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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military.

I consider the fact that I'm not posting a string of well deserved personal insults a mitzvah.

The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.

Yeah someone should go tell all those other ships to retire cause we are only need aircraft carriers!
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
Also known as "Dur"

Also, stop being pedants.

And it's back




@matty

stupid Brits with their horses and bayonet charges. Where do find the gall?

 AustonT wrote:
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.

Only if you insist on having a military capable of fighting multiple simultaneous foreign wars. If, instead, your goal is to defend yourself, it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.

TBH, I don't see the big problem with the size of their military. Their army is plenty big enough to deal with any of the smaller countries, if they have to take on two or more small countries they can just remind Europe that they have more nukes than us and we'll happily join them, and if they take on a country with a large military, chances are it'll all be about the nukes anyway. In fact, the only reason I can see for enlarging the military is the extra jobs it would create, and there are probably more cost-effective ways of doing that than via spending more on the military, which would probably go largely to equipment and vehicles.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.

it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.

This is why I ignore 90% of your posts

 AustonT wrote:
This is why I ignore 90% of your posts

I'd love to hear your explanation for how the navy does anything to prevent an attack on the US, especially given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

 AustonT wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.

it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.

This is why I ignore 90% of your posts

Hey, I am sure all our ships that are always shooting cruise missiles at targets are all using nuclear warheads.

They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all, or that Israel shouldn't exist, and we need some to transport our troops to such countries, but other than this they aren't necessary.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
This is why I ignore 90% of your posts

I'd love to hear your explanation for how the navy does anything to prevent an attack on the US, especially given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Provide logistical and military support to boots on the ground in areas where we are fighting?

I might think that our military is bloated and large and can be cut and made more efficient. But I don't think they are useless.

 p_gray99 wrote:
They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all

And what exactly are they going to DO about it? Send their one aircraft carrier over to attack us and get it turned into an expensive wreck by land-based missiles?

or that Israel shouldn't exist

Why is it our job to protect Israel? If they want to continue existing they can spend THEIR money on a military to defend themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Provide logistical and military support to boots on the ground in areas where we are fighting?

Read the entire post, not just the part he quoted. Obviously the navy is useful if you're fighting foreign wars, what I said was that outside of those foreign wars the navy is useless. Maintaining a huge navy doesn't do anything to help our own security, it just gives us the ability to kill people elsewhere in the world more efficiently.

 Peregrine wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all

And what exactly are they going to DO about it? Send their one aircraft carrier over to attack us and get it turned into an expensive wreck by land-based missiles?

or that Israel shouldn't exist

Why is it our job to protect Israel? If they want to continue existing they can spend THEIR money on a military to defend themselves.

*sigh*
What I mean is that if we do need to go to war with any nation that we're not going to just nuke to smithereens, we need a navy to do it with. Otherwise, you're left with plenty of troops sitting in america with no way of getting out and fighting.

 p_gray99 wrote:
What I mean is that if we do need to go to war with any nation that we're not going to just nuke to smithereens, we need a navy to do it with. Otherwise, you're left with plenty of troops sitting in america with no way of getting out and fighting.

Good. Then we can cut most of those troops and save even more money.

And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!

 Peregrine wrote:

Good. Then we can cut most of those troops and save even more money.

Alright, General, can you tell us which we should be cutting?

 Peregrine wrote:

given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Lets start here.

 p_gray99 wrote:
And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!

And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.

 RiTides wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.

Unfortunately, our economy doesn't really work on 4-year cycles. Looking back, you see a lot of very similar economic policy between 1989 and 2008. I'm not saying Presient Obama has totally broken the mold but Romney is explicitly committed to pre-crash policies -- we might as well call them pro-crash policies. We are most definitely in the middle of the river, RiTides.

 Peregrine wrote:
given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Really? You're certain that no-one has a navy that could attack the USA? Seems a little unlikely to me, if I'm honest.

 AustonT wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Lets start here.

Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.

 Peregrine wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!

And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.

BOMB NUKE SITES??? HOW MAD ARE YOU?!?!?
Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky. And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Really? You're certain that no-one has a navy that could attack the USA? Seems a little unlikely to me, if I'm honest.

Attack the US as a one-way suicide mission that would serve no purpose besides getting their entire navy sent to the bottom of the ocean? Sure.

Attack the US effectively? No.

 Peregrine wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!

And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.

I'm not a military expert, but I think relying on a full-scale ABM system is pretty stupid.

If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Lets start here.

Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.

Quite a few countries in Europe for a start, or at least if they joined together they'd easily manage it. But assuming you mean the USA's enemies, you've still got a reasonable amount. Such as Russia, China.

 p_gray99 wrote:
Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky.

Chances are you have no idea how nuclear weapons work.

And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.

So, if launching this attack is such a bad idea, what the hell is the navy going to do? Does the middle east magically become less united because the attack was done with carrier-based F-18s instead of US-based B-2s?

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.

Lets start here.

Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.

Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.

 d-usa wrote:
If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?

Or you just launch multiple interceptors per incoming warhead. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch three per enemy missile I think that pretty well reduces the thought of attacking the US to "no real hope of success, guaranteed destruction of your country" and ensures that nobody would ever attempt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.

Oh FFS that's just pathetic nitpicking. In the context of the usefulness of a particular military strategy it should be blindingly obvious that "getting across the ocean" means more than just moving a ship a sufficiently long distance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?

Or you just launch multiple interceptors per incoming warhead. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch three per enemy missile I think that pretty well reduces the thought of attacking the US to "no real hope of success, guaranteed destruction of your country" and ensures that nobody would ever attempt it.

You didn't answer the question.

 Peregrine wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky.

Chances are you have no idea how nuclear weapons work.

You're right in that I don't know how far the material would scatter. But I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about how some space probes work, including those that are nuclear-powered, and were they to blow up at a height of 1000m then you'd be looking at the vast majority of america being covered. Bombing nukes isn't a good idea.

And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.

So, if launching this attack is such a bad idea, what the hell is the navy going to do? Does the middle east magically become less united because the attack was done with carrier-based F-18s instead of US-based B-2s?

No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.

Oh FFS that's just pathetic nitpicking. In the context of the usefulness of a particular military strategy it should be blindingly obvious that "getting across the ocean" means more than just moving a ship a sufficiently long distance.

Really? Because like 5 minutes ago you said the only useful ships were the ones with nuclear weapons. But now all of a sudden "crossing the ocean" means moving an invasion force. It's not nitpicking it's pointing out the utter stupidity of your statement and you bumbling around trying to make it work.

 p_gray99 wrote:
But I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about how some space probes work, including those that are nuclear-powered, and were they to blow up at a height of 1000m then you'd be looking at the vast majority of america being covered.

No.

No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.

First of all, what does this have to do with the usefulness of the navy?

Second, this is the plot of a bad movie, not a realistic method of preventing another country from getting nuclear weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.

First of all, what does this have to do with the usefulness of the navy?

Some dang fine special ops forces are launched from boats.