Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Chinese Land First Jet on its Aircraft Carrier

Chinese Land First Jet on its Aircraft Carrier

5 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:First, it was inevitable that China would develop and invest in a carrier fleet but I agree with nochain that they are light years from having a viable well trained naval fleet comparable to the USA.
Second, why would an emerging power like China not invest in their military to compete with other world powers? I certainly am not shocked as they are investing in their international presence and prestige.
Lastly, I'm not overly concerned that they will overtake our military capabilities on the high seas anytime soon.

Not their intention. The interest, growing daily, that we pay them is paying for their military build up. We plan in four year segments if that much. Mostly annual and we haven't even had a budget in three years. The Chinese plan in centuries.

They learned, from us, that they need cheap plentiful energy. While our administration is moving in the opposite direction, China is busy tying up energy around the world, building very sophisticated, clean burning coal power plants at the rate of one per month. They have more nuclear plants under construction and in the planning stage than the rest of the world combined.

Markle

Markle

newswatcher wrote:
knothead wrote:First, it was inevitable that China would develop and invest in a carrier fleet but I agree with nochain that they are light years from having a viable well trained naval fleet comparable to the USA.
Second, why would an emerging power like China not invest in their military to compete with other world powers? I certainly am not shocked as they are investing in their international presence and prestige.
Lastly, I'm not overly concerned that they will overtake our military capabilities on the high seas anytime soon.


Let's hope that there is a commitment to our military rather than weakening it and allowing China and others to close the gap...

Chinese Land First Jet on its Aircraft Carrier - Page 2 Obama-marines

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle, do you ever cease posting bullshit? Even with a 20,000 Marine cut, the Corps will be larger (by 11,000 Marines) than it was when I served near the back-side of the Cold War. End strength always grows during actual shooting wartime, and then it shrinks when the wars wind down, as is happening now. The same thing happened during the Vietnam war period.

Gee, the Marines are cutting 20,000, from 206,000 to 186,000..... In the 1970s/1980s, Marine Corps end strength stayed a near constant 175,000. We did more with less back then. My squadron never had more than 60% TO when not deployed overseas, and they would bump us up to 80% when we were deployed. We had to get the job done with fewer people, and that is what they will do again.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Gee, the Marines are cutting 20,000, from 206,000 to 186,000..... In the 1970s/1980s, Marine Corps end strength stayed a near constant 175,000. We did more with less back then. My squadron never had more than 60% TO when not deployed overseas, and they would bump us up to 80% when we were deployed. We had to get the job done with fewer people, and that is what they will do again.




More with less in the 70s and 80s? All we had going in the 70s was about jack squat. In the 80s we had that nice little excursion to Beirut which Reagan and Col Gergheraty screwed the pooch on in regards to Force Protection (see Oct 23, 1983) and of course the week of fighting and six weeks of surfing in Grenada. Clinton sent a token force of Marines to Somalia only to pull them out before we needed them most (see Blackhawk Down) No, we did not do more with less in the 70-80s timeframe. You can't begin to fathom the ops tempo of an entire generation of Marines who came in after 9-11 and that is the "norm" for them. When I was at Lejeune in the 80s, we couldn't wait to get on the next float and get away from that hell hole. We literally fought to get on deployments. In Okinawa about the only place we traveled was Korea for Team Spirit and possibly Fuji for cold weather training before heading to Korea. There is no comparison of the 70-80s Corps to what they have had to do in the last 11 years...none. If you think so, it is because you've not been a part of anything aside watching your TV and listening the to the talking heads pontificate.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle, do you ever cease posting bullshit? Even with a 20,000 Marine cut, the Corps will be larger (by 11,000 Marines) than it was when I served near the back-side of the Cold War. End strength always grows during actual shooting wartime, and then it shrinks when the wars wind down, as is happening now. The same thing happened during the Vietnam war period.

Gee, the Marines are cutting 20,000, from 206,000 to 186,000..... In the 1970s/1980s, Marine Corps end strength stayed a near constant 175,000. We did more with less back then. My squadron never had more than 60% TO when not deployed overseas, and they would bump us up to 80% when we were deployed. We had to get the job done with fewer people, and that is what they will do again.

As you know, just the tip of the iceberg. Sort of like the Titanic.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Chinese Land First Jet on its Aircraft Carrier

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum