14-02-2002 10:09									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Terrorists don't need camps, funding, or shelter. That makes their job easier, but it's not necessary.

	14-02-2002 10:09									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

carriers don't deter terrorists. They kill them.

	14-02-2002 10:10									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yes, Dissident, but pretty soon you reach the point of diminishing returns when you're deploying carriers against under-defended terrorist camps, eh?

	14-02-2002 10:12									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

well that's for economists to ponder over.

Until the war on terrorism isn't economically feasable, it's best we try to use carriers to kill as many terrorists as possible.

	14-02-2002 10:14									#65
	Put an end to popups!

Smart terrorists don't stay where carriers can hit them.

	14-02-2002 10:14									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That's for common sense to ponder Dissident - if you're hitting a terrorist camp, that has no real defenses, especially anti-air, what's it matter if you're hitting it with 2 carriers or 20? Not a hell of a lot I'd say.

	14-02-2002 10:14									#67
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Lonestar, if we don't have the assets to wage offensive war, we won't - and no country is gonna mess with us, whether we have 2 carriers or 12 or 100. Terrorists, maybe, but carriers don't deter terrorists.

Okay, that last statement is true.

However over, the rest of the post takes a rather short sighted view. Are Navy is THE biggest deterrent to most tinpot dictators. I have no doubt that, were it not for the two carriers deployed to the Persian gulf 365/yr, Iraq (or Iran) would realise that no one else in the region has the ability to stop them, should they decide to take a stroll down to Mecca one fine day.

It even influences those whose dictatorships are substantiuly(sp) more than "tinpot". Whenever China goes off trying to influence the very democratic Taiwan, our main way of defending them would be to deploy a Carrier Battle group (or two).

Carrier have aslo been used in the past for Humanitarian measures, the Brits used their carrier in Sierra Leone last year, and we used a carrier loaded down with Army Copters to bring (pseudo)democracy to Haiti. In the Afghan campaign, we've used two carriers for air strikes, and one (the Kitty Hawk) as a floating base for the Spec Ops guys, as well as a floating prision.

It's naive to think we won't need to influence other nations in the future. More likely, if we were to reduce our offensive ability, we would find the need to use what we have more often. Witness 8 years of Clinton budget cuts while increasing deployments tenfold.

I'm sorry about the "Coward" comment, I'm sure there are many concientious objectors who aren't, and that was a bit broad of a statement. (I'm not going to grip at the Amish). The gist of it is true, however. We need more people and more ships, or at least ships to replace those we are retiring.

	14-02-2002 10:14									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yes, Dissident, but pretty soon you reach the point of diminishing returns when you're deploying carriers against under-defended terrorist camps, eh?

You know, We DO have other enemys besides terrorists!

quote: Terrorists don't need camps, funding, or shelter. That makes their job easier, but it's not necessary.

It makes alot harder. Which is the point. Massive attacks like 911 cant be carried without some kind of camps to teach these people how to hijack planes, make bombs, etc.....etc.....

please if you are suggesting the bombing has accomplished nothing in terms of disrupting and killing off would-be terrorists, you are in complete denial due ideological or political motivations.

	14-02-2002 10:16									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

No one said we needed 20 carriers.

All we need is 12. That seems like a high number. But you can't have carriers deployed 12 months a year. Most rotations are a 6 month deployment with 18 months until the next one. In the mean time the carrier gets maintenance done, sea testing, and operational exams.

It takes 12 active carriers to maintain 2 carriers continuously in a region as far away as Afghanistan.

	14-02-2002 10:19									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Lonestar,

quote: However over, the rest of the post takes a rather short sighted view. Are Navy is THE biggest deterrent to most tinpot dictators. I have no doubt that, were it not for the two carriers deployed to the Persian gulf 365/yr, Iraq (or Iran) would realise that no one else in the region has the ability to stop them, should they decide to take a stroll down to Mecca one fine day.

Only way that affects us is economically, and it isn't our oil anyway. None of our business.

quote: It even influences those whose dictatorships are substantiuly(sp) more than "tinpot". Whenever China goes off trying to influence the very democratic Taiwan, our main way of defending them would be to deploy a Carrier Battle group (or two).

This affects us even less. None of our business.

quote: Carrier have aslo been used in the past for Humanitarian measures, the Brits used their carrier in Sierra Leone last year, and we used a carrier loaded down with Army Copters to bring (pseudo)democracy to Haiti. In the Afghan campaign, we've used two carriers for air strikes, and one (the Kitty Hawk) as a floating base for the Spec Ops guys, as well as a floating prision.

Weird. We're sending out money in humanitarian aid, yet we have a huge national debt, and our taxes are pretty high too. Something isn't right there.

quote: It's naive to think we won't need to influence other nations in the future.

That's what diplomats are for

	14-02-2002 10:21									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Actually I'm not sure. I do think, though, that we should have a large National Guard and a small standing army. But the States should not be compulsed to maintain any specific number of troops, either.

Sorry, DF, but 18th century romanticism died back in the 18th century.

Every American war up until Vietnam proved the results of small peacetime armies - amateurs incurring unnecessary casualties and unnecessary loss of time for the results obtained.

Since the volunteer / large scale professional army transition in the 80's, look at the results. We incur few casualties, are in and out fast, and if the mission is properly defined and supported (those incompetent mother****ers Clinton and Aspin, don't even get me going there), we break people and get results fast.

Remember the whiners who talked about Afghanistan being another Vietnam? It wasn't, and it's the evolution of our force structure and doctrine which is the reason.

	14-02-2002 10:23									#72
	Increase the size of your Attachments

MtG,

quote: Sorry, DF, but 18th century romanticism died back in the 18th century. Every American war up until Vietnam proved the results of small peacetime armies - amateurs incurring unnecessary casualties and unnecessary loss of time for the results obtained. Since the volunteer / large scale professional army transition in the 80's, look at the results. We incur few casualties, are in and out fast, and if the mission is properly defined and supported (those incompetent mother****ers Clinton and Aspin, don't even get me going there), we break people and get results fast. Remember the whiners who talked about Afghanistan being another Vietnam? It wasn't, and it's the evolution of our force structure and doctrine which is the reason.

But the whole point is, we don't NEED a large standing army IF we are committed to defense, rather than offense. That's my whole point.

	14-02-2002 10:30									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Lonestar, Only way that affects us is economically, and it isn't our oil anyway. None of our business.

:: Looks at Dave's date in the upper left hand corner::

uh, I'm guessing you forgot the oil shortages of the '70's?(which caused a economic downturn)

quote: This affects us even less. None of our business.

Would agree except for that whole binding treaty thing.

quote: Weird. We're sending out money in humanitarian aid, yet we have a huge national debt, and our taxes are pretty high too. Something isn't right there.

Indeed, while our taxes are relatively low compared to everyone else, we're spending more money on "pork" then what we need. Trent Lott's forcing the Navy to buy a $1 Billion dollar Amphib carrier it doesn't want is just one example of many. Most of our money is frittered away on pork. It's worth noting that while 45% ( :eek!: ) of the money spent on R&D for a new program actually reaches it here, in Sweden (with some of the finest Planes and Avionics in the world) it's 98%.

Pork is a serious problem, our whole government procurment policy is screwed up. That's why the A-12 Abortion (mentioned) got canned, as well as the Venturestar Shuttle replacement (which went balls up after Lockheed decided not to invest the $4.5 bil of it's own money it promised).

quote: That's what diplomats are for

"You better not invake Saudi Arabia, thus driving the cost of oil to crippling heights, or I will wave at you, like this."

	14-02-2002 10:36									#74
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: uh, I'm guessing you forgot the oil shortages of the '70's?(which caused a economic downturn)

It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices

quote: Would agree except for that whole binding treaty thing.

What's that Mr. Washington said about foreign entanglements? Oh yeah, avoid 'em.

quote: Indeed, while our taxes are relatively low compared to everyone else, we're spending more money on "pork" then what we need. Trent Lott's forcing the Navy to buy a $1 Billion dollar Amphib carrier it doesn't want is just one example of many. Most of our money is frittered away on pork. It's worth noting that while 45% ( :eek!: ) of the money spent on R&D for a new program actually reaches it here, in Sweden (with some of the finest Planes and Avionics in the world) it's 98%. Pork is a serious problem, our whole government procurment policy is screwed up. That's why the A-12 Abortion (mentioned) got canned, as well as the Venturestar Shuttle replacement (which went balls up after Lockheed decided not to invest the $4.5 bil of it's own money it promised).

I agree. That doesn't justify humanitarian aid though.

quote: "You better not invake Saudi Arabia, thus driving the cost of oil to crippling heights, or I will wave at you, like this."

As opposed to "You better not carry out an independent foreign policy, or we'll whup your ass."

	14-02-2002 10:52									#75
	Support Apolyton

Everyone:

The article says there are seven U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups, but I thought we had more carriers than that? For some reason the numbers 12 and 16 are sticking out in my mind — are those simply old Cold War numbers, long since reduced?

This quote is interesting:

quote: "Will the Americans ever fight a war through Nato again?" asks Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister. "It's doubtful. The United States reserves the right to itself to wage war, and dumps on others the messy, expensive business of nation-building and peace keeping."

I take it this little statement is in regards to Afghanistan? What about previous American peacekeeping action under former President Bill Clinton? I could have *sworn* we did something related to peacekeeping in the Balkans during his eight years in office (prior to bombing the Serbs via NATO). Same with Somalia (which ended badly) and Haiti. I know we also keep 800 or so peacekeeping troops on the border between Israel and Egypt (which I find somewhat odd, considering that they have a formal peace treaty).

quote: "They're not doing the intelligent thing, which would be to forge multilateral institutions that are favourable to us. What's the point of attacking Saddam, which will only entrench the root causes of the problems we're facing? Or Iran just when they're ready to deal?" — David Rieff

I was under the impression that 10 years of sanctions were supposed to be the "multilateral" approach that would've forced Saddam Hussein from power. Now that they're not working as some had hoped — and the U.S. unable to implement changes (streamlining sanctions) proposed by Colin Powell due to U.N. Security Council votes (thinking Russia here) — some want to lift them entirely.

Maybe we should also just let Iraq reclaim Kuwait as its newest province, too? To lift the sanctions isn't a message you want to send to Hussein. It just tells the dictator that he's won by being more patient and more cunning. Sinc Powell's streamlining proposal was shot down, that leaves us in the current scenario (which may not have emerged, admittedly, had 9-11 not happened ... or, at least, not as quickly). Why is it the northern, Kurdish-dominated, part of Iraq works just fine under these sanctions, but not the part controlled by Hussein?

As for Iran, I was under the impression that Bush's words were meant to rally the moderates there by putting the extremes on notice. Looks like that probably backfired. There's no way in hell the U.S. would take massive military action against Iran, IMHO. Not enough troops or equipment in the area. Anything that happens will be covert and aimed at helping the moderates over there.

quote: "The war on terrorism," says Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies, "is simply a euphemism for extending US control in the world, whether it is by projecting force through its carriers or building new military bases in central Asia."

It takes far, far more to control the world than seven naval battle groups and 1.2 million troops (which, I believe, is the *totality* of current U.S. military personnel, including reserves). Even including the air and missile power mentioned in the article isn't enough for bona fide U.S. control of planet Earth.

Perhaps it's just me, but to rule the world — in my eyes — means you physically conquer and occupy your enemies, sometimes even obliterating them. Anything else isn't a formula for control of the world (well, unless you have orbital weapons platforms ... but they don't exist, right? Right?).

Overall, the article was quite interesting.

CYBERAmazon

	14-02-2002 10:54									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yeah we were just discussing that.

We have 12 active carriers at this moment.

	14-02-2002 10:55									#77
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd MtG, But the whole point is, we don't NEED a large standing army IF we are committed to defense, rather than offense. That's my whole point.

Defense means standing around waiting to get ****ed. Giving the initiative to your enemies. Letting them pick the time and place and means to engage you.

**** that.

	14-02-2002 14:44									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The world domination claim in that article is silly hyperbole. On such a measure, the US is quite weak. No monopoly on nuclear weapons, low loss tolerance among the population, etc...

What is interesting though is the idea to spend an extra 100 or 200 billion $ on the military. Apart from being loved by the Kleptocratic Party, it could increase the political ease to go against 3rd rate powers, and make it possible to go against 2nd rate powers (here China comes to mind). But I really fail to see the point how this would make the US safer.

	14-02-2002 15:22									#79
	Get a bigger avatar today!

A lot of my points have already been addressed regarding the high cost of our weapons systems, procurement etc. I might add that we are also paying a hefty price tag for operations since 9/11. The only other thing that hasn't been fleshed out is how much our force structure is still reflective of it's cold war roots. There are a lot of heavy divisions and air wings that one would be hard pressed to find employment for in a vast majority of scenarios.

IMO aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete, at least with their current armament. Their air wings are too small, and their range is too short to substitute for land based air. I would keep some of them, but we need to do some serious thinking about the cost of the carrier battle group in comparison to it's firepower.

For the paranoid who think that we are trying to take over the world, I suggest that you increase your own defense spending. Even if you spend it twice as effectively as we do (which won't be too hard), I don't fear it's potential. Taking over the world is not a possibility, for us or for any coalition you wish to come up with. No one in the U.S. contemplates hegemony that I have heard of.

	14-02-2002 21:07									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Defense means standing around waiting to get ****ed. Giving the initiative to your enemies. Letting them pick the time and place and means to engage you. **** that.

Who the **** is gonna attack us? You aren't looking at realities.

Canada? Mexico? Overland invasions could only come from this hemisphere, and let's face it - I'm not worried.
No other nation has the amphibious assets to land even 1 DIVISION on US soil across an ocean, and you know it.

Regardless, we have nuclear weapons, and we can pretty much scale back our military by about 80%, retain the ICBMs, and say, "If you **** with us, we will nuke you."

Effective deterrant, that.

	14-02-2002 21:46									#81
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"But I really fail to see the point how this would make the US safer."

You're talking think tank theoreticals here, which may or may not reflect reality. Rumsfeld has said he is trying to move the military away from a particular threat approach (e.g., China would not be addressed specifically), toward a focus on how we might be attacked and where we are vulnerable in a generic sense.

It is a little tough to understand at this point, and you can fill a lot of golden rice bowls with that lack of understanding in the margins. But as a rule, the American people trust the military to spend in these margins. I don't know of any other country that would be fool enough to do this, but our post-Vietnam approach requires a preponderance of firepower deliverable anywhere in the world within a reasonable timeframe.

Btw, I agree that this "hegemon" label is perplexing.

	15-02-2002 23:55									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: but our post-Vietnam approach requires a preponderance of firepower deliverable anywhere in the world within a reasonable timeframe.

If by "post-Vietnam approach" you mean "willingness to interfere anywhere in the world and butt in where we aren't wanted and it's none of our business anyway" then you would be correct, although I'm not sure "required" is the right word. Then again, that mindset is - unfortunately - nothing new. We've had it ever since WW2, and of course during WW1 as well.

	16-02-2002 01:23									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then again, that mindset is - unfortunately - nothing new. We've had it ever since WW2, and of course during WW1 as well.

Your history is a little fuzzy my boy. World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us


In World war one...we answered the request of our French and British allies. Also, the sinkig of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram to mexico were just too much. Again, this time the enemy provoked us.

	16-02-2002 01:59									#84
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by faded glory World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us

David's going to tell you that we provoked those actions ourselves.

	16-02-2002 02:11									#85
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc David's going to tell you that we provoked those actions ourselves.

Damn straight......We got what we deserved for speaking up about there "Divide and Conquer" tactics

	16-02-2002 02:58									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: In World war one...we answered the request of our French and British allies. Also, the sinkig of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram to mexico were just too much. Again, this time the enemy provoked us.

The Lusitania was a valid military target. It was carrying war material to England. The Germans tried to warn US civilians not to travel on it but the US government suppressed the warning.
As the Zimmerman Telegram, don't you think that was possibly Germany covering themselves when it became more and more likely we would enter the war on the opposite side?

quote: Your history is a little fuzzy my boy. World War 2, we were attacked bye Japanese forces and the Nazi's declared war on us

We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions.

	16-02-2002 03:20									#87
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices

quote: We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions

These two statements seem to betray inconsistent reasoning.

	16-02-2002 07:05									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: It's not our oil. That's like another country attacking us because we jack up grain prices quote: We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions These two statements seem to betray inconsistent reasoning.

That one statement seems to betray surprise.

	16-02-2002 07:37									#89
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd We committed economic acts that threatened the survival of the Japanese nation, and Lend-Lease to the Allies only was, IMO, an act of war against Germany. We DID INDEED deserve what we got for those actions.

Jesus H. Christ. Yeah, our economic action really "threatened" the very existence of Japan. Poppycock! If Japan had chosen to acquire what it needed to thrive economically in a more peaceable manner, it would never have had to need the oil and metal resources it needed in the farking first place for its military (which was used to forcibly acquire the rubber and whatnot it needed to "thrive"). Hell, if they'd gone even more "Western" at the time and chosen a democratic government, perhaps the war in the Pacific would have been avoided completely.

Regarding the Lend-Lease Program, it was taken up in order to help Britain (and, yes, we did benefit from it, namely by acquiring British bases in the Caribbean). Need I remind you, Britain was (and still is) a democratic nation during World War II, and that Nazi Germany was the aggressive, expansionistic military power?

What are you, Floyd? Some sort of "hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil" sort of individual? As much as it may suck, Floyd, there are times when you *cannot* wait to take on a threat until it's knocking on your damned door and, as soon as you open it, it blows your head off. That kind of attitude got France conquered in World War II. It got Britain bombed a thousand times over. It led to Pearl Harbor for us.

Now I'm not saying we have to be paranoid, either, and punch out every Joe that looks at us wrong. That's the other extreme of what you seem to subscribe to, Floyd. We need a balanced approach to the threats in this world and, frankly, your ideas of right and wrong are beginning to make me go just as sour on you as I am on paranoid approach.

Ignorance and innocence isn't all fun and games. We *did not* deserve Pearl Harbor, Floyd.

	16-02-2002 08:09									#90
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'm sorry, but there's a difference between an EMBARGO and a decision not to sell oil, steel, whatever to a nation. An embargo says that NO ONE can sell to that nation, and if enforced that is an act of war. Deciding, on your own, not to sell, is a simple economic decision involving no one's resources but your own.

And in light of that, Japan certainly had a justification for Pearl Harbor. If we hadn't butted in, in China, and just said that as long as they don't bother us they can get tied up in China for a million years, we don't care - there would have been no problem.

Believe me, Japan had no capability to conquer and hold down China. They would have tried, they would have failed, they would have overextended, and eventually it would have been problem solved, if you view it as a problem. I certainly do - just not OUR problem. In that eventuality, of course, today there would be a much, MUCH weaker China, which IMO is a good thing. Not that China's a threat to the US, just that I for one am not excited about a nation such as China approaching the US economically, a nation with such horrendous policies. Again, not that it's any of our business, I for one just don't like it.