U.S. military and it's past interventions.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2012, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 01:19 PM by Janus.)
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
The USS Eisenhower is now 'on station' in the eastern Med. What a crock!

[Image: USS-Dwight-D-Eisenhower-CVN-69.jpg]


You can easily do 100 years of airborne – near-theatre – refueling of 6 squadrons of F-15s or F-22s – with a couple C5 Galaxies for the price of one such carrier (group). Airborne refuelers can be on station anywhere on the planet – also when there are no seas near, within 24 hours. And they are much more flexible than a 100,000 tonne floating airstrip, complete with its two dozen command, missile strike, air defense, support, and perimeter security ships and submarines.

Of course carrier groups are much more visible and imposing before the attack and as such part of US power projection policies. A.k.a. US neocolonial bullying. A.k.a. US international arm twisting. The carrier groups are also responsible for a major part of the US' 15 TRILLION deficit! But they are waaaay less efficient for actual warfare than the airborne (but largely invisible) refuelling alternative.
They are de facto extremely expensive, because inefficient, toys for the big brass now. And ditto chess pieces for the chief executive.

And now we watch how things unfold. Although we've seen it all before and you can of course already paint the picture:

I think Israel will jump the gun, nuke Iran, force the American hand, and drag all of us into WWIII. Hell, they did a live practice long-distance dress rehearsal bombing run on a factory in Sudan only a few weeks ago! And they bombed Saddam's nukeler reactor in 1984 (I think it was). The odds that Israel will jump the gun now are greater than ever, imo, because it's relatively safe under the Pentagon umbrella of big brother America in the region, on full alert, and on a full wartime footing. Again.
And together Israel and the US can militarily do a one-two combination punch on Iran which would effectively take it out of the equation within a week or 2 of (missile) bombing after Israel's initial nuke. In the meantime 3 batallions of Marines and a couple squadrons of F-15s can bomb, invade, and sweep up Syria. Heavy guerilla warfare to follow. But Syria will have become a sideshow by then because Russia will be budding in, and hysteric fundies in Islamabad may decide to lob an Islamic revenge nuke or two because, unsurprisingly, they're mad at the US and Israel for killing their Muslim homies. Etc. etc. etc.

Mind you, this time it's a Democratic prez that's supposedly pulling the strings in DC...
Pretty much in character, really, considering it were also his party's previous incumbent presidents on whose watches nuclear bombs were dropped on civilian populations, and the Vietnam war was joined full-scale...

Hey, maybe it's this chain of events that the Mayas alluded to with their supposed prediction of the Apocalypse on December 21st... Big Grin
Spooky!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(07-12-2012 05:14 PM)Janus Wrote:  The USS Eisenhower is now 'on station' in the eastern Med. What a crock!

[Image: USS-Dwight-D-Eisenhower-CVN-69.jpg]


You can easily do 100 years of airborne – near-theatre – refueling of 6 squadrons of F-15s or F-22s – with a couple C5 Galaxies for the price of one such carrier (group). Airborne refuelers can be on station anywhere on the planet – also when there are no seas near, within 24 hours. And they are much more flexible than a 100,000 tonne floating airstrip, complete with its two dozen command, missile strike, air defense, support, and perimeter security ships and submarines.

Of course carrier groups are much more visible and imposing before the attack and as such part of US power projection policies. A.k.a. US neocolonial bullying. A.k.a. US international arm twisting. The carrier groups are also responsible for a major part of the US' 15 TRILLION deficit! But they are waaaay less efficient for actual warfare than the airborne (but largely invisible) refuelling alternative.
They are de facto extremely expensive, because inefficient, toys for the big brass now. And ditto chess pieces for the chief executive.

And now we watch how things unfold. Although we've seen it all before and you can of course already paint the picture:

I think Israel will jump the gun, nuke Iran, force the American hand, and drag all of us into WWIII. Hell, they did a live practice long-distance dress rehearsal bombing run on a factory in Sudan only a few weeks ago! And they bombed Saddam's nukeler reactor in 1984 (I think it was). The odds that Israel will jump the gun now are greater than ever, imo, because it's relatively safe under the Pentagon umbrella of big brother America in the region, on full alert, and on a full wartime footing. Again.
And together Israel and the US can militarily do a one-two combination punch on Iran which would effectively take it out of the equation within a week or 2 of (missile) bombing after Israel's initial nuke. In the meantime 3 batallions of Marines and a couple squadrons of F-15s can bomb, invade, and sweep up Syria. Heavy guerilla warfare to follow. But Syria will have become a sideshow by then because Russia will be budding in, and hysteric fundies in Islamabad may decide to lob an Islamic revenge nuke or two because, unsurprisingly, they're mad at the US and Israel for killing their Muslim homies. Etc. etc. etc.

Mind you, this time it's a Democratic prez that's supposedly pulling the strings in DC...
Pretty much in character, really, considering it were also his party's previous incumbent presidents under whose orders nuclear bombs were dropped on civilian populations, and the Vietnam war was joined full-scale...

Hey, maybe it's this chain of events that the Mayas alluded to with their supposed prediction of the Apocalypse on December 21st... Big Grin
Spooky!


Your analysis of the utility of a carrier group is incomplete, and therefore mistaken.

There is, first, the matter of re-arming the aircraft. Refueling aircraft is not enough.

Second, the matter of the tempo of the airstrikes. The turn-around time for the aircraft and pilots is much faster from the nearby aircraft carrier than from some distant airbase.

Third, there may be no airbase within a useful distance. You need to consider pilot fatigue.

Fourth, the initial response time is hugely faster from the carrier than from a distant airbase.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:28 PM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(07-12-2012 05:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your analysis of the utility of a carrier group is incomplete, and therefore mistaken.

There is, first, the matter of re-arming the aircraft. Refueling aircraft is not enough.

Second, the matter of the tempo of the airstrikes. The turn-around time for the aircraft and pilots is much faster from the nearby aircraft carrier than from some distant airbase.

Third, there may be no airbase within a useful distance. You need to consider pilot fatigue.

Fourth, the initial response time is hugely faster from the carrier than from a distant airbase.


Does it stop WWIII?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 09:50 PM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(07-12-2012 09:28 PM)Janus Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 05:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your analysis of the utility of a carrier group is incomplete, and therefore mistaken.

There is, first, the matter of re-arming the aircraft. Refueling aircraft is not enough.

Second, the matter of the tempo of the airstrikes. The turn-around time for the aircraft and pilots is much faster from the nearby aircraft carrier than from some distant airbase.

Third, there may be no airbase within a useful distance. You need to consider pilot fatigue.

Fourth, the initial response time is hugely faster from the carrier than from a distant airbase.


Does it stop WWIII?
Fun fact.
China launched and landed a jet on an aircraft carrier for the first time in history the other day.


Those US Aircraft carriers are the strongest battleships the world has ever seen (and will see for some time).
They can hold like 90? fighter jets. They can launch 1 in 15minutes, then 1 every 30seconds after that. They can receive jets at any time of day in almost any weather. They have state of the art defense systems etc..
AND, they move.
Plus they're reliable. And the nuclear ones do not need refueling for upwards of 25years.



As for stopping WW3, well I think the markets and globalization does a fine job of that.
War with say Iran would hardly be WW3. Sure it would suck, but it wouldn't lead to conscription, food rations, mass weapon production, complete life style change, fear (of being bombed) etc... that came with WW1 and 2 (for the Allies that weren't late to the party at least).
The army would be shipped over seas, you'd hear about it on the news, people will die but for the most part your life will remain completely unchanged. (unless you're in the military...)

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:51 PM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
The Navy always has a CSG or two in the med, why are you upset at this particular CSG on this occasion? The Navy's projection of power is not what is causing our massive deficit either. It's expensive, but not compared to the cost of our ground forces, and air force. Also Chas nailed you too, it is much more than what you think, Carriers allow us to arm up, drop our pay load, and do it all over again within 15 minutes depending on how far away our targets are. In addition is has other means of attack, though aircraft is the primary offensive weapons.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 11:10 PM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
when they came into Canada we wupped their ass. Wink

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Xinoftruden's post
08-12-2012, 12:26 AM
U.S. military and it's past interventions.
My favorite incursion was when we went into Grenada. I especially liked it because my parents used to have a Ford Grenada, only it was pronounced differently.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 02:54 AM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(06-12-2012 07:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 03:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The U.N Security Council unanimously supported a United Nations Armed Policing Action for the ultimate defense of Seoul.

Tell me, I and I, where do you live in the United States?
88 percent of the fighting force were U.S. troops, how does this not mean it was a U.S. incursion into another country?

So if you guys believe that the U.S. comprising 88 percent of the fighting force is somehow not a U.S. incursion into another country, then explain who invaded Iraq in 2003? According to Bush it wasn't the U.S. but it was a "coalition of the willing". Some people will twist things any way they can to make the U.S. not look like an imperialist douche bag.

Fucking please Rolleyes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm
Did you ever think it is because the U.S has the second largest military force on the planet?

I believe the U.S comprised 88 percent of the fighting force shows how other countries do not have a large, capable fighting force to engage both the North Korean army and the People's Republic Army of China.

Fucking please, indeed. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 06:40 AM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(07-12-2012 10:51 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The Navy's projection of power is not what is causing our massive deficit either. It's expensive, but not compared to the cost of our ground forces, and air force.


What the fuck does it matter which is more expensive? The Navy? The Army? The Airforce? The Marines? The point is that 90% of those 15 TRILLION bucks that America owes have been squandered on the Pentagon by Dubya and his neocons. And the rest on bailing out the criminal banking system.

And that 15 TRILLION deficit remains. It will take the US 3 centuries to pay off that debt. 3 Centuries of poverty, misery, and squalor for the next 10 generations of Americans...

Oh, thank you, thank you, great 'leader of the free world'! That's what we've always wanted...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 07:15 AM
RE: U.S. military and it's past interventions.
(08-12-2012 06:40 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 10:51 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The Navy's projection of power is not what is causing our massive deficit either. It's expensive, but not compared to the cost of our ground forces, and air force.


What the fuck does it matter which is more expensive? The Navy? The Army? The Airforce? The Marines? The point is that 90% of those 15 TRILLION bucks that America owes have been squandered on the Pentagon by Dubya and his neocons. And the rest on bailing out the criminal banking system.

And that 15 TRILLION deficit remains. It will take the US 3 centuries to pay off that debt. 3 Centuries of poverty, misery, and squalor for the next 10 generations of Americans...

Oh, thank you, thank you, great 'leader of the free world'! That's what we've always wanted...
Why 300 years?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: