Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Must have been during the Battle of the Norhern Arabian Gulf when The Iraqi War Fleet did battle with us.

almost no sailors have died in warfare in the past 20 years. Most of them have been pilots shot down over enemy territory.

then you have the USS Cole. And then a small boat was blown up by an oil platform on the Iraq coast. A couple of sailors died from that.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Alot of good points in here by Shawn, Geronimo, and Jon Miller.

I liked Jon's example. In Civ games, if you aren't the aggressor, you only build large armies for defense, to counter another large army.

There is no other large army anymore.

That many carriers is a waste of money in today's world. No offense to guys like Lonestar who are out doing their jobs.

But our large military needs to be restructured. Scaling back the carrier fleet by a couple of carriers is a good step. There's not only the capital expenditure, but the maintenance costs are unbelievable.

It would make sense to scale back the carriers. But I'm against that until the U.S. scales back waging wars. The carrier force is stretched too thin as it is. We can barely maintain continuous presence in the persian (arabian) gulf.

First we must pursue a course of peace, instead of continuously waging war. And then we can think of scrapping the carriers.

[Alexander's Horse]

That's very impressive but consider this - when Britain built the first dreadnought at a stroke it made every battleship in the world obsolete, including its own.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dis
It would make sense to scale back the carriers. But I'm against that until the U.S. scales back waging wars.

There is a pretty strong relationship between you ability to wage war (your weaponry), you you actually doing so.
The only situation where a huge arsenal wasn't used was during the cold war, because the Russians were as strong as you (latin American countries didn't have this luck).
In the current situation, your huge arsenal is used in wars that you initiate, simply because you can. If you only keep a serious defensive force, you'll continue to be at peace. But indeed, you'll stop being an empire.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is a pretty strong relationship between you ability to wage war (your weaponry), you you actually doing so.
The only situation where a huge arsenal wasn't used was during the cold war, because the Russians were as strong as you (latin American countries didn't have this luck).
In the current situation, your huge arsenal is used in wars that you initiate, simply because you can. If you only keep a serious defensive force, you'll continue to be at peace. But indeed, you'll stop being an empire.

ceasing to be an 'empire' doesn't mean we couldn't become fabulously wealthy and decadent so who cares? In fact an argument could be made that we are likely to become even more fabulously wealthy and decadent after voluntarily abandoning the 'empire'

[dannubis]

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
- Oscar Wilde

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
ceasing to be an 'empire' doesn't mean we couldn't become fabulously wealthy and decadent so who cares? In fact an argument could be made that we are likely to become even more fabulously wealthy and decadent after voluntarily abandoning the 'empire'

I think this is what would hapen too (except for the decadent part - as I think the "decadence" would prove very beneficial to your society).

Some extent of power-projection will be useful for you, as you'll still want to bomb the occasional brown people. But your current capabilities are completely absurd, and they only serve to launch full wars of agression.

[Az]

Or saving the world.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I think this is what would hapen too (except for the decadent part - as I think the "decadence" would prove very beneficial to your society).

Some extent of power-projection will be useful for you, as you'll still want to bomb the occasional brown people. But your current capabilities are completely absurd, and they only serve to launch full wars of agression.

you don't think our society is decadent?

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Az
Or saving the world.

from whom ?

and who wants to be saved ?

[alva]

[q="Danubis"]
[q=Az]
Or saving the world.
[/q]

from whom ?

and who wants to be saved ?[/q]

While the "from whom" is certainly valid, I would say:

"saving" ???

[Dis]

we are saving them from themselves.

[binTravkin]

when Britain built the first dreadnought at a stroke it made every battleship in the world obsolete, including its own.

QFT

And when someone built the first reliable (to exclude V-1) and guided winged missile it made carriers and other over (as opposed to sub) sea faring vessels obsolete.

No carrier can withstand a high speed guided missile.

I mean, there are counter measures of course, but apart from destroying the missile before launch (which is highly unlikely if misile is launched from a hidden pad somewhere on land), they all are prety ineffective.

The cost ratios of a missile or two against the battleship are just too explaining.

Or saving the world.

The only thing they need to save is their own ass as they've done so much sh^t in the last 50 yrs or more that if suddenly they lost their force, some half of the world would just start ignoring them (at least) and half of the remaining half would come for a revenge.

[Dis]

have you ever heard of the AEGIS system?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis.htm

and if that fails, cruisers and destroyers are designed to "take the hits". They are expendable. Sorry lonestar.

[binTravkin]

have you ever heard of the AEGIS system?

And?

Do you think it would work at at least 90% efficency in battle conditions?