Obama`s Shrinking Navy

Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
4,096
Likes
774
Location
Live Free or Die
Don't confuse this with support of Obama in any way, shape, or form, but isn't having carrier based strike groups antiquated?
Nope. The logistics of setting up land base for military strike aircraft takes a lot of time. When you need a quick reaction, carriers are key.

When 9/11 happened I was on the Enterprise and we were off the coast of Pakistan in roughly 24 hours, ready to go. We had that old bitch running close to 50 knots. I thought she was gonna shake herself apart.
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,808
Likes
3,413
We are the world`s Policeman whether you like it or not.
Yeah, I think that's in Article XXV of the Constitution. "Congress shall have the power to break up drunken bar-brawls in third world backwaters."
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
When 9/11 happened I was on the Enterprise and we were off the coast of Pakistan in roughly 24 hours, ready to go. We had that old bitch running close to 50 knots. I thought she was gonna shake herself apart.
50 knots? really?
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
8,975
Likes
1,358
Location
Foxboro, MA
I would love to see the mental loops people jump through. How you can morally justify stripping welfare from people to get more weapons is beyond me. Regardless of your stance on welfare you can't just stop paying people that have been weened onto the government stipend and have no out. Especially in a country where our private charity has diminished substantially.

Maybe if we stopped being bitches we'd have fewer enemies. We don't have a weak economy from not blowing up brown people all over the world. We have a weak economy because we blow up brown people all over the world and pay for it on credit card.
I dont want my money going to welfare queens, I have no issue of my tax dollars going to national defense, thats what its supposed to be for.
 

Maxpower

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
8,395
Likes
969
Location
NE
What I will say is this: when the govt. orders a new ship to be built, that translates into JOBS. The only job welfare ever created was the govt. beaurocrat who administers it.
A different kind of justifiable welfare.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
As long as they are making cuts in areas like Food Stamps and Welfare (which they aren't), I'm fine with 9 carriers instead of 11.
One of the few remotely compelling arguments for playing world police and having bases everywhere is global reach... To avoid the pointless nation building and hearts and minds nonsense, we need a way to have a global presense when needed without needing bases everywhere.

The only way to do that is withy a large navy.

I think in the long run we would be far better off with a large or even larger navy than we are trying to drag Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the 7th century with boots on the ground.

You need good intel, but you don't get that with bases everywhere...
 

01bmf

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
1,639
Likes
682
Location
North of the wall
The minute I pressed the "Post Quick Reply" button, I knew that comment was coming.[grin]
At least it is "justifiable welfare" that is worked for, as opposed to collected while lounging about and stuffing ones face with government cheese. I was actually told to my face once that I am no better than a welfare leech because I am in the military. That was fun.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
One of the few remotely compelling arguments for playing world police and having bases everywhere is global reach... To avoid the pointless nation building and hearts and minds nonsense, we need a way to have a global presense when needed without needing bases everywhere.

The only way to do that is withy a large navy.

I think in the long run we would be far better off with a large or even larger navy than we are trying to drag Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the 7th century with boots on the ground.

You need good intel, but you don't get that with bases everywhere...
Well ending the "war on terror" today would be a great start to some nice savings. Afghanistan is a laughable waste of money that most (R)'s and (D)'s just love to defend based off of cliché reasoning.
"we cant leave Afghanistan! We, um, we are helping them by fighting the... um... Taliban or al Qaeda... And... Umm.. just becuase a massive majority of the local population has polled repeated over the past 3 years that they want us out now... umm.. doesnt mean we should give up! we lost American lives! We can't quit now!" - Says the typical (R) or (D).

Sometimes I wonder if we have to get this war to Vietnam levels of uselessness and unpopularity to end it. It's become so taboo to criticize the military post 90's that saying we should leave the war is almost seen as an anti military / anti "support your troops" position
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
7,658
Likes
750
Location
Live Free or Die
Well ending the "war on terror" today would be a great start to some nice savings. Afghanistan is a laughable waste of money that most (R)'s and (D)'s just love to defend based off of cliché reasoning.
"we cant leave Afghanistan! We, um, we are helping them by fighting the... um... Taliban or al Qaeda... And... Umm.. just becuase a massive majority of the local population has polled repeated over the past 3 years that they want us out now... umm.. doesnt mean we should give up! we lost American lives! We can't quit now!" - Says the typical (R) or (D).

Sometimes I wonder if we have to get this war to Vietnam levels of uselessness and unpopularity to end it. It's become so taboo to criticize the military post 90's that saying we should leave the war is almost seen as an anti military / anti "support your troops" position
It's like a gambler borrowing over and over again because "this time I'm gonna win!", they never learn.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
RWL:

China and the U.S wont go to war.

The U.S and Iran wont go to war either.
**
Iran will get a war eventually unless they back down on their nukes. There is a huge game of chicken being played out now w/the new sanctions on the verge of being enacted and the Iranians threatening to close the straight.. The Israeli`s will attack eventually with or without us.
Broccolli, you don`t seem to grasp the geo-political back and forth w/China. They want our Navy out of the South Pacific so they can be the dominating power in Asia. Our allies Japan, SK, Vietnam the Philippines aren`t thrilled w/that idea so they are hedging their bets on us.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
22,296
Likes
13,392
Location
Suckachusetts
**
Iran will get a war eventually unless they back down on their nukes. There is a huge game of chicken being played out now w/the new sanctions on the verge of being enacted and the Iranians threatening to close the straight.. The Israeli`s will attack eventually with or without us.
Broccolli, you don`t seem to grasp the geo-political back and forth w/China. They want our Navy out of the South Pacific so they can be the dominating power in Asia. Our allies Japan, SK, Vietnam the Philippines aren`t thrilled w/that idea so they are hedging their bets on us.
China wants the U.S navy out just like the U.S wouldnt want Chinas navy hanging out near NY, FL, MA, CA...Whats wrong with that?

Iran will ge their nukes eventually, if they dont already have one.

Eitherway, it would not be economical for China or Iran to fight the U.S. I think you dont grasp the fact that wars revolve around money, and nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
But Iran is bad and filled with baddies, I mean it is ok for Pakistan to have Nukes because they have no known relations to terrorist
Yeah Pakistan is A-Ok. They have secure boarders, a strong government and no corruption. They are also a predominantly Christian population with the lowest poverty rate and some of the best education in the world. [rofl]
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
7,521
Likes
257
Location
Jacksonville, FL (AKA a free state)
Being in a Navy town, need to remember that some of the ships are very much approaching their end of service time. A vast majority of the Frigates are actually getting set/ready for decommissioning.

Can it be expanded some? Yes, but a lot of these ships were made in the 70s and 80s. This same thing how what we have now is just fine, but people forget how long it takes to develop/work out the NEXT generation of fighter. Right now we are fielding out latest generation of fighters (F22/F35). I am sure as hell somewhere in the Pentagon a group of thinkers is already looking at specs for the NEXT generation of fighters and send out these to the engineers so they could figure out HOW to achieve these goals.

To just blindly cut and hide our head in the sands is just the talk of the stupid. Cut yes, but cut smart. IE, do we need the 900 bases overseas that we have now? No. Should we have and operate a select few based on fact and reality - yes.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
Oh yeah...well, my dad is bigger than your dad and he can kick your dads butt.

Come on RWL, dont start one of those little kids arguments. This is the internet.
I`m not starting anything. I put my money where my mouth is. I was acquiesced of sending other people to fight my battles. Since 9/11 I have spent almost 3 years on Active Duty and I am still in the USAR.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
Are you part of the 303rd Logistical Studies Group out of Fort Griffith?
Nope. Matt Cooke is back.
Started in the 187th Infantry BDE(Separate) in 1988. Transferred to 11th SFG which became 20th SFG. in the mid 90`s. Because of the drawdown never got to go to SFAS and the Q course. Ended up back in the Infantry in 96, 29ID,MANG. Left the Infantry in 2008 because I was to old. Now I wear the 5th Army patch,USAR.
Yes, I am a REMF now. Age catches up to all of us unfortunately. Received an email from medpro this morning telling me they will be medically retiring me in the next few months because of my serious back injuries. At my latest physical in December they determined I couldn`t wear body armor and carry a combat load even thou I`m in a non-deployable unit and I have a laptop issued to me instead of a weapon. Oh well, it was a good ride.
How about you stiffy?
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
I`m not starting anything. I put my money where my mouth is. I was acquiesced of sending other people to fight my battles. Since 9/11 I have spent almost 3 years on Active Duty and I am still in the USAR.
I said you wouldn't want to send your family, not you.

Silly.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,095
Likes
30,170
HA! I used to watch that show.
It was actually a pretty good show... it sucked that they used to wedge it behind like Sunday night football or some crap. I couldn't even DVR the effing show because it was always a moving target because of the football game. So If I wanted to catch the whole thing I had to DVR cold case before it. I think shuffling the time slot around is what destroyed whatever ratings they had left.

-Mike
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Can anyone name a time we've cut our military and it hasn't bitten us in the ass a few years later?
Only because we keep trying to nationbuild... The amount of shovel ready.BS going in the defense budget as of late is absurd. The old saw of making us weaker if we cut one dollar from defense spending is a bunch of crap at this point. We spend such a ridiculous mount of money that there is plenty to cut without it biting us in the butt, but we do have to commit to not policing the world and spreading our forces all over the known world as Rome did near its end...

People voting party line on keeping defense spending are behaving like scared children who cannot fathom the idea of defending themselves and are terrified if mother government stops wasting money pretending to protect us.

The lesson of cuts is that you cannot cut human intelligence. You cannot replace intelligence on the ground with eyes in the sky. This has nothing to do with deploying 150k infantry to the far side of the world. You can absolutely cut defense spending in half today and make the military stronger if you slap all the piglets reaching into t pot to keep their pointless little bureacractic empire afloat.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom