Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy.

Lurch wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The US Navy keeps the world's shipping lines clear for the US and for all of those countries.


Yes, that is his important goal.....we need to allow the ships to flow to China taking our machines from Freeport Illinois to China. We do not want Somalian Pirates to take the booty from the Bain Pirates....so yes......Mitten the Kitten needs to have a "bigger Navy" for the Oligarchy to strip what wealth this nation has left.....the British Navy guaranteed the British monied class could keep their boot on our founding fathers.......the truth is the chinese using tactical nuclear weapons could neutralize our entire navy and carrier groups in one day........and then the decision would have to be made do we launch a second strike on Mainland China, and do they do the same with us.......the truth is that the carrier groups are vulnerable to tactical nuclear attacks which do not even have to get that close to the carriers. Our deployment of our Navy makes as much sense as the Maginot line in World War I if a superpower like China decides to take our offensive capability away.......and exactly how will American power be projected without our carrier groups......a Land war with China?

The truth is that we need evolving strategic and tactical policies which protect American interests......building more ships may actually be counter intuitive.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Much like the surge recommendation by McChrystal and other generals in Astan, the Naval Admirals of the United States are being ignored the same. A strong navy acts as a balance against regional hegemons across the sea and like Neko said, it keeps shipping lanes open when war or strife could close them down. With the reduction of ground forces even without sequestration requirements approaching, we have to be able to show the flag and represent ours and our allies interests across the globe. Boards, you show your lack of Geopolitical awareness when you post such BS. I'm not as uneducated about such things as many people are of your ilk and your bluff is called homey. Post recipes or something more of your nature. You're only making a mockery of yourself.

Nekochan wrote:Well, that is true if you believe everything that Boards and Seaoat said...

nochain wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Well, that is true if you believe everything that Boards and Seaoat said...

Boards gratuitously threw in amphibious decks, those are not true carriers, and yes I have served on both types of platforms as a USN Surface Warfare Officer. Also I would tend to toss out the Chinese "carrier" - it will be YEARS before the Chinese have a viable carrier force. People fail to realize we are the only country that can project power over great distances given the capabilities of our Navy and Air Force. Since we have economic interests worldwide it is important to be able to protect those interests abroad. Why have we not been attacked (as in an organized fashion)? Because we have the capability to take the fight to a sea borne belligerent well before they could ship enough troops to our shores. If I were Boss for a Day I would (this is heresy) roll the Marines into the Army - it appears the time has long passed where a forced landing into a foreign country is a viable option. Addressing why the Navy needs to be larger, it would be difficult to explain to anyone who has not been on ships the training, maintenance, and personnel transfer cycles that should be maintained to get the maximum life out of a hull.

boards of FL wrote:I'm pretty good at counting stuff, though. Can you guys count the stuff on the picture? Which country seems to have more stuff than the rest of the world combined? Which country probably doesn't need to further expand its stuff from the picture?

boards of FL wrote:I'm pretty good at counting stuff, though. Can you guys count the stuff on the picture? Which country seems to have more stuff than the rest of the world combined? Which country probably doesn't need to further expand its stuff from the picture?

boards of FL wrote:Then perhaps the navy people here can help me understand the rationale behind Romney's idea to expand something of ours that already dwarfs the rest of the world?

Navy people?

boards of FL wrote:Then perhaps the navy people here can help me understand the rationale behind Romney's idea to expand something of ours that already dwarfs the rest of the world?

Navy people?

boards of FL wrote:Then perhaps the navy people here can help me understand the rationale behind Romney's idea to expand something of ours that already dwarfs the rest of the world?

Navy people?

nochain wrote:Ever heard of equipment fatigue? How about burnout for folks on constant deployment and underway training cycles? Do you own a car? Would you drive 100K miles without changing the oil or tires? Reducing the fleet without decreasing mission loading burns up ships and people (who are expensive to train) faster than a fire. The fleet is at bare minimums but mission load is increasing thus driving the argument for augmentation. But I am sure you understand that..... Sure.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Then perhaps the navy people here can help me understand the rationale behind Romney's idea to expand something of ours that already dwarfs the rest of the world?

Navy people?

Yes, Navy people. People who have served in the Navy and understand what the Navy does.

nochain wrote:E Better yet, why do we need to allocate $2 trillion more towards an entity that isn't even asking for an additional $2 trillion?

nochain wrote:Ask your Congressman, I am not a Prophet. You failed to understand what I responded with, not that I am surprised. Another circle jerk.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Ever heard of equipment fatigue? How about burnout for folks on constant deployment and underway training cycles? Do you own a car? Would you drive 100K miles without changing the oil or tires? Reducing the fleet without decreasing mission loading burns up ships and people (who are expensive to train) faster than a fire. The fleet is at bare minimums but mission load is increasing thus driving the argument for augmentation. But I am sure you understand that..... Sure.

I understand all of that. So back to my question. Why do we need to expand the stuff in the picture when our stuff already dwarfs that of the rest of the world? Better yet, why do we need to allocate $2 trillion more towards an entity that isn't even asking for an additional $2 trillion?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Ask your Congressman, I am not a Prophet. You failed to understand what I responded with, not that I am surprised. Another circle jerk.

No, I understand what you responded with. I asked a fairly simply question. Nekochan suggested that I have no clue about this stuff and a navy person could answer. Are there any navy people here than can explain why we need to further expand something that already dwarfs the rest of the world?

I'm not in the navy, so this seems completely irrational to me.