Can You Answer These Questions?

[poweRob]

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?

Because words don't have much meaning anymore. For example, the word "Defense". This isn't defending our country. Like you said, it's hegemony.

Back when Rome ruled most of the known world they had a "defense only" policy as well. And they "defended" their borders all the way to England. They kept using defense as the excuse to keep being on offense. This is where we are at. That and this president already said he knows more than the generals. This is just him thumping his chest with machismo howling... yet again.

 

[TheHammer]

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

But don't we also spend money on unnecessary wars too? How about Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan? How many nuclear powered aircraft carriers did we need to do that?

 

[TheHammer]

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.

Where's the evidence? Thousands have died in our unnecessary wars. Were those lives saved by a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers? Seems America is saving other lives while wasting our youth's lives and our taxpayers money and putting our future generations in so much debt, they'll never have any chance of being debt free.

 

[TheHammer]

They make a lot of liberals pee themselves. That in itself is reason enough to have them.

How brilliant! Did you stay up all night composing that treasure?

 

[TheHammer]

But diesel is so polluting to Mother Earth. I think they should start using wind energy.

Ya have to be on the surface to use wind. Great idea!

 

[TheHammer]

Who cares? It's just numbers on a ledger.

You may well find out if you care!

 

[TheHammer]

Because words don't have much meaning anymore. For example, the word "Defense". This isn't defending our country. Like you said, it's hegemony.

Back when Rome ruled most of the known world they had a "defense only" policy as well. And they "defended" their borders all the way to England. They kept using defense as the excuse to keep being on offense. This is where we are at. That and this president already said he knows more than the generals. This is just him thumping his chest with machismo howling... yet again.

Great and true analogy, but it hasn't just been this President, it's been the insane American defense policy for most of my 80 year lifetime.

 

[AlbqOwl]

But don't we also spend money on unnecessary wars too? How about Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan? How many nuclear powered aircraft carriers did we need to do that?

You're missing the point. The more fire power we have to defend ourselves and our allies, the far less chance there will be for Vietnams, Koreas, the Gulf Wars, etc. to develop.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Where's the evidence? Thousands have died in our unnecessary wars. Were those lives saved by a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers? Seems America is saving other lives while wasting our youth's lives and our taxpayers money and putting our future generations in so much debt, they'll never have any chance of being debt free.

Again, the more fire power we have along with a willingness to use it if anybody threatens us or our allies, the less incentive there is for anybody to provoke us into using it.

We cannot do anything about wars already fought. But we can provide strong incentive for not starting new ones.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Great and true analogy, but it hasn't just been this President, it's been the insane American defense policy for most of my 80 year lifetime.

Eisenhower knew, he tried to warn but nobody listened.

 

[ocean515]

So name the existing country today that has such capability. There are none. So why the 12 nuclear powered aircraft carrier muscle flex? We're looking at and talking about insane OVERKILL here not to mention the whopping debt we're running up. It's nuts!

You're ex-navy and you're asking me which countries have the capability of launching long range missiles?

It seems to me you are rather disconnected from the global threats that exist today.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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.

The problem with D/E boats is the snorkeling for recharging.

It's all fun and games until the diesels fire up, then the entire world knows where you are.

They are great for coastal defense, but not forward projection of force.

 

[ocean515]

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.

That's the old MAD thesis of war, We can blow you out of existence better than you can blow us out of existence.[/QUOTE]

It works well, doesn't it.

 

[azgreg]

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.

 

[poweRob]

Great and true analogy, but it hasn't just been this President, it's been the insane American defense policy for most of my 80 year lifetime.

That's mostly congress.

Once a defense contract goes out for a weapon or weapon system, it gets built in a certain district. Once that's established congress starts forcing the Pentagon to take those weapon systems in perpetuity even when the Pentagon says, "We don't want that".

Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need​

Congressman in the district where that unwanted equipment is built fights to keep getting it built and sold to keep the jobs and the federal money flowing in their district. So in government, the fiscally responsible are up against this and also these guys:

In the final analysis, the principal culprits, because they have so much to lose in profits and bonuses, are the giant defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and others that lobby Congress, Congressional District by Congressional District, for more, more, more military contracts, grants and subsidies. They routinely hire ex-Pentagon specialists and top brass who know how to negotiate the ways and means inside of the government.

link...​

Now when it comes to something big and new like another aircraft carrier, it's an easy sell to congress. They all start fighting for portions of it to be built in their district and if they encounter resistance to it, they can just say, "Why do you hate jobs?" And you are left fighting that bumper sticker.

Here's a good sample of that... with the B-2 Bomber:

Congress has, thus far, been largely supportive of the Pentagon's stealth-spending plans. Perhaps to help ensure that it remains so, defense manufacturers -- in addition to applying the usual lubricant of campaign contributions -- have carefully spread out the economic rewards of their stealth products. Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor for the B-2, doled out work to various subcontractors in 46 states and, more importantly, in 383 of 435 congressional districts. Lockheed plans to build the parts for its F-22 in 48 states and Puerto Rico.

link...​

We are living precisely in the country that Eisenhower warned us against with regards to the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Perotista]

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?

I don't know, I wasn't navy. My guess is having 10 aircraft carriers was a result of our military doctrine to be able to fight a two front war like we did in WWII. Although I don't remember having any of our carriers in the Atlantic. Having that many during the containment policy adopted towards the USSR after WWII during the cold war with Vietnam going on which took usually two or three stationed off at the so called Yankee station is probably why that number continued.

Then there were the years we became the worlds policeman. You being a navy guy, you should understand Naval tactics and strategy a lot better than I. Perhaps if we gave up the idea of being the worlds policeman we could get by with half of what we have. I don't know.

 

[poweRob]

 

[Perotista]

That's mostly congress.

Once a defense contract goes out for a weapon or weapon system, it gets built in a certain district. Once that's established congress starts forcing the Pentagon to take those weapon systems in perpetuity even when the Pentagon says, "We don't want that".

Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need​

Congressman in the district where that unwanted equipment is built fights to keep getting it built and sold to keep the jobs and the federal money flowing in their district. So in government, the fiscally responsible are up against this and also these guys:

In the final analysis, the principal culprits, because they have so much to lose in profits and bonuses, are the giant defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and others that lobby Congress, Congressional District by Congressional District, for more, more, more military contracts, grants and subsidies. They routinely hire ex-Pentagon specialists and top brass who know how to negotiate the ways and means inside of the government.​

Now when it comes to something big and new like another aircraft carrier, it's an easy sell to congress. They all start fighting for portions of it to be built in their district and if they encounter resistance to it, they can just say, "Why do you hate jobs?" And you are left fighting that bumper sticker.

Here's a good sample of that... with the B-2 Bomber:

Congress has, thus far, been largely supportive of the Pentagon's stealth-spending plans. Perhaps to help ensure that it remains so, defense manufacturers -- in addition to applying the usual lubricant of campaign contributions -- have carefully spread out the economic rewards of their stealth products. Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor for the B-2, doled out work to various subcontractors in 46 states and, more importantly, in 383 of 435 congressional districts. Lockheed plans to build the parts for its F-22 in 48 states and Puerto Rico.

link...​

We are living precisely in the country that Eisenhower warned us against with regards to the Military Industrial Complex.

Exactly, congress treats the military as a jobs provider and creator instead of being an organization to defend and protect this country.

 

[poweRob]

Exactly, congress treats the military as a jobs provider and creator instead of being an organization to defend and protect this country.

Once we cross over and beyond that threshold where it is about jobs instead of defense, it is by all rights the federal welfare that the right says they are so against. It just has a more palatable face to sell it to their base. And there is no roof on the spending that their base would ever accept.

 

[Perotista]

Once we cross over and beyond that threshold where it is about jobs instead of defense, it is by all rights the federal welfare that the right says they are so against. It just has a more palatable face to sell it to their base. And there is no roof on the spending that their base would ever accept.

If congress would just approve what the military wants and needs. If Congress would listen to the military when it says it doesn't need something, doesn't want something and can't use something or has way too much of something. You could easily cut 100 billion dollars off the defense budget and not hurt national security or the ability to defend this country one bit.

But as you pointed out, it would mean a whole lot of jobs lost in the civilian sector that are supplying all this unneeded and unwanted equipment, weapon systems, what have you that wouldn't be made or bought anymore by the defense department or government.

 

[faithful_servant]

How brilliant! Did you stay up all night composing that treasure?

Nope. Only took one second.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

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?

Because we are the world's babysitters, and there are lots of places where our task forces need to be

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

Because it's not 1950 anymore. Gone are the days of "hidden" task forces, playing hide-and-seek in the Atlantic or Pacific. Nuclear carriers now have the proper armaments to ward off a myriad of attacks. Not just AA batteries designed to repel bullet-firing prop fighters.

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.

Again...it's not 1950 anymore. Carriers have active and passive defenses now. Cruise missiles, 20mm laser-guided cannons. Rail guns. State of the art counter-measures. The task force (your "dozen other ships") is a concept that's been around for centuries. It's not JUST to protect the carrier. It's to effectively perform whatever mission the task force is asked to perform.

What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

It costs a fraction of one percent of the federal budget to operate them. Nuclear carriers are the most efficient part of the navy. How does a "navy vet" not know this?

 

[a777pilot]

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.

I'm 71 and a retired United States Marine. I still have more military and historical knowledge and experience than you, but thank you for your service.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

The answer to the OP could be as simple as pressure. We all know the President is not free to act alone on much of anything.

We all also know the US Military Industrial Complex is a beast and has far reaching tentacles.

Could it be as simple as a behind the scenes agreement between Trump and that Military Industrial Complex and it's wealthy benefactors that if Trump will keep their well oiled money machine running, they won't throw a cog in his?

Who do you think benefited most from the F35 program.....the American People or the MIC ? See the picture?

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

They make a lot of liberals pee themselves. That in itself is reason enough to have them.

Well now....
You've finally explained the true source of that massive run on Tide laundry detergent reported all across America on Nov 10, 2016. :lamo