• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Gates makes up Trump's WHO cut

Dayton3 said:
Would you agree the U.S. needs enough aircraft carriers to "defend out shores" then?

And if the U.S. is not the "worlds policeman"...then who is?
Click to expand...

Two CSG's on each shore should do the job.

Not that CSG'S are really used for that.


The world has no policeman
 
vegas giants said:
Two CSG's on each shore should do the job.

Not that CSG'S are really used for that.


The world has no policeman
Click to expand...

really? During combat situations, standard navy practice is to deploy two carriers in each task force. Plus you ignored the Gulf Coast, Hawaii and Alaska.

So that would take a minimum of EIGHTEEN U.S. carriers just to defend out coasts. But even that is inadequate. Just look at the combat radius's of carrier based aircraft.

Realistically just to "defend our shores" would take at minimum THIRTY THREE aircraft carriers.
 
Deuce said:
The "international environment" isn't going to magically become "chaotic and lawless" just because the United States stops bombing Yemen.
Click to expand...

Prove that the U.S. is "bombing Yemen".

You can't of course.
 
Dayton3 said:
really? During combat situations, standard navy practice is to deploy two carriers in each task force. Plus you ignored the Gulf Coast, Hawaii and Alaska.

So that would take a minimum of EIGHTEEN U.S. carriers just to defend out coasts. But even that is inadequate. Just look at the combat radius's of carrier based aircraft.

Realistically just to "defend our shores" would take at minimum THIRTY THREE aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

That is freaking hilarious.


China has one (a crappy one) and Russia has one.


18 is insane and ridiculous


And again carriers are used to project power....they are not the main defense of the homeland
 
vegas giants said:
That is freaking hilarious.


China has one (a crappy one) and Russia has one.


18 is insane and ridiculous


And again carriers are used to project power....they are not the main defense of the homeland
Click to expand...

Finally we're getting somewhere. So how should the U.S. homeland be defended?

How about we do like Switzerland (you really don't want to answer that).
 
Dayton3 said:
Finally we're getting somewhere. So how should the U.S. homeland be defended?

How about we do like Switzerland (you really don't want to answer that).
Click to expand...

Be neutral? Works for me


Submarines and missle defense are used to protect the homeland


33 carriers is freaking hilarious
 
vegas giants said:
Be neutral? Works for me


Submarines and missle defense are used to protect the homeland


33 carriers is freaking hilarious
Click to expand...

Look it up then do the math.

For the U.S. to defend itself the way Switzerland does it would need more or less FIVE THOUSAND more combat aircraft than it has now (plus support aircraft). But that isn't all, Switzerland has a civil defense program that enables its entire population to take cover in hard shelters.

To do something similar for the U.S. would take a defense budget in the range of 2-3 TRILLION A YEAR!!!
 
vegas giants said:
That is freaking hilarious.


China has one (a crappy one) and Russia has one.


18 is insane and ridiculous


And again carriers are used to project power....they are not the main defense of the homeland
Click to expand...

Actually I agree. 18 is too many. I believe the U.S. could fulfill all of its current overseas commitments with 15 carriers including one dedicated to training.
 
Dayton3 said:
Look it up then do the math.

For the U.S. to defend itself the way Switzerland does it would need more or less FIVE THOUSAND more combat aircraft than it has now (plus support aircraft). But that isn't all, Switzerland has a civil defense program that enables its entire population to take cover in hard shelters.

To do something similar for the U.S. would take a defense budget in the range of 2-3 TRILLION A YEAR!!!
Click to expand...

China and russia seem to be able to defend themselves quite well


Cut the military in half
 
Dayton3 said:
Actually I agree. 18 is too many. I believe the U.S. could fulfill all of its current overseas commitments with 15 carriers including one dedicated to training.
Click to expand...

8 max. Even that is too many
 
vegas giants said:
8 max. Even that is too many
Click to expand...


That would only give us the ability to deploy 2 (occasionally 3) carriers overseas. Meaning the U.S. would have to leave huge sections of its overseas commitment uncovered.
 
Dayton3 said:
Expeditionary forces cost man for man at least 5-7 times as much as the non expeditionary forces
Click to expand...
Are nuclear missiles an expeditionary force or not?
What decision will the next government make after the nuclear strike?

will someone else worry about the war and its goals?
Or does this mean that the more you invest in the fleet, the higher the likelihood of maintaining combat effectiveness after the first defeat by nuclear explosions?

In my opinion, the only thing that should be invested most wisely is the means of saving the economy and population after the first nuclear strike and defeat with the help of biological weapons.

As one of the options for ensuring sustainability from such an outcome, I propose the construction of cities on water (and under water)

In addition, such investments will yield significant results in technology, science and the production of new goods and services, which will improve the economic situation and not only in the United States.
 
Dayton3 said:
That would only give us the ability to deploy 2 (occasionally 3) carriers overseas. Meaning the U.S. would have to leave huge sections of its overseas commitment uncovered.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. We dont have an overseas commitment.
 
SevrikovAS said:
Are nuclear missiles an expeditionary force or not?
What decision will the next government make after the nuclear strike?
Click to expand...

The U.S. can't use its nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. Maybe not even then. And if it does want to prepare for a nuclear war then the U.S. needs to build several thousand ABMS and invest in a comprehensive civil defense network.

Neither of which would come cheaply.
 
Dayton3 said:
The U.S. can't use its nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. Maybe not even then. And if it does want to prepare for a nuclear war then the U.S. needs to build several thousand ABMS and invest in a comprehensive civil defense network.

Neither of which would come cheaply.
Click to expand...

We have plenty of ABMs already
 
vegas giants said:
Cancel them. Let them do something about it.


America first
Click to expand...

I love how people of your ilk (opponents of U.S. defense spending) simply handwave away U.S. overseas commitments.

Excuse me for living in the real world rather than the one you live in which has more in common with Narnia.
 
Dayton3 said:
I love how people of your ilk (opponents of U.S. defense spending) simply handwave away U.S. overseas commitments.

Excuse me for living in the real world rather than the one you live in which has more in common with Narnia.
Click to expand...

I love how people of your ilk want American heroes to die in foreign lands to increase corporate profits
 
vegas giants said:
We have plenty of ABMs already
Click to expand...

We have only around 50. You need to launch at least three to intercept each incoming missile meaning we can stop only about 16 nuclear missiles.

The Russians still have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs.

You are simply trolling for the hell of it.
 
Dayton3 said:
Why doesn't he and other billionaires make up for our inadequate defense spending?
Click to expand...

Dayton3 said:
Really? Is the U.S. defense budget large enough to create a strong enough military for the U.S. to win handily the next major war

You know one is coming.
Click to expand...

How quickly you want to change the subject.

China lied to the WHO. Trump blames the WHO because China lied to it and cut the organization's funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom