Can You Answer These Questions? (1 Viewer)

[TheHammer]

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

The answer is there. Read more slowly.

Which post please?

 

[TheHammer]

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.

Do other countries claiming to be our allies have the financial where-with-all to at least gather together and supply about 6 of the "alleged" necessary nuclear powered aircraft carriers to petrol God's oceans, or are they just unconcerned, disloyal gratitude absent bankrupted takers milking the BIG sucker?

 

[TheHammer]

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.

Is America better off for it? That's the real question. Why not enter our 20 trillion $ national debt into the equation and our crumbling infrastructure?

Do other countries claiming to be our allies have the financial where-with-all to at least gather together and supply about 6 of the "alleged" necessary nuclear powered aircraft carriers to petrol God's oceans, or are they just unconcerned, disloyal gratitude absent bankrupted takers milking the BIG sucker?

 

[ocean515]

Is America better off for it? That's the real question. Why not enter our 20 trillion $ national debt into the equation and our crumbling infrastructure?

Do other countries claiming to be our allies have the financial where-with-all to at least gather together and supply about 6 of the "alleged" necessary nuclear powered aircraft carriers to petrol God's oceans, or are they just unconcerned, disloyal gratitude absent bankrupted takers milking the BIG sucker?

My answer to your question is yes, America is better for it.

Stemming the natural efforts of nations to conquer it's neighbors is in the best interests of the United States, and freedom seeking democracies.

I'd rather all countries step up to the plate, and I am encouraged the President is holding many countries feet to the fire to pay their agree to share of the cost, but in the end, some country must pick up the responsibility, and the citizens of this country created the ability for the US to do that.

There is plenty of money available to address the domestic needs to address the massive infrastructure needs in this country. An expanding economy, and revision of objectives will accomplish that.

 

[Tigerace117]

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

For somebody who claims to have been in the Navy, you seem awfully fixated on the idea that numerical superiority means superiority in general. As I have shown, the number of carriers at the start of the war were irrelevant. In every carrier vs carrier engagement, the best the Japanese came away with was a draw. You keep trying to argue that the IJN was the superior fighting force simply because they had more carriers in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. I have shown that assessment to be untrue. The USN proved itself qualitatively superior, and by the second half of the Pacific Theatre they were quantitatively superior as well.

 

[Tigerace117]

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

For somebody who claims to have been in the Navy, you seem awfully fixated on the idea that numerical superiority means superiority in general. As I have shown, the number of carriers at the start of the war were irrelevant. In every carrier vs carrier engagement, the best the Japanese came away with was a draw. You keep trying to argue that the IJN was the superior fighting force simply because they had more carriers in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. I have shown that assessment to be untrue. The USN proved itself qualitatively superior, and by the second half of the Pacific Theatre they were quantitatively superior as well.

 

[Vox]

Which post please?

Post #111. Maybe you responded to somebody else's post because your response didn't seem to pertain to mine.

 

[Vox]

Is America better off for it? That's the real question. Why not enter our 20 trillion $ national debt into the equation and our crumbling infrastructure?

Do other countries claiming to be our allies have the financial where-with-all to at least gather together and supply about 6 of the "alleged" necessary nuclear powered aircraft carriers to petrol God's oceans, or are they just unconcerned, disloyal gratitude absent bankrupted takers milking the BIG sucker?

Good question.

The answer, of course, is yes.......I'm pleased that, finally, in Trump, we have a president who is willing to confront the moochers and demand that they bear more of the burden.

 

[Fishking]

Do other countries claiming to be our allies have the financial where-with-all to at least gather together and supply about 6 of the "alleged" necessary nuclear powered aircraft carriers to petrol God's oceans, or are they just unconcerned, disloyal gratitude absent bankrupted takers milking the BIG sucker?

They just don't bother. Why bother when the U.S. is doing it for you already? I'd be all for pull back and letting them sweat over their own security. Ditch NATO and watch them all start to have to spend on defense.

 

[TheHammer]

For somebody who claims to have been in the Navy, you seem awfully fixated on the idea that numerical superiority means superiority in general. As I have shown, the number of carriers at the start of the war were irrelevant. In every carrier vs carrier engagement, the best the Japanese came away with was a draw. You keep trying to argue that the IJN was the superior fighting force simply because they had more carriers in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. I have shown that assessment to be untrue. The USN proved itself qualitatively superior, and by the second half of the Pacific Theatre they were quantitatively superior as well.

They had more of just about everything when they attacked Pearl. They had control over most of the Pacific.

 

[TheHammer]

Good question.

The answer, of course, is yes.......I'm pleased that, finally, in Trump, we have a president who is willing to confront the moochers and demand that they bear more of the burden.

That's why he wants 12 new carriers, right?

 

[TheHammer]

They just don't bother. Why bother when the U.S. is doing it for you already? I'd be all for pull back and letting them sweat over their own security. Ditch NATO and watch them all start to have to spend on defense.

Seems the world's BIG sucker will never let that happen at least until we're bankrupted. Don't forget Trump is a master of bankruptcies.

 

[VanceMack]

What about a national debt BIGGER than anyone wants to even imagine?

WHat is your question really about? Is it about why do we need what we have AND the expansion or is your question one of fiscal conservatism? Those are two very different questions.

 

[Vox]

That's why he wants 12 new carriers, right?

You usually seem to have inaccurate information. As I understand it........

We are talking about CVAs. He has ten old ones. He has one new one. There is one new one under construction.

I have no information that would verify your statement.

You still haven't responded to my question about your odd response to my post #111.

 

[Tigerace117]

They had more of just about everything when they attacked Pearl. They had control over most of the Pacific.

And guess how fast they lost control over "most of the Pacific"?

Numeric superiority means nothing.

 

[TheHammer]

WHat is your question really about? Is it about why do we need what we have AND the expansion or is your question one of fiscal conservatism? Those are two very different questions.

They're mutually relevant and the mutual equivalent one to the other.

 

[TheHammer]

There is plenty of money available to address the domestic needs to address the massive infrastructure needs in this country. An expanding economy, and revision of objectives will accomplish that.

Really? I'd love to see some stats and in depth text of persuasion on that topic.

20 trillion $ of national debt, when is the national debt too much debt?

1 trillion to repair our infrastructure, where's that coming from?

 

[VanceMack]

They're mutually relevant and the mutual equivalent one to the other.

No...the really arent.

Can you put a price tag on security? If the new requests are needed for global security (we dont live in a bubble and one of the reasons we have carrier groups and bases in foreign lands it to more effectively fight the enemy where they live...not where we live) then the great costs would be justified. What becomes expedient is paying for the costs which should include saving in other areas, and yes...even raising taxes to pay for the services today. Fiscal conservatism doesnt mean you dont spend money. It means you spend money on what you need (IF in fact it is a need) and that you pay for it today and not dump debt on future generations.

So first...is it a legit need. Second...if it is a legit need how do we pay for it TODAY. National security needs and fiscal conservatism addressed.

 

[TheHammer]

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.

Answer to post 111.

One day we'll find out just how little we can live with. Houses of cards built on massive debt have a way of teaching those lessons. Some Roman Empire history is some of that valuable lesson.

 

[TheHammer]

No...the really arent.

Can you put a price tag on security?

There’s no absolute price tag on security even if we had 100 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, so what’s your point?

If the new requests are needed for global security (we dont live in a bubble and one of the reasons we have carrier groups and bases in foreign lands it to more effectively fight the enemy where they live...not where we live) then the great costs would be justified.

No great cost is justified for security when a nation is 20 trillion $ in debt with a crumbling infrastructure. That’s the definition of insecurity. The issue is always the same economically relative to security what are the proper and sane priorities. I’m saying our priorities are out of whack especially when we’re supposed to have allies with some responsibilities for OUR MUTUAL SECURITY. I’m simply saying let them collectively cover half the share of protecting the sea lanes. I think I might be too generous to our so-called allies at that.

 

[TheHammer]

Numeric superiority means nothing.

Thanks! You just admitted we don't need 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

 

[VanceMack]

There’s no absolute price tag on security even if we had 100 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, so what’s your point?



No great cost is justified for security when a nation is 20 trillion $ in debt with a crumbling infrastructure. That’s the definition of insecurity. The issue is always the same economically relative to security what are the proper and sane priorities. I’m saying our priorities are out of whack especially when we’re supposed to have allies with some responsibilities for OUR MUTUAL SECURITY. I’m simply saying let them collectively cover half the share of protecting the sea lanes. I think I might be too generous to our so-called allies at that.

The point is very direct. If there is a need for 13 carrier groups, we should HAVE 13 carrier groups. Cost is not relevant.

And I simply disagree. I think you are being short sighted and focusing on the wrong thing. Cost is not relevant to national security NEEDS. (National security WANTS...thats another story). If there is a need, it is fiscally conservative to pay for it as you go. Honestly...I thinK NOW and over THIS ISSUE is a helluva time to suddenly be concerned about fiscal conservatism. As you pointed out we are approx 20 trillion in debt. The total debt doubled during the last administration. There isnt much by way of legit expression of concern by EITHER party over national debt.

 

[Vox]

Answer to post 111.

One day we'll find out just how little we can live with. Houses of cards built on massive debt have a way of teaching those lessons. Some Roman Empire history is some of that valuable lesson.

Agreed.

And the only way we'll find out how little we can live with is to FORCE us........we'll go kicking and screaming to that point.

It's human nature.

And that's why we have a lot of military power.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thanks! You just admitted we don't need 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

And you just admitted your grasp of military history is so weak that any point you are trying to make lost a great deal of credibility.

 

[TheHammer]

The point is very direct. If there is a need for 13 carrier groups, we should HAVE 13 carrier groups. Cost is not relevant.

“IF” the largest word in the dictionary. “IF & WHY” is exactly what this thread is all about. You might think about contributing something to the actual subject matter rather than argue about whether it’s all just about fiscal conservatism or actual “IF & WHY.”

Do you believe that 12 are necessary?

If you believe 12 are necessary, why aren’t our allies contributing?

How does the cost of 12 fit into the 20 trillion $ national debt, the trillion $ expenditure to repair our infrastructure and billions and trillions to support our corporate and social welfare system?

And I simply disagree. I think you are being short sighted and focusing on the wrong thing. Cost is not relevant to national security NEEDS. (National security WANTS...thats another story). If there is a need, it is fiscally conservative to pay for it as you go. Honestly...I thinK NOW and over THIS ISSUE is a helluva time to suddenly be concerned about fiscal conservatism. As you pointed out we are approx 20 trillion in debt. The total debt doubled during the last administration. There isnt much by way of legit expression of concern by EITHER party over national debt.

OK, you’ve Made the case that national bankruptcy, common sense priorities and making reductions in BIG government spending sprees is of no concern to you.