Unfortunately the Democrats talk about increasing the size of the Army. No, we do not need a bigger Army, we need to get the hell out of Iraq!
We simply cannot continue on our present course without utterly bankrupting ourselves.
Posted by gay veteran at February 17, 2008 09:06 AMI guess I'm missing something. If we are going build a new carrier, we should build with the newest technologies.
Whether or not we need a new carrier... there's always a possibility that we will get another President like Bush! Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people!
If we do, we'll need all the firepower we can get.
Posted by Moon at February 17, 2008 09:23 AMI'm about as liberal as they come and this doesn't bother me at all. Upgraded technology, jobs for years as these get built, saving money in the long run. Let's get the hell out of Iraq if we want to save some money. Let's get rid of these wacko right wingers if we want a safe America. having people in charge who either believe, or suck up to morons that believe, the Earth is 6,000 years old is the problem. Get rid of the war criminals in charge of our country, build the damned carries, etc., and you ahve a safe and great nation.
Posted by Scy at February 17, 2008 09:34 AMFirst step:
Rename the DOD to the War Department, just to remind everyone of its true purpose.
Posted by IntelVet at February 17, 2008 09:45 AMThe Spanish had no problem allowing the bankers of Europe to finance the conquests. It worked out well for the wealthy and the bankers. Not so good for anyone else.
Posted by phidipides at February 17, 2008 10:49 AMIt was the War Department until Truman had it s name changed as well as it's Cabinet Department Secretary. Paradox, try well over 100,000 tons, closer to 150,000 tons. This 'town' of 5,000 people runs very effectively.
This new carrier is not in any way a Nimitz class carrier. This is a complete redesign on carrier warfare. It will have all the new stuff needed to get us solidly into the 21st century. Sure the Reagan(CVN-76) and the Bush(CVN-77) had some redesign in the island structures to accommodate all the new electronics, but that design had run its course. The vision of this vessel coming into port will be very dramatic. And the extension of our defense/offense capability is readily seen. Many here pay special attention to our carrier movements of late...see Iran.
This will be a truly great ship and an extension of American military might.
Posted by peter at February 17, 2008 11:14 AMPeter, you sexy beast! Growl. Let me bear your children.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 17, 2008 01:22 PMWell, if we want to be a little forward thinking about defense and technology, the carrier is stupid tech and it ought to be excised from the American arsenal. Carriers are giant wastes of taxpayer money, even after they're built, and they're wholly unnecessary. They've been that way since our first Gulf War, at least. We ought to scrap them all and not replace them.
Something like 90% or more of bombings and support flights in Gulf Wars I & II, and Afghanistan to this day, are conducted by land-based aircraft, not carrier-based. It appears the Air Force does have better pilots, or more capable hardware, anyway. The myth of two or three carriers enabling 24-hour offensive operations are just that, a myth, something the navy brass made up to justify their carriers. The brass and the government and even us plain folks love the carriers, big, powerful symbols of American might. Except they're crap. At best, they serve as a saber rattle. At worst, they're sitting ducks.
The future of naval warfare is a throwback to something akin to battleships -- guided missile cruisers. Due to the Tomahawk, these things can reach just as far inland and do as much or more damage than any carriers' airwings. Hell, you can't even send out a carrier without surrounding the damn thing with guided missile cruisers and subs. The cruisers are used for AEGIS defensive protection and a real offensive capability with their Tomahawks. And the subs are along for launching still more Tomahawks. Why? Because F/A-18s can't carry nearly enough bombs. Instead of sending out a carrier with an entire carrier group and AEGIS, which really remains untested to this day, why not leave the carriers behind and just send out the cruisers and subs with their cruise missiles? I guess because it's much sexier to have a ship of thousands and airwings and "aviators," as opposed to a few hundred sailors pressing buttons and launching missiles. It's also so much more fun for the brass to have General Dynamics or Lockheed or Grumman or Bath Iron Works to wine and dine them over $4.5 or $20 billion carriers, instead of over $1 or $2 billion destroyers.
A responsible government serious about defense and budget would:
-- Get rid of the useless carriers.
-- Cut navy personnel in half, at least.
-- Build more affordable cruisers using less sailors.
-- Force the Air Force to take its force support role even more seriously.
-- Force the Air Force to build an affordable bomber.
"I'm about as liberal as they come and this doesn't bother me at all. Upgraded technology, jobs for years as these get built, saving money in the long run."
These are not productive assets that our tax money is being spent on.
But I guess we need a new carrier to fight the Soviet Union....oh, wait a minute, they don't exist anymore.
Posted by gay veteran at February 17, 2008 02:53 PM"Carriers do not combat pathogens, do not grow or distribute food, cure diseases, educate children or house refugees."
Perhaps you should read up on the contributions made by the USS Abraham Lincoln during the tsunami relief efforts in SE Asia in 2005.
"I served the USN in wartime...."
Thank you for your service. (I do wish that you had learned something.)
Posted by Bagley at February 17, 2008 03:22 PMyeah bagless, we should continue wasting $BILLIONS and bankrupting this country just in case there's another tsunami (like you right-wing assholes give a rat's ass about helping people)
Posted by gay veteran at February 17, 2008 03:40 PMgay veteran,
How are you this evening, headxray? Or, are you not headxray.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at February 17, 2008 03:43 PMBagley, sure carriers did that in the aftermath of the tsunami, but cargo ships and helicopters off "Gator" hospital carriers could have served the same role better. As a matter of fact, I believe some "Gator" carrier was involved, can't remember which one.
The truth is the Nimitz class and anything bigger or newer is garbage, a colossal waste of my cash and your cash. Guided missile cruisers are the future. Unfortunately, the navy brass are too attached to their big toys.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 03:45 PMBrian Bell,
I do not recall which "gators" may have been involved in the tsunami effort. I am sure that they did well, though.
But Amphibious Assault shipd cannot "show the flag" as a carrier can. Carriers are multi-purpose.
Posted by Bagley at February 17, 2008 03:51 PMIn the age of silkworm type ship to ship, land to ship and air to ship supersonic missiles, aircraft carriers are becoming increasingly vulnerable targets.
See Moskit or Sunburn missile or the more advanced Yakhont missile. Remember the USS Stark?
Posted by brisa at February 17, 2008 04:11 PMjobs for years as these get built
For $160M/year we get 5000 jobs.
Are we that bad at math that we don't get how bad a deal this is?
Cut the budget of the Department of Aggressive Offensive War ... oops, I mean "Defense" ... to 1/10th and you still secure the borders AND balance the budget AND have health care for all AND have college education for all.
The founding fathers warned of the dangers of "standing armies" in the 1776 VA Declaration of Rights (article 13, IIRC) and Eisenhower repeated that warning. You keep a military around and they will proliferate -- finding justifications and "necessary" conflicts. In the case of the US, the Pentagon and CIA now spend more on "Information Management" (i.e. sophisticated propoganda) than any other nation on Earth except China spends on "defense" -- all of it is an investment to keep the US populace happily giving up personal goodies to keep the military growing.
Posted by Ho hum at February 17, 2008 05:10 PM"show the flag"
There's a necessary aspect of national "defense".
Nothing whatever can be accomplished to prepare us for the future needs of this country as long as this sort of wasteful militarist nonsense is viewed as a common sense "upgrade" of already completely unnecessary weapoons systems, which themsleves cost a fortune to "defend" dur to their vulnerability.
The Nimitz's have literally not a comparable ship to face in the world, have no realistic tactical use as Brian B demonstrates, yet they supposedly "need" to be upgraded to the next level of warship without peer. This is nothing more than a fascistic government/corporate parnership for special interest mass spending, fleecing the taxpayers and wasting precious revenues which could be put to good use.
Carry on, BushAmerica, no country (oe empire) has succeeded in wasting such funds on worthless militarism indefinitely. The bill always comes due, and the cost is utterly ruining the economic health of the foolish empire.
Posted by euzoius at February 17, 2008 05:49 PMWhen my local "Mail and More" handed me a sheet of Ford stamps, I asked if they could put them in an air sickness bag. I then gave them a history lesson on how NO ONE ever voted for him to be President.
So imagine how I feel about a CARRIER being named after the Nixon appointed staircase free-fall pioneer.
I hear Castro ain't feeling too good. Won't that baby look impressive steaming into Havana Harbor for the funeral!
Is this the big schtick Teddy Roosevelt spoke of?
The vision of this vessel coming into port will be very dramatic.
Yeah, that's great value for money for $20+ billion. Stellar financial management.
Neither Dems nor Rethugs will rein in the most gigantic welfare program on earth, the military-industrial complex.
We need maybe a third of the military spending we have for legitimate defensive operations. The excess just becomes an ego tool, too tempting for Cheney, Chimp and their neocon cronies not abuse in an aggressive profiteering war in Iraq.
That's insane, Bagley. Showing the flag is no justification to piss away $4.5 or $20 billion. You sound like a bribed senator on Ways and Means excusing the pork. It's just stupid the way this country pisses it's cash away on these pork-barrel, kickback-filled defense projects.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 07:37 PMWe're in the era of 1 billion dollar subs, in Chile some consortium spent 1 and half billion on a swimming pool! Here you're already inflated this expense to 20 billion, Gee, that must be the Democratic way...inflate everything way beyond actual. I read some Democrats are saying the Iraq war is running at a 2 trillion dollar cost right now yet TLC has a running tally underneath 500 billion. It figures...thing are always worse for Democrats. They just don't enjoy life, can't be happy.
Yeah, show the flag. That's a very worthy en devour.
Posted by peter at February 17, 2008 08:47 PMPeter, it ain't worth $20 billion to fly the flag on outdated technology. The $20 billion is an estimate of the cost of the Gerald Ford class carriers. If you check defense industry news sources, they put the cost near $14 billion. However, given that these things always end up costing a lot more than initial estimates, the $20 billion isn't out of line for an estimate at all. As for the $4.5 billion for the Nimitz class, that's a fact, not an estimate, and you can read about that from the same source. What is it with alleged conservatives wanting to throw money away on crappy arms?
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 10:04 PMbagless bagley is too fucking stoopid to understand that these multi-billion dollar white elephants have to be be PAID FOR, so your choice is higher taxes or get on charging it on the Chinese Express card
and btw bagless bagley, I am not headxray, if you doubt it then ask the people who run this site
poor pants pissing peter doesn't understand (or lies) when he says he doesn't understand the $2,000,000,000,000 cost of Dear Leader's war of aggression against Iraq. That figure includes FUTURE costs such as equipment replacement, medical care for veterans, veterans disability payments, etc. Of course that figure can be reduced since the right-wing doesn't give a rat's ass about veterans.
Posted by gay veteran at February 18, 2008 07:08 AMThis is what fiscal conservative is all about - someone's making money and many, more are paying for it. To the few, the spoils.
Posted by Sharon at February 18, 2008 07:12 AMOur candidates can't acknowledge, let alone discuss this. It's much too big.
As with most addictions, we'll have to hit rock bottom just to face it.
Good post, paradox. Thanks and keep them coming.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at February 18, 2008 08:06 AM"To the few, the spoils."
I loved this one...union workers goes the spoils, since many of these ships are made by union shipyards. Electronics from silicon valley, Democrats more "the few". Seems the "few" are supporting Democrats all the time or ARE Democrats. The aircraft, more union workers supporting Democrats. Maybe we should stop these from being built, maybe we would have fewer Democrats.
Posted by peter at February 18, 2008 08:37 AMCarriers are useless as even the Navy knows. Click here for more info.
Posted by Vernon at February 18, 2008 06:15 PM