason any country has a military is that they need to be there as an insurance policy in case all other aveneues are exhausted. It is precisely because the future cannot be seen in a crystal ball that we need a military that is flexible enough to meet as many potential future eventualities as possible. You'd see it cut back to the point that when it is needed it isn't able to do whatever it is needed for 10-20 years in the future, and then argue that since it is obviously useless lets get rid of it altogether. Tellingly enough you haven't been able to rebutt any of my points, including a confusing attempt to say Americans only set foot out of the US due to greed or religion.

Just because it is currently the tool of a distasteful commander in chief don't fall into the trap of thinking that it can only be used to his ends.

Also, you are hopelessly US-centric in your assesment on who has a valid reason for nuclear weapons. Nobody has a valid reason. All such weapons should be broken up starting and ending with the US.

Want to save money ?

Withdraw from Europe. They don't need us, or want us. They don't seem to want to hit the seld destruct button again.

Actually partner with Europe on joint defense programs, they are building new carriers. Partner with them to build 3 for them, 2 for us, assuming we can get the requirements to match. Enjoy the greater economies of scale, assuming the thorny issues of production can be worked out.

Begin the process of total nuclear disarmament, the US, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, DPRK. Start with our ICBMs. Scrap them now.

Then scrap the missile defense shield.

The US *does* need to protect its North America's sea lanes. China and the EU have at least the potential to communicate via land links. The US does not.

[sbj405]

51. At some point, we will alienate all our allies

We won't have the luxury of land bases abroad (ok maybe we'll have our 12 in Iraq). We will need carriers to conduct any and all operations abroad.

Also, while 12 seems like a lot, you need to realize the cycles that these ships and crews go through. Pre-deployment workups, deployment, shipyard, etc. The ways things are now this is a constant cycle. When I lived in Norfolk, it wasn't uncommon to see 2 or 3 carriers in port. Last time I was there, there were none.

[GATOR MONROE]

65. we could put 6 carriers in and around...

the south china sea in one month and back that up with 200 extra fighter aircraft based in greater japan in sam period with 100 of their fighter aircraft also taking up slack as cover for mainland. you may not know this the tiny jewish state has the worlds 4th largest air force???

[Placebo]

64. OF COURSE it's NOT a bad thing.

Don't you want our navy and armed forces to have the latest and most advanced technology available?

I mean, c'mon.

[tedzbear]

75. Yes.

Just the cost of one of them would put a hell of a lot of poor kids through college.

[ShaneGR]

80. Depends on if the new "Sunburn" anti-ship missiles are being fired at one.

The sunburns our ships have no defense for.

[Pepperbelly]

85. the Navy has it figured out ...

I remember when the first cruise missiles made an appearance. By the time the civilian world heard of them, the Navy had the defenses against them down to an art. Sunburns fly fast and low and they have a lot of punch but they are not the end-all-be-all. The SM-2 is the most advanced anti-air missile ever devised and the Aegis System, despite the knowledge of the system when the Sunburn was developed, is an extremely tough nut to crack. Add two or three Aegis platforms defending a carrier task force as well as CIWS like the Phalynx and you most likely have a killed Sunburn.

[ShaneGR]

114. That's an interesting take?

What do you think of this guys writings on the Sunburn?

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

[InvisibleBallots]

86. are those "Sunburn" missiles real?

I've read so much on the internet about them, but nothing from an even remotely reliable source. Did Russia make an official announcement about them?

[Pepperbelly]

88. here ya go.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

[T Town Jake]

87. I'm still holding out hope...

...that Starfleet will get up and running sometime soon. I dig those Galaxy-class starships..let's have twelve of them working through the pipeline, and I'll support it to the hilt. :hippie: :smoke: :toast:

[blindpig]

89. perhaps not enough for imperialism

entirely too many for defense. They are the ultimate in gunboat diplomacy. We could probably Defend ourselves with half as many, if that was all we had in mind.

[Pepperbelly]

93. The carriers are not to defend us.

They are instruments for meeting the Navy's mission which is, very specifically, to keep sea lanes open for commerce. And for that, they are quite good.

For those who think that carriers are extremely vulnerable, they are not. The reason is that they are designed to keep threats at a distance. They do this through the extensive use of CAPs, the use of anti-submarine planes, and by keeping surface combatants way over the horizon.

Peace out.

[tedzbear]

94. Let the rest of the world help protect sea lanes for commerce!

We shouldn't have to empty our treasury to do it. Instead of us building so many carriers, let Japan, China, and Europe start building some.

Keeping sea lanes open for commerce should be the job of the UN, not the USA. Our carriers are nothing but pork for the military-industrial complex.

[Pepperbelly]

95. short-sighted ...

Do you have any idea what we depend on oceanic shipping for?

No thank you. I think we need 8 more.

[GATOR MONROE]

101. PEPPER you da man

2100 enemy K I A IN RECENT BATTLE FOR FALLUJHA, THE ELECTIONS WILL HAPPEN NOW.

[bvar22]

103. Yes..

..all that plastic crap from China.

[Pepperbelly]

105. Did you forget a few other items that we import?

Like oil, strategic metals, Sponge Bob Square Pants memorabilia?

[wuushew]

110. Why is it ok to kill for wealth?

Between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada the North American continent has ample resources to supply the gears of industry(all be it a greatly increased cost). If a foreign naval power is closing shipping the only remedy is to sink that obstacle and in the process killing the crew for the privilege of driving a car.

I suppose it could be argued that economic casualties outweigh the military cost, but that overlooks radical solutions like socialism that could feed people without killing for capitalism.

[Pepperbelly]

115. Whatever...

blockage of the sea lanes, lanes that all people of the world are entitled to navigate, is a criminal act.

[wuushew]

116. Isn't it still a property crime?

Interference in the transportation of material goods being dealt with by leathal military force? Isn't this a larger argument based on the burglurary/lethal force argument?

If the sailors from the cargo ships are being killed then you have reason to use force, however if ports are blocked or ships impounded why does that justify launching the massive power of the U.S. navy after them? Seems like blood would be shed.

[Pepperbelly]

118. -sigh-

Keeping the seaways clear, the Navy's primary mission, is based on not allowing other naval powers to sink shipping. Believe it or not, this HAS happened in the past.

[Swamp Rat]

106. Not for PNAC since they want to bomb the fuck out of everybody

[GATOR MONROE]

107. 15 million people owe all or...

part of their employment to these great warships.

[wuushew]

111. myths of military spending

Military spending creates jobs.
Answer: As far as providing jobs, military spending is a much worse investment than other federally funded programs. For example, $ 1 billion spent by the Pentagon on weapons, supplies and services generates 25,000 jobs. However, the same $1 billion would create 30,000 mass transit jobs, 36,000 housing jobs, 41,000 education jobs, and 47,000 health care jobs.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/TopMilitarySpendMyths_CDI.html

[Zero Gravitas]

108. more more more

currently US military spending is only 45% of the world's total. that means that the rest of the world is outspending us on defense! We must gain the lead in military spending over the non-Americans! We must account for at least 55% if not two thirds of total military spending!

Buy more carriers! we need space based lasers! a newklar missile base on the moon! hypersonic terrain following cruise missiles! bunker busting newks! robotic autonomous tanks with rapid fire .50 caliber Gatling guns! self-guided homing bullets! giant robots that swat aircraft out of the air!

[TeacherCreature]

113. The oldest carriers date to the early 60s--they are headed for the heap

As soon as the new ones come on line.

Kiity Hawk and Enterprise were completed in the early 1960s, the JFK in 1968.

So they are 40 years old now or about to be, and their sisters and immediate predecessors are already in mothballs or rusting as hulks in various ports.

These ships have very big hulls and can survive almost forever, but even after all the refits the equipment starts to wear out or it gets too expensive to replace and refit everything.

As to whetehr we "need" them--the question is a complex one that bears direcely on what we expect our military to do.

If we plan to intervene in or invade other countries, we do need them, but I think we do this much too much, and should scale back a bit.

Conventional D/E submarines, BTW, are indeed the most dangerous threat to carriers especially in relativey coastal waters.

They are much less easy to detect than nuke subs and can sink a carrier with a couple of lucky torpedo hits.

[MisterCompletly]

117. They provide jobs for lots of people and industries

I guess that's a good thing for the economy.

[Guarionex]

119. i think it's a waste of money...

The Russian Sunburn missle can hit ANY American Navy boat...and bypass the Aegis system...Navy carriers have now become floating deathtraps...

I think the U.S. should invest in missile technology, like the Russians...just having hulks of metal floating around is costly and stupid, considering a cheaper Sunburn missile can quickly make mincemeat of ANY American Navy boat.

Read here on the Sunburn missile.

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm