Skip to main content

View Diary: Navy Now Arguing Against New Bajillion Dollar Aircraft Carriers (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Presumably, U.S. wages for the people (0+ / 0-)

    who build and equip these ships are higher than the other countries, except for Germany.

    The earth's oceans are large. If they have to be patrolled by someone, it is more efficient to have one law enforcement agency in charge.  We do not want all the nations of the globe launching their own navies. While I don't have much use for aircraft, if we have to have them, I'd rather have them attached to movable landing platforms, than claiming acreage in foreign lands for airports and golf courses and mini-suburban enclaves for the personnel. Let them live in the tight quarters of a ship and deal with wind and sea!

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:51:42 AM PDT

    •  Police the seas from whom? (10+ / 0-)

      A carrier battle group is a rather expensive tool for fighting pirates or drug smugglers.

      Sledgehammers tend to make rather poor flyswatters.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Going to sea is a good experience for (0+ / 0-)

        humans.
        Perhaps we can task carriers in their off hours to start dealing with pollution.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:22:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Going to sea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cynndara

          simply for the sake of going to sea doesn't require a gazillion dollar nuclear-powered ship capable of launching strike aircraft.

          Fly, meet sledgehammer.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:32:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Cruiser/Destroyer/Sub Task Forces (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cynndara

        are MORE than adequate for the job, and they present a much smaller target for land-to-sea missiles, such as the Sunburn.

        We are now set up to lose a Carrier Task Force in the Gulf, at enormous expense in gold and human life, and the response will have to be overwhelmingly disproportionate, irrational and widening of the conflict.

        We must get these sitting ducks out of the water and find other ways to do what we NEED to do, not what our Military Defense Contractors WANT us to do for their own profit. Its not profiting the US economy or National Security to have thousands of men and billions of hardware sitting near conflict zones waiting for the inevitable.

        We are still fighting WW2, and the world has moved on.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:59:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site