• 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!

musings about aircraft carriers and military spending

I wouldn't put my carriers in the 'littoral space'.

Very relevant article. The most important function the carrier provides is air superiority.
Air superiority is critical, and space is an obvious extension of consideration for air superiority.

Any of our enemies satellites have to be the first to go.

CletusWilbury:

The problem with clearing satellites from space is that it broadens any conflict from a limited military conflict in a somewhat defined and containable region, to a strategic and likely existential struggle which could quickly spin out of control and escalate to total war or even thermonuclear war. This makes the force projection role of the CBG far more dangerous to wider global peace and therefore lowers its utility to commanders who don't want to risk a hot WWIII to achieve limited regional military goals against a space capable foe. By the end of the next decade the Chinese may surpass the US satellite capability. They've gone from 2% to 40% of the US satellite numbers in just ten years. They could close both the quantity and quality gap in short order.

Yikes! I'm late, gotta go!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
CletusWilbury:

The problem with clearing satellites from space is that it broadens any conflict from a limited military conflict in a somewhat defined and containable region, to a strategic and likely existential struggle which could quickly spin out of control and escalate to total war or even thermonuclear war. This makes the force projection role of the CBG far more dangerous to wider global peace and therefore lowers its utility to commanders who don't want to risk a hot WWIII to achieve limited regional military goals against a space capable foe. By the end of the next decade the Chinese may surpass the US satellite capability. They've gone from 2% to 40% of the US satellite numbers in just ten years. They could close both the quantity and quality gap in short order.

Yikes! I'm late, gotta go!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

We don't have that problem when playing War in the Pacific. It starts at Pearl Harbor.
But we need carriers in that possible eventuality. Or do we?
 
They won’t die.... but some kids will go hungry. They do now. That is a stone cold fact

True and no matter how much money you throw at the problem it will continue to exist. The best way to end poverty is to get people to work not hand outs.
 
You seem to think cook and yeoman are dishonorable jobs. That is a horrible insult to shipmates. I gather a bachelor's and a masters before I honorably discharged. How about you son?

We build we fight

Translation= I joined so the military would pay for my education, not to serve my country!
 
Gee a so called sailor (most likely a cook) knows more than the best military minds. I am unimpressed.

Did you eat in the military? Thank a cook. But no I was not a cook. I appreciated them.....I guess you did not
 
I wouldn't put my carriers in the 'littoral space'.

Very relevant article. The most important function the carrier provides is air superiority.
Air superiority is critical, and space is an obvious extension of consideration for air superiority.

Any of our enemies satellites have to be the first to go.

My thinking is heavily influenced by this computer game : War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition
A monster game. Need to move supply. Need carriers to provide air cover for your convoys.

CletusWibury:

The problem is not manoeuvring the carriers into littoral battle-spaces. The problem is that the littoral battle space has inflated out into traditional marine blue-water spaces beyond which the carrier's aircraft can operate effectively. The decision to stay out of the littoral zone has effectively become the decision to stay out of the fight for all intents and purposes.

How would the US react to a foreign military power attempting to clear space of its 500-600 military satellites above us? I think it would respond to such an effort as an existential threat and act accordingly. So I would expect both China and Russia to react in a similar manner and respond to such an attack with total war (perhaps as a joint effort). You might destroy Russia but I think you would run out of Americans long before you could shut down China.

So the necessary preconditions for a successful carrier battle group based limited military strike in support of a power projection mission risks total war and thus becomes both militarily and politically non-feasible. Ergo, why spend the 13-14 billion dollars on super carriers which can't do one of the main jobs they are tasked with without unleashing Fenris and triggering global war and a possible thermonuclear Ragnarok which burns down the tree of life.

This quandary is not limited to super carries alone. It applies to most conventional methods of military power projection today. So the whole concept of military power projection needs to be rethought out and redefined as the seemingly traditional mono-polar military hegemony of the US becomes less and less feasible to maintain in the modern world of disruptive technology. Low intensity and covert warfare is one such adaptation but it is proving to be more disruptive and destabilising than the problems it is supposed to fix, and is thus reaching an impasse. Today attempts to mask, hide and even deny the existence of such military power projection have been attempted but that too is failing as the air, the seas and the land are becoming so much more transparent that hiding is effectively becoming impossible.

Even if you manage to defeat an enemy's satellite-based ISR capability they can still get real time data from cooperating state and non-state actors with which to target concentrations of your military forces. Land-based ISR capabilities are improving too and at some point they may be both mobile and passive enough to degrade your military's capacity to effectively target them.

The whole paradigm of war is shifting under the military's feet and few are publicly addressing these tectonic displacements from a ground/sea-up approach. There is too much money at stake in continuing to feed the old paradigm, so few if any are publicly allowed to effectively challenge and disrupt the old paradigms and endanger the established gravy-train.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
It is a waste of money and not our job

Yes. Why can Russia manage to get by with just one?

This is so obvious, I am surprised somebody has to even respond to this.

Russia is largely a land nation. It has never put much into it's navy. And almost all of it's commerce travels by land or air. So interruption of sea commerce is of no major interest to them.

But in case you did not realize it, the US is largely an Island nation. Most of it's commerce not with Canada and Mexico is with Asia and Europe.

And how do you think the vast majority of cargo gets there?

And you have to ask why keeping sea lanes open is our job, and why Russia does not put in more?

This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I have seen in here yet. I have seen Ensigns with more common sense than a great many in here.
 
This is so obvious, I am surprised somebody has to even respond to this.

Russia is largely a land nation. It has never put much into it's navy. And almost all of it's commerce travels by land or air. So interruption of sea commerce is of no major interest to them.

But in case you did not realize it, the US is largely an Island nation. Most of it's commerce not with Canada and Mexico is with Asia and Europe.

And how do you think the vast majority of cargo gets there?

And you have to ask why keeping sea lanes open is our job, and why Russia does not put in more?

This has got to be one of the most retarded threads I have seen in here yet. I have seen Ensigns with more common sense than a great many in here.

Complete nonsense. That is the argument for 20 carriers
 
Complete nonsense. That is the argument for 20 carriers

But we do not have 20 carriers, so this is retarded.

Hey, let's give an argument for having a space balloon corps. To protect us from the Moon Monsters.

What, no moon monsters? Does not matter, I want a Space Balloon Corps.

Sorry, I do not give a fig about arguing over fantasy things. And a 20 carrier navy is only so much mental masturbation.

As I said, this entire thread is retarded. Do not feel like I was singling you out.
 
But we do not have 20 carriers, so this is retarded.

Hey, let's give an argument for having a space balloon corps. To protect us from the Moon Monsters.

What, no moon monsters? Does not matter, I want a Space Balloon Corps.

Sorry, I do not give a fig about arguing over fantasy things. And a 20 carrier navy is only so much mental masturbation.

As I said, this entire thread is retarded. Do not feel like I was singling you out.

You are free to leave at any time. It is not the job of the US to protect the sea lanes for the entire planet. That is ridiculous
 
You are free to leave at any time. It is not the job of the US to protect the sea lanes for the entire planet. That is ridiculous

Sure, we can do that.

As soon as we stop importing and exporting the majority of our goods by sea.

Gee, I think somebody has forgotten that a few years ago a US Merchant ship was captured by pirates, and it's US civilian Captain was taken hostage. Way off the East Coast of Africa.

Of course, I am sure that is a rather obscure incident. I think there was some movie made of it once, that nobody heard of. The star was some dude who was made famous by playing a cross dresser in an old TV series after all.
 
Sure, we can do that.

As soon as we stop importing and exporting the majority of our goods by sea.

Gee, I think somebody has forgotten that a few years ago a US Merchant ship was captured by pirates, and it's US civilian Captain was taken hostage. Way off the East Coast of Africa.

Of course, I am sure that is a rather obscure incident. I think there was some movie made of it once, that nobody heard of. The star was some dude who was made famous by playing a cross dresser in an old TV series after all.
thankfully we sent ten carriers to save him. Lol
 
But you said it was not our job to protect the sea lanes.

It is not. And we don't and didn't need ten carriers to rescue one American. You are making my point
 
In other words you talk in circles.

20 carriers, then 10 carriers, then no carriers.

Good day.

Wel l never said no carriers and 20 is a joke but I think 5 could be a reasonable compromise
 
Back
Top Bottom