Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

I don't think the battleships are the best example.  While they aren't cheap to keep around, they are holdovers from WWII and have been mothballed in the past.  A much better example is the 5 Nimitz class aircraft carriers we've built since the cold war ended, on top of the five we already had.  Anyone know why we even need two of those things, let alone ten?

Because the old fossil-fuel carriers were leaving service and the Navy cannot fulfill it's mission without carriers. An aircraft carrier is among the most cost-effective and versatile weapons of war ever invented (for this planet, anyway.)

[Duuvian]

Honestly, I saw a story the other day that made my stomach sink as to how retarded and one sided the deal was. Basically the government PAYED a company to sail away a NEARLY COMPLETED TANKER SHIP to be DECOMMISSIONED INTO SCRAP IRON.

Now, if you've never had the enviable task of toiling in the hot sun lifting scrap metal onto wagons to transport to the metal recycler corps for much, much, much more hourly return than a job pays, you probably don't realize that metal is quite valuable in large amounts, even if it's rusty.

This was a ship started in the 90s if I remember correctly so it's not so rusty. Nearly complete. The government HAD TO PAY SOMEONE TO TAKE IT. Someone in government arranged for his pal to make a ridiculous amount of money from the government for nothing.

YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN ME THE BOAT AND I WOULD HAVE FILLED IT WITH THINGS AND MADE MONEY YOU TARDS

[Phmcw]

I don't think the battleships are the best example.  While they aren't cheap to keep around, they are holdovers from WWII and have been mothballed in the past.  A much better example is the 5 Nimitz class aircraft carriers we've built since the cold war ended, on top of the five we already had.  Anyone know why we even need two of those things, let alone ten?

Because the old fossil-fuel carriers were leaving service and the Navy cannot fulfill it's mission without carriers. An aircraft carrier is among the most cost-effective and versatile weapons of war ever invented (for this planet, anyway.)

Yeah but you've got ten time more aircraft carrier than the rest of the planet. And they are the best and biggest, and those who are not yours are your allies's.
So what is the point? The only power who could remotely oppose US army on paper would be an unified European army, and it would hold what? Two days? Without any way to attack back?

You are maintaining your army as if USSR was at it's peak. It's fucking useless.

[Nadaka]

Guys, cut the fucking military spending and put that money into education and NASA.
Too big an army will bleed you dry for one, and your army is so high tech you apparently can't afford to use it. Without these war you probably wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling, and you're fighting fucking paramilitary.

The entire military budget only accounts for half our deficit spending. The wars are a big part of that, but it won't make up the whole thing. Slashing the military budget is dangerous and has hidden costs, reforming it over time to get more for less is a far better option.

[Phmcw]

Guys, cut the fucking military spending and put that money into education and NASA.
Too big an army will bleed you dry for one, and your army is so high tech you apparently can't afford to use it. Without these war you probably wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling, and you're fighting fucking paramilitary.

The entire military budget only accounts for half our deficit spending. The wars are a big part of that, but it won't make up the whole thing. Slashing the military budget is dangerous and has hidden costs, reforming it over time to get more for less is a far better option.

Just as with every budget. The waste is not so much in the goals than in the means.
And just cutting the budgets in the middle of a crises will have catastrophic consequences, but that every body with a basic education in economy can figure out.

[mainiac]

Because the old fossil-fuel carriers were leaving service and the Navy cannot fulfill it's mission without carriers. An aircraft carrier is among the most cost-effective and versatile weapons of war ever invented (for this planet, anyway.)

Yes it can.  When we decide to send the navy on humanitarian missions to disaster zones do we send aircraft carriers?  Not usually, there are plenty of smaller craft capable of performing sea-land-air missions.  And even so, one or two would be plenty (insert hand waving about supply chains here).  For an actual sea mission, aircraft carriers went obsolete decades ago given the modern range of planes and the combat abilities of submarines and missile ships.

[Duuvian]

I agree with Nadaka. Unfortunately the world is populated by leaders who would and even now are crushing out the type of government style I am most comfortable with, which is as close to true democracy as possible. I think in an era of internet the candidates should be able speak more freely and I don't oppose the factionism that would result from each Senator having his own personal forums for example.

I think at least one day of the week should be devoted to reading those forums as part of the job description. After all, there isn't much keeping the politicians from wheeling around the country showboating otherwise.

I think also that there by granting each senator his own internet forum, for his people to speak about issues important to them in print in public that we could then have extremely knowledgeable politicians and a knowledgeable public that is able to get their rep's ear when it is important.



EDIT: Some probably already have forums, but I bet a lot don't. I think it should be a legal requirement to be a member of congress due to the ease of obtaining a well designed forums. Surely funds are not an issue.

EDIT2: And while certainly many of these forums may be used sparingly, surely that's only a sign of good governance? One day a week communicating through a forums is not so strenuous. However, if your people are yelling on your forums and you ignore it, then you know you are in trouble.

EDIT3: What would be silly is if we had to force the politicians to join by starting forums for every one of them, although it might have to be in such a visible and mainstream way that everyone would think it's funny that the politicians have to scurry to the forums and talk to the people.

[Lord Shonus]

Because the old fossil-fuel carriers were leaving service and the Navy cannot fulfill it's mission without carriers. An aircraft carrier is among the most cost-effective and versatile weapons of war ever invented (for this planet, anyway.)

Yes it can.  When we decide to send the navy on humanitarian missions to disaster zones do we send aircraft carriers?  Not usually, there are plenty of smaller craft capable of performing sea-land-air missions.  And even so, one or two would be plenty (insert hand waving about supply chains here).  For an actual sea mission, aircraft carriers went obsolete decades ago given the modern range of planes and the combat abilities of submarines and missile ships.

The primary mission of the Navy is not humanitarian missions to disaster zones, although it often provides those. The primary mission of the Navy is not even to destroy other navies. The primary mission of the Navy is to ensure that US ships can go where they need to go even in wartime. The secondary mission of the navy is a first-response strike force against wars on land, something that no other weapon can do very well.
You can fly a hundred air support missions from a carrier using bombs for the cost of one cruise missile bombardment, and that is far, far less tactically flexible than manned aircraft as well. Submarines have virtually no ability to project power outside of cruise missiles, and even the dedicated Ohio variant only carries ~150 missiles. That's equivalent to the striking power of a single mission from a carrier deck. The dramatic ranges of meodern aircraft generally require a massive amount of fuel to be carried, a small weapons load, and expensive and dangerous in-flight refueling. Or heavy bombers, which are not all that useful in tactical support roles. Even if long range strikes can be carried out, they would have very limited time-on-station and the flight time would make priority attacks impossible. The US has two options: either build carriers, or forfeit every one of the defense treaties that are in place.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Cut everything and don't have elections.

[GlyphGryph]

But Shonus, do we need ten? I think that's the issue.

[Lord Shonus]

Yes, we do. The whole point of ain aircraft carrier is to be able to act where you need to, when you need to. Britain or France, which have a fairly narrow range of defense commitments, can do just fine with two or three carriers. The US has to plan for, and be able to respond to, for exmple, a heating up of the Korean Peninsula and a Saudi Arabian crisis simultaneously in order to meet service commitments. Often the mere presense of a supercarrier can stop a war from starting, which is worth any expense.

[counting]

China is about to lunch the first carrier. And more to go.

[Lord Shonus]

That would be the unfinished Soviet carrier, I believe.

[Aqizzar]

Actually, they used that unfinished Russian carrier as a test bed and technology model.  The hull they're launching was built from scratch.

Anyway, vote still hasn't happened.  With five and a half hours to go before midnight, I'm wondering what the Hell is taking so long.

[sneakey pete]

"the military budget is only half of the total cost problems, so its not that serious".... Jesus christ man, can you not see what's wrong with that statement?