| |
Posts: 4914
 Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:33 am
The horror, what will they do with only 9?? 
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:31 am
Obama's plan is to cut the carrier groups to four and to eventually cut the US Navy to less than 100 hulls.
I hear some of you criticize the resurgence of US isolationism. Well, absent these carrier forces we're embracing defacto isolationism.
|
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:33 am
Sounds good to me. I trust Canada and Europe will step in to replace the carriers and maintain NATO's capabilities? 
|
Posts: 501
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:53 am
I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:57 am
Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. Go ask South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Kuwait, Kosovo ( by mistake ) or the people in Yugoslavia if they liked the US having so many carrier groups. Or Europeans who have a memory before 1989.
|
Bruce_the_vii
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2944
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:06 am
I was the Icecapades years ago and the clowns splashed water on everyone, ha ha ha. However they then made an editorial joke. They had a giant inflatable ball, about seven feet in diameter that was all blue. That was the globe. And they then shouted is that us? The USA had this huge navy but most in situations in the world it didn't have local support, to get forces on land. Most countries would not co-operate with the US. In any conflict you have to have local support, land bases. A navy without local support is not going to cut it. It's a double entendre of course, the clowns main joke was soaking everyone else with water.
|
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:12 am
Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed.
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:23 am
DanSC DanSC: Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed. True, but some may see it more as hegemony than altruism.
|
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:24 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9: DanSC DanSC: Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed. True, but some may see it more as hegemony than altruism. Perhaps, but just watch the freak-out if the US decided to contribute as much to NATO as say, Italy.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:38 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9: DanSC DanSC: Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed. True, but some may see it more as hegemony than altruism. Only because those people don't know what a real hegemony is.
|
Posts: 501
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:48 am
DanSC DanSC: Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed. Oh, I've noticed how much the US loves to meddle in the affairs of others. That still doesn't explain why they needed to have 10 when just having one on site should be plenty enough most times.
|
Posts: 4661
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:52 am
Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: DanSC DanSC: Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: I've never understood why the US ever needed that many carrier groups to begin with. It's certainly not for defense, that's for sure. The USA doesn't just defend itself, if you haven't already noticed. Oh, I've noticed how much the US loves to meddle in the affairs of others. That still doesn't explain why they needed to have 10 when just having one on site should be plenty enough most times. Were's the site? I don't see how one carrier group would be enough. I would think four at least. One each for the east coast, west coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Of course that doesn't leave any for NATO, or Taiwan, or Somolia, or Japan/Korea. But I'm sure all of those parties can defend themselves just fine without us, especially NATO.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:55 am
Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer: Oh, I've noticed how much the US loves to meddle in the affairs of others. That still doesn't explain why they needed to have 10 when just having one on site should be plenty enough most times. Simple. Not all 10 are available at all times. Countries that only have one carrier (see France) are doing it wrong. To have one CVN available at all times for deployment you need at least two or three carriers in total.
|
Posts: 2398
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:36 am
I think this was a long time coming. I really don't know how the U.S. can afford 9 quite frankly.
|
 
|
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 20 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests |
|
|
CKA Elite 
CKA Moderator 
