Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Again, I do not have the expertise to determine whether or not we even need the extra manpower, let alone how to obtain it should it be so determined.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?
It helped them beat the Carthaginians and other threats to trade. In the end, the Western empire collapsed from within, but the Eastern empire survived.How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?
Agreed. Part of a foreign policy change is to encourage our allies to step up and do their part in defending trade routes and their own defenses. Example, a 1-2 aircraft carrier fleet each by Spain, France and Italy would reduce the need for a US carrier fleet present in the Mediterranean. Same goes for Japan in the Pacific.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?
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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Do you even know anything about the Navy? You said there are no longer continuous deployment and the concurrent disruption of the family life of sailors.
Hate to tell you but that is a totally false statement. ANY sailor that is on sea duty is on an 18 month cycle of training, deployment, shipyard (In that order
If they are on a boomer or missile sub, the deployment is 3 in and 3 out.
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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Do you even know anything about the Navy? You said there are no longer continuous deployment and the concurrent disruption of the family life of sailors.
Hate to tell you but that is a totally false statement. ANY sailor that is on sea duty is on an 18 month cycle of training, deployment, shipyard (In that order
If they are on a boomer or missile sub, the deployment is 3 in and 3 out.
And as obummer drove the people away from the service, those that remained were forced to go on continual deployments.
Deploying Beyond Their Means: The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point
Deploying Beyond Their Means: The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point
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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Do you even know anything about the Navy? You said there are no longer continuous deployment and the concurrent disruption of the family life of sailors.
Hate to tell you but that is a totally false statement. ANY sailor that is on sea duty is on an 18 month cycle of training, deployment, shipyard (In that order
If they are on a boomer or missile sub, the deployment is 3 in and 3 out.
Bush/Cheney started that with the Iraq War. IMO, Reserves are fair to use in such a situation, but the Guard shouldn't be used unless the enemy is on our beaches, crossing our borders or other high level threat against US national security such as WWIII. Occupying foreign villages isn't what they signed up for nor should it be how they are used.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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Do you even know anything about the Navy? You said there are no longer continuous deployment and the concurrent disruption of the family life of sailors.
Hate to tell you but that is a totally false statement. ANY sailor that is on sea duty is on an 18 month cycle of training, deployment, shipyard (In that order
If they are on a boomer or missile sub, the deployment is 3 in and 3 out.
And as obummer drove the people away from the service, those that remained were forced to go on continual deployments.
Deploying Beyond Their Means: The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point
Deploying Beyond Their Means: The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point
Not to mention the Reserve and Guard units left on line and deployed for far, far too long.
Agreed about readiness and speed of deployment.It all comes down to readiness and how quickly we can get carriers to areas of conflict. At any given time, at least a third of our carriers will be in port/drydock and not ready for service
Yes. carriers do require a large task force of ships that serve different missions such as surveillance, communications, anti-submarine, maintenance and supply
Are carriers sitting ducks?
Yes they are to an adversary like China or Russia. They can be taken out by a cruse missile, anti-ship missile or modern torpedo
But we have not been in that type of conflict for 70 years and are unlikely to get in one in the near future
AbsolutelyUS Navy has 37% of the naval power in the World.
It needs to have a 100% naval power in the World. View attachment 115705
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.
Yes, but the crew size has gone down with every new design. Add to that the no longer continuous deployments and the concurrent disruption of the family life of the sailors, and you will have greater retention, and better recruiting. obummer destroyed the morale of the military. The trumpster is restoring it.
Do you even know anything about the Navy? You said there are no longer continuous deployment and the concurrent disruption of the family life of sailors.
Hate to tell you but that is a totally false statement. ANY sailor that is on sea duty is on an 18 month cycle of training, deployment, shipyard (In that order
If they are on a boomer or missile sub, the deployment is 3 in and 3 out.
With good pay and advancement opportunities, good men will be found to man the ships. Especially with today's crummy job opportunities. We used to stay out 30 to 60 days at a time in the South China Sea, after the Tonkin Gulf incident, and re enlist bonuses for an e-4 or e-5 was $10k for some rate classifications back in 1966 - 67. That would have bought a decent house in San Diego back in 1967. It was almost enough to make me ship over for six years. Almost, but not enough.
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.Your argument is specious at best.
I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.
To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.
- OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."
(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)
Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.
As I said, your argument is specious.
You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:
The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.
- The countries exist as sovereign nations.
- They are defended.
- They do not have a military of their own.
And you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist. Conditions that have only existed for the last 65 years, conditions that have never existed before. And conditions that will likewise not continue for very long as evidenced by the actions of the EU. Ultimately all of the countries you listed were protected by the armed forces of the EU, and ultimately the USA. Conditions that are rapidly changing, and will probably cease within the next dozen years or so.
if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]
How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?
It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.
You're joking right...
Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.
I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.
if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]
How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?
if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]
How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?
The comparison is apt. Rome was ultimately bankrupted by the cost of maintaining the armies needed to conquer and hold most of the Mediterranean and Europe.
if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]
How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?
The comparison is apt. Rome was ultimately bankrupted by the cost of maintaining the armies needed to conquer and hold most of the Mediterranean and Europe.
Actually it wasn't. It was bankrupted first by its corrupt Senate membership, and then after the Empire was formed, incompetent and corrupt Emperors drove it into the ground. It was able to survive one or two bad ones, but three or four in a row taxed even that Empires ability to sustain itself. It wasn't the cost of the armies, it was the cost of maintaining the Emperor and all of his cronies and sycophants that drove her under.
