Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Large numbers of carriers (and their accompanying strike groups) provide a tangible benefit at a low cost to the economy, which is more than, say, $300 billion in farm subsidies do.

This isn't meant to be a flame, but I don't think you know what "tangible benefit" means...

Something tangible is something that can be touched, or concrete.

These carriers were mainly built to deter an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. They aren't really suited to suppressing an insurgency. They are good for U.S. prestige, saber-rattling, and showing the flag, I suppose, but those are intangible things. They are good for sending planes to places the U.S. doesn't have airbases, but the it doesn't look like the U.S. will need that capability anytime soon... so not much benefit there.

They don't feed or house anyone other than their crews... albeit at a cost of @$1,000,000 /crew member. They don't help the economy after they're built.

And if, as the thread starter stated, the U.S. has twice as many carriers as anyone else, doesn't than mean that they have twice as many carriers as they need? Even Fisher didn't aim to have twice as many dreadnoughts as the rest of the world.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
The British defeated the Sepoy mutiny, their army had a superiority that, in its heyday, matches ours today - and they eventually lost India, anyway. Those who do not learn from history....

I hope you aren't stating that the reason they lost India was because their military wasn't as good as they thought it was. I can't see how having a better, stronger military would have kept India under British rule when in the end the British simply realised that the Indians wanted India way more than they did and gave it up because it wasn't worth the headache anymore but not because they expected military defeat.

[Mr. Harley]

Geronimo - thanks for asking what I meant, rather than flaming. We are getting some nice, courteous exchanges here.

Actually, my comment meant that even with the best military in the world, they could not keep India. In fact your "headache" comment strikes to the heart of my argument. Whether Vietnam, or Iraq currently, the US is not and has not been "defeated" - in the sense of retreating troops pursued by the other side's victorious units. Militarily the losses are/did not compromising our ability to engage in military ops.

The "headache" factor is critical, especially as the US and Britian were both variations on a democracy. That was my point - the mightiest military in the world does not give you the ability to win, per se. It does give you the ability to pursue victory when confronted on the battlefield. There is more to winning a war than that - though I will grant that if you cannot do that, it makes winning a whole lot harder.

And it the case of the British, the cost of maintaining that military eventually helped bring down their empire, and their economy. Does that qualify as "defeat", or more to the point, self-defeat? The comments about the economic costs of the large US millitary are exactly to the point, and I really am afraid that in the next two-three decades we will pay the same kind of price the Brits did.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


This isn't meant to be a flame, but I don't think you know what "tangible benefit" means...

Something tangible is something that can be touched, or concrete.

I would describe the Carriers that allowed the rapid tsunami relief of Sumatra to be a Tangible benefit. As The ONLY ****ING POLYTUBBIE on scene, I can confirm that, fi the USN, FN, and Singaporean navies hadn't rolled up in force to provide relief, the Indonesian Military would have gladly let the inhabitants of Aech die a miserable death. As it was, it was still a kicking and screaming endeavour to get food, medical supplies, doctors, toiletries, etc to those that needed it, not the Indonesian military. When they Indonesian Civilian government has to ask us to perform some military exercises to get the INdonesian military to stop ****ing around, than yes, I see the worth of a large, power-projecting military. The American Navy's ability to project power DOES provide tangible ****ing benefits, and I'll call you a liar to your face if you tell me it doesn't.

I didn't see any Canadians out there passing out food or bagging and tagging bodies.

These carriers were mainly built to deter an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. They aren't really suited to suppressing an insurgency. They are good for U.S. prestige, saber-rattling, and showing the flag, I suppose, but those are intangible things. They are good for sending planes to places the U.S. doesn't have airbases, but the it doesn't look like the U.S. will need that capability anytime soon... so not much benefit there.

What, am I the only one who saw that not to many people didn't WANT us to invade Iraq? Yeah, Carriers sure are useless and unnesscary...that's why we had half a dozen of them taking part during the main stages of OIF and OEF .

They don't feed or house anyone other than their crews... albeit at a cost of @$1,000,000 /crew member. They don't help the economy after they're built.

Which is why there's a world class pissing match between Guam and Hawai'i about where the Carrier we're moving to the Pacific should be based.

And if, as the thread starter stated, the U.S. has twice as many carriers as anyone else, doesn't than mean that they have twice as many carriers as they need? Even Fisher didn't aim to have twice as many dreadnoughts as the rest of the world.

Fisher thought small.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lonestar

USN

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Lonestar:

Grow up. I made my point in a civil fashion, and you responded with a post full of swearing and insults. Are you that insecure that you can't manage a grownup discussion without beating your chest and throwing a tantrum?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Lonestar:

Grow up. I made my point in a civil fashion, and you responded with a post full of swearing and insults. Are you that insecure that you can't manage a grownup discussion without beating your chest and throwing a tantrum?

You haven't seen me throw a tantrum, if you think that's one.

You made a silly comment (Well, several, but let's start with "Tangible Benefits") And I responded to it as such.

Tangible Benefits: I have visually observed, with the mark one human eyeball, the humanitarian aid the Lincoln, Bonhomme Richard and Jeanne D'arc strike groups (although I doubt that's what the French call a Helo carrier and two escorts) were able to provide after the Tsunami earlier this year. I have heard, through interpeters (USN Sailors that spoke whatever the Hell they speak in Sumatra. Indonesian?), refugees indicate to us that if the American, French, and Singaporean navies (the Singaporeans with Large Amphibs) had not been on hand to be the primary aid-giver, they had no doubt that humanitarian aid would either be physically stopped by the Indonesian military or it would have to be "funneled" through the Indonesian military, never to be seen again. To me, this was tangible evidence.

These carriers were mainly built to deter an enemy that doesn't exist anymore.

They were never mean't to deter the Soviet Union. At most they provided another arm to our Nuclear Triad. More often, Post WW2 carriers were designed to put a lot of aircraft on target in areas where it wasn't feasible to use land-based aircraft.

They aren't really suited to suppressing an insurgency.

So? Airpower on the whole isn't, unless you just want to start nuking cities. Supressing an insurgency has always been about the guys you have on the ground, who can call in air support.

They are good for U.S. prestige, saber-rattling, and showing the flag, I suppose, but those are intangible things.

True, but if you think the ability to have a BGB be seemingly anywhere(with a shoreline) on short notice doesn't give anyone who'd oppose us a moment's pause, then yer talkin' crazy talk.

They are good for sending planes to places the U.S. doesn't have airbases, but the it doesn't look like the U.S. will need that capability anytime soon... so not much benefit there.

How can you make that assumption? If, God Forbid, we had an altercation with China, how would we attack targets in Southern China? Just send USAF long range bombers over head until they all get shot down? It would be a Navy show just because Airbase usage (in the beginning, at least) would be limited to South Korea and Japan...assuming those two feel like granting us permission to stage out of there.

Same with OIF. We had half a dozen Carriers (plus the miscellaneous RN CVL's and LPH) in theater. Why? Because few of the surrounding countries would let us stage aircraft which had a short(er) range than USAF Bombers from North America and Diego Garcia.

Then OEF right after 9/11. None of the surrounding countries had infastructure to support the USAF's planes (The USAF needs it's airfields to be immaculately smooth for the planes to work...they're surprisingly fragile). Again, American and French CVNs provided the bulk of early air support. Sometimes, countries that are willing to let us stage out of them just aren't capable.

They don't feed or house anyone other than their crews... albeit at a cost of @$1,000,000 /crew member.

Where'd you get that number? I doubt that the yearly operating cost of a CVN is 4,000,000,000 (as a lowball estimate)

They don't help the economy after they're built.

I call bull****. American servicemen (The smart ones..not the ones with 6 kids, E-1s and the subject of the "Our soldiers are on food stanps!" cries some politicians have) tend to have a lot of disposeable income. That's why communities fight tooth and nail to retain bases, and in the case of Hawai'i or Guam, convince the Navy to base a Carrier there.

And if, as the thread starter stated, the U.S. has twice as many carriers as anyone else, doesn't than mean that they have twice as many carriers as they need? Even Fisher didn't aim to have twice as many dreadnoughts as the rest of the world.

Fisher was worried about one Country. We need to worry about many more than that.

[Joseph]

We don't have enough Carriers as it is. There are only 12.

Do the numbers, 6 in the Pacific and 6 in Atl. One in overhaul at all times, so you can only count on 11 for action. 2 of them are overseas in the Pac. all of the time. 2 in the Med. all the time. Now there are 2 in the India Ocean most of the time. There are now just 5 at home unless there is a trouble spot, then 1 or more is send to the trouble spot.
If shooting started in China, Korea and Japan would not let us used their airspace unless they themselves was under attack. We would have to fly from Guam since the idiot Carter gave Iwo back to the Japanese.

We had 15 until that dummy Clinton took power.

[notyoueither]

I didn't see any Canadians out there passing out food or bagging and tagging bodies.

The politicians were on holiday.

We have some... thing... called DART (it's not a unit, it's people from various units brought together to meet an emergency).

When the politicians got back from holiday, they decided to throw the DART.

Then there was only one problem. Our PM cannot throw that particular DART very far. We had to scrounge around for a ride.

The DART did eventually hit the target, and a lot of help was given with water purification and whatnot, but no, they did not get there fast.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Joseph
We don't have enough Carriers as it is. There are only 12.

Do the numbers, 6 in the Pacific and 6 in Atl. One in overhaul at all times, so you can only count on 11 for action. 2 of them are overseas in the Pac. all of the time. 2 in the Med. all the time. Now there are 2 in the India Ocean most of the time. There are now just 5 at home unless there is a trouble spot, then 1 or more is send to the trouble spot.
If shooting started in China, Korea and Japan would not let us used their airspace unless they themselves was under attack. We would have to fly from Guam since the idiot Carter gave Iwo back to the Japanese.

We had 15 until that dummy Clinton took power.

You don't think having 5 carrier groups on standby is enough??

[Patroklos]

We do not have 5 carrier groups on standby at any one time (that would be 20 + ships), and he was wrong. There are two carriers in the yards at any one time, one per coast.

Also, each CSG is in various stages of training readiness at any one time (basically because of personal turnover), and we are far from having to deploy nonreadu units at this time (despite leftist lies about being "overstreched").

[Mr. Harley]

Joseph and Lonestart - thanks for a good post. However, your posts make my point for me. Why do the US have to have carrier task forces in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans? Are we an empire? Are we the world's policemen. What gives us the right, besides force, to do this? And if we are truly being a force of good - what about Rwanda, Sudan, and the Kosovo Albanians killing off Serbs (oops, we are there aleady).

So we really aren't being the world's policeman, we are protecting our interests. If our interests require force to protect, and extend around the world - can you say "Empire." It walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, and craps like a duck. It's a duck.

Now is the US de facto Empire a force for good? At times, yes. I had wondered abot Aceh. I had noticed certain reports from NGO's at the beginning, and caught the games played with our military relief. I had not known about the fact the Civil Authorities were being overriden by the military, I did not know Indoensia was still that bad.

But ask the Panamanians - who helped put Noreiga in power? Ask the Chileans, the South Koreans all through the fifties until the revolution in the nineties - or the Iranians and Iraqis over our actions in the fifties. Now I will grant that our meddling was not as bad as the Soviets (and Che will disagree), but - they're gone.

Our carrier task forces are instruments of policy, and of force. We use them to impose our policies, and national self-interest, on other countries. We DO NOT need 12 task forces to protect the US and invade Afghanistan, but we do need them to project our policy and power throughout the world. That is where we differ, and I will grant anyone serving that they at least are willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak - and I also repeat, any of them that are gung-ho about Iraq could redeploy as Corpman, the Navy has a big push for that. Just a thought.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, now even guys serving in the Navy can be labeled "chickenhawks"!?

[Mr. Harley]

No - you engage in your usual distortions. I repect them for their service, but I am also quite familiar, due to family and friends who have been or are currently serving - that the Navy is pushing for regular enlisted personnel to change their slot and go on active duty in Iraq. Draw your own conclusions - they have the option.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why are you challenging them to go on active duty in Iraq if you truly respect them for their service? If I was going to draw my own conclusion, I would say that you sure don't sound like you think their service in the Navy is good enough...