Aircraft Carriers

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: Al
Yea..those would be the same officers who routinely get drummed out for sleeping on the job, incompetancy, cheating on examinations, and care more about chasing bimbos than using their brain to understand 21st century warefare.

If you think that's the majority of officers, you've spent too much time on the Internet reading sensationalist headlines. Try interacting with some actual people. Our military is staffed with highly professional and intelligent leaders.

Lucky you! The U.S. Army War College is just on the other side of the Susquehanna from Elizabethtown! You should swing by there. I bet you could find someone who would be willing to explain why we don't gas civilians, strike the DPRK, or mothball our carrier battle groups. That is literally the place where they teach graduate-level courses on 21st Century warfare.

Or, you could sit behind your computer and complain some more, without any data or personal knowledge to back up your claims.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: Astro14
In our history as a nation, we have never spent this little, as a percentage of either budget, or GDP, on defense. Defense spending is at its lowest point in our history...this is a fact, not an invitation for political argument. Let's stay within forum rules.


Really?

Very interesting graph...on that basis, I'll have to say that "we have never spent less on defense since we became a world power"...

That work? I honestly wasn't considering the pre-WW era in terms of GDP.

When we were spending 1-2% of GDP on defense just prior to WW 1, and again in WW II, we were utterly unprepared for conflict. Outdated weapons, gear, ships...we entered WW 1 with woefully unprepared soldiers. 45 year old second lieutenants, who never got promoted. Our current "up or out" promotion system is a reaction to the lack of preparedness in those conflicts. We made a decision, as a nation, to keep our military on a war footing, to keep our troops young, to keep them trained, to keep our ships and aircraft ready.

Now, that costs money, and if the American people want to return to the isolationism of the inter war period, then we could save a lot of defense spending. If we spent the same percentage of GDP on Defense that say, Germany does, we could save hundreds of billions. But we would not be able to project power around the world and we would not be able to defend US interests around the world. Read through The UK QDR - that ability is important to them...and it's important to us...

Now, in terms of federal budget, I think my statement still stands because in all those days to the left of WW II in your graph, defense was anywhere from 50-80% of Federal spending, and it's 16% now...that is still a dramatic contrast...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Bandito440

If you think that's the majority of officers, you've spent too much time on the Internet reading sensationalist headlines. Try interacting with some actual people. Our military is staffed with highly professional and intelligent leaders.

I do better than that. I speak to a special forces gentleman a couple times a week. He Wes in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. He would certainly disagree with you. I have been to that facility many times doing research. So from nameless internet surfer to another. Have a great day

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Bandito440

If you think that's the majority of officers, you've spent too much time on the Internet reading sensationalist headlines. Try interacting with some actual people. Our military is staffed with highly professional and intelligent leaders.

I do better than that. I speak to a special forces gentleman a couple times a week. He Wes in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. He would certainly disagree with you. I have been to that facility many times doing research. So from nameless internet surfer to another. Have a great day

So, your "special forces gentleman" advocates gassing civilians and cruise missile strikes against the DPRK? He sounds like a real big picture guy, or perhaps you just made him up to present an argument from authority.

If you're familiar with the War College, head over there and ask about some of these ideas. It's already been explained to you here why they range from impractical to criminal, but perhaps one of the professors there could do a better job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Tomahawk missiles cost $1.5M each. We've dropped 50,000 pieces of ordinance just on ISIS.


That's because we're dropping fire crackers. Poison or biological warfare would be so much more effective. Or nuclear. I don't know why there are so many pesky rules. When I took my Air Force physical the flight surgeon asked if I would bomb hospitals and such if ordered. The answer is yes. You do anything you're told and don't ask any questions

More effort needs to be put into sabotaging enemies. Make their nukes detonate on the pad. They'll just look like idiots that don't know what they're doing.

Or you can spend millions of times more to have all this hardware we never use.


Youre a GOOD little goose-stepper, aren't you!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Bandito440

If you think that's the majority of officers, you've spent too much time on the Internet reading sensationalist headlines. Try interacting with some actual people. Our military is staffed with highly professional and intelligent leaders.

I do better than that. I speak to a special forces gentleman a couple times a week. He Wes in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. He would certainly disagree with you. I have been to that facility many times doing research. So from nameless internet surfer to another. Have a great day


So, with no first hand knowledge, no military service of your own, you condemn the entire officer corps?

Ever occur to you that your one source of information, your "special forces gentleman" might be a blowhard? A fake? That his experience is anecdotal, or colored by bitterness?

From the ridiculous, bombastic, uninformed hyperbole that you've repeated here, I doubt his credibility.

I see your "gentleman" and I raise:

30 years commissioned service, active and reserve. Personal experience in the US Navy, with the USAF, the USMC, and with NATO. Two combat deployments as a fighter pilot. Several command and leadership positions. Overseas assignments.

I've seen outstanding, dedicated officers. Genuine, caring, intelligent and bold leaders. A few flakes here and there, as in any group, but far, far fewer than in civilian life.

You should stop putting so much credence in the opinion of your oddball "gentleman"...

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Bandito440

If you think that's the majority of officers, you've spent too much time on the Internet reading sensationalist headlines. Try interacting with some actual people. Our military is staffed with highly professional and intelligent leaders.

I do better than that. I speak to a special forces gentleman a couple times a week. He Wes in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. He would certainly disagree with you. I have been to that facility many times doing research. So from nameless internet surfer to another. Have a great day


So, with no first hand knowledge, no military service of your own, you condemn the entire officer corps?

Ever occur to you that your one source of information, your "special forces gentleman" might be a blowhard? A fake? That his experience is anecdotal, or colored by bitterness?

From the ridiculous, bombastic, uninformed hyperbole that you've repeated here, I doubt his credibility.

I see your "gentleman" and I raise:

30 years commissioned service, active and reserve. Personal experience in the US Navy, with the USAF, the USMC, and with NATO. Two combat deployments as a fighter pilot. Several command and leadership positions. Overseas assignments.

I've seen outstanding, dedicated officers. Genuine, caring, intelligent and bold leaders. A few flakes here and there, as in any group, but far, far fewer than in civilian life.

You should stop putting so much credence in the opinion of your oddball "gentleman"...

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: Bandito440
If you're not familiar, you should read about Adolf Eichmann and his trial. Just following orders, indeed.
That is because Nazis lost. US has no intention of losing any war and face international tribunal as a vanquished nation. I know I am sarcastic but that is the truth. Countries which are victorious after the war do NOT get prosecuted for war crimes. That is not fair but that is what it is.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Tomahawk missiles cost $1.5M each. We've dropped 50,000 pieces of ordinance just on ISIS.


That's because we're dropping fire crackers. Poison or biological warfare would be so much more effective. Or nuclear. I don't know why there are so many pesky rules. When I took my Air Force physical the flight surgeon asked if I would bomb hospitals and such if ordered. The answer is yes. You do anything you're told and don't ask any questions

More effort needs to be put into sabotaging enemies. Make their nukes detonate on the pad. They'll just look like idiots that don't know what they're doing.

Or you can spend millions of times more to have all this hardware we never use.


Youre a GOOD little goose-stepper, aren't you!
You can thank them for being able to run your mouth, pajamaboy.

 

[Vikas]

So, I was wrong about the year but didn't 7th fleet start moving once the war broke out and by the time it reached near the conflict zone, it was already over? OR you are saying that the war started because the fleet started moving? Would you agree that force projection did NOT work at least at that time?

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Al
Should be on their way to join the antiquated Battleship package of WWII.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f57e3670-a5a4-337d-bdc2-82f730729cbb/ss_us-aircraft-carriers-are.html

The cost to defend and maintain these white elephants is becoming prohibitive. The over whelming cost in training pilots and maintaining aircraft in general is part of the problem....just as the cost of foot soldiers, wit disproportionate numbers of battle fatigue in even non-combat situations is also a problem.

The cost in defending these targets is a major expense.

Too bad military brass and the "system" can't wake up to the problems. Its not rocket science to see that we could replace these things with tomahawk and cruise missiles. We really don't need to provide air superiority immediately. A couple hundred cruise missiles will quickly destroy any country except Russia and China. The countries that we need to protect (SK?) can utilise anti-aircraft capabilities and/or supply their own air superiority planes.

I am in favor of replacing them with more Virginia class fast attacks and future conversions that carry both vertical and horizontal tomahawks.at 20% of the cost. Then again this makes too much sense. The Pentagon is not known for thinking outside the box to save $$$$



You're a real expert, apparently.

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
If you're not familiar, you should read about Adolf Eichmann and his trial. Just following orders, indeed.
That is because Nazis lost. US has no intention of losing any war and face international tribunal as a vanquished nation. I know I am sarcastic but that is the truth. Countries which are victorious after the war do NOT get prosecuted for war crimes. That is not fair but that is what it is.

He wasn't tried by the United States, nor was he tried because the Nazis lost. He was tried, convicted, and executed because he was one of the authors of the Holocaust.

I brought this up because his claim of "just following orders" shows some historical reference to the poster who had confused following lawful orders and following any orders, specifically in regards to the comments about gassing civilians.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Ever occur to you that your one source of information, your "special forces gentleman" might be a blowhard?

He is not a nameless Internet person like you and I.
If you ever get to do some objective reading. Do some in depth reading on WWII and Civil War. 3 out of 4 (probably much higher) Generals/Admirals didn't make the grade. They were put in broom closets and the real work was done by others like Nimits, Patton, Ike, Spatz, Nimitz Marshall, Grant, Sherman..

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Bandito440

He wasn't tried by the United States, nor was he tried because the Nazis lost. He was tried, convicted, and executed because he was one of the authors of the Holocaust.

lol..if the Nazi's won would he have been tried?

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Very interesting graph...on that basis, I'll have to say that "we have never spent less on defense since we became a world power"...

That work? I honestly wasn't considering the pre-WW era in terms of GDP.

When we were spending 1-2% of GDP on defense just prior to WW 1, and again in WW II, we were utterly unprepared for conflict. Outdated weapons, gear, ships...we entered WW 1 with woefully unprepared soldiers. 45 year old second lieutenants, who never got promoted. Our current "up or out" promotion system is a reaction to the lack of preparedness in those conflicts. We made a decision, as a nation, to keep our military on a war footing, to keep our troops young, to keep them trained, to keep our ships and aircraft ready.

Now, that costs money, and if the American people want to return to the isolationism of the inter war period, then we could save a lot of defense spending. If we spent the same percentage of GDP on Defense that say, Germany does, we could save hundreds of billions. But we would not be able to project power around the world and we would not be able to defend US interests around the world. Read through The UK QDR - that ability is important to them...and it's important to us...

Now, in terms of federal budget, I think my statement still stands because in all those days to the left of WW II in your graph, defense was anywhere from 50-80% of Federal spending, and it's 16% now...that is still a dramatic contrast...


Ok, let's restrict this to post WW2.

Using % of budget is a misleading measure and so is % of GDP. Inflation adjusted would be the non political way of looking at it.

And on that basis, we are still spending more than the cold war period including the Vietnam war. More recently, we've scaled down involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan so naturally our overall spending should fall.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
You're a real expert, apparently.

I do know quite a bit about the nuclear navy. I worked with dozens of officers on Fast Attacks and Boomers. You might have to look those terms up on the internets.

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
He wasn't tried by the United States, nor was he tried because the Nazis lost. He was tried, convicted, and executed because he was one of the authors of the Holocaust.
lol..if the Nazi's won would he have been tried?

Your logic is flawed. Criminals aren't tried because of the availability of a trial. They're tried because they've been accused of crimes, convicted if they've been found guilty, and sentenced because of the conviction. Specifically, Eichmann was tried because of war crimes.

Try this question: Would he have been tried for war crimes if he was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht and didn't participate in executing civilians?

Every argument you make is a logical fallacy. You might have to look that up on the internets.

Lol indeed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is really only one war crime: losing.

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
There is really only one war crime: losing.
That is obvious but some of us try to pretend that is not the case!

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I envision modifying the enemies DNA so they can't reproduce or become a more domicile people. High tech stuff like that.


An even cheaper, though not as high-tech method to render entire populations of angry people unable to reproduce and become domicile and ineffectual: Give them all BITOG accounts.