Pages

Jump to bottom

9 comments

1 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 2:55:38pm

Time for him to pull a Reagan and promise to pull a couple of WWII Iowa Class Battleships out of mothballs again, them Republican war-porn fanboys love them some Battleships!

2 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 3:46:06pm

I agree with Mitt on this: We need a larger navy in order to patrol a wider area and give us some depth in case we suffer ship losses in a conflict with Iran or China.

3 Skip Intro  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 3:55:53pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Care to share with us how you and Willard plan to pay for it?

4 TDG2112  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 4:02:07pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

What's more important? Having modern warships, or having lots of warships?

Building Carriers is expensive, but the Nimitz class stuff is really getting dated. I think replacing those is more important than just adding more ships to the line.

Deploying a warship, modern or dated, is expensive as well. If you have money to pay to deploy only a limited number, you want the modern ones. Preferably the modern ones that cost less to own and operate (which is the goal of the new class of Carriers).

5 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 4:10:16pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

I agree with Mitt on this: We need a larger navy in order to patrol a wider area and give us some depth in case we suffer ship losses in a conflict with Iran or China.

Why do we need a larger navy when we already outgun China and Russia combined? I'm sure a new "arms race" is appealing to the shipyards and ordinance manufacturers but it seems kind of a waste when there is no one to "race" against, yet.

Lets talk about this when China's navy approaches something like a half of our naval strength, right now with Third and Seventh Fleets both stationed in the Pacific they have nothing close to that. Do not forget that we also have South Korea and Japan as allies in the pacific. As a matter of fact helping to defend one of them is about the only currently realistic scenario where we could be drawn into conflict with China.

As the article above states we are already planning on 8.9 new ships per year for the next 30 years, that sounds like plenty to me given the current strategic situation.

6 MittDoesNotCompute  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 5:04:58pm

re: #1 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You

Time for him to pull a Reagan and promise to pull a couple of WWII Iowa Class Battleships out of mothballs again, them Republican war-porn fanboys love them some Battleships!

Hey, I'm a recovering Republican and I love the Iowa-class battleships, but I'm also a realist. Even after their refits in the 80s to allow them to carry and launch Tomahawks, they're still little more than the big swinging dicks of yesterday's Navy, requiring massive amounts of manpower and materiel to operate and protect for not much gain as compared to the Nimitz- and (especially) the Ford-class carriers.

Battleships are beautiful, but their day in combat has long since past.

7 Timmeh  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 10:23:25pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

I agree with Mitt on this: We need a larger navy in order to patrol a wider area and give us some depth in case we suffer ship losses in a conflict with Iran or China.

A large scale naval conflict seems like a pretty low probability event.

If money was no object, it would be nice. But is a bigger Navy really the most important spending priority right now?

8 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Oct 11, 2012 8:30:28am

I wonder about the love of battleships because statistically they were one of the least effective weapons in history. Horribly expensive, they rarely faced each other in battle and few of them were sunk by other battleships.

I can't find statistics but I recall reading them somewhere a few years ago. The biggest cause of losses of battleships was aircraft…and mines. More battleships were sunk by submarines than by other battleships.

They were a major waste of time and money.

9 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Oct 11, 2012 9:03:15am

Romney's naval policy:

-Outsource all new construction to China to save money, time, and regulatory hassles.
-Register the ships in another country to circumvent American personnel, maintenance, and environmental standards. The Liberian flag does look a lot like ours after all.
-End recruiting and retention woes by hiring contract sailors from Bangladesh or wherever to crew the ships.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 79 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 253 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1