Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80

Thread: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

  1. #31
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,352

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Purchasing parity. You can't just compare budgets, you have to look at what you get for the money. And in any case, allowing our military to shrink to the point that our marines (who are still needed hence the deployment) have to hitch a ride with euros. Its shameful, but then again so is this president.
    Purchasing parity inb4 China's per capita sucks ****.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,667

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Combat troops decrease as technological capabilities advance. What use to take special forces, and entire battalions (I'm being facetious here) of people to accomplish can now be done with a drone, and a 25 year old sitting in Virginia. This has little to do with actual ship building capabilities as has already been explained.
    My points were limited to limitation of using total military expenditures to compare nations and the need for a flexible response capability. A choice between non-response or total destruction promotes rigidity. Arguments that conventional forces were relatively unimportant given the huge U.S. nuclear arsenal were common during the 1970s and 1980s.

    I don't disagree that technological improvement has substituted in some cases for manpower. Nonetheless, the suboptimal outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest caution in making the argument that all of the reduction in combat forces that has occurred since the end of the Cold War and especially the 2000s has not had at least some adverse impact on overall U.S. capabilities and the more important matter of deterring would-be enemies.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You failure to address anything which has been posted is noted.
    As is your failure to address the OP. The military knows this guy is a chump.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My points were limited to limitation of using total military expenditures to compare nations and the need for a flexible response capability. A choice between non-response or total destruction promotes rigidity. Arguments that conventional forces were relatively unimportant given the huge U.S. nuclear arsenal were common during the 1970s and 1980s.

    I don't disagree that technological improvement has substituted in some cases for manpower. Nonetheless, the suboptimal outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest caution in making the argument that all of the reduction in combat forces that has occurred since the end of the Cold War and especially the 2000s has not had at least some adverse impact on overall U.S. capabilities and the more important matter of deterring would-be enemies.
    Agreed, and beyond that our military leaders have said as much.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    One needs to be cautious about using only total expenditures for a number of reasons. First, purchasing power differs. For example, according to official statistics (which may understate military expenditures by Russia and China for obvious regions e.g., to mask support for strategic programs), China's and Russia's military expenditures are just under 50% of U.S. expenditures. However, on a PPP-basis, their spending is about 80% of U.S. spending. Second, allocation of spending also matters. The U.S. spends a higher share of its military budget on salaries and benefits than do either Russia or China. Third, inefficient practices e.g., the military bidding-contracting-delivery process can also reduce the benefits of spending. The Pentagon has had a chronic history of cost-overruns and delays in numerous big-ticket programs (e.g., the F-35). Data concerning such issues in Russia and China aren't public--almost certainly some inefficiencies exist but the extent is unknown. This inefficiency should be a focus of reform, as programs that ultimately produce weapons systems at twice or three times the cost originally set forth in accepted bids are wasteful and they undercut the power impact from military investments.
    Are people really trying to say that at this very moment the US armed forces are not the biggest, baddest fighting force in the world? Swollen far beyond truly defensive needs. (You must leave out all gratuitous military adventurism to answer that correctly)
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #36
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,354

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    As is your failure to address the OP.
    I did, it specifically addressed military ship building capabilities, actual military capabilities, and compared it to those of other militaries. You've gone one some weird tangent about Obama, as per usual.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I did, it specifically addressed military ship building capabilities, actual military capabilities, and compared it to those of other militaries. You've gone one some weird tangent about Obama, as per usual.
    Where did it compare military capabilities to other nations?
    I noticed you skipped over where it said this is a very bad position to be in, a stop gap.

    All on Obama's watch-no need to pin a ribbon on failure-Obama dropped the ball again.

    Its ok to admit it.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,354

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My points were limited to limitation of using total military expenditures to compare nations and the need for a flexible response capability. A choice between non-response or total destruction promotes rigidity. Arguments that conventional forces were relatively unimportant given the huge U.S. nuclear arsenal were common during the 1970s and 1980s.

    I don't disagree that technological improvement has substituted in some cases for manpower. Nonetheless, the suboptimal outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest caution in making the argument that all of the reduction in combat forces that has occurred since the end of the Cold War and especially the 2000s has not had at least some adverse impact on overall U.S. capabilities and the more important matter of deterring would-be enemies.
    Terribly planned wars, with little information about the people who we're supposed to be fighting tend to have suboptimal outcomes. That says literally nothing about our actual capabilities which is what the OP addressed. The point was simple: Anyone who thinks the Russians and Chinese are emboldened by a small drop in military spending after decades of growth is simply fooling themselves.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #39
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,354

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Where did it compare military capabilities to other nations?
    Reading is your friend:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064743829

    No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States military in a conventional war.

    Consider: The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. $711 billion. Per year. The next closest is China at $143 billion.

    The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

    China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.

    We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters.

    There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.

    The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.

    We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.
    I noticed you skipped over where it said this is a very bad position to be in, a stop gap.

    All on Obama's watch-no need to pin a ribbon on failure-Obama dropped the ball again.

    Its ok to admit it.


    Lol. Your uneducated assessment that this a bad position to be in? It's nonsense. We could literally cut our budget in half and we'd still be able to take on any military in the world. This is supported by actual military members. Not some guy on the internet pretending he knows what's he's talking about. All of your non-points have been refuted. Now, if you want to play shifty and say you were talking about proxy wars, that's fine but our ship building capabilities have little to do with proxy wars.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Reading is your friend:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064743829







    Lol. Your uneducated assessment that this a bad position to be in? It's nonsense. We could literally cut our budget in half and we'd still be able to take on any military in the world. This is supported by actual military members. Not some guy on the internet pretending he knows what's he's talking about. All of your non-points have been refuted. Now, if you want to play shifty and say you were talking about proxy wars, that's fine but our ship building capabilities have little to do with proxy wars.
    Our military can't even meet its mission demands in peacetime-to the point that we are reduced to accepting rides from euros. If thats your definition of success you are content pinning a ribbon on failure.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •