Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  If we just need to kill people and Break things (4+ / 0-)

    We have these now as a proof of concept.....

    154 targets go by by in 2 hours without putting a $70MM aircraft or a human pilot in harms way.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

    •  Now I get why the Navy... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, JML9999

      ...pushed our eldest nephew towards the Silent Service!

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:11:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A big part of the 'Carrier' argument is visability (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999

      It's analogous to having a great big dog in your front yard - 'evil doers' see it and decide not to 'evil do'. Although the converted Tridents would be very effective in a shooting war, you can't cruise them off an enemy's coast and scare them, acting as a detterent.

      But there's the argument as to whether paying those billions of dollars is worth it for that big dog.

      "We are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." - future President Paul Ryan.

      by Fordmandalay on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:41:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is why the Iranians bought (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999, gfv6800, greenotron, cynndara

        the Chinese Sunburn missile. If we lose ONE carrier or a few support vessels in the Task Force, and the Big Dog on the Horizon argument disappears completely. No more psychological deterrent.

        If you can disable one trillion dollars of hardware in planes, ships and fuel, and thousands of personnel with a one million dollar missile, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out which side will have to sue for peace first.

        These aircraft carrier task forces are actually a huge liablility to national security. It puts our national credibility on a knife edge and subject to what THEY do. That is not the position of a strong military power.

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

        by OregonOak on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:06:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And it's why the Soviets developed the 'Oscar' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JML9999

          The US Navy decided that it was a good idea too, and converted the Ohios. Oscar was created specifically to neutralize the US carriers, I think pretty much as a suicide mission to volley-fire their cruise missiles (can't get them ALL) - but even if they lost the sub, they felt it would be a small price to pay for knocking a carrier out. Then it would put both forces into a surface ship/sub war, which the USSR was better equipped for.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          "We are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." - future President Paul Ryan.

          by Fordmandalay on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 10:05:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999

        in a world of unlimited budgets.

        Just not sure if it's worth the price tag to be able to practice "gunboat diplomacy".

        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 09:29:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site