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 » Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy.

Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy.

+7
Sal
Margin Call
ZVUGKTUBM
othershoe1030
2seaoat
Nekochan
boards of FL
11 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy. XHPWZ


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy. Country-distribution-2011

Nekochan

Nekochan

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

Guest


Guest

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.

Guest


Guest

Lurch wrote:Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy. Country-distribution-2011

What your elementary pie graph fails to explain is why and how that budget came into being and the responsibilities that those expenditures represent.

2seaoat



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.

Nekochan

Nekochan

What people need to understand is, just for peacetime, even if there are no wars we're involved in:
*The sea has not shrunk in the last 100 or so years.
*Shipping lanes are more important today than ever before.
*Many navy ships are deployed for 6+ months--in PEACETIME. That means sailors are away from home for 6+ months. There has to be rotation time for the ships and for their sailors.
*Maintenance. The ships have to have regular maintenance which takes them out of service, sometimes for many months.

Now, some may say that they are tired of being the world's police. But what happens on the world's waterways if we bring all of our Navy home? Or shrink it down to 1 or 2 carriers? And if we are attacked by another country, how long would it take for us to build up a military to fight back with? It takes some 15 years to build an aircraft carrier.

Nekochan

Nekochan

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.

Why would China want to start a war with us? They don't. But they are more than happy and open to taking over the world's shipping lanes.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

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.


Given Mr. SeaOat's observations the entire "size of the Navy" argument is moot.
That being said it sounds as if you must not think very highly of the abilities of our naval officers if you think they couldn't dominate the high seas given our overwhelming numbers.

I also agree with his comment:

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

Nekochan

Nekochan

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

Guest


Guest

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.

Nekochan

Nekochan

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.

I doubt he knows the difference.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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?


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

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?

Yes, you're a good counter.
But you're way out of your league arguing this "stuff" with the Navy people on here who are much, much more knowledgeable than you about the Navy's mission and the Navy's importance on the world's oceans.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

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?

So you're a good counter eh? Congratulations, my 6 year old grand daughter counts real well too. You are not very good at seeing the big picture though.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

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?

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

Nekochan

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.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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.

You misread that. It was an address to navy people. As if to say "Well, navy people? Can you help me out here?"


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

[quote="boards of FL"]
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?

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

boards of FL

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.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

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?

The Navy always wants more money. As does the Army, the Air Force and the Marines. Just because the Sec of Navy, the Sec of the Army, the Sec of the AF doesn't ask the person who appointed them for more money doesn't mean that the Admirals and Generals--people who actually run the military and who understand the jobs of their prospective branches do not want more ships, planes, tanks, etc. They always want more "stuff". They will probably never get all the stuff they want and we probably cannot ever afford all the stuff that they want. When you say that the Navy doesn't want more money, did you know that right now, the Navy is having to put sailors out of the Navy because of lack of funding--do you think the Navy wants to do this? Right now, commanders are being denied money for training throughout all branches of the military. Do you think the commands, squadrons, etc want this? You clearly do not have a clue, Boards. I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Now, there is also massive waste in the DOD. There are different pots of money. Some pots are overflowing with money for unneeded projects. And some pots are empty for training and projects that are needed. How to sift through all the waste and allocate the wasted money to areas that are worthwhile is something that I don't know if anyone has a solution for. A lot of it has to do with unworthy projects that Congress refuses to do away with because it brings money into their districts. There is also a use or lose system in the military that does not encourage savings.

People who have served--they know 1000 times more about all of this than I do and probably 2000 times more than you know.

About military spending, it should always be a balance of how to spend the money the best way to get the biggest bang for the buck.

Guest


Guest

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.

Apparently you didn't understand my point about the Navy being at minimums while missions are increasing. What is the solution - and you have two choices: reduce mission loading or increase the number ships. What other countries have is not relevant since we need to protect our global interests, obviously we can't depend on others to protect our interests in their little sphere of paradise. Clear enough now?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Mitt is right. We need to expand our navy.

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