Can You Answer These Questions? (1 Viewer)

[faithful_servant]

Well now....
You've finally explained the true source of that massive run on Tide laundry detergent reported all across America on Nov 10, 2016. :lamo

You give our liberals too little credit, I'm sure that they all found a nice park to pee in like the last time they had a collective whinefest.

 

[Brewdog]

 

[Tigerace117]

Wasn't that a world of (ZERO) long range missiles and (ZERO) very quiet nuclear powered submarines? Wasn't that a world where the Japanese already had several aircraft carriers and were building more and had a Navy at least equal in ships if not superior to America?

The idea is to ensure that America is never in a position where people like you could claim another navy is superior to the US Navy.

By the way, no, the IJN was not superior to the US Navy.

 

[TheHammer]

You're missing the point. The more fire power we have to defend ourselves and our allies, the far less chance there will be for Vietnams, Koreas, the Gulf Wars, etc. to develop.

Actually, we had the most fire power on earth at the time of all of those wars, seems the concept is a total failure.

 

[TheHammer]

Eisenhower knew, he tried to warn but nobody listened.

The Military Industrialist and their dupes today would attempt to impeach Eisenhower.

 

[TheHammer]

You're ex-navy and you're asking me which countries have the capability of launching long range missiles?

It seems to me you are rather disconnected from the global threats that exist today.

Perhaps you don't understand the question. We all should know who has long range missiles, the question is ware in the world is the imminent threat to America going to come from? i.e. who has the gonads to start a shooting war with America believing they could survive victorious?

 

[ocean515]

Perhaps you don't understand the question. We all should know who has long range missiles, the question is ware in the world is the imminent threat to America going to come from? i.e. who has the gonads to start a shooting war with America believing they could survive victorious?

Perhaps you don't understand my replies. I don't believe any country would attack the US or it's military. As such, these carriers are not sitting ducks. What is a sitting duck are stationary military bases located all across the globe.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The Military Industrialist and their dupes today would attempt to impeach Eisenhower.

Probably. Instead of focusing on weapons he built a super highway system.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually, we had the most fire power on earth at the time of all of those wars, seems the concept is a total failure.

And, if the government had used it, those wars could have been won quickly and decisively and perhaps there would be a unified Korea now and we wouldn't have had to sneak out of Saigon in the dark of night leaving the country to the Viet Cong. More than 58,000 Americans sacrificed with nothing accomplished. In WWII, we didn't worry about collateral damage so much and bludgeoned the enemy into unconditional surrender. And they got their country back on condition that they transform themselves into peaceful nations which they did. And they are all good neighbors in their parts of the world and friends and allies of the United States now.

Now we don't win wars any more. We just fight them, get tired of doing that after awhile, and just stop fighting them leaving enemies of the USA in our wake.

I think we now have a President who sees the value in winning the war if we have to fight one. And who wants the ability to do that fast and decisively. We'll see.

 

[jmotivator]

Even to the ending of bankruptcy, right?

Bankruptcy?

 

[Vox]

Lots of interesting thoughts here.

Yes, I held above Top Secret clearance for 22 years, 4 Navy and 18 Air National Guard. As an Air Force Historian I was trained and had to stay current on military history, all current threats and dangers and the plans for the future. It was an ongoing process......thus I kept up.

I'm only 70 years old, though......so I have to respect the truly elderly duffers who have laid out their excellent qualifications to pontificate on the aircraft carrier issue. I'll just add my own thoughts.

First off, in my opinion, the carriers are immune to conventional weapon attack--they are simply too well protected.

They could be destroyed with nuclear weapons and that would mean letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle. It would only happen in a nuclear war along with destruction of the rest of the world.......not likely......and not moot because we'd all be dead or soon dead within a year or two.

So, that's not much of an issue for me. It could happen, but the world would die along with the carriers.

Why do we need 11? Or a dozen?

It has been correctly stated that it's to maintain hegemony--but what does that mean? I'm not sure we've covered it. It means a high standard of living.......NOT just for rich people, but for all of us.

It is a fact that even the poor people in America have many luxuries that are missing from the lives of the average people of many nations of the world. Food good enough to foster much obesity, good shelter, stereo, wide-screen television, automobiles, refrigerators--even air conditioners.......these are commonly owned by poor people of America.

It is a fact that the average person in America would be considered rich by the average people of many nations of the world.

Hegemony means the freedom for a nation to take UNFAIRLY........meaning profits, natural resources, cheap labor, cheap products.......to TAKE massive amounts with minimal investment and expense and thus reap huge wealth that makes America a great place to live for--not just the rich--but all Americans.

So, to the folks who want to eliminate those darn big old aircraft carriers.......think about what your life might be like without them.

Are you willing to give up a lifestyle that's far more luxurious than the rest of the world?

That's what hegemony gives you and that's what the aircraft carriers protect.

You can't have your cake and eat it too........or, more precisely--you can't eat the world's cake without hegemony.

So......yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's wasteful. Yes, it's embarrassingly greedy and selfish.........yet we couldn't live at our unrealistically high standards if we were not in possession of the military power to allow it.

That's what I think about aircraft carriers.

 

[TheHammer]

Perhaps you don't understand my replies. I don't believe any country would attack the US or it's military. As such, these carriers are not sitting ducks. What is a sitting duck are stationary military bases located all across the globe.

Im argue that both are sitting ducks!

 

[TheHammer]

The idea is to ensure that America is never in a position where people like you could claim another navy is superior to the US Navy.

By the way, no, the IJN was not superior to the US Navy.

You're arguing that the Japanese had fewer carriers after Pearl, right? I disagree without looking it up.

 

[ocean515]

Im argue that both are sitting ducks!

What harder to hit, a moving car, or a stationary building?

I don't discount the fact a modern CVN is a large target, but I'm also aware the military doesn't take $10 billion assets lightly. These carriers have been traveling around war zones for decades. How many have been bombed or sunk?

 

[TheHammer]

It has been correctly stated that it's to maintain hegemony--but what does that mean? I'm not sure we've covered it. It means a high standard of living.......NOT just for rich people, but for all of us.

I'll ask again, What God died and harnessed the American taxpayers with protecting and guarding God's oceans? Where's America's wonderful and grateful allies and their share of the globe's nuclear powered aircraft carriers to guard and protect God's sea lanes?

 

[TheHammer]

What harder to hit, a moving car, or a stationary building?

I don't discount the fact a modern CVN is a large target, but I'm also aware the military doesn't take $10 billion assets lightly. These carriers have been traveling around war zones for decades. How many have been bombed or sunk?

OK, the "sitting duck" argument gets us nowhere we simply disagree. I'll ask you this question that renders the sitting duck issue moot.

What God died and harnessed America's taxpayers to the protection of God's sea lanes? Where is America's rich and grateful allies and their share of the globe's nuclear powered aircraft carriers protecting God's sea lanes?

 

[TheHammer]

I'll leave y'all with this oratory from one who's been there and knows how the feds spend taxpayer's dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwiDA-149nQ

 

[Tigerace117]

You're arguing that the Japanese had fewer carriers after Pearl, right? I disagree without looking it up.

The carriers of the USN and IJN squared off directly against each other on five occasions during the Pacific Theatre.

The Battle of The Coral Searaw

Battle of Midway: Major US victory


Battle of the Eastern Solomans: Draw, largely more due to weather than any real other factor.

Battle of Santa Cruz: Minor US victory

Battle of the Phillippine Sea: Major US victory

The carriers of the IJN were never able to defeat those of the US Navy in an open engagement. Add to that the hellacious US submarine campaign--- only paralleled by the German wolf packs of the Atlantic--- and other incidents like the Battle off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf--- and it's clear the US Navy was superior to the IJN.

 

[The Mark]

It was. However, technology has only made the role of the carrier more important. The ability to project massive amounts of military power, especially denial of air space, pretty much anywhere within 400 miles of an ocean is hugely important.

But, we only need that capability if we need to impose our will on an area of the world not near our coastline/border.

I will grant that such capability would be useful, to a degree, in a large-scale war involving other powerful nations, but that, frankly, seems unlikely at this time.

 

[Vox]

I'll ask again, What God died and harnessed the American taxpayers with protecting and guarding God's oceans? Where's America's wonderful and grateful allies and their share of the globe's nuclear powered aircraft carriers to guard and protect God's sea lanes?

Read the rest of my post again and try to understand it.

The answer is there. Read more slowly.

 

[Lutherf]

But, we only need that capability if we need to impose our will on an area of the world not near our coastline/border.

I will grant that such capability would be useful, to a degree, in a large-scale war involving other powerful nations, but that, frankly, seems unlikely at this time.

Well, the question you have to ask yourself when it comes to these things is "would I rather deal with my enemy on their ground or on my own ground, after they turned it into rubble?"

 

[The Mark]

Well, the question you have to ask yourself when it comes to these things is "would I rather deal with my enemy on their ground or on my own ground, after they turned it into rubble?"

I'm not arguing that all carriers be eliminated, I just wonder why we need the number currently in service.

 

[Fishking]

Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.


I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?


As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?


Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?


As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.


What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

Army person here and I've always thought the area where we outclass the rest of the world the most in was our Navy. That said, we bear the burden of really being the western world's military. No other nation could really defend themselves and they really know they don't have to because we are there. That's how so many European nations can spend so much on social programs.

We also have oceans between us and any other power that could threaten us using conventional warfare. I don't think we need another aircraft carrier, though. Other countries are focusing on things like anti-ship missiles instead of dropping a bunch of money on their own navies.

 

[ocean515]

OK, the "sitting duck" argument gets us nowhere we simply disagree. I'll ask you this question that renders the sitting duck issue moot.

What God died and harnessed America's taxpayers to the protection of God's sea lanes? Where is America's rich and grateful allies and their share of the globe's nuclear powered aircraft carriers protecting God's sea lanes?

Well, you structured an interesting question. What "god" tapped the US to be the Marshal Dillon of the World?

First, let's remove the silly reference.

The US is a super power because it's citizen created an economic powerhouse that dominates the world. It's founding fathers created a country where freedom is the foundational principle.

As is the nature of mankind, people from other countries will never mix completely or without conflict. Never happened, never will. This means people in Country A may be convinced they should take over Country B, and visa versa. Always has happened, always will.

The US arrived in a unique position at the beginning of the 20th Century that was further enhanced at the end of WWI. It was even more enhanced at the end of WWII. It arrived at a place in history where the economic power it's citizens created, and the freedoms it protects, had to ability to be projected around the world through agreements with countries that would otherwise be the target of invasion by it's enemies.

No other Nation has created an economy and government structure that can provide this type of security and commitment. That's why so many people want to come here. It's a unique and successful structure, when it's not challenged by people who would see it dismantled and distributed around the world.

So, I don't know if "god" tapped the US, but certainly fate did. And the billions of people inhabiting this planet are the better for it.

 

[TheHammer]

The carriers of the USN and IJN squared off directly against each other on five occasions during the Pacific Theatre.

The Battle of The Coral Searaw

Battle of Midway: Major US victory


Battle of the Eastern Solomans: Draw, largely more due to weather than any real other factor.

Battle of Santa Cruz: Minor US victory

Battle of the Phillippine Sea: Major US victory

The carriers of the IJN were never able to defeat those of the US Navy in an open engagement. Add to that the hellacious US submarine campaign--- only paralleled by the German wolf packs of the Atlantic--- and other incidents like the Battle off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf--- and it's clear the US Navy was superior to the IJN.

I know all about "the battles." You're arguing that the Japanese had fewer carriers than the Americans, right?