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: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
14 carrier battlegroups are the minimum. You have 2 to 3 always in major overhaul, 2 to 3 others in training mode and deployment workups, 2 to 3 deployed, 2 to 3 on post deployment stand down leaving 2 others returning from deployment, if memory serves. Carrier deployments are scheduled years in advance for budgetary reasons.
The Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self............the French I have nothing good to say. They seldon leave the Med.
14 is the minimum for what, to fight wars overseas? Please refresh my memory: why is it we need to do that?
14 is the minimum for what, to fight wars overseas? Please refresh my memory: why is it we need to do that?
It's about the Area of Operations (AORs) that the military is obligated to cover. These obligations are set by the President and Congress. Obligations are made via treaties and other partnerships (NATO anyone?). Until our President stops obligating our forces, this IS the minimum carriers needed.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Sure southbel, I agree that it's more complicated than just cutting funding. But however it's done the goal is the important point here: Cut down our military to a more reasonable level, and make it defensive rather than offensive in nature. We spend more money on our military than the next 20 countries combined. Couldn't we make do with one that just uses as much as Russia, China, and the EU combined?
Sure southbel, I agree that it's more complicated than just cutting funding. But however it's done the goal is the important point here: Cut down our military to a more reasonable level, and make it defensive rather than offensive in nature. We spend more money on our military than the next 20 countries combined. Couldn't we make do with one that just uses as much as Russia, China, and the EU combined?
Then, you have to ask candidates their position on this. Too many people do not ask the questions. Or write your Congressmen and the President. My point is that people want to blame the DoD. Just placing blame on the wrong place. They're just doing what has been ordered.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
OK, southbel. Not that it will do any good to write Congresscritters, it's just shouting into the wind as is this thread. The problem is not the DOD, it's the whole system. We live in a corporatocracy; Congress listens to Halliburton and Goldman Sachs, not you or me.
OK, southbel. Not that it will do any good to write Congresscritters, it's just shouting into the wind as is this thread. The problem is not the DOD, it's the whole system. We live in a corporatocracy; Congress listens to Halliburton and Goldman Sachs, not you or me.
There is too much apathy in this country about who we put in leadership positions. It is important for people to understand the impact of their decisions. People would rather watch the Kardashians than learn about their own government.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
To make sure the sea lanes remain open. Force projection. to indicate to the world we will not have our shipping or trade interfered with.
We need to drive this country into the ground with taxes in order to keep the Suez Canal open? I'm sure we could find alternative trade routes at a much lower cost. Not to mention that the countries who want to trade with us should bear the burden of keeping their region clear, or else they don't get the benefits. They need us more than we need them.
We need to drive this country into the ground with taxes in order to keep the Suez Canal open? I'm sure we could find alternative trade routes at a much lower cost. Not to mention that the countries who want to trade with us should bear the burden of keeping their region clear, or else they don't get the benefits. They need us more than we need them.
I do think there's something to be said for that in some ways. If we didn't take the brunt of the cost and responsibility for 'protecting' European countries, they would need to increase their own defense budgets. I wonder how they would react? I wonder what they would do if they suddenly didn't have the US to both criticize and depend upon.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Yes, they don't seem very grateful for our presence there.
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.
