• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

Hatuey said:
Still unable to actually address what is being written? It's okay to admit it, you know. I specifically addressed the same thing as YOUR OP. That is our material capabilities. We literally could blow anybody out of the water twice over and not flinch. If you think a small drop in our budget, and measures being taken to deal with a shortage of ships - WHILE WE STILL HAVE MORE RESOURCES THAN ANY OF OUR POTENTIAL ENEMIES COMBINED - means that we're weak, that's on you. It's being laughed at by anybody with common sense.
Click to expand...

:shrug: total resources is irrelevant. What matters is the mass you are able to bring to bear at the point of friction. If we have 4 other Carrier Groups being retrofitted, 1 in the Persian Gulf, and 1 in the Med, then that means precisely bupkis to the Carrier Group facing off against China.

The US has more resources, yes. But we have a global fight - everyone else has a regional fight.
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Your" marines were filmed deployed aboard HMS Ark Royal in 2010. Such a shameful President....

Who was the REALLY shameful President in 1973 when this pic was taken aboard her?

F-4-Phantom-151477-Ark-Royal.jpg


Urban GhostsUS Marine Corps Phantom Wears the National Markings of a British F-4K - Urban Ghosts
 
Which war in 1973? We stayed out of Vietnam, so it wasn't that one. The Ark was deployed in the Mediterranean at the time of the pic. The plane was disguised as British so there wouldn't be riots in Malta when she put in to port there. (Read the pic's link.)
Same in 2010, though you could stretch a point and call that deployment aboard a foreign ship part of the "war on drugs."

 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: total resources is irrelevant. What matters is the mass you are able to bring to bear at the point of friction. If we have 4 other Carrier Groups being retrofitted, 1 in the Persian Gulf, and 1 in the Med, then that means precisely bupkis to the Carrier Group facing off against China.

The US has more resources, yes. But we have a global fight - everyone else has a regional fight.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should stop having a global fight.
 
Deuce said:
Maybe we should stop having a global fight.
Click to expand...

Oh. That's an excellent idea. Is it your plan to convince bad actors to just sit down and hug it out, or are you saying that we should give up our nice, comfortable, first-world lifestyle and the global supply chains that it is dependent on?
 
Hatuey said:
That's why I posted actual military capabilities. Anybody who thinks that Russia and China pose a threat to the US in any military capacity is simply out of their mind. Good grief, if we wanted to, we could literally nuke every major Chinese/Russian city overnight, cripple their entirely military infrastructure, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they'd be able to do short of kneeling down and asking for a quick death. It sounds really cocky, but the fact that Russia is telling the West not to fear Russia and China won't do much other than cry at the UN is proof enough.
Click to expand...

Other then launch their nukes back, that is.
 
cpwill said:
Oh. That's an excellent idea. Is it your plan to convince bad actors to just sit down and hug it out, or are you saying that we should give up our nice, comfortable, first-world lifestyle and the global supply chains that it is dependent on?
Click to expand...

I think the supply chain isn't in the kind of danger you fear it is.
 
cpwill said:
Oh. That's an excellent idea. Is it your plan to convince bad actors to just sit down and hug it out, or are you saying that we should give up our nice, comfortable, first-world lifestyle and the global supply chains that it is dependent on?
Click to expand...

You plan to rape the world of it's resources to sustain your impossible lifestyle by brute force?
 
Deuce said:
I think the supply chain isn't in the kind of danger you fear it is.
Click to expand...

Ah. So China, Russia, Iran, et. al. are really, deep down, secret Liberals who stay up late at night reading Adam Smith under the bed covers?

Manc Skipper said:
You plan to rape the world of it's resources to sustain your impossible lifestyle by brute force?
Click to expand...

Even better - I plan to help bring billions of people up out of poverty through trade. Raping Resources is actually rather bad business - you want an interconnected supply chain of actors across the globe, not a single point of (poor) planning.
 
Hatuey said:
That's why I posted actual military capabilities. Anybody who thinks that Russia and China pose a threat to the US in any military capacity is simply out of their mind.
Click to expand...

.... or, has actually spent time studying the military capacity of (for example) the PRC. China's A2AD capability is no joke - it keeps the USN up at night.

Good grief, if we wanted to, we could literally nuke every major Chinese/Russian city overnight
Click to expand...

Yeah. The problem being that, near-extinction-level assaults on the human species aren't what you call fungible.

An analogy: If you are holding a grenade with the pin pulled, and you are using that to try to deter me, then in fact, I can do anything I like to you, up to the point where you decide you would rather die than continue to endure my attacks. Short of deterring the kind of attack that would put the survival of the United States in doubt, nukes aren't all that terribly useful weapons.

cripple their entirely military infrastructure, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they'd be able to do short of kneeling down and asking for a quick death.
Click to expand...

This claim, unfortunately, lacks what Henry Kissinger likes to call "The added benefit of being true".

It sounds really cocky
Click to expand...

It does sound cocky. It also sounds uninformed.

the fact that Russia is telling the West not to fear Russia and China won't do much other than cry at the UN is proof enough.
Click to expand...

This would be the Russia that's invading the Ukraine and the China that's building military outposts in the South China Sea, yes?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Which war in 1973? We stayed out of Vietnam, so it wasn't that one. The Ark was deployed in the Mediterranean at the time of the pic. The plane was disguised as British so there wouldn't be riots in Malta when she put in to port there. (Read the pic's link.)
Same in 2010, though you could stretch a point and call that deployment aboard a foreign ship part of the "war on drugs."

Click to expand...


No offense but the US military does not desire or need to depend on the brits for anything, nor should they-especially for our ship-borne fighting force. Maybe mexico or something, but not the US.
 
cpwill said:
Even better - I plan to help bring billions of people up out of poverty through trade. Raping Resources is actually rather bad business - you want an interconnected supply chain of actors across the globe, not a single point of (poor) planning.
Click to expand...

Apparently (and as a Brit no less) he hasn't learned this.
 
US Conservative said:
Space X launches cargo rockets for resupply, not manned ones IIRC. Musk is on to something, but thats ot.
Click to expand...

Dragon

Dragon is a free-flying spacecraft designed to deliver both cargo and people to orbiting destinations. Dragon made history in 2012 when it became the first commercial spacecraft in history to deliver cargo to the International Space Station and safely return cargo to Earth, a feat previously achieved only by governments. It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth. Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans. Under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is now developing the refinements that will enable Dragon to fly crew. Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years.
 
poweRob said:
Dragon

Dragon is a free-flying spacecraft designed to deliver both cargo and people to orbiting destinations. Dragon made history in 2012 when it became the first commercial spacecraft in history to deliver cargo to the International Space Station and safely return cargo to Earth, a feat previously achieved only by governments. It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth. Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans. Under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is now developing the refinements that will enable Dragon to fly crew. Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

So your premise is that manned testing in 3 years somehow means being dependent on Russia is a good thing? I guess thats one way to go.
 
Marines should be limited to U.S. Navy ships and landing on beaches/small islands and THAT IS IT.

And all MEU's/foreign deployed Marines should be brought home (outside of those on Navy ships).

And I do not begin to care if Marine fanatics/neocons disagree.

Neocons. The foreign terrorists best friend. Whenever the latter want to bring America into their little wars, they just have to say 'boo' and they can count on American neocons freaking out and wanting to butt in where it is none of their business.

The Neocon credo...more money for defense. It does not matter how much is already being spent...they want more.

The left ignoramuses have Krugmanites. And the right ignoramuses have neocons.
They both are clueless (spending money they do not have for things they do not understand), but if I had to choose, I would choose the former. At least Krugmanites spend money to help people. Neocons spend money to kill people.

Ike was dead right.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
No offense but the US military does not desire or need to depend on the brits for anything, nor should they-especially for our ship-borne fighting force. Maybe mexico or something, but not the US.
Click to expand...

Your apology is accepted alongside your surrender. You made a rash claim, proven false.
 
we spend (waste) over 600 billion on defence and there is a shortage of U.S. Navy ships,were does all this money go??
 
US Conservative said:
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

635702458296772764-AFP-541750596.jpg


Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

The world is on fire and the Chump in Chief has shrunk the military budget to the point that our own Marines have to hitch rides with the Euros. Terror flourishes, Moscow and Beijing are emboldened-and we are stuck this way for at least the next 13 years thanks to President weaksauce. :doh
Click to expand...

Such whining. My nephew went with several other nations in Afghanistan in the year he was there, traveled with them, stayed at their bases, documented them dismantling their bases, etc. So what? This is anger for the sake of anger.
 
US Conservative said:
Space X launches cargo rockets for resupply, not manned ones IIRC. Musk is on to something, but thats ot.
Click to expand...

Manned launches start in 2017, it would be by now if Musk had his way, but he is dealing with bureaucrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom