Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]No. It just makes those complaints hypocritical. [/B][/QUOTE]
How does it make them hypocritical? Wouldn't the European countries need to be doing the same thing right now to be hypocritical? Remember: people alive then arn't the people alive now.
Damn, second time already.... need to slow down a bit I guess.... hehe...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]No. It just makes those complaints hypocritical. [/B][/QUOTE]
Here we can see a good example how to complitely ignore what others say and how to pick up only that small convenient part which can be easily counterdebated/commented.
Well, at least you agreed that it doesn't make the actions of the US any more acceptable.
Edit: Biggles said it pretty well.
- PJH
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Definately voting...we need our irresponsible administration replaced...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]How does it make them hypocritical? Wouldn't the European countries need to be doing the same thing right now to be hypocritical? Remember: people alive then arn't the people alive now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Right now? No. In recent times or severely enough to be brought up? Yes. Would you like examples of crimes committed by European states in the past 20 years?
France and that fun little action bombing the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, in 1985.
That Dutch UN contingent ignoring the Srebrenica massacre in mid 1995.
All of Europe (and the whole world) ignoring the crisis in Rwanda in 1995-1996, the status of the Kurds in Iraq during Saddam's reign, Sudan in 2004, etc.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Damn, second time already.... need to slow down a bit I guess.... hehe...Here we can see a good example how to complitely ignore what others say and how to pick up only that small convenient part which can be easily counterdebated/commented. Well, at least you agreed that it doesn't make the actions of the US any more acceptable.
Edit: Biggles said it pretty well.- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
No, here we can see a good example of someone (me) agreeing with much of what was written, and so, deciding to respond only to the bits he disagreed with.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]So.....I guess we're not getting that aircraft carrier after all. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, we're more likely to get it sooner if Kerry gets elected. The current administration has plans to cut military spending in order to pay for certain things, including the tax cuts. Part of the military spending cuts include delays or cuts in several programs. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader in searching Yahoo/Google to figure out which are being cut and which are being delayed.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Entil'Zha [/i]
[B]Ahh, "Do as i say, not as i do" eh? [/B][/QUOTE]
Something like that. The hands of the European states aren't exactly clean, either. Each has had their own Bush at one time or another. Well, perhaps not Switzerland. Hell, didn't even the Vatican cooperate with the Nazis during WW2 on some issues?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]Something like that. The hands of the European states aren't exactly clean, either. Each has had their own Bush at one time or another. Well, perhaps not Switzerland. Hell, didn't even the Vatican cooperate with the Nazis during WW2 on some issues? [/B][/QUOTE]
Lol, well that was my basic point, all countries do something stupid at some point, people seem to forget that the US is technically still a fairly young country, y'all have been around for a lot longer than we have,
i don't agree with all the US policy, but i do dislike countries bashing the US until it comes time to call on us for help,
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]No, here we can see a good example of someone (me) agreeing with much of what was written, and so, deciding to respond only to the bits he disagreed with. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, then I assume that you were refering to those events you mentioned above? I can't read your mind you know and based on the knowledge from the earlier posts your comment gave an impression that you had ignored the other parts of my message.
Anyway, of those events you mentioned some are not actually "bad actions", or crimes, but rather cases of not doing anything to help. I agree though, that in all those cases what European (and other countries in the world too in some of them) governments did, or did not, were wrong decisions. As I said earlier, I condemn all the crimes of European countries just as strictly as US or any other countries crimes.
I have a few criticizing words about those aircraft carriers too and US military forces in general.
USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers.
Now that brings in mind a question: Just what the heck for does USA need all those?
You don't need aircraft carriers, especially that many, to defend your country. Not to mention approx. 120 cruisers, destroyers and frigates (more being built all the time) plus over 70 submarines (more being built all the time) + a number of special submarines and THOUSANDS of fighters and bombers (more being built all the time). And that's not all. In addition there are a number of older and smaller carriers which can carry helicopters and VSTOL aircraft and lots of other ships plus coast guard ships which are also armed.
And an interesting things is, that of the US military a massive part is an OFFENSIVE force which is capable of deploying to anywhere in the world while other countries in the world, except a few ones (which btw still have significantly smaller forces), have mainly only defensive forces needed to defend their countries from an attack.
Now why does US have a massive attack force? Peaceful and peace loving countries don't have massive attack forces, they have defence forces and they are not greatly oversized like the US military forces.
And a funny thing is, that USA is far away from any possible hostile countries, unlike most other countries in the world. US is covered by big oceans in both sides, peaceful Canada in north which only has a small military force anyway. Mexico in south, which is no threat to US in any possible way. Any possible hostile countries are on the other side of the planet thousands of kilometers away and NONE of those has capability to pose a serious threat on US soil. US is one of the last countries which would actually need a massive oversized military forces with a massive global attack capability to defend itself.
It's almost a miracle, that there also isn't a damn big wall full of weapons surrounding the borders of the USA.
Btw, I saw that topic about the "bad state of US navy" earlier in here. I didn't read the whole thread though. Just quickly took a glance at some of the posts, but I must say, that the topic really made me laugh out loud. Bad state of the US navy..... yeah right!
PJH, you would be absolutely right about the US military being oversized if its mandate were solely the protection of our borders.
But that's [i]not[/i] the sole mandate of our military, which is of course what you were really getting at.
The US position in NATO gives us the responsibility to defend (or assist in the defense of) all members of NATO, in addition to our own borders. This is a responsibility not shared with the other NATO members, which is one reason why we have troops stationed all over the world, including the UK, France, and Germany. All of this was set up during the cold war, which is why we're now restructuring deployment and pulling our troops out of Europe. There's really nothing there to defend against anymore.
The nature of the current war is that terrorists can strike practically anywhere at any time; thus, it makes sense to have a highly mobile military that can get anywhere it needs to in short order. I think that as time goes by, we'll see a trend away from stationary postings in favor of more mobile units.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]I bet niether of you thought about primary production subsidies for US farmers, if you even know what they are... and how they affect the world market for commodity prices. That's only ONE of many US policies which affects the rest of the world.
[/B][/QUOTE]
SB I'd would like to disagree with your implication that US farm subsidies are somehow hurting the world commodity markets. On average, US farms subsidies tend to range in the low teens as a percentage of a farmer's gross income and that number has been steadily shrinking. That is signifigantly lower than most other industrial nations.
Internally, what would happen if we cut US subsidies to 0%? Operating a farm, no matter how well its run, is a risky propsistion. With volitale markets and weather and expensive equipment to deal with it is not an occupation for the faint at heart. If you were to cut all subs in the US to zero, you would be driving out the few remain family farms in favor of larger corporate farms, companies who would have the reasources to handle signifigant downturns in markets, weather, etc. While I agree that subsidies can have bad side effects, I think the alternatives may have even worse effects.
Take my father and my brother for example, my family farms approximately 3000 acres in central Missouri, near a small town called Centralia. While most years, such as this year, they have more than enough rain to yield a crop that will allow them to cover their expenses for the year, have some money to repair equipment and keep some to feed the family, their are quite a few where mother nature is not so kind. I can remember sitting around the kitchen table listening to my parent talk about the chances of loosing the farm. Now this may be hard for most to understand, but I can remember those word rocking the core of my very person. Loosing the farm? That was our life, not just an occupation, it wasn't just something you walked away from when times got hard.
Now I can't say that there were times when government subsidies were the difference between loosing the farm or not, but I know they were there, that they helped, and that there are family farms out there who have relied on them to avoid an end to their way of life.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]*Edited a few times*
I have a few criticizing words about those aircraft carriers too and US military forces in general.
USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers.
[/B][/QUOTE]
While I would agree that the US has more than enough carriers, but think about the implications of building a machine as complex and large as an aircraft carrier. The people, companies and contracts involved as signifigant.
A construction project such as an aircraft carrier pay the checks for [b]a lot[/b] of people. While I don't have any hard numbers I'd be willing that as much as 70 cents out of every dollar spent on projects such as these, ends up in "common mans" pocket.
The construction of a weapon such as a carrier has little to do with defense, and more to do with keeping people employed.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers. Now that brings in mind a question: Just what the heck for does USA need all those? [/B][/QUOTE]
It looks like I need to dispel the above myth. Not all of those carrier battle groups are at sea at the same time. At any given time, only 7 of the U.S. carrier battle groups are at sea. It's pretty much what can be done without taking some shortcuts and rushing some things. Of those that are not at sea, some are undergoing refits, repairs, replenishment, are docked after returning from patrol, having their reactors refueled, etc.
[QUOTE][B]You don't need aircraft carriers, especially that many, to defend your country. Not to mention approx. 120 cruisers, destroyers and frigates (more being built all the time) plus over 70 submarines (more being built all the time) + a number of special submarines and THOUSANDS of fighters and bombers (more being built all the time). And that's not all. In addition there are a number of older and smaller carriers which can carry helicopters and VSTOL aircraft and lots of other ships plus coast guard ships which are also armed. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, the United States does need that many aircraft carrier battle groups to defend the country, as I explained above. None of those warships, submarines and replenishment/support ships can stay at sea 365 days a year, 24/7.
Coast Guard ships aren't armed heavily enough to defend against a dedicated warship. They're pretty much customs and rescue vessels, with some serving in some responsibilities that could be useful in war, if absolutely needed.
The United States doesn't have any helicopter or V/STOL carriers, but does have some transport/assault ships that can carry helicopters to transport Marines/soldiers to shore or Harriers to defend the MEU. However, the primary mission of those ships is to deliver Marines to shore.
[QUOTE][B]And an interesting things is, that of the US military a massive part is an OFFENSIVE force which is capable of deploying to anywhere in the world while other countries in the world, except a few ones (which btw still have significantly smaller forces), have mainly only defensive forces needed to defend their countries from an attack. Now why does US have a massive attack force? Peaceful and peace loving countries don't have massive attack forces, they have defence forces and they are not greatly oversized like the US military forces.[/QUOTE][/B]
The mission of the US Armed forces doesn't reflect your claims above. Yes, in many cases you do need to maintain the ability to conduct offensive activities. How else would you rescue hostages or conduct offensive operations in cases like the first Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? How else would you send in forces under the U.N. umbrella should we be called upon to go into Sudan? How would we have been able to push the North Korean or Chinese forces out of South Korea?
Drawing down offensive forces so that all you have is purely defensive is a recipe for disaster, as history has shown with WW1, WW2 , etc.
[QUOTE][B]And a funny thing is, that USA is far away from any possible hostile countries, unlike most other countries in the world. US is covered by big oceans in both sides, peaceful Canada in north which only has a small military force anyway. Mexico in south, which is no threat to US in any possible way. Any possible hostile countries are on the other side of the planet thousands of kilometers away and NONE of those has capability to pose a serious threat on US soil. US is one of the last countries which would actually need a massive oversized military forces with a massive global attack capability to defend itself. It's almost a miracle, that there also isn't a damn big wall full of weapons surrounding the borders of the USA.[/QUOTE][/B]
You might want to do some research on what a submarine is, or the range on modern missiles, ships, aircraft and submarines. Do you have any recollection of or discussions of how many Soviet submarines were sighted close to US shores or how many times news stores or pictures in papers showed Soviet bombers on penetration drills trying to enter US territory being intercepted by American or Canadian aircraft? Did you have any discussion in a history class about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you know how frequent these cat and mouse games were and could easily be in the future? An enemy, current or future, could easily get weapons or weapon platforms close enough to American territory if the American military wasn't large enough to gaurd against it.
How do you help protect your friends and alliances in which you're a member with only a small defensive force? God forbid if North Korea gets even more belligerent or if North Korea or Iran decides to recognize how thinly stretched American forces really are.
[QUOTE][B]Btw, I saw that topic about the "bad state of US navy" earlier in here. I didn't read the whole thread though. Just quickly took a glance at some of the posts, but I must say, that the topic really made me laugh out loud. Bad state of the US navy..... yeah right![/B][/QUOTE]
It appears you aren't aware of how thin the American forces are stretched at current manning levels and current numbers of ships, subs, units, etc. They are being deployed more and more often for longer and longer periods of time, with less and less time they can spend with friends and family back home. This is due to insufficient manning, insufficient numbers of platforms, etc. The US military appears to be unable to perform its mandated job.
The Bush administration has even had to do something the US hasn't had to do in a very long time - activate units that don't get activated or deployed unless the situation is rather severe. Someone I know in the USMC was on deployment with his unit outside the country easily for 9 to 10 months of every year. That is not a sufficiently manned or supplied/armed force.
How about doing some research before making another one of these posts? You'd be surprised what a bit of research can get you.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]The construction of a weapon such as a carrier has little to do with defense, and more to do with keeping people employed.[/B][/QUOTE]
In this case, it has a lot to do with a few issues, one of which is keeping the knowledge base for building large warships and carriers. I don't doubt some politicians are pushing some projects to keep jobs in their districts, but there are a few more important (IMO) reasons.
The Nimitz Class design came not to far after WW2. The USS Nimitz was ordered on March 31, 1967 and commissioned on May 3, 1975. That makes it 29 years old...not a young ship. The Nimitz is due to be stricken in 2025, the Eisenhower in 2027, and Carl Vinson in 2037. Considering those dates, the Nimitz Class program would have had to start in the early 60s. There is also the issue of the Enterprise, which is scheduled for retirement soon.
The other issue is of manning. The Navy wants to reduce manning levels, and the new carrier class is supposed to do that. That is, in part, due to the fact we aren't retaining our soldiers and sailors as well as we need to, thanks to more frequent and longer deployments, along with other issues.
There are also issues with changes in doctrine and advancements in technology.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Cabl3 Guy [/i]
[B]JohnD are you in the navy? You seem to have alot of knowledge of the navy just curious. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nope. I work for a defense contractor as an engineer on various Navy projects.
Sorry to be brutal but... "Cry me a fraggin' river."
Our family has 1100 acres and just over 12" of rainfall anually. We have our share of bad years and hardship, and yes our local community has changed markedly over the last few years... into 'superfarms' or composite ones where a group of adjacent farmers pitch in together and to little retiree hobby 10 acre type ones.
We have no subsidies, never have and we find a way to survive. If we can do it, so can you.
Subisdies affect prices. When the US dumps a shirtload of wheat onto the international market it depresses prices, Aussie farmers cant sell thier grain for what its really worth... because the US treasury decides to 'fire sale' so stockpiled grain.
The US farmer (and European for that matter), try as he might isnt terribly competitive. You've never really had your arse to the wall, though it may have felt like it at the time.
I've voted against Shrub every chance I've had, including his first run for governor in Texas. I'll do it every time I get the chance.
Willfully ingnorant spoiled child of priveledge pretending to be an everyman. What a crock. Send him back to Connecticutt, he's only pretending to be a cowboy.
Comments
[B]No. It just makes those complaints hypocritical. [/B][/QUOTE]
How does it make them hypocritical? Wouldn't the European countries need to be doing the same thing right now to be hypocritical? Remember: people alive then arn't the people alive now.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]No. It just makes those complaints hypocritical. [/B][/QUOTE]
Here we can see a good example how to complitely ignore what others say and how to pick up only that small convenient part which can be easily counterdebated/commented.
Well, at least you agreed that it doesn't make the actions of the US any more acceptable.
Edit: Biggles said it pretty well.
- PJH
[B]Definately voting...we need our irresponsible administration replaced... [/B][/QUOTE]
... by an even more irresponsible one...
:rolleyes:
[B]Definately voting...we need our irresponsible administration replaced... [/B][/QUOTE]
I'll take care of the irresponsible administration, *Pats SVD*
[B]Definately voting...we need our irresponsible administration replaced... [/B][/QUOTE] HERE HERE!
[B]... by an even more irresponsible one...
:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com[/url]
:)
[B]No european has bashed you in this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]
I know, and i'm very dissapointed by this! :)
[B]No. It just makes those complaints hypocritical. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ahh, "Do as i say, not as i do" eh?
[B]How does it make them hypocritical? Wouldn't the European countries need to be doing the same thing right now to be hypocritical? Remember: people alive then arn't the people alive now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Right now? No. In recent times or severely enough to be brought up? Yes. Would you like examples of crimes committed by European states in the past 20 years?
France and that fun little action bombing the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, in 1985.
That Dutch UN contingent ignoring the Srebrenica massacre in mid 1995.
All of Europe (and the whole world) ignoring the crisis in Rwanda in 1995-1996, the status of the Kurds in Iraq during Saddam's reign, Sudan in 2004, etc.
[B]Damn, second time already.... need to slow down a bit I guess.... hehe...Here we can see a good example how to complitely ignore what others say and how to pick up only that small convenient part which can be easily counterdebated/commented. Well, at least you agreed that it doesn't make the actions of the US any more acceptable.
Edit: Biggles said it pretty well.- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
No, here we can see a good example of someone (me) agreeing with much of what was written, and so, deciding to respond only to the bits he disagreed with.
[B]So.....I guess we're not getting that aircraft carrier after all. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, we're more likely to get it sooner if Kerry gets elected. The current administration has plans to cut military spending in order to pay for certain things, including the tax cuts. Part of the military spending cuts include delays or cuts in several programs. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader in searching Yahoo/Google to figure out which are being cut and which are being delayed.
[B]Ahh, "Do as i say, not as i do" eh? [/B][/QUOTE]
Something like that. The hands of the European states aren't exactly clean, either. Each has had their own Bush at one time or another. Well, perhaps not Switzerland. Hell, didn't even the Vatican cooperate with the Nazis during WW2 on some issues?
[B]Something like that. The hands of the European states aren't exactly clean, either. Each has had their own Bush at one time or another. Well, perhaps not Switzerland. Hell, didn't even the Vatican cooperate with the Nazis during WW2 on some issues? [/B][/QUOTE]
Lol, well that was my basic point, all countries do something stupid at some point, people seem to forget that the US is technically still a fairly young country, y'all have been around for a lot longer than we have,
i don't agree with all the US policy, but i do dislike countries bashing the US until it comes time to call on us for help,
[url]http://www.writeinmelgibsonforpresident.org/[/url]
[B]No, here we can see a good example of someone (me) agreeing with much of what was written, and so, deciding to respond only to the bits he disagreed with. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, then I assume that you were refering to those events you mentioned above? I can't read your mind you know and based on the knowledge from the earlier posts your comment gave an impression that you had ignored the other parts of my message.
Anyway, of those events you mentioned some are not actually "bad actions", or crimes, but rather cases of not doing anything to help. I agree though, that in all those cases what European (and other countries in the world too in some of them) governments did, or did not, were wrong decisions. As I said earlier, I condemn all the crimes of European countries just as strictly as US or any other countries crimes.
- PJH
I have a few criticizing words about those aircraft carriers too and US military forces in general.
USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers.
Now that brings in mind a question: Just what the heck for does USA need all those?
You don't need aircraft carriers, especially that many, to defend your country. Not to mention approx. 120 cruisers, destroyers and frigates (more being built all the time) plus over 70 submarines (more being built all the time) + a number of special submarines and THOUSANDS of fighters and bombers (more being built all the time). And that's not all. In addition there are a number of older and smaller carriers which can carry helicopters and VSTOL aircraft and lots of other ships plus coast guard ships which are also armed.
And an interesting things is, that of the US military a massive part is an OFFENSIVE force which is capable of deploying to anywhere in the world while other countries in the world, except a few ones (which btw still have significantly smaller forces), have mainly only defensive forces needed to defend their countries from an attack.
Now why does US have a massive attack force? Peaceful and peace loving countries don't have massive attack forces, they have defence forces and they are not greatly oversized like the US military forces.
And a funny thing is, that USA is far away from any possible hostile countries, unlike most other countries in the world. US is covered by big oceans in both sides, peaceful Canada in north which only has a small military force anyway. Mexico in south, which is no threat to US in any possible way. Any possible hostile countries are on the other side of the planet thousands of kilometers away and NONE of those has capability to pose a serious threat on US soil. US is one of the last countries which would actually need a massive oversized military forces with a massive global attack capability to defend itself.
It's almost a miracle, that there also isn't a damn big wall full of weapons surrounding the borders of the USA.
Btw, I saw that topic about the "bad state of US navy" earlier in here. I didn't read the whole thread though. Just quickly took a glance at some of the posts, but I must say, that the topic really made me laugh out loud. Bad state of the US navy..... yeah right!
- PJH
But that's [i]not[/i] the sole mandate of our military, which is of course what you were really getting at.
The US position in NATO gives us the responsibility to defend (or assist in the defense of) all members of NATO, in addition to our own borders. This is a responsibility not shared with the other NATO members, which is one reason why we have troops stationed all over the world, including the UK, France, and Germany. All of this was set up during the cold war, which is why we're now restructuring deployment and pulling our troops out of Europe. There's really nothing there to defend against anymore.
The nature of the current war is that terrorists can strike practically anywhere at any time; thus, it makes sense to have a highly mobile military that can get anywhere it needs to in short order. I think that as time goes by, we'll see a trend away from stationary postings in favor of more mobile units.
[B]I bet niether of you thought about primary production subsidies for US farmers, if you even know what they are... and how they affect the world market for commodity prices. That's only ONE of many US policies which affects the rest of the world.
[/B][/QUOTE]
SB I'd would like to disagree with your implication that US farm subsidies are somehow hurting the world commodity markets. On average, US farms subsidies tend to range in the low teens as a percentage of a farmer's gross income and that number has been steadily shrinking. That is signifigantly lower than most other industrial nations.
Internally, what would happen if we cut US subsidies to 0%? Operating a farm, no matter how well its run, is a risky propsistion. With volitale markets and weather and expensive equipment to deal with it is not an occupation for the faint at heart. If you were to cut all subs in the US to zero, you would be driving out the few remain family farms in favor of larger corporate farms, companies who would have the reasources to handle signifigant downturns in markets, weather, etc. While I agree that subsidies can have bad side effects, I think the alternatives may have even worse effects.
Take my father and my brother for example, my family farms approximately 3000 acres in central Missouri, near a small town called Centralia. While most years, such as this year, they have more than enough rain to yield a crop that will allow them to cover their expenses for the year, have some money to repair equipment and keep some to feed the family, their are quite a few where mother nature is not so kind. I can remember sitting around the kitchen table listening to my parent talk about the chances of loosing the farm. Now this may be hard for most to understand, but I can remember those word rocking the core of my very person. Loosing the farm? That was our life, not just an occupation, it wasn't just something you walked away from when times got hard.
Now I can't say that there were times when government subsidies were the difference between loosing the farm or not, but I know they were there, that they helped, and that there are family farms out there who have relied on them to avoid an end to their way of life.
Jake
[B]*Edited a few times*
I have a few criticizing words about those aircraft carriers too and US military forces in general.
USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers.
[/B][/QUOTE]
While I would agree that the US has more than enough carriers, but think about the implications of building a machine as complex and large as an aircraft carrier. The people, companies and contracts involved as signifigant.
A construction project such as an aircraft carrier pay the checks for [b]a lot[/b] of people. While I don't have any hard numbers I'd be willing that as much as 70 cents out of every dollar spent on projects such as these, ends up in "common mans" pocket.
The construction of a weapon such as a carrier has little to do with defense, and more to do with keeping people employed.
Jake
But anyway, I'm too tired right now and need to get sleep, so I'll make another post later on.
Btw, that last part of my previous post was sarcasm if you didn't notice. I just forgot to make it clear when I posted it.
Shouldn't always write so late. *yawn*
- PJH
[B]USA has 13 big aircraft carriers already, 1 is currently being built and a new generation (CVNX) is planned. It's a lot more than the rest of the worlds carriers all together and even the smallest one is bigger than any of the other countries biggest carriers. Now that brings in mind a question: Just what the heck for does USA need all those? [/B][/QUOTE]
It looks like I need to dispel the above myth. Not all of those carrier battle groups are at sea at the same time. At any given time, only 7 of the U.S. carrier battle groups are at sea. It's pretty much what can be done without taking some shortcuts and rushing some things. Of those that are not at sea, some are undergoing refits, repairs, replenishment, are docked after returning from patrol, having their reactors refueled, etc.
[QUOTE][B]You don't need aircraft carriers, especially that many, to defend your country. Not to mention approx. 120 cruisers, destroyers and frigates (more being built all the time) plus over 70 submarines (more being built all the time) + a number of special submarines and THOUSANDS of fighters and bombers (more being built all the time). And that's not all. In addition there are a number of older and smaller carriers which can carry helicopters and VSTOL aircraft and lots of other ships plus coast guard ships which are also armed. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, the United States does need that many aircraft carrier battle groups to defend the country, as I explained above. None of those warships, submarines and replenishment/support ships can stay at sea 365 days a year, 24/7.
Coast Guard ships aren't armed heavily enough to defend against a dedicated warship. They're pretty much customs and rescue vessels, with some serving in some responsibilities that could be useful in war, if absolutely needed.
The United States doesn't have any helicopter or V/STOL carriers, but does have some transport/assault ships that can carry helicopters to transport Marines/soldiers to shore or Harriers to defend the MEU. However, the primary mission of those ships is to deliver Marines to shore.
[QUOTE][B]And an interesting things is, that of the US military a massive part is an OFFENSIVE force which is capable of deploying to anywhere in the world while other countries in the world, except a few ones (which btw still have significantly smaller forces), have mainly only defensive forces needed to defend their countries from an attack. Now why does US have a massive attack force? Peaceful and peace loving countries don't have massive attack forces, they have defence forces and they are not greatly oversized like the US military forces.[/QUOTE][/B]
The mission of the US Armed forces doesn't reflect your claims above. Yes, in many cases you do need to maintain the ability to conduct offensive activities. How else would you rescue hostages or conduct offensive operations in cases like the first Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? How else would you send in forces under the U.N. umbrella should we be called upon to go into Sudan? How would we have been able to push the North Korean or Chinese forces out of South Korea?
Drawing down offensive forces so that all you have is purely defensive is a recipe for disaster, as history has shown with WW1, WW2 , etc.
[QUOTE][B]And a funny thing is, that USA is far away from any possible hostile countries, unlike most other countries in the world. US is covered by big oceans in both sides, peaceful Canada in north which only has a small military force anyway. Mexico in south, which is no threat to US in any possible way. Any possible hostile countries are on the other side of the planet thousands of kilometers away and NONE of those has capability to pose a serious threat on US soil. US is one of the last countries which would actually need a massive oversized military forces with a massive global attack capability to defend itself. It's almost a miracle, that there also isn't a damn big wall full of weapons surrounding the borders of the USA.[/QUOTE][/B]
You might want to do some research on what a submarine is, or the range on modern missiles, ships, aircraft and submarines. Do you have any recollection of or discussions of how many Soviet submarines were sighted close to US shores or how many times news stores or pictures in papers showed Soviet bombers on penetration drills trying to enter US territory being intercepted by American or Canadian aircraft? Did you have any discussion in a history class about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you know how frequent these cat and mouse games were and could easily be in the future? An enemy, current or future, could easily get weapons or weapon platforms close enough to American territory if the American military wasn't large enough to gaurd against it.
How do you help protect your friends and alliances in which you're a member with only a small defensive force? God forbid if North Korea gets even more belligerent or if North Korea or Iran decides to recognize how thinly stretched American forces really are.
[QUOTE][B]Btw, I saw that topic about the "bad state of US navy" earlier in here. I didn't read the whole thread though. Just quickly took a glance at some of the posts, but I must say, that the topic really made me laugh out loud. Bad state of the US navy..... yeah right![/B][/QUOTE]
It appears you aren't aware of how thin the American forces are stretched at current manning levels and current numbers of ships, subs, units, etc. They are being deployed more and more often for longer and longer periods of time, with less and less time they can spend with friends and family back home. This is due to insufficient manning, insufficient numbers of platforms, etc. The US military appears to be unable to perform its mandated job.
The Bush administration has even had to do something the US hasn't had to do in a very long time - activate units that don't get activated or deployed unless the situation is rather severe. Someone I know in the USMC was on deployment with his unit outside the country easily for 9 to 10 months of every year. That is not a sufficiently manned or supplied/armed force.
How about doing some research before making another one of these posts? You'd be surprised what a bit of research can get you.
[B]The construction of a weapon such as a carrier has little to do with defense, and more to do with keeping people employed.[/B][/QUOTE]
In this case, it has a lot to do with a few issues, one of which is keeping the knowledge base for building large warships and carriers. I don't doubt some politicians are pushing some projects to keep jobs in their districts, but there are a few more important (IMO) reasons.
The Nimitz Class design came not to far after WW2. The USS Nimitz was ordered on March 31, 1967 and commissioned on May 3, 1975. That makes it 29 years old...not a young ship. The Nimitz is due to be stricken in 2025, the Eisenhower in 2027, and Carl Vinson in 2037. Considering those dates, the Nimitz Class program would have had to start in the early 60s. There is also the issue of the Enterprise, which is scheduled for retirement soon.
The other issue is of manning. The Navy wants to reduce manning levels, and the new carrier class is supposed to do that. That is, in part, due to the fact we aren't retaining our soldiers and sailors as well as we need to, thanks to more frequent and longer deployments, along with other issues.
There are also issues with changes in doctrine and advancements in technology.
[B]JohnD are you in the navy? You seem to have alot of knowledge of the navy just curious. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nope. I work for a defense contractor as an engineer on various Navy projects.
Sorry to be brutal but... "Cry me a fraggin' river."
Our family has 1100 acres and just over 12" of rainfall anually. We have our share of bad years and hardship, and yes our local community has changed markedly over the last few years... into 'superfarms' or composite ones where a group of adjacent farmers pitch in together and to little retiree hobby 10 acre type ones.
We have no subsidies, never have and we find a way to survive. If we can do it, so can you.
Subisdies affect prices. When the US dumps a shirtload of wheat onto the international market it depresses prices, Aussie farmers cant sell thier grain for what its really worth... because the US treasury decides to 'fire sale' so stockpiled grain.
The US farmer (and European for that matter), try as he might isnt terribly competitive. You've never really had your arse to the wall, though it may have felt like it at the time.
I've voted against Shrub every chance I've had, including his first run for governor in Texas. I'll do it every time I get the chance.
Willfully ingnorant spoiled child of priveledge pretending to be an everyman. What a crock. Send him back to Connecticutt, he's only pretending to be a cowboy.
[B]Send him back to Connecticutt, he's only pretending to be a cowboy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey, now! What did WE do to the rest of the country to deserve that? :)