Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I laughed so much I'm not sure if my pants are still dry!!!

Are Americans aware of the negative stereotypes about them that are popular in Europe or do they say feth it, let's rope a goat!! Funny stuff.

Do Europeans have no farms or do they all just hang out in bad technobars from the 80s drinking and smoking bad cigarettes like their stereotypes of them that are popular in the US? Funny stuff.

 Seaward wrote:
When did I say anything about pirates?

Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Oh, so not pirates but letters of marque. Oh, okay, then you are being totally sensible. Defence against direct attacks on US shipping is totally a key priority of the modern US navy. You are totally being completely sensible.

I mean, for feth's sake. It's about ensuring US business investments are allowed to operate unimpeded, and that other nations can't play politics by threatening to cut off key US resource inflows. There's nothing wrong with that. All this silliness about protecting US shipping from enemy naval raiding is just being silly.

So stop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.

Some of those navies are there primarily to defend against foreign invasion. Where that is the case you see an absence of blue seas capability, and a focus on anti-ship submarines. Which, of course, does not describe the US navy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)

Well, the 'all it takes' is a really big deal. The US, with a vast economic base and peacetime military R&D spending that is basically unprecedented in history, has had a hell of time developing an ABS that's at all reliable. So the idea of any other country doing it is pretty unlikely in the near future.

The bigger issue with ABS is that it costs a hell of a lot more to shoot down a nuke than it does to build one. So you might spend $50 billion on the capability to shoot down a dozen nukes (or whatever the numbers are) and your rival can just spend a fraction of that on the capability to launch two dozen missile simultaneously. You match that with your ABS capability, and he'll just ramp up his launch capability until, because the numbers are on his side, eventually you'll have to concede.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
When did I say anything about pirates?

Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Oh, so not pirates but letters of marque. Oh, okay, then you are being totally sensible. Defence against direct attacks on US shipping is totally a key priority of the modern US navy. You are totally being completely sensible.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the German U-boats in WWII were privateers or something?

I mean, for feth's sake. It's about ensuring US business investments are allowed to operate unimpeded, and that other nations can't play politics by threatening to cut off key US resource inflows. There's nothing wrong with that. All this silliness about protecting US shipping from enemy naval raiding is just being silly.

So stop it.

I've said the same several times. My entire point is that the navy fulfills a variety of roles, a suggestion with which you seem to become progressively more enraged.

Step back, have a Coke.

 Seaward wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you believe that the German U-boats in WWII were privateers or something?

Out of curiosity, do you understand the the USA is not the UK? That one is a very, very big place, with vast natural resources, while the other is a small island lacking in natural resources, so that an effective anti-shipping campaign can cause its industries to starve. Do you get that? Because once you get that, you begin to understand why the u-boat threat to the UK is just a nonsense when applied to the USA.

And so instead the only possible threat to the US becomes not a starvation of resources, but an attritional war, where ongoing costs and disruption to shipping over time represents a long term drain, not an acute threat. As such, it becomes like the approach taken by the English, French and Spanish during their long naval rivalries.

And is also a very, very silly style of war in the modern age, given the effectiveness of modern weapon platforms, an attritional war aimed at a slow impact on the pocket book is just not viable.

Which you can tell, by the complete absence of anti-merchant ship vessels in the flotilla of any modern navy. Which leads us only to the conclusion that defending against such is not, in any way, anywhere near a serious goal of the present US navy.

I've said the same several times. My entire point is that the navy fulfills a variety of roles, a suggestion with which you seem to become progressively more enraged.

Step back, have a Coke.

I'm not enraged dude. This is funny. What people will convince themselves they have to defend, just to avoid saying they overstated a minor point.

Seriously, the US navy is about putting US air superiority anywhere in the world, to protect US interests outside of the mainland. Nothing wrong with that goal. But there's a lot wrong with pretending it isn't true.

 sebster wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you understand the the USA is not the UK? That one is a very, very big place, with vast natural resources, while the other is a small island lacking in natural resources, so that an effective anti-shipping campaign can cause its industries to starve. Do you get that? Because once you get that, you begin to understand why the u-boat threat to the UK is just a nonsense when applied to the USA.

And so instead the only possible threat to the US becomes not a starvation of resources, but an attritional war, where ongoing costs and disruption to shipping over time represents a long term drain, not an acute threat. As such, it becomes like the approach taken by the English, French and Spanish during their long naval rivalries.

And is also a very, very silly style of war in the modern age, given the effectiveness of modern weapon platforms, an attritional war aimed at a slow impact on the pocket book is just not viable.

Which you can tell, by the complete absence of anti-merchant ship vessels in the flotilla of any modern navy. Which leads us only to the conclusion that defending against such is not, in any way, anywhere near a serious goal of the present US navy.

There's only so many times I can tell you how wrong you are before it starts to become repetitive. Protection of US commercial assets and related targets is, in fact, among the Navy's many duties. It simply is. In a full-scale conventional war, you're absolutely wrong if you believe merchant shipping would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe GOPLATS would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe various navigable passages would not be targeted.

Seriously, the US navy is about putting US air superiority anywhere in the world, to protect US interests outside of the mainland. Nothing wrong with that goal. But there's a lot wrong with pretending it isn't true.

Wrong. Our ballistic subs - to use but one example - do not exist to put US air superiority anywhere in the world. They exist for second strike/MAD capabilities.

Seriously, I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The US Navy has a lot of different roles. It performs a lot of different tasks and missions. Trying to claim they have one and only one focus is so remarkably incorrect I'm almost impressed that you're sticking with the claim this long.

U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?

 d-usa wrote:
U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?

Well one of the major incidents that got us into WW1 was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania with 135 American passengers on board by a German U-boat. Hitler's wolf packs during the Battle of the North Atlantic also found great combat success throughout the course of the war, 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?

Well one of the major incidents that got us into WW1 was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania with 135 American passengers on board by a German U-boat. Hitler's wolf packs during the Battle of the North Atlantic also found great combat success throughout the course of the war, 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.

But they didn't have nuclear torpedoes...

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not going to respond to this just yet, I want to make sure you're actually saying...well, what you're actually saying here: the navy is useless, because stealth bombers can take out everyone's standing military. That's what you're saying, right?

No, I'm saying that your hypothetical anti-US commerce raiding campaign is just a paranoid fantasy. Even without a navy the US has ways of retaliating and inflicting enough damage on the enemy to make the price of a commerce raiding campaign way too high to be appealing. And outside of right-wing fantasy land when a strategy accomplishes nothing and carries a severe cost nobody is going to attempt it.

I'm fine with military spending where it currently is, give or take 5%. I'd like my taxes to be cut, absolutely. As far as balancing the budget, well...the military ain't the only thing the federal government spends lots of money on.

No, but the military is certainly the place where funding can be most easily cut without giving up anything.

 Seaward wrote:
In a full-scale conventional war, you're absolutely wrong if you believe merchant shipping would not be targeted.

So are you ever going to get around to giving a plausible scenario for how a full-scale war is going to happen, or are you just going to keep insisting that we spend ourselves deeper and deeper into debt because "they hate us for our freedom" and everyone is lining up to make suicide attacks on the US if we lower our defenses for even a moment?

Seriously, I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The US Navy has a lot of different roles. It performs a lot of different tasks and missions. Trying to claim they have one and only one focus is so remarkably incorrect I'm almost impressed that you're sticking with the claim this long.

It may have many smaller roles, but its primary role by far is force projection and the ability to fight foreign wars.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm saying that your hypothetical anti-US commerce raiding campaign is just a paranoid fantasy. Even without a navy the US has ways of retaliating and inflicting enough damage on the enemy to make the price of a commerce raiding campaign way too high to be appealing. And outside of right-wing fantasy land when a strategy accomplishes nothing and carries a severe cost nobody is going to attempt it.

Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience with this stuff?

Again, all I can say is that you simply do not know the Navy's myriad roles, nor even, apparently, the ones it's played in pretty much every conflict we've been involved in since the founding of the country. You also seem to have some pretty bizarre notions about the capabilities of the other branches. I'm not sure where this absolute certainty in your all-encompassing assumptions about the way the military operates and what it's capable of comes from, but it isn't reality.

No, but the military is certainly the place where funding can be most easily cut without giving up anything.

Well, that's just plain wrong.

So are you ever going to get around to giving a plausible scenario for how a full-scale war is going to happen, or are you just going to keep insisting that we spend ourselves deeper and deeper into debt because "they hate us for our freedom" and everyone is lining up to make suicide attacks on the US if we lower our defenses for even a moment?

Is the military - and, specifically, the navy - the only thing spending us deeper and deeper into debt? No? Has our debt increased in the last four years despite military spending cuts? Yes? Have I ever once in this thread mentioned the phrase "they hate us for our freedom"? No. Do you have any other strawmen you'd like to throw?

Frankly, I wouldn't think, "Europe goes to war because one man gets shot," would have sounded like a plausible scenario if you'd told it to me in 1905, but there you go. I don't believe we've seen the end of conventional warfare. You do, yet you're curiously loathe to admit it. I'm not sure why.

It may have many smaller roles, but its primary role by far is force projection and the ability to fight foreign wars.

So we should focus on domestic wars? Arming up for when the South rises again?

Honestly, that's not sounding like such a bad idea the longer this conversation goes on.

Force projection exists for defense, incidentally.

 Seaward wrote:
Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience within the military than you?

No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.

Well, that's just plain wrong.

Only if you value the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. I don't, so the military budget could be cut significantly without losing anything.

Is the military - and, specifically, the navy - the only thing spending us deeper and deeper into debt? No? Has our debt increased in the last four years despite military spending cuts? Yes?

Of course the military isn't the only thing responsible, however it's a major factor in why we're in debt, and any plausible attempt at balancing the budget is going to require massive cuts in military spending.

Frankly, I wouldn't think, "Europe goes to war because one man gets shot," would have sounded like a plausible scenario if you'd told it to me in 1905, but there you go. I don't believe we've seen the end of conventional warfare. You do, yet you're curiously loathe to admit it. I'm not sure why.

Of course it wouldn't seem like a plausible scenario, because that's not what happened. The reasons for WWI were a lot more complicated than "one man gets shot", and the assassination did little more than provide an excuse to start the war that everyone knew was inevitable.

So we should focus on domestic wars? Arming up for when the South rises again?

No, we should accept that, as nice as it is to have the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars, it's a capability we can't afford and limit the military to a sustainable spending level focused entirely on self defense.

Force projection exists for defense, incidentally.

Yeah, it's just horrible to imagine how utterly our civilization would have been destroyed if we hadn't been able to occupy Iraq and stop their invasion plans...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience within the military than you?

No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.

Wait, isn't your attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having an imaginary fool proof ABS and more nuclear weapons than anybody else?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.

I do not, actually.

I do not think waiting until we are in danger to start building a military is a good idea.

Only if you value the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. I don't, so the military budget could be cut significantly without losing anything.

I value that capability quite a bit.

Of course the military isn't the only thing responsible, however it's a major factor in why we're in debt.

Along with quite a few others.

No, we should accept that, as nice as it is to have the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars, it's a capability we can't afford and limit the military to a sustainable spending level focused entirely on self defense.

We can indeed afford it. We can even afford it without getting rid of programs you like and I despise. We cannot afford to do it while increasing spending for programs you like and I despise.

Yeah, it's just horrible to imagine how utterly our civilization would have been destroyed if we hadn't been able to occupy Iraq and stop their invasion plans...

I don't buy into the notion that a threat must be capable of destroying our civilization before we're allowed to take military action against it. That seems a poor way of managing risk and protecting lives and assets.

 Seaward wrote:
I do not, actually.

Your posts here disagree with that statement. For example, your claims about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign that is never going to happen.

I do not think waiting until we are in danger to start building a military is a good idea.

Good thing nobody is suggesting completely eliminating the military. However, military spending is WAY beyond any plausible need for self defense.

We can indeed afford it. We can even afford it without getting rid of programs you like and I despise. We cannot afford to do it while increasing spending for programs you like and I despise.

The math disagrees with you, unless you're planning on raising taxes to a level that would result in every incumbent being voted out of office and replaced by people who would immediately repeal the increase (IOW, it's not going to happen).

I don't buy into the notion that a threat must be capable of destroying our civilization before we're allowed to take military action against it. That seems a poor way of managing risk and protecting lives and assets.

Except Iraq was not a threat at all. I'm sure it's nice to have the ability to preemptively eliminate anyone who could possibly someday maybe be a slight threat, but every other nation gets by without it, and I really don't see why the US is so special that we can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Wait, isn't your attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having an imaginary fool proof ABS and more nuclear weapons than anybody else?

Err, no, my attitude is that we aren't in danger of nuclear attack, and the solution to a "rogue state" threat like Iran is to continue to invest in ABM, not to out-spend the entire rest of the world on building a conventional military capable of occupying Iran without inconveniencing our occupation of Afghanistan.

I'd rather we start dropping the military budget on our strategic nuclear resources before anything else in the budget. Have you seem how much those useless fething things cost? Least a shiny new aircraft carrier gets used.

And how do you deal with conventional military threads?

Other than "nobody is able to attack us anyway, so why bother"?

 d-usa wrote:
Other than "nobody is able to attack us anyway, so why bother"?

Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your posts here disagree with that statement. For example, your claims about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign that is never going to happen.

When did I claim anything about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign? I said that part of the Navy's job is to protect US commercial shipping when necessary. You and sebster then tag-teamed your way into saying that American commercial vessels will simply never be attacked, full-scale conventional war or not.

Good thing nobody is suggesting completely eliminating the military. However, military spending is WAY beyond any plausible need for self defense.

Just an entire branch of it.

The math disagrees with you, unless you're planning on raising taxes to a level that would result in every incumbent being voted out of office and replaced by people who would immediately repeal the increase (IOW, it's not going to happen).

It doesn't, actually, unless you genuinely do love every single thing the federal government spends money on except for the military. There's an awful lot of fat in our budget.

Except Iraq was not a threat at all. I'm sure it's nice to have the ability to preemptively eliminate anyone who could possibly someday maybe be a slight threat, but every other nation gets by without it, and I really don't see why the US is so special that we can't.

Iraq actually was a threat. It was not a threat on the scale it was said to be by the Bush administration, but a threat? Certainly. Worthy of intervention? Not in my opinion. You sarcastically said they would have destroyed our civilization had we not stopped their invasion plans - which implies to me that such is your threshold for self-defensive action. If it isn't, then, surprise surprise, you believe in force projection and preemptive military action, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.

Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.

Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?

There is a big giant ocean between us and everybody else, and no way for anybody to use the small jump from eastern Russia, or South America of course.

And it sounds like it is probably okay for the rest of the world to kill each other and fight wars since they can never attack us and we should just become isolationists because even if the rest of the world is at war it will not affect us at all.

 Seaward wrote:
When did I claim anything about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign? I said that part of the Navy's job is to protect US commercial shipping when necessary.

And the point is there's no plausible scenario where it's necessary.

It doesn't, actually, unless you genuinely do love every single thing the federal government spends money on except for the military. There's an awful lot of fat in our budget.

Sure there's other places to make cuts, and maybe you could balance it in theory without cutting military spending, but in the real world you're never going to get a balanced budget without cutting military spending.

You sarcastically said they would have destroyed our civilization had we not stopped their invasion plans - which implies to me that such is your threshold for self-defensive action. If it isn't, then, surprise surprise, you believe in force projection and preemptive military action, too.

Of course I believe in preemptive military action in the case of a legitimate threat. The point is that there is no plausible scenario where there's a legitimate threat.

Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?

Because there's no plausible scenario where launching an attack accomplishes any meaningful strategic objective, especially once you factor in the costs of the attack and inevitable retaliation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a big giant ocean between us and everybody else, and no way for anybody to use the small jump from eastern Russia, or South America of course.

Sorry, but any invasion plan that starts with "invade Russia to get to the US" is best left for bad movie plots. Likewise for a threat coming from South America.

(Of course it would be pretty amusing if someone did invade Alaska like that, we could start a betting pool on whether the US military would be able to get there and throw them out before the weather and hostile terrain did it.)

And it sounds like it is probably okay for the rest of the world to kill each other and fight wars since they can never attack us and we should just become isolationists because even if the rest of the world is at war it will not affect us at all.

And yet somehow every other country manages to get by without the ability to intervene in any country that does something they don't like. Why is the US special?

Every other country still has force projection capabilities. We might be the biggest player in Afghanistan, but we are not the only player there.

As much as I support military budget cuts, I am glad that the person with the finger in his ears going "nanananananana, nobody can ever attack us, nanananana" is not the one making the decisions here.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the point is there's no plausible scenario where it's necessary.

So nobody ever attacks American shipping?

Sure there's other places to make cuts, and maybe you could balance it in theory without cutting military spending, but in the real world you're never going to get a balanced budget without cutting military spending.

Okay. Why does cutting military spending equate, in your mind, to getting rid of the Navy?

Of course I believe in preemptive military action in the case of a legitimate threat. The point is that there is no plausible scenario where there's a legitimate threat.

Really? What are your thoughts on Afghanistan? How 'bout the operations we're currently launching from Lemonnier in Djibouti?

Because there's no plausible scenario where launching an attack accomplishes any meaningful strategic objective, especially once you factor in the costs of the attack and inevitable retaliation.

I think 9/11 kind of proves you wrong there.

And yet somehow every other country manages to get by without the ability to intervene in any country that does something they don't like. Why is the US special?

Because we're the ones the rest of the Western world expects to handle that sort of stuff.

If you look at the overall situation, Russia and China have no force projection abilities except around their borders.

The UK and France have force projection capabilities which have been used e.g. in Chad, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan in recent years.

The ability to project force is based on various factors such as light mobile forces, heavy airlift planes, overseas bases, naval forces and transports, ports, and friendly allies who can provide bases and ports if you do not have your own.

Yeah, they are limited. And I think a traditional military attack against the USA is very unlikely. But I wouldn't call it impossible and base our military planning on a mindset that "nobody could attack us anyway".

I am probably somewhere between Peregrine and Seaward with my position.

 d-usa wrote:
I am probably somewhere between Peregrine and Seaward with my position.

Somewhere between "we do need a navy" and "we do not need a navy" is an odd spot to be.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I am probably somewhere between Peregrine and Seaward with my position.

Somewhere between "we do need a navy" and "we do not need a navy" is an odd spot to be.

Well, mostly because I don't know how big a navy you think we need.

I do firmly believe we need one, how else will we keep the whales and dolphins from taking over the world.

 d-usa wrote:

Well, mostly because I don't know how big a navy you think we need.

I do firmly believe we need one, how else will we keep the whales and dolphins from taking over the world.

You're on Team Seaward, then, as the argument is between a guy who believes we do need a navy, and a guy who believes we do not because, to quote, "we never use it for defense, only offense."

Just because:

Where's the Avengers' carrier?

Man the De Gaulle looks a lot bigger top down next to a Nimitz than it does in actual fleet pics.
Also why are the top and bottom carrier.the same, someting not quite right. Yes, yes I am nit picking.