Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Decimation of U.S. Naval capability (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Decimation of U.S. Naval capability
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some time ago the U.S.S. Enterprise was decomissioned following a scheduled delay in completion of the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford. This resulted in a net reduction of responsive carrier capability.

I pointed out at the time that Barry has been quite intentional in his budgetary sequestration ploy, a la Jack Lew, to eviscerate the U.S. Naval hegemony which we have maintained since 1945. A Rand study supported my contention.

At a critical time in Middle East "diplomacy" by the administration we have this. :

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/31/admiral-says-carrier-gap-in-persian-gulf-hinders-war-effort.html

" 'It reduces the president's options,' said Bryan McGrath, former naval officer who now runs the consulting firm FerryBridge Group. 'Aircraft carriers are so powerful because we can relatively quickly move it in position where we need it and use it without anyone's permission. ... 'We don't have the flexibility to have a carrier there if we need one, because we just don't have them.' said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and primary naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and primary naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments."

This president will hand over colossal middle-east problems, and reduced problem solving hardware, to the next administration. It will take, literally, more than a decade to remediate his assault upon the military generally... and the navy specifically.

Would any of the left-wing apologists (Greg, Al, Tom) care to comment on the current state of affairs?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Sorry, that's just a joke.

What's going on with Enterprise and Ford has very little to do with the risks to carrier force projection. It's like Romney calling for a 600 ship navy as if hulls were the proper measure of military capability. Or Reagan spending money on battleships in the 1980s.

The real issues are the ability to extend strike capability in contested airspace and to protect the carriers themselves from land-based threats that have a growing range, which requires better intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and better defensive countermeasures.

At a much lesser level, having more ships available is better than fewer, which is one of the reasons that avoiding stupid wars as we have done under Obama has made us stronger not weaker.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

If the departure of the U.S.S. Roosevelt from the Persian gulf is not symptomatic of our navy's handicapped carrier force projection, why have the French stepped in with the deGaulle carrier group to fill the void?

How has Obama made us "stronger"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious why you think it's a problem that the French have filled the void.

quote:
I pointed out at the time that Barry has been quite intentional in his budgetary sequestration ploy, a la Jack Lew, to eviscerate the U.S. Naval hegemony which we have maintained since 1945.
Why, in your opinion, would Obama want to eviscerate the Navy?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"I'm curious why you think it's a problem that the French have filled the void. "...

First, the deGaulle is less than half the size of a Nimitz class carrier, and second, the deGaulle does not take orders from the White House.

"Why, in your opinion, would Obama want to eviscerate the Navy? "...

Because he believes that the United States is the primary source of conflict on the world stage, along with its allies.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many carriers do we have? How many does the rest of the world have?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think we are ahead by about twice as many, plus every one of our carrier groups is more powerful than anyone else's.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

"How many carriers do we have? How many does the rest of the world have? "...

The correct question is; how many carriers does a Commander in Chief need at his disposal in the Persian Gulf at any given moment? We have had a continuous carrier presence until now. The U.S.S. Eisenhower missed its duty assignment because of unforeseen maintenance issues, and we have no back-up capacity.

Panetta warned Barry about this.

Greg,

"I think we are ahead by about twice as many, plus every one of our carrier groups is more powerful than anyone else's. "...

I thought you knew better than measuring force projection in that manner. You are now counting hulls? A carrier that is not present when you need it results in incidents like Benghazi.

So what is your response to my earlier question? How has Barry made us "stronger"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

"Why, in your opinion, would Obama want to eviscerate the Navy? "...

Because he believes that the United States is the primary source of conflict on the world stage, along with its allies.

I would be pleased to learn that Obama really thought this, and even more pleased if he was really willing to do something about it. Alas I fear neither is entirely true.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

I posted a transcript of Leon Panetta's interview with Bill O'Rielly within days of his resignation as Secretary of Defense. If Barry does not believe America is the primary source of international conflict, then his actions would be little different than if he did.

At one time I debated within myself if he is merely stupid, or intentional in setting international policy. After Panetta, I decided it was intentional, but it doesn't really make any practical difference.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Fenring,

I posted a transcript of Leon Panetta's interview with Bill O'Rielly within days of his resignation as Secretary of Defense. If Barry does not believe America is the primary source of international conflict, then his actions would be little different than if he did.

At one time I debated within myself if he is merely stupid, or intentional in setting international policy. After Panetta, I decided it was intentional, but it doesn't really make any practical difference.

Allow me to rephrase: I would be happy to learn that Obama agrees with me that it is bad that America is the primary source of international conflict. He may in fact agree, but whether he cares to or is able to do anything about it is another matter.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Relative strength for US. Inherited a country in economic collapse with two ongoing wars and a deficit of a trillion and a half dollars per year. Fixed economy. Biggest reduction in deficit since WWII (and a better recovery than Europe or Japan). Not staffing 500 bases in Iraq. Stopping Taliban from overrunning Pakistan. Killing many Al Qaida leaders. Not starting new stupid wars. Putting together a coalition of very different countries to bring Iran to the negotiating table and getting one of the most rigorous inspection regimes in U.S. diplomatic history. Getting chemical weapons out of Syria.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"Allow me to rephrase: I would be happy to learn that Obama agrees with me that it is bad that America is the primary source of international conflict. He may in fact agree, but whether he cares to or is able to do anything about it is another matter. "...

I understood you the first time. [Wink]

As president, it would be an incredible indictment of incompetence for him to agree with you, and yet be unable "to do anything about it". Wouldn't you agree? He earns doublespeak points for winning not one, but two elections while "transforming" our military so fundamentally.

He aspired to be the anti-Reagan. Most conservatives would agree that he has succeeded.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

- "Inherited a country in economic collapse with two ongoing wars and a deficit of a trillion and a half dollars per year. Fixed economy. "...

Economic collapse is the inevitable symptom of the issuance of unbridled federal credit, which corrects through whole-sale "deleveraging" (destruction of private wealth). Barry once called it unpatriotic to "drive up the national debt".

http://youtu.be/DyLmru6no4U

Do you know his record over the last seven years, and what class of the population was the primary beneficiary?

- "Not staffing 500 bases in Iraq. Stopping Taliban from overrunning Pakistan. Killing many Al Qaida leaders. "...

Yes, and by Panetta's reckoning placing the security interests of the United States at a risk level that now sees domestic Islamic terrorism which the FBI can do nothing about... even with incredibly invasive NSA intelligence gathering on private citizens.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/27/gen-keane-radical-islam-has-increased-4-fold-5-years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9 b2_story.html

- "Not starting new stupid wars. "...

And releasing jfrom Gitmo ust the right people for starting brand new wars during the next administration.

- "Putting together a coalition of very different countries to bring Iran to the negotiating table and getting one of the most rigorous inspection regimes in U.S. diplomatic history. Getting chemical weapons out of Syria. "...

... Different countries like Russia, and China? You cannot be serious. This "inspection regime" is so "rigorous", that the idiot Kerry did not trouble himself with details because it does not involve the United States.

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-part-of-the-iran-agreement-2015-7

- "Getting chemical weapons out of Syria. "...

Assuming Assad would have used these against his enemy ISIL, how does that achievement make *us* safer?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economic collapse due primarily to the actions of private sector firms. First, investment banks making stupid bets with $50 trillion of leveraged funds. Second, ratings companies like Moody's giving AAA ratings to junk financial instruments. Third, mortgage insurers generating risky mortgages (most of these were private sector, but the quasi-governmental Freddie and Fannie were involved in some), private sector individuals making risky mortgage choices.

Please explain why there is no responsibility for all of these individuals and instead it is all about unbridled federal credit?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"Economic collapse due primarily to the actions of private sector firms. First, investment banks making stupid bets with $50 trillion of leveraged funds. Second, ratings companies like Moody's giving AAA ratings to junk financial instruments. Third, mortgage insurers generating risky mortgages (most of these were private sector, but the quasi-governmental Freddie and Fannie were involved in some), private sector individuals making risky mortgage choices. "...

As much as I hate to admit it, Noam Chomsky understood decades ago that this is the natural result of federalizing risk, and privatizing profit.

"Please explain why there is no responsibility for all of these individuals and instead it is all about unbridled federal credit? " ...

Private investors correctly anticipated the "too big to fail" phenomena, and played their hand. They bet properly. Do you fault them for the Feds cowardly retreat into unrestrained credit?

You failed to respond to anything else. Were you planning to?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should we not fault those investors for immoral behavior, noel?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As president, it would be an incredible indictment of incompetence for him to agree with you, and yet be unable "to do anything about it". Wouldn't you agree?
I won't speak for Fenring, but I suspect his response will be that if Obama did "do something about", he'd likely be killed.

Or more likely, no one who would ever "do something about it" would ever be permitted to be President in the first place.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Why should we not fault those investors for immoral behavior, noel?

I would suggest there's a very big difference between morality and between game theory. If you set up playing conditions whereby certain actions "win" and others "lose" then regardless of what you would call moral there will be actors who will enter the game and play to win. You can call them immoral all you like, but I see the real culprit as being the game design that encourages such behavior. You can't force or even expect people to be moral, but you can remove incentives to be immoral. And certainly when the win condition of a cutthroat game has large rewards every character under the sun lacking empathy will be drawn to it like flies to feces. This is not only foreseeable but also inevitable.

The same thing goes in both the private and the public sector. When you see corruption, cheating, lying, selfish aggrandizing at the expense of everyone else, and other such phenomena, you have to recognize that their presence indicates systemic mis-design rather than a good system that people are somehow abusing. If people are rewarded for abusing the public trust then the system is not good.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"Why should we not fault those investors for immoral behavior, noel? "...

Will you fault these investors? :

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-insurers-stocks/

Jasonr,

"I won't speak for Fenring, but I suspect his response will be that if Obama did 'do something about', he'd likely be killed. "...

No, assassins tend to be anarchists, and leftists. The people Barry is agitating are a notably law abiding segment of the population.

"Or more likely, no one who would ever 'do something about it" would ever be permitted to be President in the first place. "...

Had Barry actually ran on the platform upon which he governs, he would never have risen above the political rank of "community organizer".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will you fault these investors?
Actually, no. I blame the government for paying off the middlemen, but I don't blame investors in healthcare stocks for recognizing that this is what happened. I do blame investors who were aware that their vehicles were going to tank, but believed that the government would shoulder the cost of that tanking for them. This is rather the opposite.

But back to the point: why should we not fault investors for immoral behavior, noel?

----------

quote:
You can call them immoral all you like, but I see the real culprit as being the game design that encourages such behavior.
While I largely agree -- and despise the oligarchs and their conservative allies who made this particular move possible -- I should note that not blaming the people who engaged in immoral behavior because they thought they would get away with it is rather like not blaming someone for theft or rape or murder because they were confident they wouldn't get caught. It's not even a case of thinking that there were no ramifications; they were confident that there would be ramifications, but that they would be protected from them. A rapist who's confident that he'll get off scot-free because his daddy's the mayor is no less immoral.

[ August 02, 2015, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"I do blame investors who were aware that their vehicles were going to tank, but believed that the government would shoulder the cost of that tanking for them. This is rather the opposite. "...

I believe the UCA will "tank", but nonetheless live on in a more highly regulated form like both Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac... and for precisely the same reason. Cynical political operatives designed the game that way.

Should investors who understand this be labled "immoral"?

Might I inquire into the basis upon which you form moral judgements? I seem to recall you to operate from a pain/pleasure calculus... Epicurus holds a place in your heart, correct?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
While I largely agree -- and despise the oligarchs and their conservative allies who made this particular move possible -- I should note that not blaming the people who engaged in immoral behavior because they thought they would get away with it is rather like not blaming someone for theft or rape or murder because they were confident they wouldn't get caught. It's not even a case of thinking that there were no ramifications; they were confident that there would be ramifications, but that they would be protected from them. A rapist who's confident that he'll get off scot-free because his daddy's the mayor is no less immoral.

Well, such people do have to be dealt with, but I wouldn't bother "blaming" them. I simply assume that some percentage of people are either easily corruptible or else really give no s**ts, and that if you give them an incentive to screw over others for profit they'll take it. On an individual level you can say to them "how could you?" but looking at it systemically I think it's sufficient to simply say they exist and should be given no opportunities to do so. It's not like you take a blank slate person and he "chooses" to become corrupt in a given situation, for which you might want to chastise him for making a silly choice. Rather I think they're already predisposed that way and it's far too late for moral chastising. It's entirely possible that X% of people will always be hardwired to do these things, in which case we simply need to set things up in such a way that they won't be rewarded for harming others.

To take your theft analogy, the way in which we might expect to reduce this kind of crime would be to remove incentive to do so (improved basic living conditions) and to have good deterrents (an effective police force). We may want to designate thieves as "immoral" in any case, but in terms of dealing with crime it's more or less superfluous to do so.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like the way part of this discussion is turning. If responsibility is split between the acts of private sector actors and institutional incentives and constraints, we can engage in discussion of which institutional structures work best and which are at highest risk of massive failure.

Two biggest worldwide economic collapses in last century were 1929 and 2008. The preceding decade in each period was characterized much more by financial deregulation than by the increase in governmental oversight. That seems to point to deregulation as a proximate cause.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"I simply assume that some percentage of people are either easily corruptible or else really give no s**ts, and that if you give them an incentive to screw over others for profit they'll take it. "...

You might include not only the politicians behind federal mortgage subsidization, and the UCA, but virtually all investors with mutual fund accounts. Barry has insured that health care stocks are the next real estate boom. Brokers would be "immoral" if their client's portfolios were neglected in this regard.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"Two biggest worldwide economic collapses in last century were 1929 and 2008. The preceding decade in each period was characterized much more by financial deregulation than by the increase in governmental oversight. That seems to point to deregulation as a proximate cause. "...

No, I think Chomsky actually got it right.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Two biggest worldwide economic collapses in last century were 1929 and 2008. The preceding decade in each period was characterized much more by financial deregulation than by the increase in governmental oversight. That seems to point to deregulation as a proximate cause.

With regards to the 1929 crash I'm not sure the Federal Reserve Act should count either as deregulation or as government oversight; rather it seems to have involved the introduction of a hybrid whereby the private sector had access to more tools and the government was now a direct actor in the financial sector. In this sense I agree with Noel's comment insofar as the dissolving of the distinction between public and private is a somewhat lateral issue to regulation vs. deregulation.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am unfamiliar with how Chomsky "got it right", please explain.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noam Chomsky's critique of the Reagan administration's protectionist policies:

https://books.google.com/books?id=z8oJlTEoNUsC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=chomsky+federalized+risk+privatize+profit&source=bl&ots=I7kA5tVlJh&sig=7rqIh1C0jDKpuodZO1xj6yfwsds&hl=en&sa=X&v ed=0CCYQ6AEwA2oVChMIt_-bgeiOxwIVDxaSCh1YEARN#v=onepage&q=chomsky%20federalized%20risk%20privatize%20profit&f=false

I have not followed up on Chomsky's position regarding the 2009 bailouts of financhial institutions, of the insurance monopoly created under the UCA, but all operate from federalized risk, and privatized profit.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Barry just vaunted our $600 billion/anum military that cannot maintain a perpetual carrier task force within striking distance of Iran. This JV President is "either ignorant, or putting one over on us", to appropriate his characterization of those who oppose his "good deal".

His argument reduces to; "We spend forty times as much as Iran, so a nuclear Iran poses no threat to the U.S.". Do any of the liberals on this board buy into his reasoning?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do not believe they pose a direct threat to the U.S. I do believe they can threaten our interests.

I couldn't tell you how many times their military budget we would need to achieve the "no direct threat" ballance but we are well over it.

So not sure if that means I buy his reasoning or not. I agree with this narrow sound bite I suppose.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, your argument seems to assume that carrier groups are the only means the US has to project power into the region. While the absence of a carrier group certainly limits the options immediately available, the US could still blow **** up on short notice if absolutely necessary.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

My only assumption is that conventional "first strike" options are unilaterally available to the U.S., for use against hardened targets within Iran, if ICBM launch preparation is detected... not that the ayatollah's in control of the country would ever dream of using their developing missile capability.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-still-on-track-for-2015-icbm-flight-test/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-endorses-nuclear-emp-attack-on-united-states/article/2561733

I can think of ways to do this without a naval presence, but not with our currently existing inventory. Can you?

[ August 05, 2015, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not familiar with the full range of options that the US has to blow things up, but I'd be surprised if carriers were the only proportional response available.

Though I note that Iranians are apparently still developing ICBM capability, not that they have it. Which suggests there is still time to position non-carrier resources to retain first strike capability.

In the event of an ICBM launch against the US, it's worth remembering that the US will never lose second strike capability against Iran. They're only going to get one shot, and I don't think they can make it good enough to count.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

I think you are confusing Cold War strategies with the unique threat posed by an Islamic fascist theocracy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/14/the-ultimate-north-korean-missile-threat-to-america-a-nuke-power-grid-attack/

It would make no sense for the U.S. to retaliate with a nuclear attack in response to an Iranian EMP device detonated over, or near, the North American continent. I am sure that fact is not lost on Iran's military planners, and for the record, you overestimate the state of America's military options. Barry has discussed forward aircraft basing in Turkey, but they have not proved a very reliable ally in recent years. Just to complicate things, one of the items explicitly permitted by the Kerry "deal" is Iranian acquisition of an advanced Russian antiaircraft missile system.

What do you think the ayatollahs might be anticipating?

You will note that the Bush administration had deployed naval counter-measures to the Korean nuclear threat. Barry cancelled it.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the unique threat posed by an Islamic fascist theocracy.
I realize this is axiomatic for you, so I won't bother disagreeing.

It'd make perfect sense. It's how you make sure the attack doesn't happen twice. Failing that, an EMP wouldn't do much to impede any conventional response. The home front might be screwed but it'd be convenient to distract people with stuff blowing up on TV. It worked for Clinton and Bush.

I think the ayatollahs are anticipating that a significant number of American politicians are too stupid, racist, or ideologically blinkered to uphold the current agreement. That there's a distinct possibility the next American President will attack Iran, either as a deliberate plan or incompetence.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Premise: We want to attack Iran.

Solution: Make the attack appear defensive with Iran as the aggressor.

Source: Goering said so.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

"I realize this is axiomatic for you, so I won't bother disagreeing. "...

And then you proceed to say: "... there's a distinct possibility the next American President will attack Iran, either as a deliberate plan or incompetence."

Do you suspect this constitute a disagreement ? [Wink]

"It'd make perfect sense. It's how you make sure the attack doesn't happen twice. "...

Do you understand that an EMP strike does not need to "happen twice"?

"... a significant number of American politicians are too stupid, racist, or ideologically blinkered to uphold the current agreement. "...

You're right, what kind of ideological kalnienk dysfunction could mistake this for a threat? :

http://youtu.be/QKgsxDL4abU

Fenring,

"Premise: We want to attack Iran.

Solution: Make the attack appear defensive with Iran as the aggressor.

Source: Goering said so. "

Therefore; which of these countries should have acted preemptively: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgum, Netherlands, or France?

I know you consider a strike against Iranian nuclear targets "war", but did you consider the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Iran, and the unlawful detention of 52 Americans for 444 days, an act of war? Did it matter in the larger picture?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... Keep it coming guys. This is the type of stuff I want my thirteen year old to see. She thinks I make accounts of opinions such as these up. [Smile] We just do not see much of it in Utah.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, based on your response I'm not quite sure you read my message correctly. Here's the longer version of what Goering said, translated to English:

quote:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
On a side note I look forward to the EMP attack as I'm sick of everyone with their Ipads...
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1