CDZ Can You Answer These Questions?

[Picaro]

One example of being able to support an ally is the growing conflicts in Thailand and Malaysia will sooner or later require some sort of moderating intervention.

 

[yiostheoy]

This entire exchange has been interesting, however, did the original question asked by the OP get answered? The one about are 12 twelve Navy boats really needed or will 11 make do? The closest I ever came to a genuine Navy boat was an oil exploration ship converted to troop carrier, tho a small one, named the USNS Upsur which commuted between the NYC Navy Yard and Bremerhaven, Germany. What a treat that was!

CV-64 USS Constellation was my boat.

She was actually called a ship, but when you are a Marine you call everything in the Navy a boat.

 

[Picaro]

This entire exchange has been interesting, however, did the original question asked by the OP get answered? The one about are 12 twelve Navy boats really needed or will 11 make do? The closest I ever came to a genuine Navy boat was an oil exploration ship converted to troop carrier, tho a small one, named the USNS Upsur which commuted between the NYC Navy Yard and Bremerhaven, Germany. What a treat that was!

CV-64 USS Constellation was my boat.

She was actually called a ship, but when you are a Marine you call everything a boat.

One of the things that confuse many is indeed the terminology. when Jimmy Carter brought out the '600 ship Navy' many thought port tugs and the like counted as 'ships'; they really didn't grasp how many that actually is and the scale.

 

[yiostheoy]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

OT:
FWIW, your sister may be trying to give you input that you can use to help you avoid embarrassing yourself before people who are intelligent. That said, I can't speak to what be your sister's reasoning; it could have nothing to do with altruistic feelings toward you.

Your sister's reason(s) notwithstanding, arguments that blame the victim suffer either from the fallacy(s) of circular reasoning (specifically, petitio principii) or denying the antecedent. Occasionally, victim blaming arguments are structured as strawmen arguments. It may also be that as a woman, your sister is aware that victim blaming is (was) the common defense of rapists. The strawman form is often used by "assailants" who erroneously thought their victim was "unprepared" in some way, shape or form.

Regardless of your sibling's reason for "getting on" you for blaming the victim, the fact is that though it may be factually so that a victim "lost the battle," the blame for starting the battle never lies with the victim.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This entire exchange has been interesting, however, did the original question asked by the OP get answered? The one about are 12 twelve Navy boats really needed or will 11 make do? The closest I ever came to a genuine Navy boat was an oil exploration ship converted to troop carrier, tho a small one, named the USNS Upsur which commuted between the NYC Navy Yard and Bremerhaven, Germany. What a treat that was!

CV-64 USS Constellation was my boat.

She was actually called a ship, but when you are a Marine you call everything a boat.

One of the things that confuse many is indeed the terminology. when Jimmy Carter brought out the '600 ship Navy' many thought port tugs and the like counted as 'ships'; they really didn't grasp how many that actually is and the scale.

Um......hate to tell you Picaro, but the 600 ship Navy was a Reagan deal. Carter never called for something like that, it was all Reagan. I know, because when Reagan called for the new ships, he neglected to increase recruiting quotas and it resulted in ships heading out for deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning.

600-ship Navy - Wikipedia

The 600-Ship Navy was a strategic plan of the United States Navy during the 1980s to rebuild its fleet after cutbacks that followed the end of the Vietnam War. The plan, which originated with Republican leaders, was an important campaign plank of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election, who advocated a larger military and strategic confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The actual number of ships peaked at 594 in 1987, before declining sharply after the end of the Cold War in 1989-1991.[1]

 

[Dekster]

Well off hand sometimes issues crop up in different places at the same time. Carriers are protected with planes among other things so I'm not so sure they are easy to knock out. But I don't run the Navy so don't have all the low down. Semper Paratus.

There is growing concern about Supercavitation Technology both in the world of torpedoes and, apparently, China is working toward a sub that uses the technology.

I'll check wikileaks and get back to you.

Strange source, but ok.

 

[Picaro]

Um......hate to tell you Picaro, but the 600 ship Navy was a Reagan deal. Carter never called for something like that, it was all Reagan. I know, because when Reagan called for the new ships, he neglected to increase recruiting quotas and it resulted in ships heading out for deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning.

Hate to tell you, but it was a Carter proposal, and the decline in viable ships was because most of the fleet at the time was barely newer than WW II vessels and a drastic updating and modernization program was needed. Carter called for replacing old ships with high maintenance costs with newer smaller ships and carriers, and more of them, as those were seen as more useful and flexible in the face of the Soviet decline and bankruptcy in 1973 and the loss of it's satellites in the ME and Africa and to maintain the strength of the SEATO alliance in Asia. Congress and the Senate both fought against it, including many House Republicans. Carter was finally able to push through a spending increase for 1981

Debate About Naval Strength
Shaping the Future Navy; Election-Year Issue

The united states navy, neglected during and immediately after the Vietnam War, is embarked on a rebuilding program that will determine the shape of the American fleet for the rest of the century and beyond. It is hardly surprising that the Navy—its size, its strength vis-a-vis the Russian fleet and its ability to protect American interests abroad—has become an issue in the 1976 presidential campaign. Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a former submarine officer, told New Jersey voters on June 5 that he favored “an aggressive shipbuilding program with concentration on quality and mobility” to counter a Soviet naval buildup.

Navy Rebuilding

Reagan scuttled the newer smaller strategy and amused himself with pork projects like gold plating three old obsolete WW II battleships at a cost of billions the Navy had already moth-balled along with a couple hundred other old relics and didn't want, and in any case Republicans came along and slashed the military budgets, especially under Cheney''s reign. Even huge pork barrel fans like Gingrich were appalled at the cuts at the time. It's just GOP and military propaganda that Carter 'ruined the military' under his term, just as the glorification of Saint Ronald is.

 

[oldsoul]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

 

[oldsoul]

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

• Step 2? What do you think step 2 is? Let's see, history tells us that step 2 is the devastation of any opposition. Hummm, let's see, many on the left(even some on the right), right here in the U.S. seem quite intent on "eliminating" any opposition.
• Would be conqueror? That would seem to imply a force from without, and yet the four examples given were all "conquerors" from "within". Sure Hitler was Austrian by birth, yet rose to power within Germany.
• Invader? Who said anything about an invader? All four used forces within their respective governments, largely using small arms. With the exception of occurrences such as Tiananmen Square.

What the 2nd amendment is about, more than anything else, is defending against "conquerors" from within. However, as shown during our own "Civil" War, a people who are well armed as private citizens, defending their own lands, are a formidable force, even when out gunned, out manned, and out supplied. Therefore, a nation of ~360 million, possessing 270 million - 310 million guns (according to Pew Research) would, indeed, be a formidable force. One that any "would be conqueror" (whether foreign or domestic) would be hard pressed to defeat, even with the largest, best equipped, best trained force the world has ever seen (currently that would be China with ~2.3 million, and second would be the U.S. with ~1.5 million). Pit BOTH of those forces against even half of the people and guns in the U.S. and I'll place my money on the citizens of this country every day.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

Maybe you better look right now, for the quiet invasion that has been happening for over 50 years now. Notice when you go by a 7-11 how many illegals are hanging out there looking for work under the table? Notice how much our national debt has increased because of the illegals and their anchor babies sucking up welfare programs. IT is all out war, between those that want the US to collapse, and those that want to save US.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[usmbguest5318]

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

• Step 2? What do you think step 2 is? Let's see, history tells us that step 2 is the devastation of any opposition. Hummm, let's see, many on the left(even some on the right), right here in the U.S. seem quite intent on "eliminating" any opposition.
• Would be conqueror? That would seem to imply a force from without, and yet the four examples given were all "conquerors" from "within". Sure Hitler was Austrian by birth, yet rose to power within Germany.
• Invader? Who said anything about an invader? All four used forces within their respective governments, largely using small arms. With the exception of occurrences such as Tiananmen Square.

What the 2nd amendment is about, more than anything else, is defending against "conquerors" from within. However, as shown during our own "Civil" War, a people who are well armed as private citizens, defending their own lands, are a formidable force, even when out gunned, out manned, and out supplied. Therefore, a nation of ~360 million, possessing 270 million - 310 million guns (according to Pew Research) would, indeed, be a formidable force. One that any "would be conqueror" (whether foreign or domestic) would be hard pressed to defeat, even with the largest, best equipped, best trained force the world has ever seen (currently that would be China with ~2.3 million, and second would be the U.S. with ~1.5 million). Pit BOTH of those forces against even half of the people and guns in the U.S. and I'll place my money on the citizens of this country every day.

You go with that....

Okay.......you just keep thinking that and your "step 1" from before has something to do with the actual thread topic, which, you will recall, is about justification the for U.S. Navy's "aircraft carrier" strategy. Let me assure you, however, that there are no individuals armed with an aircraft carrier, no matter what the 2nd Amendment will or won't allow.

 

[westwall]

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

• Step 2? What do you think step 2 is? Let's see, history tells us that step 2 is the devastation of any opposition. Hummm, let's see, many on the left(even some on the right), right here in the U.S. seem quite intent on "eliminating" any opposition.
• Would be conqueror? That would seem to imply a force from without, and yet the four examples given were all "conquerors" from "within". Sure Hitler was Austrian by birth, yet rose to power within Germany.
• Invader? Who said anything about an invader? All four used forces within their respective governments, largely using small arms. With the exception of occurrences such as Tiananmen Square.

What the 2nd amendment is about, more than anything else, is defending against "conquerors" from within. However, as shown during our own "Civil" War, a people who are well armed as private citizens, defending their own lands, are a formidable force, even when out gunned, out manned, and out supplied. Therefore, a nation of ~360 million, possessing 270 million - 310 million guns (according to Pew Research) would, indeed, be a formidable force. One that any "would be conqueror" (whether foreign or domestic) would be hard pressed to defeat, even with the largest, best equipped, best trained force the world has ever seen (currently that would be China with ~2.3 million, and second would be the U.S. with ~1.5 million). Pit BOTH of those forces against even half of the people and guns in the U.S. and I'll place my money on the citizens of this country every day.

You go with that....

Okay.......you just keep thinking that and your "step 1" from before has something to do with the actual thread topic, which, you will recall, is about justification the for U.S. Navy's "aircraft carrier" strategy. Let me assure you, however, that there are no individuals armed with an aircraft carrier, no matter what the 2nd Amendment will or won't allow.

As the foreign policy of the US now stands the USN's aircraft carrier strategy is appropriate. Change the foreign policy and the requirements would change. Why do you refrain from addressing the root cause of the Navy's strategy?

 

[oldsoul]

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

• Step 2? What do you think step 2 is? Let's see, history tells us that step 2 is the devastation of any opposition. Hummm, let's see, many on the left(even some on the right), right here in the U.S. seem quite intent on "eliminating" any opposition.
• Would be conqueror? That would seem to imply a force from without, and yet the four examples given were all "conquerors" from "within". Sure Hitler was Austrian by birth, yet rose to power within Germany.
• Invader? Who said anything about an invader? All four used forces within their respective governments, largely using small arms. With the exception of occurrences such as Tiananmen Square.

What the 2nd amendment is about, more than anything else, is defending against "conquerors" from within. However, as shown during our own "Civil" War, a people who are well armed as private citizens, defending their own lands, are a formidable force, even when out gunned, out manned, and out supplied. Therefore, a nation of ~360 million, possessing 270 million - 310 million guns (according to Pew Research) would, indeed, be a formidable force. One that any "would be conqueror" (whether foreign or domestic) would be hard pressed to defeat, even with the largest, best equipped, best trained force the world has ever seen (currently that would be China with ~2.3 million, and second would be the U.S. with ~1.5 million). Pit BOTH of those forces against even half of the people and guns in the U.S. and I'll place my money on the citizens of this country every day.

You go with that....

Okay.......you just keep thinking that and your "step 1" from before has something to do with the actual thread topic, which, you will recall, is about justification the for U.S. Navy's "aircraft carrier" strategy. Let me assure you, however, that there are no individuals armed with an aircraft carrier, no matter what the 2nd Amendment will or won't allow.

Truthfully, it does not. It was in direct response to another post. However, it does, actually, go to the core issue here, as I see it. The best defense is a strong offense, or at least the capability thereof. Do you dispute this?

It would be wonderful if we did not need a military at all. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. Therefore, I wish to have the best equipped, best trained and strongest fighting force in the world. To do this we must have the strongest, biggest and best Navy. Hence, my support thereof. Do we need additional aircraft carriers? I have not the expertise to answer that, however, it would seem that, at least, some who do, think that we do need them. Do you disagree with them?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Oldsoul, they can build as many ships as there is money for, but the large question is, how are they going to increase the manning requirements for the various services? Most people are soured on military service because we've been at war for the past 15 years, so how do we man the increase of the military?

Are we going to have to institute another draft?

 

[westwall]

Hey Oldsoul, they can build as many ships as there is money for, but the large question is, how are they going to increase the manning requirements for the various services? Most people are soured on military service because we've been at war for the past 15 years, so how do we man the increase of the military?

Are we going to have to institute another draft?

If trump does what he says then there will be a marked decrease in foreign entanglements. The continuous deployments and draw down of the military under obummer will be gone, and the soldiers and sailors who remain won't be ground into the dirt like the obummer admin wanted them to be get them to leave.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My sister (bless her) is always getting on me for blaming the victim.

My cause for blaming the victim is because normally victims became victims because they were unprepared.

If the Jews Of Europe in 1938 each had a Luger and a Mauser of their own, with plenty of ammo (you need several hundred rounds because in one firefight you can easily blow off 100 rounds fast) then they could have stood-off the Nazi SS.

A fully armed populace is impossible to defeat with an army because the populace numbers in the millions and the populace controls the chain of supply such as food, fresh water, medicine and bandages, fuel, and ammo. The battles of Stalingrad and Moscow are the classic examples -- the Russians fought bravely and held off the Nazi's until God and winter could do their part.

The Jews Of Europe were disarmed and unprepared.

The same as the b!tch R.B. Ginsberg on the SCOTUS wants to disarm us in the USA now.

View attachment 116756
Couldn't have said it better myself. The four above said it best.

• Be that as it may, what is "step 2?"
• Just how far do you think any would be conquerer of the U.S. is going to get past "step 1," assuming that is even accomplished?
• Just what do you presume an conquering invader of the U .S. is going to assuming they even reach our shores....march their way through the nation while bearing noting but small arms?

• Step 2? What do you think step 2 is? Let's see, history tells us that step 2 is the devastation of any opposition. Hummm, let's see, many on the left(even some on the right), right here in the U.S. seem quite intent on "eliminating" any opposition.
• Would be conqueror? That would seem to imply a force from without, and yet the four examples given were all "conquerors" from "within". Sure Hitler was Austrian by birth, yet rose to power within Germany.
• Invader? Who said anything about an invader? All four used forces within their respective governments, largely using small arms. With the exception of occurrences such as Tiananmen Square.

What the 2nd amendment is about, more than anything else, is defending against "conquerors" from within. However, as shown during our own "Civil" War, a people who are well armed as private citizens, defending their own lands, are a formidable force, even when out gunned, out manned, and out supplied. Therefore, a nation of ~360 million, possessing 270 million - 310 million guns (according to Pew Research) would, indeed, be a formidable force. One that any "would be conqueror" (whether foreign or domestic) would be hard pressed to defeat, even with the largest, best equipped, best trained force the world has ever seen (currently that would be China with ~2.3 million, and second would be the U.S. with ~1.5 million). Pit BOTH of those forces against even half of the people and guns in the U.S. and I'll place my money on the citizens of this country every day.

You go with that....

Okay.......you just keep thinking that and your "step 1" from before has something to do with the actual thread topic, which, you will recall, is about justification the for U.S. Navy's "aircraft carrier" strategy. Let me assure you, however, that there are no individuals armed with an aircraft carrier, no matter what the 2nd Amendment will or won't allow.

Truthfully, it does not. It was in direct response to another post. However, it does, actually, go to the core issue here, as I see it. The best defense is a strong offense, or at least the capability thereof. Do you dispute this?

It would be wonderful if we did not need a military at all. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. Therefore, I wish to have the best equipped, best trained and strongest fighting force in the world. To do this we must have the strongest, biggest and best Navy. Hence, my support thereof. Do we need additional aircraft carriers? I have not the expertise to answer that, however, it would seem that, at least, some who do, think that we do need them. Do you disagree with them?

Truthfully, it does not. It was in direct response to another post. However, it does, actually, go to the core issue here, as I see it. The best defense is a strong offense, or at least the capability thereof. Do you dispute this?

I don't agree that's the core issue for if it were, the topic of discussion would need to cover the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, economics. technology, and diplomacy as an integrated system all focused on establishing U.S. national security Clearly the scope of the conversation is not that broad. So while that may be an issue to discuss, it's not the issue this thread attempted to take on.

As for whether the U.S. is sufficiently enabled to defend itself against all comers, it already is -- via physical strength as well as by having insinuated itself into the world economy such that the U.S.' demise will bring down any and all it's trading partners. Quite simply, it's not in any major nation's interests to see the diminishment of the U.S.

That overall state of affairs may come to pass when China and India reach the point where they are able to fully avail themselves of their overwhelmingly larger population numbers; however, with the rapidly increasing supremacy of technology over base human labor, that can only come about if/when those nations educate their populations to a greater or equal level as does the U.S. Right now, the U.S. dominates the world in intellectual capital and that compliments the rise of automation technology by minimizing the usefulness of human capital in every sector -- military, commerce and industry, agriculture, education, etc.

It would be wonderful if we did not need a military at all. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

The U.S. dominates the world in military might can capability. That's fine with me. Even so, I recognize too that no nation has any designs on invading the U.S. As I noted earlier, the only militaristic conflicts the U.S. is going to encounter in the foreseeable future are highly asymmetric ones, even among the most closely ranked potential opponents.

 

[Picaro]

As for whether the U.S. is sufficiently enabled to defend itself against all comers, it already is -- via physical strength as well as by having insinuated itself into the world economy such that the U.S.' demise will bring down any and all it's trading partners. Quite simply, it's not in any major nation's interests to see the diminishment of the U.S.

That overall state of affairs may come to pass when China and India reach the point where they are able to fully avail themselves of their overwhelmingly larger population numbers; however, with the rapidly increasing supremacy of technology over base human labor, that can only come about if/when those nations educate their populations to a greater or equal level as does the U.S. Right now, the U.S. dominates the world in intellectual capital and that compliments the rise of automation technology by minimizing the usefulness of human capital in every sector -- military, commerce and industry, agriculture, education, etc.

It would be wonderful if we did not need a military at all. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

The U.S. dominates the world in military might can capability. That's fine with me. Even so, I recognize too that no nation has any designs on invading the U.S. As I noted earlier, the only militaristic conflicts the U.S. is going to encounter in the foreseeable future are highly asymmetric ones, even among the most closely ranked potential opponents.

The scope is indeed that 'broad', as military planning and strategy depends heavily on combined arms and variety of possible scenarios, and yes, many countries are imperialist and expansionist and highly resent global U.S. policies striving to prevent those from overrunning their weaker neighbors at whim.We mostly rely on bribery and arm-twisting, but that is worthless and ineffective when there is nothing to back it up. It would be much more expensive, risky, and costly to go back to the old isolationist policy.

Your last paragraph assumes we would only be using force in one place at a time, which isn't the case.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Oldsoul, they can build as many ships as there is money for, but the large question is, how are they going to increase the manning requirements for the various services? Most people are soured on military service because we've been at war for the past 15 years, so how do we man the increase of the military?

Are we going to have to institute another draft?

If trump does what he says then there will be a marked decrease in foreign entanglements. The continuous deployments and draw down of the military under obummer will be gone, and the soldiers and sailors who remain won't be ground into the dirt like the obummer admin wanted them to be get them to leave.

Hate to tell ya dude, but if Trump builds 50 or so more ships like he wants to do, they still have to be crewed, regardless of a decrease in foreign entanglements.