Armed to the teeth

[chequita guevara]

Terrorists don't need camps, funding, or shelter. That makes their job easier, but it's not necessary.

[Dis]

carriers don't deter terrorists. They kill them.

[David Floyd]

Yes, Dissident, but pretty soon you reach the point of diminishing returns when you're deploying carriers against under-defended terrorist camps, eh?

[Dis]

well that's for economists to ponder over.

Until the war on terrorism isn't economically feasable, it's best we try to use carriers to kill as many terrorists as possible.

[chequita guevara]

Smart terrorists don't stay where carriers can hit them.

[David Floyd]

That's for common sense to ponder Dissident - if you're hitting a terrorist camp, that has no real defenses, especially anti-air, what's it matter if you're hitting it with 2 carriers or 20? Not a hell of a lot I'd say.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Lonestar, if we don't have the assets to wage offensive war, we won't - and no country is gonna mess with us, whether we have 2 carriers or 12 or 100.

Terrorists, maybe, but carriers don't deter terrorists.

Okay, that last statement is true.

However over, the rest of the post takes a rather short sighted view. Are Navy is THE biggest deterrent to most tinpot dictators. I have no doubt that, were it not for the two carriers deployed to the Persian gulf 365/yr, Iraq (or Iran) would realise that no one else in the region has the ability to stop them, should they decide to take a stroll down to Mecca one fine day.

It even influences those whose dictatorships are substantiuly(sp) more than "tinpot". Whenever China goes off trying to influence the very democratic Taiwan, our main way of defending them would be to deploy a Carrier Battle group (or two).

Carrier have aslo been used in the past for Humanitarian measures, the Brits used their carrier in Sierra Leone last year, and we used a carrier loaded down with Army Copters to bring (pseudo)democracy to Haiti. In the Afghan campaign, we've used two carriers for air strikes, and one (the Kitty Hawk) as a floating base for the Spec Ops guys, as well as a floating prision.

It's naive to think we won't need to influence other nations in the future. More likely, if we were to reduce our offensive ability, we would find the need to use what we have more often. Witness 8 years of Clinton budget cuts while increasing deployments tenfold.

I'm sorry about the "Coward" comment, I'm sure there are many concientious objectors who aren't, and that was a bit broad of a statement. (I'm not going to grip at the Amish). The gist of it is true, however. We need more people and more ships, or at least ships to replace those we are retiring.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, Dissident, but pretty soon you reach the point of diminishing returns when you're deploying carriers against under-defended terrorist camps, eh?

You know, We DO have other enemys besides terrorists!

Terrorists don't need camps, funding, or shelter. That makes their job easier, but it's not necessary.

It makes alot harder. Which is the point. Massive attacks like 911 cant be carried without some kind of camps to teach these people how to hijack planes, make bombs, etc.....etc.....

please if you are suggesting the bombing has accomplished nothing in terms of disrupting and killing off would-be terrorists, you are in complete denial due ideological or political motivations.

[Dis]

No one said we needed 20 carriers.

All we need is 12. That seems like a high number. But you can't have carriers deployed 12 months a year. Most rotations are a 6 month deployment with 18 months until the next one. In the mean time the carrier gets maintenance done, sea testing, and operational exams.

It takes 12 active carriers to maintain 2 carriers continuously in a region as far away as Afghanistan.

[David Floyd]

Lonestar,

However over, the rest of the post takes a rather short sighted view. Are Navy is THE biggest deterrent to most tinpot dictators. I have no doubt that, were it not for the two carriers deployed to the Persian gulf 365/yr, Iraq (or Iran) would realise that no one else in the region has the ability to stop them, should they decide to take a stroll down to Mecca one fine day.

Only way that affects us is economically, and it isn't our oil anyway. None of our business.

It even influences those whose dictatorships are substantiuly(sp) more than "tinpot". Whenever China goes off trying to influence the very democratic Taiwan, our main way of defending them would be to deploy a Carrier Battle group (or two).

This affects us even less. None of our business.

Carrier have aslo been used in the past for Humanitarian measures, the Brits used their carrier in Sierra Leone last year, and we used a carrier loaded down with Army Copters to bring (pseudo)democracy to Haiti. In the Afghan campaign, we've used two carriers for air strikes, and one (the Kitty Hawk) as a floating base for the Spec Ops guys, as well as a floating prision.

Weird. We're sending out money in humanitarian aid, yet we have a huge national debt, and our taxes are pretty high too. Something isn't right there.

It's naive to think we won't need to influence other nations in the future.

That's what diplomats are for

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually I'm not sure.

I do think, though, that we should have a large National Guard and a small standing army. But the States should not be compulsed to maintain any specific number of troops, either.

Sorry, DF, but 18th century romanticism died back in the 18th century.

Every American war up until Vietnam proved the results of small peacetime armies - amateurs incurring unnecessary casualties and unnecessary loss of time for the results obtained.

Since the volunteer / large scale professional army transition in the 80's, look at the results. We incur few casualties, are in and out fast, and if the mission is properly defined and supported (those incompetent mother****ers Clinton and Aspin, don't even get me going there), we break people and get results fast.

Remember the whiners who talked about Afghanistan being another Vietnam? It wasn't, and it's the evolution of our force structure and doctrine which is the reason.

[David Floyd]

MtG,

Sorry, DF, but 18th century romanticism died back in the 18th century.

Every American war up until Vietnam proved the results of small peacetime armies - amateurs incurring unnecessary casualties and unnecessary loss of time for the results obtained.

Since the volunteer / large scale professional army transition in the 80's, look at the results. We incur few casualties, are in and out fast, and if the mission is properly defined and supported (those incompetent mother****ers Clinton and Aspin, don't even get me going there), we break people and get results fast.

Remember the whiners who talked about Afghanistan being another Vietnam? It wasn't, and it's the evolution of our force structure and doctrine which is the reason.

But the whole point is, we don't NEED a large standing army IF we are committed to defense, rather than offense. That's my whole point.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Lonestar,



Only way that affects us is economically, and it isn't our oil anyway. None of our business.

:: Looks at Dave's date in the upper left hand corner::

uh, I'm guessing you forgot the oil shortages of the '70's?(which caused a economic downturn)

This affects us even less. None of our business.

Would agree except for that whole binding treaty thing.

Weird. We're sending out money in humanitarian aid, yet we have a huge national debt, and our taxes are pretty high too. Something isn't right there.

Indeed, while our taxes are relatively low compared to everyone else, we're spending more money on "pork" then what we need. Trent Lott's forcing the Navy to buy a $1 Billion dollar Amphib carrier it doesn't want is just one example of many. Most of our money is frittered away on pork. It's worth noting that while 45% ( :eek!: ) of the money spent on R&D for a new program actually reaches it here, in Sweden (with some of the finest Planes and Avionics in the world) it's 98%.

Pork is a serious problem, our whole government procurment policy is screwed up. That's why the A-12 Abortion (mentioned) got canned, as well as the Venturestar Shuttle replacement (which went balls up after Lockheed decided not to invest the $4.5 bil of it's own money it promised).

That's what diplomats are for

"You better not invake Saudi Arabia, thus driving the cost of oil to crippling heights, or I will wave at you, like this."

[David Floyd]

uh, I'm guessing you forgot the oil shortages of the '70's?(which caused a economic downturn)

It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices

Would agree except for that whole binding treaty thing.

What's that Mr. Washington said about foreign entanglements? Oh yeah, avoid 'em.

Indeed, while our taxes are relatively low compared to everyone else, we're spending more money on "pork" then what we need. Trent Lott's forcing the Navy to buy a $1 Billion dollar Amphib carrier it doesn't want is just one example of many. Most of our money is frittered away on pork. It's worth noting that while 45% ( :eek!: ) of the money spent on R&D for a new program actually reaches it here, in Sweden (with some of the finest Planes and Avionics in the world) it's 98%.

Pork is a serious problem, our whole government procurment policy is screwed up. That's why the A-12 Abortion (mentioned) got canned, as well as the Venturestar Shuttle replacement (which went balls up after Lockheed decided not to invest the $4.5 bil of it's own money it promised).

I agree. That doesn't justify humanitarian aid though.

"You better not invake Saudi Arabia, thus driving the cost of oil to crippling heights, or I will wave at you, like this."

As opposed to "You better not carry out an independent foreign policy, or we'll whup your ass."

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

The article says there are seven U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups, but I thought we had more carriers than that? For some reason the numbers 12 and 16 are sticking out in my mind — are those simply old Cold War numbers, long since reduced?

This quote is interesting:

"Will the Americans ever fight a war through Nato again?" asks Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister. "It's doubtful. The United States reserves the right to itself to wage war, and dumps on others the messy, expensive business of nation-building and peace keeping."

I take it this little statement is in regards to Afghanistan? What about previous American peacekeeping action under former President Bill Clinton? I could have *sworn* we did something related to peacekeeping in the Balkans during his eight years in office (prior to bombing the Serbs via NATO). Same with Somalia (which ended badly) and Haiti. I know we also keep 800 or so peacekeeping troops on the border between Israel and Egypt (which I find somewhat odd, considering that they have a formal peace treaty).

"They're not doing the intelligent thing, which would be to forge multilateral institutions that are favourable to us. What's the point of attacking Saddam, which will only entrench the root causes of the problems we're facing? Or Iran just when they're ready to deal?" — David Rieff

I was under the impression that 10 years of sanctions were supposed to be the "multilateral" approach that would've forced Saddam Hussein from power. Now that they're not working as some had hoped — and the U.S. unable to implement changes (streamlining sanctions) proposed by Colin Powell due to U.N. Security Council votes (thinking Russia here) — some want to lift them entirely.

Maybe we should also just let Iraq reclaim Kuwait as its newest province, too? To lift the sanctions isn't a message you want to send to Hussein. It just tells the dictator that he's won by being more patient and more cunning. Sinc Powell's streamlining proposal was shot down, that leaves us in the current scenario (which may not have emerged, admittedly, had 9-11 not happened ... or, at least, not as quickly). Why is it the northern, Kurdish-dominated, part of Iraq works just fine under these sanctions, but not the part controlled by Hussein?

As for Iran, I was under the impression that Bush's words were meant to rally the moderates there by putting the extremes on notice. Looks like that probably backfired. There's no way in hell the U.S. would take massive military action against Iran, IMHO. Not enough troops or equipment in the area. Anything that happens will be covert and aimed at helping the moderates over there.

"The war on terrorism," says Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies, "is simply a euphemism for extending US control in the world, whether it is by projecting force through its carriers or building new military bases in central Asia."

It takes far, far more to control the world than seven naval battle groups and 1.2 million troops (which, I believe, is the *totality* of current U.S. military personnel, including reserves). Even including the air and missile power mentioned in the article isn't enough for bona fide U.S. control of planet Earth.

Perhaps it's just me, but to rule the world — in my eyes — means you physically conquer and occupy your enemies, sometimes even obliterating them. Anything else isn't a formula for control of the world (well, unless you have orbital weapons platforms ... but they don't exist, right? Right?).

Overall, the article was quite interesting.

CYBERAmazon