• 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!

Can You Answer These Questions?

TheHammer said:
Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.


I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?


As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?


Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?


As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.


What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...

The best way to protect the lives of your war fighters is to present potential enemies with as lopsided a fight as possible.
 
TheHammer said:
Does that go for the national debt, a failing infrastructure, crummy public schools and a failed veterans healthcare single payer system too?
Click to expand...

Not having to spend money on unnecessary wars means a lot more money being available for other things.
 

It would have to be a country who would launch long range land based missiles and from submarines all at once. That country would cease to exist after such an act of war. I would think that would be quite to deterrent to taking such a unilateral action.

If the United States were at war at the time against that country, I am confident it's known, and even unknown, capabilities would be taken into account, and actions to protect the battle group would be in place.

If you're a vet, you know this would be true.[/QUOTE]

That's the old MAD thesis of war, We can blow you out of existence better than you can blow us out of existence.
 
jmotivator said:
The best way to protect the lives of your war fighters is to present potential enemies with as lopsided a fight as possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The left has become so deranged and muddled brained that they think, for instance, that Israel's ability to effect much more damage on its enemies than what its enemies are able to inflict on Israel is somehow unfair. They simply seem unable to comprehend how many conflicts have been avoided and how many lives have been saved in the Middle East because of Israel's fire power.

I also believe that the USA's superior military power coupled with our willingness to defend our allies has saved infinitely more lives than it has ever taken.
 
a777pilot said:
KC-130, but I did carrier qual aboard the USS Independence with the F-9. Yes, that was a year or two ago.
Click to expand...

Sweet. I was an O3. I always wanted to fly, but my eyes are ****ty and they wouldn't accept radial keratotomy back then. Sigh.
 
Brewdog said:
Sweet. I was an O3. I always wanted to fly, but my eyes are ****ty and they wouldn't accept radial keratotomy back then. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I will tell you what the guys with their heads in the sky say about you "03" types: Oh Three Oh Gods! Our only job was and is to support the Marine with a rifle in the mud (my generation) sand or rocks.
 
a777pilot said:
I will tell you what the guys with their heads in the sky say about you "03" types: Oh Three Oh Gods! Our only job was and is to support the Marine with a rifle in the mud (my generation) sand or rocks.
Click to expand...

But soaring around like a bird is much more fun than freezing your ass off in a mudhole. :)
 
TheHammer said:
Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.


I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?


As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?


Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?


As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.


What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...

They make a lot of liberals pee themselves. That in itself is reason enough to have them.
 
a777pilot said:
We need at least 20 CVNs and the support ships to go with them. We also need new classes of both missile and attack nuke subs.
Click to expand...

If you want attack subs, you go diesel. MUCH quieter. Nukes have pumps that MUST run 24/7. Diesels only run their engines to charge their batteries and they run as silent as possible. Nuke subs are great for other roles, but attack subs should all be diesel.
 
faithful_servant said:
If you want attack subs, you go diesel. MUCH quieter. Nukes have pumps that MUST run 24/7. Diesels only run their engines to charge their batteries and they run as silent as possible. Nuke subs are great for other roles, but attack subs should all be diesel.
Click to expand...

But diesel is so polluting to Mother Earth. I think they should start using wind energy.
 
faithful_servant said:
If you want attack subs, you go diesel. MUCH quieter. Nukes have pumps that MUST run 24/7. Diesels only run their engines to charge their batteries and they run as silent as possible. Nuke subs are great for other roles, but attack subs should all be diesel.
Click to expand...

That's great idea. I've always liked the idea of the diesel/electric sub. I also think that the Navy should be looking other sources of nuclear power, such as Thorium. MSR are much safer and cheaper than the current nuke power plants.
 
solar-panels.jpg
 
a777pilot said:
I have more experience, knowledge and access to and of military matters than you.
Click to expand...

I served in the Navy. I'm 80 years old and know more about military matters and spending and wasteful spending than you do because I've observed it longer unless you're 81 years old before May 2017.
 
a777pilot said:
You have obama to thank for all those problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah right! The infrastructure, the national debt, and public schools was great during the Bush's Clinton, and Reagan years, right?

Partisan-ism is the mother of denial and hypocrisy.
 
jmotivator said:
The best way to protect the lives of your war fighters is to present potential enemies with as lopsided a fight as possible.
Click to expand...

Even to the ending of bankruptcy, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom