Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 20
Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks.

The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. 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 because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.


But here’s why it was also a vote loser.

For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan).

More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186053/romne...

------

oops....we actually used horses and bayonets in Obama's war in Afghanistan.....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. 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 because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

The president went on to explain that we have aircraft carriers and submarines.

What the president apparently didn't realize is that modern ships and weapons are massively more expensive than their equivalents from 100 years ago. So cutting defense spending gets you proportionately less capability. Cutting one aircraft carrier cuts out the capability equivalent of all allied airpower in WWII.

Yes defense cuts do hurt our military preparedness. To pretend otherwise is simply that "pretending."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yes defense cuts do hurt our military preparedness. To pretend otherwise is simply that "pretending."
What are we preparing for? We don't need such a massive army. The modern threads like terrorism needs different kind of force. Building massive aircraft carriers are just a huge waste of money we don't have and the debt is the huge insecurity we face.

The "pretending" is that we are rich, we are under attack, and we need all these expensive wars.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What are we preparing for? We don't need such a massive army. The modern threads like terrorism needs different kind of force. Building massive aircraft carriers are just a huge waste of money we don't have and the debt is the huge insecurity we face. The "pretending" is that we are rich, we are under attack, and we need all these expensive wars." - CM001
-----------


Well said. I agree 100%. I'm tired of all these expeditionary Rich Man wars.

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." - George McGovern

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The president went on to explain that we have aircraft carriers and submarines.

What the president apparently didn't realize is that modern ships and weapons are massively more expensive than their equivalents from 100 years ago. So cutting defense spending gets you proportionately less capability. Cutting one aircraft carrier cuts out the capability equivalent of all allied airpower in WWII.


That's the point, actually. You can't measure the strength of our navy by how many ships we have, since the modern navy focuses on having relatively few, expensive, powerful ships compared to the past.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"That's the point, actually. You can't measure the strength of our navy by how many ships we have, since the modern navy focuses on having relatively few, expensive, powerful ships compared to the past. "


It's not the point.

To support that one ship, there are about 30-40 other ships.....from tanker ships, supply ships, destroyers, missile launchers, submarine chasers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, .......

In WW1, you had 'fleets' of battleships. Now , you have as many ships in support of that one big ship you really need to defend from all sorts of threats.

You just don'[t have five or seven big aircraft carriers.

You have five or seven 'battle groups'.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's not the point.

To support that one ship, there are about 30-40 other ships.....from tanker ships, supply ships, destroyers, missile launchers, submarine chasers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, .......

In WW1, you had 'fleets' of battleships. Now , you have as many ships in support of that one big ship you really need to defend from all sorts of threats.

You just don'[t have five or seven big aircraft carriers.

You have five or seven 'battle groups'.



Sure. But even counting the entire battle group, we still spend more per ship than in the past (inflation-adjusted, etc., etc.). The Navy has opted for fewer, more-powerful ships, as the best way to spend their money, and I'm not qualified to argue that they're wrong. So "how many ships do we have?" is not a good way, by itself, to gauge our navy's strength. You have to look at the capabilities of those ships.

I've heard that China has plans to outfit 1000s of little fishing boats with light weapons, in the case of the war. Does that mean that their navy would be stronger than ours? Should we be worried, if a fleet of a hundred fishing boats goes up against one of our battle groups with only a couple destroyers, frigates, and an aircraft carrier?

No.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Windchasers:" Should we be worried, if a fleet of a hundred fishing boats goes up against one of our battle groups with only a couple destroyers, frigates, and an aircraft carrier?

No."

===

If those fishing boats (which are typically 100 feet long) carry surface to air missiles or surface to ship missiles, capable of destroying aircraft and shis.....then you better worry.

It doesn't take a big ship to launch an Exocet type missile or a shoulder fired SAM. You're just as dead. Or even something like a Chinese equivalent of a Tomahawk missile....

Or a nuke armed warhead.....on a anti-sub torpedo....you're toast....he sank ships with wooden PT boats in WW2, remember?

The Japanese used 'fishing boats' as spotters for US inbound aircraft in WW2......reported via radio.....

When Dolittle was on his way to launch his strike on Tokyo, they had to launch early because some Japanese 'fishing boats' had spotted them as they sailed toward japan and they had to launch early and get the aircraft carrier out of there before any strike could be launched back at them.


Just a little 'fishing boat', huh?


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So "how many ships do we have?" is not a good way, by itself, to gauge our navy's strength.

While this is true, it's not as bad a way as you suggest.

Consider that at least 1/2 of all ships are in port at any one time (the ships rotate in and out of ship going operations).

This means if you have 12 carriers, you can only make appearances in 6 places. Furthermore, if certain areas (e.g. Persian Gulf and Mediterranean) require extra attention, you might whittle that down to just 3 or 4 places in the world.

Clearly no matter how capable your ships are, there is a minimum number that are required. Since the 1980s the US Navy has maintained around 15 (+/-) active carriers.

Lately that number has been declining. For example, the USS Enterprise is slated to retire from active duty after its current deployment, but the USS Ford (its replacement) isn't set to sail until 2014 or so (IIRC).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While this is true, it's not as bad a way as you suggest.

Consider that at least 1/2 of all ships are in port at any one time (the ships rotate in and out of ship going operations).



This I agree with. At any point in time, you need a certain minimum of ships. But since capabilities of a fleet change over time, that minimum will change.

Really, it's all about getting the best bang for your buck. Maybe that means more ships, maybe it means fewer; it just depends on the technology at the time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If those fishing boats (which are typically 100 feet long) carry surface to air missiles or surface to ship missiles, capable of destroying aircraft and shis.....then you better worry.

It doesn't take a big ship to launch an Exocet type missile or a shoulder fired SAM. You're just as dead. Or even something like a Chinese equivalent of a Tomahawk missile....



I wouldn't really call an Exocet missile or nuclear-tipped torpedo a "light gun"; I was talking about something more like a 40 mm.

Still, a fleet of a hundred fishing boats wouldn't make it anywhere near one of our battle groups. They'd be bombed from the air or destroyed by subs long before they came in range. They just don't have any way of detecting and meaningfully defending against those kinds of attacks. No long-range radar, no sonar, etc.

Capability > numbers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I've heard that China has plans to outfit 1000s of little fishing boats with light weapons, in the case of the war. Does that mean that their navy would be stronger than ours? Should we be worried, if a fleet of a hundred fishing boats goes up against one of our battle groups with only a couple destroyers, frigates, and an aircraft carrier? No." - windchaser


Let's hope to God we never go to war with China. They got nuclear weapons. Fishing boats would be irrelevant.

If we ever go to war with China it will be the end of the world as we know it. Any humans that are left would be living lik Mad Max.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Any humans that are left would be living lik Mad Max.

Would be? I'm there now! Just mounted a cannon in the trunk of my Saturn. Thunderdome here I come!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Should we be worried, if a fleet of a hundred fishing boats goes up against one of our battle groups with only a couple destroyers, frigates, and an aircraft carrier?

I'll defer that question to the USS COLE
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thunderdome here I come!

So you have tickets to Detroit's World Series home games?

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If we ever go to war with China it will be the end of the world as we know it. Any humans that are left would be living lik Mad Max.

Artie


Yep. Talk about duality and separation! The Mad Max's that live will be from obscure 3rd world countries and islands that are untouched by the bombs.

There won't be anything left in the US. Especially if we re-elect our wishy-washy president who can't make a quick decision unless it involves covering his a$$. <g>

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just mounted a cannon in the trunk of my Saturn.
----------

Someone was telling me of a friend who had a Saturn that got to 750,000 miles. It just wouldn't die.

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Someone was telling me of a friend who had a Saturn that got to 750,000 miles. It just wouldn't die.

arrete



You know, that may be the actual distance to Saturn....the planet.


OK, you science nerds out there. I know the actual distance to Saturn. So save yourself a post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just mounted a cannon in the trunk of my Saturn.
----------

Someone was telling me of a friend who had a Saturn that got to 750,000 miles. It just wouldn't die.

arrete


There really should be a law that prohibits driving a car more than 50,000 miles. Just think of all the jobs it would create!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"There really should be a law that prohibits driving a car more than 50,000 miles. Just think of all the jobs it would create! "


I think it's Pennsylvania...the car repair shops got together and made the state come up with a law that there could be no visible rusted through spots on cars. They would either have to be repaired, or junked.

Back in the days of poor rust protection..cars rusted out in 3 to 5 years, requiring expensive repairs....plus of course, the after market rust protection racket kicked in high gear..... that spray 200 lbs of tar inside doors, under the frame, etc.


With much better rust protection most cars don't rust out like the 50s and 60s models......


Don't know if that law still on the books. You could not get your car inspected with 'rusted through' fenders,wheel wells, rocker panels, etc......and they checked real good...... it was a racket.

The claimed it was a safety hazard in case the car brushed up against pedestrian....... yeah, right...if the top of the car is rusted, it really makes a difference? or the trunk?/

That was the law..may still be the law....


t

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK, you science nerds out there. I know the actual distance to Saturn. So save yourself a post.

Isn't the distance different on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays than it is on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays because of the sidereal retrograde effect?

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"OK, you science nerds out there. I know the actual distance to Saturn. So save yourself a post."


Wow..you're good since it changes every day....the position of the Earth and Saturn.....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Isn't the distance different on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays than it is on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays because of the sidereal retrograde effect?

--fleg



Distances from Earth to Saturn does not operate on the same schedule as the Chinese Buffet hours that tele attends. <g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There won't be anything left in the US. Especially if we re-elect our wishy-washy president who can't make a quick decision unless it involves covering his a$$. <g>

This is so true. People talk about 4 more years of Obama and America learns its lesson. That's also true, but there will be no end to the 4 more years. We'll be able to think about the good old days but not talk about them to anyone.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
""OK, you science nerds out there. I know the actual distance to Saturn. So save yourself a post."
-------------------------------------
"Wow..you're good since it changes every day....the position of the Earth and Saturn." tele



I'm guessing it's about a bazillion miles away. Out there somewhere with Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Isn't the distance different on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays than it is on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays because of the sidereal retrograde effect?

--fleg



That reminds me of a dream I had recently. I dreamed I was sitting on my living room couch looking out the window and I saw a bright "star" that I recognized as Venus. And then I watched it move "backward" in the sky -- from west to east.

I know there was a message in that dream somewhere... I just never figured out what it is.
Print the post Back To Top