 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Gungadin
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:33 pm |
|
Which was not actually what anyone said, nonsensical. Just that another battleship is not really what the military needs for practical or "scary" purposes.
"Watch out Taliban, we got usselves a new battleship! We're gonna send it to your entirely landlocked country and uh, um....I think we might have made a mistake here...."
The US has warships enough for any potential fight at the moment. This is entirely a prestige project, but a fairly effective one at that. The money spent on it COULD have been spent on better gear for the troops or bribes to Afghani or Iraqi informers, where it would be of more military use than another hulk of floating metal.
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
Gungadin wrote: Which was not actually what anyone said, nonsensical. Just that another battleship is not really what the military needs for practical or "scary" purposes.
"Watch out Taliban, we got usselves a new battleship! We're gonna send it to your entirely landlocked country and uh, um....I think we might have made a mistake here...."
The US has warships enough for any potential fight at the moment. This is entirely a prestige project, but a fairly effective one at that. The money spent on it COULD have been spent on better gear for the troops or bribes to Afghani or Iraqi informers, where it would be of more military use than another hulk of floating metal.
Yes, it was what someone else said.
a quote from George
"Had the millions wasted and the millions more to be wasted in building and deploying this unnecessary bit of military hardware been invested in modern manufacturing technology, research, education or public health, we might have seen some return on the expenditure. "
Simply put, George would rather invest in the latest fad liberal programs that are guaranteed not to provide us any real tangible benefit. Let's throw some more trillions at the war on poverty, that's been a real success. Or how about we chunk a few million over at welfare and unemployment benefits because we know there is no waste there. But wait, don't forget about stimulus jobs that cost half a million per job.
The folks who classify this as waste because it doesn't fit the bill in addressing terrorism concerns forget that Osama bin laden or the latest nutjob living in the mountains is not the only threat we face. We face much larger threats from countries like Iran and Korea and ships like this only serve as a wonderful deterrent.
You should rest comfortably at night in your bed and be thankful that the military is keeping you safe so you can stab them in the back during the day. Past wars and current dictators hell bent on MORE POWER will ensure that we always have to project a position of strength in order to maintain our way of life.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:09 pm by commonsensical
|
mostwanted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 27th, 2004 |
| Location: | Cologne, Germany |
| Posts: | 2585 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
commonsensical wrote:
Gungadin wrote: Which was not actually what anyone said, nonsensical. Just that another battleship is not really what the military needs for practical or "scary" purposes.
"Watch out Taliban, we got usselves a new battleship! We're gonna send it to your entirely landlocked country and uh, um....I think we might have made a mistake here...."
The US has warships enough for any potential fight at the moment. This is entirely a prestige project, but a fairly effective one at that. The money spent on it COULD have been spent on better gear for the troops or bribes to Afghani or Iraqi informers, where it would be of more military use than another hulk of floating metal.
Yes, it was what someone else said.
a quote from George
"Had the millions wasted and the millions more to be wasted in building and deploying this unnecessary bit of military hardware been invested in modern manufacturing technology, research, education or public health, we might have seen some return on the expenditure. "
Simply put, George would rather invest in the latest fad liberal programs that are guaranteed not to provide us any real tangible benefit. Let's throw some more trillions at the war on poverty, that's been a real success. Or how about we chunk a few million over at welfare and unemployment benefits because we know there is no waste there. But wait, don't forget about stimulus jobs that cost half a million per job.
The folks who classify this as waste because it doesn't fit the bill in addressing terrorism concerns forget that Osama bin laden or the latest nutjob living in the mountains is not the only threat we face. We face much larger threats from countries like Iran and Korea and ships like this only serve as a wonderful deterrent.
You should rest comfortably at night in your bed and be thankful that the military is keeping you safe so you can stab them in the back during the day. Past wars and current dictators hell bent on MORE POWER will ensure that we always have to project a position of strength in order to maintain our way of life.
expenditures in modern manufacturing technology, research, education and public health do not provide tangible benefit? interesting standpoint... 
|
Gungadin
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:10 pm |
|
commonsensical wrote: Gungadin wrote: Which was not actually what anyone said, nonsensical. Just that another battleship is not really what the military needs for practical or "scary" purposes.
"Watch out Taliban, we got usselves a new battleship! We're gonna send it to your entirely landlocked country and uh, um....I think we might have made a mistake here...."
The US has warships enough for any potential fight at the moment. This is entirely a prestige project, but a fairly effective one at that. The money spent on it COULD have been spent on better gear for the troops or bribes to Afghani or Iraqi informers, where it would be of more military use than another hulk of floating metal.
Yes, it was what someone else said.
a quote from George
"Had the millions wasted and the millions more to be wasted in building and deploying this unnecessary bit of military hardware been invested in modern manufacturing technology, research, education or public health, we might have seen some return on the expenditure. "
Can you read? George said it is "unneccesary." It IS unneccesary for all the reasons I listed above and yes, George is correct - the resources spent building it would have been better spent on something else, social or military in nature.
Explain how more huge husks of floating iron are neccesary for the American war effort.
|
commonsensical
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | Peanut Gallery |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
Gungadin wrote: commonsensical wrote: Gungadin wrote: Which was not actually what anyone said, nonsensical. Just that another battleship is not really what the military needs for practical or "scary" purposes.
"Watch out Taliban, we got usselves a new battleship! We're gonna send it to your entirely landlocked country and uh, um....I think we might have made a mistake here...."
The US has warships enough for any potential fight at the moment. This is entirely a prestige project, but a fairly effective one at that. The money spent on it COULD have been spent on better gear for the troops or bribes to Afghani or Iraqi informers, where it would be of more military use than another hulk of floating metal.
Yes, it was what someone else said.
a quote from George
"Had the millions wasted and the millions more to be wasted in building and deploying this unnecessary bit of military hardware been invested in modern manufacturing technology, research, education or public health, we might have seen some return on the expenditure. "
Can you read? George said it is "unneccesary." It IS unneccesary for all the reasons I listed above and yes, George is correct - the resources spent building it would have been better spent on something else, social or military in nature.
Explain how more huge husks of floating iron are neccesary for the American war effort.
You know what...you're both right. I guess if we had commissioned thousands of seamstresses to build a GREAT big white flag that would have been more to your liking. Right?
If there is one thing government can and should do right it's national defense. Anything else that our government tries to do is a failure, and thus, a waste of money with no benefit.
Ships like this serve as a deterrent to the madmen who hold power outside our borders. You can sing a happy, we should all just get along, tune all you want but there are real loons out there who have the power and resources to do real harm. They'll blow sunshine up your a$$ until they're ready to shove something a lot more destructive your way.
The real reason we weren't attacked again after 9-11 is not because our intelligence services stopped any attacks or because they were happy and content. It's because Bush, your favorite ex-president, said enough of this BS. Clinton laid back and took it, in more ways than one, but Bush said..."you want a fight...well you got it." They're too busy hiding in caves to launch another attack.
That was then, this is now. We have elected a spineless apologist to the Presidency and we have folks like George who are more than happy to believe his illusion, that it's all sunshine and roses. BO's inaction in Afghanistan is the perfect example of how unwilling he is to put up a real fight and it's an open invitation for every terrorist and loon come back into the sunshine and do more harm.
I'd like to say that the United States is like a rattlesnake. We are more than happy to let you pass by in peace but if you threaten us we issue you unmistakable warning. Get too agressive, close, or try to harm us and we'll strike so fast you won't know what hit you.
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:56 pm |
|
ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
Wrong again Oh Four Letter phony! YOU are Obsolete and Useless!
And only YOU would FREAK if you knew anything about what you claim to know above. Which isn't much since you are so FAR behind reality.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:57 pm by Oldsalt
|
oleman
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4806 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
c2c wrote: When I first heard this story on the news my first set of thoughts was "wow" that is really some kind of tribute... meaningful and moving.
But after a fashion I also got to thinking this. On September 11, 2001 over three thousand people were brutally murdered by an act of violence that shook the world and our country to the core. Now, eight years later we honor those murders by using a portion of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers to build an instrument of military value.
Now certainly if I am a serviceman on board that ship I would gain an additional strength of purpose and drive with such steel transporting troops for the protection of our nation. But in the bigger picture do we honor this horrible murder not with an instrument built for peace but for war above all other purposes that this ship may serve?
Just a thought. An honor to be certain but have we honored the dead with a sense of revenge or a sense of never again when we use the steel that resulted from that murder to underscore that from the rubble of a violent act will rise an instrument whose primary purpose is also one of violence?
I will stand in awe of this vessel and it's steel and it will move me deeply, but in a wider picture view.....?
The surest way to peace is through strength, which this ship symbolises.
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
I must say that this ship is kinda neetoe 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_speedy_warship
This image provided by the US Navy shows the littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway during builder's trials on July 12, 2009. Builder's trials are the first opportunity for the shipbuilder and the U.S. Navy to operate the ship underway, and provide an opportunity to test and correct issues before acceptance trials. The second of the Navy's new generation of speedy warships designed to operate close to shore topped 50 miles per hour in builder trials completed this month. Officials say the Independence, a 418-foot ship built in Alabama, traveled in excess of 45 knots, which equates to nearly 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots during a four-hour, full-speed sprint.
Go Navy ![[moon]](/forums/themes/default/action-smiley-075.gif) ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif)
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:20 pm |
|
Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
Wrong again Oh Four Letter phony! YOU are Obsolete and Useless!
And only YOU would FREAK if you knew anything about what you claim to know above. Which isn't much since you are so FAR behind reality.
Sorry to bust your seagoing bubble Salty but your beloved blue Water fleet is as useless as a mounted calvary charge
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.” You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.
read the whole article
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
|
Gungadin
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
I'm a fan of Mr. War Nerd - his previous article "U Sunk My Carrier!" was better, though.
We'll have to see how his predictions pan out if the US ever come to blows against a nation like China - if what he says is true, it pretty much means the end of the surface vessel as anything but an aircraft carrier.
Nonsensical and Salty Dog, you have failed to answer the question: How do more ships help the American war effort, defensively or offensively? Why not spend the money on, as I said earlier, intelligence, bribery and special ops?
And HAHAHAHAHA at "The surest way to peace is through strength, which this ship symbolises."
Oh yeah, I'm sure them desert nomads are REAL intimidated by your great, big manly ship, with it posing such a threat to them and all. "Oh no, a symbol! Run, habib!"
Air power is where it's at these days, son. Nothing scarier than having Uncle Sam be able to drop a cluster bomb on your family anywhere in the world. You appear to be stuck in the 19th century with your shipophilia.
|
cygonaut
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 34644 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:35 pm |
|
It wasn't made of tumbleweed
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:36 pm |
|
ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
Wrong again Oh Four Letter phony! YOU are Obsolete and Useless!
And only YOU would FREAK if you knew anything about what you claim to know above. Which isn't much since you are so FAR behind reality.
Sorry to bust your seagoing bubble Salty but your beloved blue Water fleet is as useless as a mounted calvary charge
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.” You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.
read the whole article
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
No bubbles to burst here. Once again...even with your crummy link above. You bring to us more proof that You really DO NOT KNOW, what you DON'T KNOW!
Nothing further that I feel needs to be said on this topic. Go right ahead and believe whatever sources you seem to place so much faith in. I stand by the actual information I have from neighbors, and even relatives who are still wearing the uniform. Try again.
|
Gungadin
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:43 pm |
|
Um, I think you are confusing "factual information" with "what my cousin Jed done tol' me." You are also not exactly the most neutral observer here, Mr. Navy.
Not sure what kind of evidence I'd accept suggesting that oceangoing combat vessels are still worth investing in. There really hasn't been any real, serious naval battles against worthy enemies since, well, WW2, or perhaps the Falklands War.
|
cygonaut
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 34644 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
The USS New York sails into New York harbour Photo: AP
|
oleman
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4806 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:50 pm |
|
cygonaut wrote:
The USS New York sails into New York harbour Photo: AP
The motto of the ship is "Never Forget". I hope we don't.
|
cygonaut
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 34644 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
A Texas float
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:00 pm |
|
Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
Wrong again Oh Four Letter phony! YOU are Obsolete and Useless!
And only YOU would FREAK if you knew anything about what you claim to know above. Which isn't much since you are so FAR behind reality.
Sorry to bust your seagoing bubble Salty but your beloved blue Water fleet is as useless as a mounted calvary charge
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.” You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.
read the whole article
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
No bubbles to burst here. Once again...even with your crummy link above. You bring to us more proof that You really DO NOT KNOW, what you DON'T KNOW!
Nothing further that I feel needs to be said on this topic. Go right ahead and believe whatever sources you seem to place so much faith in. I stand by the actual information I have from neighbors, and even relatives who are still wearing the uniform. Try again.
OK loudmouth, instead of pumping bilge here, how about you for once backing up what you claim and how I am wrong, because if you don't you'll be exposed as a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2951 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:04 pm by McRocket
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
Submarines are still useful
|
Current time is 01:44 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
|
