|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
I dont know dude, I am truly an undecided and Romney took a beating. I thought Romney had no chance when the thing started so he keeps surprising me, tonight he was sweating around the mouth, doing that gay guy eye roll thing. He did have however have my favorite line of the night when he said America doesnt dictate it frees countries from dictators. Obama came back strong with his reply but in my opinion that was a great line from Romney.
Now with that said all we will hear about is the horses and bayonet slam. Anyone else running besides these two that I can vote for? none of the above sounds good
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
Since when does Syria and Iran share a border?
They don't need to. Syria is allowing Iran to use their ports. Check out the link above, Iran is building a naval base their. Kind of how we do all over the world.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I think that Romney actually wound up winning the debate. He made Obama look small in many ways. The Apology tour for example.
That was one of the few parts I saw, and Romney looked bad.
The 'apology tour' and 'looking weak' stuff is GOP propaganda that those who want to believe will lap up.
It makes Romney look bad to most, but good to those who buy into the whole false rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
I would have come out and tried to beat the hell out of Obama ..... but I think that Romney wanted to try and stay close to Obama ... kind of like a rope-a-dope .... and let Obama punch himself out. Obama was clearly frustrated, and took several cheap shots.
As far as my ships question ..... are aircraft carriers that Marines utilize considered Navy ships, or Marine ships? The ships themselves. Are they Navy, or do they belong to different branches of the military? In other words, are there aircraft carriers that are specifically part of the Marines, or do Marines use Navy aircraft carriers?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Well, I feel your pain, because I am not a huge Romney fan. However, I do feel somewhat better about him than I was months ago. If he wins, then you can ask me, a year or 2 in, if I feel that he has done a good job, and I'll look at stuff like jobs, domestic energy production, our position in the world, military and other conflicts, taxes, and the budget structure for me answer.
I see what Romney's strategy tonight was. He wasn't going to give the Obama campaign some huge gaffe to exploit in a campaign ad, so he was very careful, and very measured. I also do think that he frustrated Obama to no end in this debate. You could tell, just looking at Obama's face, that he really wanted to attack .... and Romney never really gave him an opening. I would have tried to attack Obama, because I feel that he has left major areas that can be attacked .... but in the end, this election will be about the economy. That's where people will make their decision.
I doubt that Obama changed anyone's mind ..... and to be fair, he had the much, much harder position to work from. people already know what Obama is, and what he will do. Most of the undecided voters are probably trying to decide between voting for Romney, or staying home. I doubt that Obama could do much to bring those voters to him unless Romney really screwed up. Romney didn't give him that opening.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
I would have come out and tried to beat the hell out of Obama ..... but I think that Romney wanted to try and stay close to Obama ... kind of like a rope-a-dope .... and let Obama punch himself out. Obama was clearly frustrated, and took several cheap shots.
As far as my ships question ..... are aircraft carriers that Marines utilize considered Navy ships, or Marine ships? The ships themselves. Are they Navy, or do they belong to different branches of the military? In other words, are there aircraft carriers that are specifically part of the Marines, or do Marines use Navy aircraft carriers?
They are Navy ships. No way in hell the government is going to intrust ships to a bunch of Jar Heads
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
As happens with many things ...... they take on a life of their own.
CNN post debate poll has 60% saying that Romney can handle being Commander in Chief. I thought that I saw 63% for Obama.
If that's the case, then that is horrible for Obama, because foreign policy was his last real advantage, outside of "likability".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Now my only remaining question is this ..... do we see a "Wag the dog" moment, where Obama approves a strike against someone we believe was responsible for the Libyan attacks the day before the election?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
I would have come out and tried to beat the hell out of Obama ..... but I think that Romney wanted to try and stay close to Obama ... kind of like a rope-a-dope .... and let Obama punch himself out. Obama was clearly frustrated, and took several cheap shots.
As far as my ships question ..... are aircraft carriers that Marines utilize considered Navy ships, or Marine ships? The ships themselves. Are they Navy, or do they belong to different branches of the military? In other words, are there aircraft carriers that are specifically part of the Marines, or do Marines use Navy aircraft carriers?
no offense YT but that question would get you beat up in many bars anuwhere a Naval installation. A lot of Navy guys would tell you that the Marines arent even a branch to themselves but they are a branch of the Navy
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Well, Obama said that the Navy didn;t need ships because we have aircraft carriers ... which would seem to be ships to me. That's why I asked the question .... I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some nuanced answer hidden in there. This is what the President said, exactly quoted: "But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You -- you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets -- (laughter) -- because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."We have fewer ships because we have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines ......?  That answer made no sense whatsoever to me. That's why I asked if those ships were Navy ships, or if another branch of the military also has carriers. I simply did not know, and I know that there are several Navy veterans on the boards.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
He was saying that modern technology has allowed us to have one ship that would do the job of many ships in 1916, in response to Romney saying we have the least amount of ships since 1916.
The ways of war has changed, the days of who produces the most tanks,Jeeps, and boats is over. Technology is what matters now. Military advisors have said we need a smaller faster army. Cutting edge technology.
Or we need " a big freakin laser"
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
I am no expert, but I would think that the opposite would be true. I would think that more, quicker, and smaller aircraft carriers would take the place of some destroyers.I don't see us getting into great sea battles with anyone. I do think that we need this Naval power in most military actions we take, especially in areas like the Middle East, where we have access by water that allow us to station carriers and such instead of needing ground bases for air power in the area. We need destroyers to launch missile attacks when necessary. We need carriers to utilize air power quickly.
To me, it seems like more is a better solution than fewer ..... but that is layman's opinion.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
I think the point is we can do more with less because of technology.
Just an example. Drone technology has developed greatly. In order to drop a bomb old school you would have 50 crew involved to transport,prep, fuel, launch a plane, drop a bomb(s) land the plane and store it.
With a drone, one person can roll it out onto runway, and some guy with a PS3 controller in Colo. Will fly the mission and drop the bomb
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
He was saying that modern technology has allowed us to have one ship that would do the job of many ships in 1916, in response to Romney saying we have the least amount of ships since 1916.
The ways of war has changed, the days of who produces the most tanks,Jeeps, and boats is over. Technology is what matters now. Military advisors have said we need a smaller faster army. Cutting edge technology.
Or we need " a big freakin laser"
Except we are talking about the Navy. I have no idea how many ships we have currently. I can tell you what I learned during the time I was in the service.
The whole purpose for aircraft carriers is to project strength and get more firepower closer to conflicts. Along with aircraft carriers you do need quite a few support ships, supply ships, subs, cruisers and destroyers. We also need to have enough transport and landing craft which are carried by assault ships to bring the Marines to the conflict area since they are the ones who secure a beachhead where a ground assault is needed. In order to keep a presence around the world there is a need for multiple fleets. In those fleets you need to have multiple carrier groups, I believe we have at least 3 on station at any given time. You also need to have enough carrier groups (I believe it would be two for three on station) as well as ships to take place the place for ships that are either in drydock for scheduled refit or ones for ships that might need repairs due to damage. If we choose to get rid of some of the boomers (Ohio Class subs, nothing more than a nuclear missile platform) you will lose our front line deterrent for nuclear war.
During the Regan administration we had a 300 ship navy. There is no longer a need for that many. However, if we shrink the navy too much we are going to spread the fleets too thin, causing longer tours at sea (6 months was the standard Med cruise) which in my opinion reduces readiness. I believe recently some of the cruises were for over a year.
The biggest problem we have in the military is shrinking the amount of active duty. Someone decided that we can use a large reserve force to call up if needed. How's that working out for us? The old way of thinking was to have enough troops to fight a two front war. Obviously that has changed.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,871
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,871 |
Quote:
To me, it seems like more is a better solution than fewer ..... but that is layman's opinion.
yt...no, more is not better...more effective is better !
That is what has lead to the decline in the number of ships in the Navy...we now are able to produce more fire power with less, because the effectiveness of less is more than it was when we had more.
We are seeing the same transition in the USAF...less in mass numbers but far more effective in accuracy and ordinance delivered on target. In the fight against terrorism, where we need to target individuals and groups, not armies. The unmanned drone is the perfect platform to take those targets out.
Fact is, we did not need to start a war in Iraq to get Saddam...we just needed a CIC with the courage to give the CIA and our black ops forces the green light to take him out.
Hopefully, fighting WWII type wars will be a thing of the past now that Iraq is behind us and the war in Afghanistan will soon be behind us.
Less in numbers does not equal less effective due to the modernization and improvements of our weapons systems.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Yep. With our currency worth less and less, foreign currency buys quite a bit more than it used to.
And therein lies a good deal of Obama's problem with voters. With our devalued currency, our exports should be booming. They aren't. We're continuing to import more (especially from China) than we export. We continue to have trade deficits, even with a weaker currency. The combination is disastrous and we're experiencing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Back to the Navy question: China is modernizing their Navy, replacing older ships, and also adding subs in fairly large numbers. Do we not have to keep pace? I know that we have a lot of older ships in our fleet.
I do think that China needs us desperately right now to maintain their growth. If anything happened to us, they would lose their biggest customer. I really don't know the answer one way or the other with absolute certainty. I would think that we need subs galore, because they can go places and do things that larger ships cannot. I would think that smaller, quicker carrier groups would be more useful than larger destroyers. I don't think that our Navy would be used in ship to ship battles these days. I do think that drones are great, but I do think that we need to be able to move around air power quickly. I don't know if drones can do even half what air force jets can do. However, it does seem like we will be involved in fewer state based engagements going into the future ..... however all it takes is some whack grabbing the keys to Pakistan's arsenal .........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213 |
Quote:
Quote:
Marines board air craft carriers too. Is that what you want to know?
No, are aircraft carriers considered Navy, Air Force? Marines? I thought that they were Navy ... which would be a counter argument to what Obama himself argued in the same comment.
They are Navy.
What Obama fails to take into account is that every one of those carriers, when deployed, requires a support and screening force... frigates, supply ships, oilers, DDG's, subs, etc.... you do NOT let those things leave port alone.
Then, there are the LHA's, LHD's, and LPH's - Amphibious Assault Ships. They deploy with a bunch of Marines, helo's and Harriers aboard and typically form the heart of their own deployment groups, also needing support and escort vessels.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213 |
Quote:
Back to the Navy question: China is modernizing their Navy, replacing older ships, and also adding subs in fairly large numbers. Do we not have to keep pace? I know that we have a lot of older ships in our fleet.
I do think that China needs us desperately right now to maintain their growth. If anything happened to us, they would lose their biggest customer. I really don't know the answer one way or the other with absolute certainty. I would think that we need subs galore, because they can go places and do things that larger ships cannot. I would think that smaller, quicker carrier groups would be more useful than larger destroyers. I don't think that our Navy would be used in ship to ship battles these days. I do think that drones are great, but I do think that we need to be able to move around air power quickly. I don't know if drones can do even half what air force jets can do. However, it does seem like we will be involved in fewer state based engagements going into the future ..... however all it takes is some whack grabbing the keys to Pakistan's arsenal .........
We are constantly upgrading our fleet.
Unfortunately, we are also constantly down-sizing it. That's life in the post Cold War world.
Thankfully, we maintain a large mothball fleet, so in the event of a MAJOR war, we have a TON of ships that we could bring back online in a short time.... of course, that would take a couple of months to do (don't believe the movie Battleship, you CANNOT get a mothballed museum ship underway in one day just by cutting some chains).
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
Fact is, we did not need to start a war in Iraq to get Saddam...we just needed a CIC with the courage to give the CIA and our black ops forces the green light to take him out.
So you are saying that a president should break the law?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Yeah, not sure how this "apology tour" thing is still getting time in debates:
Probably the same way I see ads every day showing pictures of senior citizens and telling how Romney wants to cut all of their benefits and put them on a voucher system, when that isn't even close to what he wants to do. Keep repeating the lies enough and those who want to, will believe them... then they will help you repeat them.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,611
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,611 |
God I wish we had a third party candidate. Obama isn't a good president, Romney might be one of the worst candidates to run that I've ever seen. It's a lose lose.
In other news, Romney sure is going to have a busy first day. He has to have at least 50 things that he's going to change "On Day 1". I'm so sick of hearing that because it is never going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
God I wish we had a third party candidate. Obama isn't a good president, Romney might be one of the worst candidates to run that I've ever seen. It's a lose lose.
In other news, Romney sure is going to have a busy first day. He has to have at least 50 things that he's going to change "On Day 1". I'm so sick of hearing that because it is never going to happen.
You have Independents: Stewart Alexander or Stephen Rollins as well.  
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,611
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,611 |
Let me change that to a third party candidate that might actually have a shot (which I know would never happen anyways).  Ron Paul had a far better shot then they do. Off topic, If Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan ran together, they would be the Paul/Ryan ticket. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642 |
Quote:
Let me change that to a third party candidate that might actually have a shot (which I know would never happen anyways). Ron Paul had a far better shot then they do.
I blame that on Ross Perot. He was making some serious noise in that race. Then, he dropped out etc. He needed to just stay in the race. Had he done that, he would have garnered a nice percentage of votes. I don't think he would have won, but he would have made some big waves. Basically, he would have paved the way for future 3rd party candidates.
And we sure could use a legit 3rd party candidate RIGHT NOW!
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg) #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Let me change that to a third party candidate that might actually have a shot
This has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everybody wants some mythical 3rd party guy to appear that has a shot but nobody wants to donate and follow one until he has a shot.. therefore they rise up and quickly flame out due to lack of funding and support.
The other problem is that many people want a 3rd party but they all want that 3rd party to be something different, it's not like there is a consensus of people in what they want in a 3rd party candidate...
The ones that get me are the ones that want a 3rd party candidate that is some middle of the road moderate... there are already 2 guys running to meet that need. Pick one. I'd like to see a true conservative run.. hell I'd like to see a true liberal run just so we could see what one looks like.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,692
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,692 |
Quote:
Back to the Navy question: China is modernizing their Navy, replacing older ships, and also adding subs in fairly large numbers. Do we not have to keep pace? I know that we have a lot of older ships in our fleet.
I do think that China needs us desperately right now to maintain their growth. If anything happened to us, they would lose their biggest customer. I really don't know the answer one way or the other with absolute certainty. I would think that we need subs galore, because they can go places and do things that larger ships cannot. I would think that smaller, quicker carrier groups would be more useful than larger destroyers. I don't think that our Navy would be used in ship to ship battles these days. I do think that drones are great, but I do think that we need to be able to move around air power quickly. I don't know if drones can do even half what air force jets can do. However, it does seem like we will be involved in fewer state based engagements going into the future ..... however all it takes is some whack grabbing the keys to Pakistan's arsenal .........
Dude, China has one aircraft carrier, bought second hand from the Ukraine, an old USSR ship.
We have more military firepower than the rest of the world combined. Consider that many in that group our allies... it makes you wonder.
China spends its money on its economy.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
China spends its money on OUR economy.
Fixed it. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
This aircraft carrier thing is ridiculous: Here's a list of the largest aircraft carriers in the world: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/special/2011-08/05/c_131032004.htmNote the slight, um, tilt (that is, all 10 of them are US) Another site listing the top 5 for verification (again, all 5 are US): http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/mari...s-in-the-world/China has one aircraft carrier: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/china-aircraft-carrierAlso, note the subheadline there. The US has two more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined --- we also have the biggest aircraft carriers. Here is a fun quote from the article: Quote:
While the vessel is set for sea trials later this year, the Chinese still have to master its use, including learning how to launch and recover jets, which should take them several more years to accomplish......The United States currently has 11 carriers, all Nimitz class boats, with three new carriers currently in production, all of which are new Ford class super-carriers. Of the three, the keel of one has been laid, one has been cut, and the third is slated for production and expected in 2023.
Here is the global breakdown in aircraft carriers (previous to china):
Quote:
United States: 11 carriers
• Russia: 1 carrier
• France: 1 carrier
• Italy: 2 carriers
• India: 1 carrier
• Brazil: 1 carrier
• Netherlands: 1 carrier
• Thailand: 1 carrier
• United Kingdom: 1 carrier
So the US/NATO have 16, the rest of the world has 4 (now 5 with China). Of those other countries, I would consider Brazil, Thailand and India to be allies.
Maybe someday we'll actually have a candidate who will note that our military is unnecessarily big?
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 10/23/12 01:00 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
China spends its money on OUR economy.
Fixed it.
Fun sidenote: Japan will soon have more money invested in US debt than China:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10...ot-s-dot-lender
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Well it's pretty clear from your posts that you hate America and you probably even hate the troops.
[/purple]
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,582
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,582 |
Quote:
I would have come out and tried to beat the hell out of Obama ..... but I think that Romney wanted to try and stay close to Obama ... kind of like a rope-a-dope .... and let Obama punch himself out. Obama was clearly frustrated, and took several cheap shots.
As far as my ships question ..... are aircraft carriers that Marines utilize considered Navy ships, or Marine ships? The ships themselves. Are they Navy, or do they belong to different branches of the military? In other words, are there aircraft carriers that are specifically part of the Marines, or do Marines use Navy aircraft carriers?
Just to clarify - aircraft carriers as well as other naval ships contain marines. Marines were originally the pelee force aboard the ships who would invade other ships or leave the ships to do land-based invasions.
One can actually argue the marines themselves are under the Navy though. When you graduate from the Naval Academy, you have your choice to become a saijor or a marine. Also, both branches report to the Secretary of the Navy.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would have come out and tried to beat the hell out of Obama ..... but I think that Romney wanted to try and stay close to Obama ... kind of like a rope-a-dope .... and let Obama punch himself out. Obama was clearly frustrated, and took several cheap shots.
As far as my ships question ..... are aircraft carriers that Marines utilize considered Navy ships, or Marine ships? The ships themselves. Are they Navy, or do they belong to different branches of the military? In other words, are there aircraft carriers that are specifically part of the Marines, or do Marines use Navy aircraft carriers?
Just to clarify - aircraft carriers as well as other naval ships contain marines. Marines were originally the pelee force aboard the ships who would invade other ships or leave the ships to do land-based invasions.
One can actually argue the marines themselves are under the Navy though. When you graduate from the Naval Academy, you have your choice to become a sailor or a marine. Also, both branches report to the Secretary of the Navy.
Thanks for the information. That really does help clear some things up for me.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213 |
I don't know how good the information is in those sites, but the one true source that I'd trust is, unfortunately, a pay service - Jane's Fighting Ships.
Now, granted it has been a LONG time since I've looked at a copy of Jane's, but I'm pretty sure that India used to have at least 2 carriers (though I have a nagging thought that they at one time, at least, had four).... and I *really* thought Britain had more, though I could see where they have scaled back true carriers for more Amphib Assault types toting Harriers.
p.s. the largest carrier there - the T.R. - I've landed at her stern dock in a 40' boat (in 20' seas, no less)... that is one H U G E vessel.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
This aircraft carrier thing is ridiculous:
Here's a list of the largest aircraft carriers in the world:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/special/2011-08/05/c_131032004.htm
Note the slight, um, tilt (that is, all 10 of them are US) Another site listing the top 5 for verification (again, all 5 are US):
http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/mari...s-in-the-world/
China has one aircraft carrier:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/china-aircraft-carrier
Also, note the subheadline there. The US has two more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined --- we also have the biggest aircraft carriers.
Here is a fun quote from the article:
Quote:
While the vessel is set for sea trials later this year, the Chinese still have to master its use, including learning how to launch and recover jets, which should take them several more years to accomplish......The United States currently has 11 carriers, all Nimitz class boats, with three new carriers currently in production, all of which are new Ford class super-carriers. Of the three, the keel of one has been laid, one has been cut, and the third is slated for production and expected in 2023.
Here is the global breakdown in aircraft carriers (previous to china):
Quote:
United States: 11 carriers
• Russia: 1 carrier
• France: 1 carrier
• Italy: 2 carriers
• India: 1 carrier
• Brazil: 1 carrier
• Netherlands: 1 carrier
• Thailand: 1 carrier
• United Kingdom: 1 carrier
So the US/NATO have 16, the rest of the world has 4 (now 5 with China). Of those other countries, I would consider Brazil, Thailand and India to be allies.
Maybe someday we'll actually have a candidate who will note that our military is unnecessarily big?
Maybe someday you will realize the role our navy plays in our overall defense strategy of the US compared to all of the other countries.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,582
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,582 |
On a side note, did any of you see the new destroyer being developed?
I'm done derailing the thread after this.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213 |
Quote:
One can actually argue the marines themselves are under the Navy though.
No, you can't argue it... they ARE under the Department of the Navy.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,213 |
Quote:
On a side note, did any of you see the new destroyer being developed?
I'm done derailing the thread after this.
What's the class name?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
Quote:
Quote:
One can actually argue the marines themselves are under the Navy though.
No, you can't argue it... they ARE under the Department of the Navy.
As a recruiter said once when I asked about that... "Yeah. The Men's department!"
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidental Debate Part 2.
|
|
![[Linked Image from img.photobucket.com]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/Concor1033/NEWDTsig.jpg)
