Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,060 posts, read 7,493,946 times
Reputation: 9787
114th Congress (the No Congress) never authorized a budget to give to the President.
115th Congress (the Republican Populist Congress 2017-2018) will run up the deficit to fund the Military and cut taxes. BTDT.
114th Congress (the No Congress) never authorized a budget to give to the President.
115th Congress (the Republican Populist Congress 2017-2018) will run up the deficit to fund the Military and cut taxes. BTDT.
It was proven over 70 years ago that the premier naval weapon is an aircraft carrier. That is not even open to debate.......
These days, probably not. Because 50 years ago it was demonstrated.....
The premier naval weapon is a stealth attack sub with nuclear tipped torpedoes. Just one of these can take out an entire carrier group with one shot. This, as long as the sub remains undetected until it fires. It's why the technology behind this are some of the most closely guarded secrets of the US Military.
But beyond that, a USA carrier group makes a statement like no other. It can wage war on most countries which have no way to respond.
114th Congress (the No Congress) never authorized a budget to give to the President.
115th Congress (the Republican Populist Congress 2017-2018) will run up the deficit to fund the Military and cut taxes. BTDT.
lol Like Congress is all of a sudden populist. Populist is the new buzz word we'll be hearing for a bit.
btw Both parties are war mongers. The Dems just voice their disapproval when a Repub is in the White House. Or maybe I missed all those on the left calling out Obama for sending and keeping our troops and weaponry in the Middle East.
That just might be because those carriers are at sea.
Without power projection at sea, I have a feeling we are far more vulnerable than we have been in a very, very, very, long time.
Hopefully this is a very temporary state of affairs while some routine rotation is going on.
CN
Why do carriers make you feel safe? It's very likely that if we end up in a war with a major power it will be fought with nuclear weapons or through cyber warfare with a massive power grid shutdown.
It was proven over 70 years ago that the premier naval weapon is an aircraft carrier. That is not even open to debate.......
You're technically correct - there's no debate that the premier naval weapon 70 years ago was an aircraft carrier. But surely you're aware that the survivability of a carrier in a shooting war today isn't just "open to debate", it is pretty hotly debated.
While I largely agree with your position of the second paragraph of your earlier post (#7, on the first page).
The first paragraph leaves me wondering how, without any "forward" bases we could find safe harbor for damaged ships, or resupply them in the event of a crisis?
That naval base also needs air cover (air force) and ground protection (army and or marines) nearby for support as well. A port of call contract in such a time of crisis could leave us without a place to dock for repairs, and resupply when the host country decides it is not in their best interest to allow us access. If we come in anyway, we face the possibility of internment for the duration under international neutrality laws, assuming the vessel is too damaged to put back to sea safely, no?
This was a problem for the powers that lost wars in the 20th century. Battle of River Plate as an example comes to mind. Certainly time has progressed, and it's hard to envision a situation like this in modern warfare. But then "modern warfare" always seems to take on a personality that nobody ever expected.
The best military needs to be prepared for any contingency(s) that may arise. Lack of forward bases severely limits those efforts.
That being said, I'm quite certain there is a lot of waste that could, and should be trimmed from the military budget.
When it comes to protecting the "folks at home", too much is better than not enough, and having it and not needing it, is better than the opposite.(IMHO, of course)
CN
I understand that concern. However that concern is mitigated by 'use of force must be a formal declaration of war by the congress and repeal war powers act.' It was either the first or third paragraph.
Force projection can be made with carrier groups and subs. Port of entry contracts allow result. Actual use of force makes the congress do more than just 'authorize' use of force as currently done, leading to partisan he said/she said. Declarations of war allow for the full, combined might of the us services, mitigating the need for a hundred forward operating bases that drain funds and provide little in the way to US national security (but does allow us to remain team America, world police, which I'm against).
Basically, I want to reign in civilian use and abuse of our military for their political needs by using the constitution vs legislation as its primary authorative as much as saving money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
