If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/2015 5:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 5:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 3:55 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I simply don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to protect
our homeland or even its own resources against the sorts of
non-traditional adversaries we face today. Money blown on carriers
would
be better spent on the training and placement of intel forces.


The fact still remains that there no better tool to project force than
a carrier battle group.
Whether we should be projecting that force is open to conjecture but
as long as we are, we need the tool..
Personally I have no problem leaving all of those folks in Southeast
Europe, South Asia and the middle east, to kill each other

I bet if the 6th fleet sailed a carrier group into the eastern Med to
prop up your favorite country, you would like the carriers a bit
better.



There you go again. I don't like or dislike carriers. I simply think the
billions spent on building and running them would be better spent these
days on recruiting, training, and supporting intel resources.


And what are you going to do with that Intel?


When necessary, act on it in a force-appropriate manner. The team that
took out bin Laden was land-based and acted upon intel that took years
to assemble.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:53:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/9/15 5:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:46:23 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


We've done a fair job since 9/11 2001. That's going on 14 years. We've
had "attacks" like the Boston Marathon bombing but they are
individuals acting alone and not part of an organized Al-Qaeda type
attack.

Money is not "blown" on carriers, despite your objections to them. Until
something else better comes along the carrier task force is
the backbone of our naval surface strength.

I have a hunch that you really have little idea how they operate, how
they are networked to other resources, what the defense systems are
(some are classified of course) and other particulars. I suspect you
would be impressed with the technologies involved and the
professionalism and training of the men and women that man these ships.
It's a far cry from the Navy I served in.


I bet Harry also doesn't understand that a carrier is also a pretty
good sized hospital and has an electrical plant large enough to power
essential services for a small city. The battle group also has a lot
of manpower to render aid and a very good fleet of helicopters to get
that aid out across the countryside.
As I said earlier, it is an excellent platform for humanitarian aid
but that needs to be in a safe part of the world, not where they seem
to need it most these days.



None of which has anything to do with the fact that carriers are targets.

Any warship, warplane, or tank is a 'target'. Would you have the US just do away with
its military? If we just gave everyone a job, cell phone, and big TV, the whole world
would be happy. Then we wouldn't need a military.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 6:45:04 PM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/8/15 8:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On 9 Mar 2015 00:39:06 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

True North wrote:
On Sunday, 8 March 2015 17:31:52 UTC-3, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/8/2015 3:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...it would be hilarious...

Lone French Submarine Destroys Myth Of US Naval Superiority

If you listened to the Admirality within the Pentagon, the United States
Navy is one of the finest in the world. Our focus on the Aircraft
Carrier, split between 10 Supercarriers with four more under
construction, and 10 more lighter carriers, called "Amphibious Assault
Ships," has given the US the largest carrier fleets in the world. In
fact, the US Navy has more carriers in active service than the rest of
the world, and it is the lynchpin of any US Navy actions. The myth of
the American carrier invulnerability is such that it is taken for
granted in our collective psyche.

And a lone French Submarine, the SNA Saphir, just demonstrated how
vulnerable they are. In a training exercise, the Saphir was tasked with
attacking U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, led by the USS Theodore
Roosevelt, CVN-71, along with ballistic defensive warships and
anti-submarine warfare vessels. In a now redacted article, the French
Ministry of Defense described how the Saphir on its own managed to not
only approach the Roosevelt, but defeat it in simulated combat.

What the French demonstrated should not come as a surprise, however.. As
the Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook demonstrated in 2007,
asymmetrical warfare is the Achilles heel for Aircraft carrier based
naval forces. The issue is so pronounced that the US Naval Institute has
been arguing against this carrier-first fleet design for years, saying
that in the modern combat environment, carriers could be "little more
than slow-moving targets."

http://tinyurl.com/m3e8r66


What isn't a surprise: the U.S. military wastes trillions with its
arrogance.


Who gave Canada a submarine?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

We used to read stories of our previous class of diesel electric
submarines getting within torpedo range of 'merican carriers. Didn't
realize the newer Upholder class did the same thing.

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are based
in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

We will be buying huge aircraft carriers until some two bit terrorist group
takes one out with a missile.

Have you written your politicians with your whines?

Perhaps you could inform Don how to spell the name of your country.



You do it. You
prefer 'Murican? to 'merican?


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Do you always speak with your mouth full?

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, 9 March 2015 15:43:51 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 8:08:20 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

Those three in Halifax are ****ing junk you idiot.


Speaking about "junk", Jackass..... where's that **** brown piece of crap you call a boat?

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:14:19 PM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 5:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 5:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 3:55 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I simply don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to protect
our homeland or even its own resources against the sorts of
non-traditional adversaries we face today. Money blown on carriers
would
be better spent on the training and placement of intel forces.


The fact still remains that there no better tool to project force than
a carrier battle group.
Whether we should be projecting that force is open to conjecture but
as long as we are, we need the tool..
Personally I have no problem leaving all of those folks in Southeast
Europe, South Asia and the middle east, to kill each other

I bet if the 6th fleet sailed a carrier group into the eastern Med to
prop up your favorite country, you would like the carriers a bit
better.



There you go again. I don't like or dislike carriers. I simply think the
billions spent on building and running them would be better spent these
days on recruiting, training, and supporting intel resources.


And what are you going to do with that Intel?


When necessary, act on it in a force-appropriate manner. The team that
took out bin Laden was land-based and acted upon intel that took years
to assemble.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating.

He dances because he has to take a leak.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:14:19 PM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 5:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 5:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 3:55 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I simply don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to protect
our homeland or even its own resources against the sorts of
non-traditional adversaries we face today. Money blown on carriers
would
be better spent on the training and placement of intel forces.


The fact still remains that there no better tool to project force than
a carrier battle group.
Whether we should be projecting that force is open to conjecture but
as long as we are, we need the tool..
Personally I have no problem leaving all of those folks in Southeast
Europe, South Asia and the middle east, to kill each other

I bet if the 6th fleet sailed a carrier group into the eastern Med to
prop up your favorite country, you would like the carriers a bit
better.



There you go again. I don't like or dislike carriers. I simply think the
billions spent on building and running them would be better spent these
days on recruiting, training, and supporting intel resources.


And what are you going to do with that Intel?


When necessary, act on it in a force-appropriate manner. The team that
took out bin Laden was land-based and acted upon intel that took years
to assemble.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating.

He dances because he has to take a leak.

LOL!

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:37:02 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:

My point has nothing to do with Navy or Pentagon PR. My point is that
carriers are natural targets for individual and state terrorists who
have or will have access to guided missiles.


krause has obviously never seen a Phlanx Gun in operation. He is severely ignorant to todays weaponry.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:

Those three in Halifax are ****ing junk you idiot.


Speaking about "junk", Jackass..... where's that **** brown piece of crap you call a boat?

Nice try to deflect from the subject, dumbass.

At least my " old tub " won't ****ing corrode like a cheap pop can, like yours.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 9:57 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:14:19 PM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 5:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 5:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 3:55 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I simply don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to protect
our homeland or even its own resources against the sorts of
non-traditional adversaries we face today. Money blown on carriers
would
be better spent on the training and placement of intel forces.


The fact still remains that there no better tool to project force than
a carrier battle group.
Whether we should be projecting that force is open to conjecture but
as long as we are, we need the tool..
Personally I have no problem leaving all of those folks in Southeast
Europe, South Asia and the middle east, to kill each other

I bet if the 6th fleet sailed a carrier group into the eastern Med to
prop up your favorite country, you would like the carriers a bit
better.



There you go again. I don't like or dislike carriers. I simply think the
billions spent on building and running them would be better spent these
days on recruiting, training, and supporting intel resources.


And what are you going to do with that Intel?


When necessary, act on it in a force-appropriate manner. The team that
took out bin Laden was land-based and acted upon intel that took years
to assemble.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating.

He dances because he has to take a leak.

LOL!


The stupid in rec.boats seems to be rising every day.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:53:01 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/9/15 5:07 PM, wrote:

I bet Harry also doesn't understand that a carrier is also a pretty
good sized hospital and has an electrical plant large enough to power
essential services for a small city. The battle group also has a lot
of manpower to render aid and a very good fleet of helicopters to get
that aid out across the countryside.
As I said earlier, it is an excellent platform for humanitarian aid
but that needs to be in a safe part of the world, not where they seem
to need it most these days.



None of which has anything to do with the fact that carriers are targets.

These days everything is a target. I would worry more about a suburban
mall than a carrier battle group.
Certainly they might lob a missile at one but we have a fair to
middling chance of just shooting it down. These cruise missile are
pretty slow. The place where it came from will reap the whirlwind.
That CBG will have a guided missile ships tagging along that could
turn 2 or 3 square miles into bouncing rubble.


You know no more about whether a carrier will be successfully attacked
than I do or anyone else here does. I think it is possible and you are
regurgitating the DoD bull****.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.