no one
They are shipping goods bound for our shores. It's in our interests to protect commerce associated with our nation.Jay wrote:
If those shipping companies want protection then they should sail under our flag. Until then, fuck em.FEOS wrote:
Research piracy and the straits of malacca. Navies aren't always about fighting other navies.Jay wrote:
Yeah? Because we have a lot to fear from the rest of the worlds navies, eh? Is Germany building another Bismarck?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The number of carriers/bombers/ whatever is based completely on the national security strategy. Which is based--among other things--upon international agreements/treaties. The latter have to be changed so that the former can be de-scoped, justifying a decrease in the armed forces.Shocking wrote:
Well, that's a point I can't argue.Jay wrote:
We need aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers to fight pirates?Shocking wrote:
Protecting international trade is only a good thing really.
Carriers have functioned much like portable nukes in the past decades really, if someone is doing something you don't agree with you park one near them and the problem is solved. Besides, they're useful in any sort of real war so having a few to work with isn't a bad idea, pays to be prepared.
However I'll agree that having eleven carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-10-01 13:26:11)
inane little opines
The same argument can be made for continuing to develop a lot of cutting edge weaponry. Were we we seriously producing Raptors with the idea that we would be ghost fighting the Chinese over Siberian airspace? I forget who said it, but, "The airforce is going through a mid life crisis. They're buying ferrari's when what we really need is a family mini-van". He was talking about the role they serve.. primarily supporting boots on the ground.Jay wrote:
Complete waste of resources.Macbeth wrote:
Uh well all of East Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Australia would be at the mercy of the Chinese Navy if we drastically reduced our fleet size. It would suck for all none Chinese commerce in that area.
Pissing matches in the Indian Ocean between India, Pakistan and various other little regional powers would be fun to watch.
How much the Russians try to swing their cock in northern Europe would be interesting. Maybe Turkey and Russia will end up in a naval race for supremacy in the black sea.
It wouldn't surprise me if Brazil would start to use their economic boom to push around the rest of the SA countries.
hmm I think the status quo when it comes to the international system is fine.
You forget that they all have nukes. No one is going to start a conventional naval war and open themself up to nuclear retaliation. Conventional military forces are outdated except when fighting third world shitholes.
*it was Ralph Peters.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Jay wrote:
"They're buying ferrari's when what we really need is a family mini-van" - Ralph Peters. He was talking about the role they serve.. primarily supporting boots on the ground.
Hey, "mini-vans" can be beautiful too!
Oh, and they're comparatively inexpensive; 20+ A-10's for the price of 1 F-22.
No. The national security strategy that demands 11 carrier strike groups (much more than 11 carriers) must be revised if we are serious about cutting defense structure in a responsible way. And doing so involves negotiations with allies worldwide, as it impacts their security interests, as well. What we no longer spend, they will have to.Shocking wrote:
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Shocking wrote:
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.
Negotiate with UN, NATO, and allies for "rental" of US carrier groups.FEOS wrote:
No. The national security strategy that demands 11 carrier strike groups (much more than 11 carriers) must be revised if we are serious about cutting defense structure in a responsible way. And doing so involves negotiations with allies worldwide, as it impacts their security interests, as well. What we no longer spend, they will have to.
If they need a carrier group for a specific tasking, they can pay the bills for a carrier group for that timeframe.
i.e., UN decides they need a carrier group patrolling the Mediterranean for x months, they task the carrier group from the US and the US sends them a bill for the costs incurred during that timeframe.
Saves the renters a ton of money in trying to build those capabilities,
gives the UN more inherent capabilities ("The world community needs a carrier group patrolling [region x] to ensure stability, protect maritime traffic, and generally keep dictatorial assclowns behaving. CTF Nimitz, we choose you! .. for an 18 month lease")
We could even outright sell some of our older carriers to long-term allies (Germany, England, Canada, etc)
Akin to Russia selling old carrier(s) to China.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-10-02 09:49:48)
Sounds like an idea thomas barnnet had for a "leviathan" force rented by the UN and Cordx-fx wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.Negotiate with UN, NATO, and allies for "rental" of US carrier groups.FEOS wrote:
No. The national security strategy that demands 11 carrier strike groups (much more than 11 carriers) must be revised if we are serious about cutting defense structure in a responsible way. And doing so involves negotiations with allies worldwide, as it impacts their security interests, as well. What we no longer spend, they will have to.
If they need a carrier group for a specific tasking, they can pay the bills for a carrier group for that timeframe.
i.e., UN decides they need a carrier group patrolling the Mediterranean for x months, they task the carrier group from the US and the US sends them a bill for the costs incurred during that timeframe.
Saves the renters a ton of money in trying to build those capabilities,
gives the UN more inherent capabilities ("The world community needs a carrier group patrolling [region x] to ensure stability, protect maritime traffic, and generally keep dictatorial assclowns behaving. CTF Nimitz, we choose you! .. for an 18 month lease")
We could even outright sell some of our older carriers to long-term allies (Germany, England, Canada, etc)
Akin to Russia selling old carrier(s) to China.
Not a fan of turning our military into mercenaries...rdx-fx wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.Negotiate with UN, NATO, and allies for "rental" of US carrier groups.FEOS wrote:
No. The national security strategy that demands 11 carrier strike groups (much more than 11 carriers) must be revised if we are serious about cutting defense structure in a responsible way. And doing so involves negotiations with allies worldwide, as it impacts their security interests, as well. What we no longer spend, they will have to.
If they need a carrier group for a specific tasking, they can pay the bills for a carrier group for that timeframe.
i.e., UN decides they need a carrier group patrolling the Mediterranean for x months, they task the carrier group from the US and the US sends them a bill for the costs incurred during that timeframe.
Saves the renters a ton of money in trying to build those capabilities,
gives the UN more inherent capabilities ("The world community needs a carrier group patrolling [region x] to ensure stability, protect maritime traffic, and generally keep dictatorial assclowns behaving. CTF Nimitz, we choose you! .. for an 18 month lease")
We could even outright sell some of our older carriers to long-term allies (Germany, England, Canada, etc)
Akin to Russia selling old carrier(s) to China.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
aren't US carriers under NATO command anyways for the Libya operation? or am I mistaken.Jay wrote:
Not a fan of turning our military into mercenaries...rdx-fx wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Well then, to paraphrase: the national security strategy which demands 11 carriers is completely unnecessary and ridiculous.Negotiate with UN, NATO, and allies for "rental" of US carrier groups.FEOS wrote:
No. The national security strategy that demands 11 carrier strike groups (much more than 11 carriers) must be revised if we are serious about cutting defense structure in a responsible way. And doing so involves negotiations with allies worldwide, as it impacts their security interests, as well. What we no longer spend, they will have to.
If they need a carrier group for a specific tasking, they can pay the bills for a carrier group for that timeframe.
i.e., UN decides they need a carrier group patrolling the Mediterranean for x months, they task the carrier group from the US and the US sends them a bill for the costs incurred during that timeframe.
Saves the renters a ton of money in trying to build those capabilities,
gives the UN more inherent capabilities ("The world community needs a carrier group patrolling [region x] to ensure stability, protect maritime traffic, and generally keep dictatorial assclowns behaving. CTF Nimitz, we choose you! .. for an 18 month lease")
We could even outright sell some of our older carriers to long-term allies (Germany, England, Canada, etc)
Akin to Russia selling old carrier(s) to China.
also...
http://rt.com/politics/russia-communist … v-589-307/
thought it was an Onion article at first.
Considering they'd still be staffed by US personnel, and the US has considerable influence in the UN (veto power) and NATO, I doubt any taskings would come down that would be counter to US interests anyways.Jay wrote:
Not a fan of turning our military into mercenaries...
This is just a way to get the rest of the UN & NATO to foot part of the bill for activities they'd be asking the US to do for free anyways.
Patrolling the maritime routes near Somalia, for example.
Activities in the interest of the world, not just the sole interests of the US.
My idea would be more like Torotsky's concept, less like Jay'sTrotskygrad wrote:
aren't US carriers under NATO command anyways for the Libya operation? or am I mistaken.
No, no renting a CTF to the French Foreign Legion...
No US carriers are participating in Libya ops.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ah my bad.FEOS wrote:
No US carriers are participating in Libya ops.
We do have 11 ships and a lot of aircraft committed (including the B2). Not *as* big as a Carrier Task Force/Carrier Strike Group, but that's still a substantial commitment.
and all of those are under NATO command or so I presume
Were committed at one time. Current commitment is pretty low, and doesn't include B2s.Trotskygrad wrote:
ah my bad.FEOS wrote:
No US carriers are participating in Libya ops.
We do have 11 ships and a lot of aircraft committed (including the B2). Not *as* big as a Carrier Task Force/Carrier Strike Group, but that's still a substantial commitment.
and all of those are under NATO command or so I presume
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wall Street protests are interesting, its been published somewhere here that over the past decade Aus CEO pay has on average risen 131%, while shareholder returns have risen 31%.
Fuck Israel
That's the same amount.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wall Street protests are interesting, its been published somewhere here that over the past decade Aus CEO pay has on average risen 131%, while shareholder returns have risen 31%.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
131% is the same as 31%?
OK Mr Expert Marksman
OK Mr Expert Marksman
Fuck Israel
thanks to this wonderful graphic, i now understand why we are still at war in the middle east;
1+0.31=1.31Dilbert_X wrote:
131% is the same as 31%?
OK Mr Expert Marksman
Perhaps you meant that ceo pay has increased by 231%, i.e. it more than doubled.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
13urnzz wrote:
thanks to this wonderful graphic, i now understand why we are still at war in the middle east;
Macbeth wrote:
Can you show a map with the cities where physical gambling is the bedrock of the economy? Only two cities really known for it are both in the U.S. That map isn't very smart. Online poker prohibitions are just an attempt by the U.S. to protect Atlantic City and Las Vegas.
oh, sorry. this is d & st, where the omission of a sarcasm tag derails a thread for days, and results in another Israel/Arab clusterfuck.Macbeth wrote:
13urnzz wrote:
thanks to this wonderful graphic, i now understand why we are still at war in the middle east;Macbeth wrote:
Can you show a map with the cities where physical gambling is the bedrock of the economy? Only two cities really known for it are both in the U.S. That map isn't very smart. Online poker prohibitions are just an attempt by the U.S. to protect Atlantic City and Las Vegas.
But that's not the case. If you say it has increased by that amount, you know it's changing (as opposed to saying the value is 100% of what it was before).Jay wrote:
1+0.31=1.31Dilbert_X wrote:
131% is the same as 31%?
OK Mr Expert Marksman
Perhaps you meant that ceo pay has increased by 231%, i.e. it more than doubled.
Example: Base value $100. If it changes to $150, it has increased by 50% (+ 50/100) but the value is 150% or 1.5x what it was previously. If it went to $200, it will have increased by 100% or doubled.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2011-10-04 05:07:50)
But but.. t3h j000000z!! t3h 3vil 3vil j00000z!!13urnzz wrote:
oh, sorry. this is d & st, where the omission of a sarcasm tag derails a thread for days, and results in another Israel/Arab clusterfuck.
[/sarcasm]
$100*2=$200DesertFox- wrote:
But that's not the case. If you say it has increased by that amount, you know it's changing (as opposed to saying the value is 100% of what it was before).Jay wrote:
1+0.31=1.31Dilbert_X wrote:
131% is the same as 31%?
OK Mr Expert Marksman
Perhaps you meant that ceo pay has increased by 231%, i.e. it more than doubled.
Example: Base value $100. If it changes to $50, it has increased by 50% (+ 50/100) but the value is 150% or 1.5x what it was previously. If it went to $200, it will have increased by 100% or doubled.
$100(1+1)=$200
Two ways of saying the exact same thing. It's just a matter of where you set your baseline: 0 or 100%.
Last edited by Jay (2011-10-03 09:45:21)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat