4 ms·

>The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. You're right, they sure aren't. But as a result no other military force on earth besides NATO has the capabili

>The Zumwalt, F-35, B-2, and more are not cheap. You're right, they sure aren't. But as a result no other military force on earth besides NATO has the capability to launch air superiority fighters from amphibious assault ships, and perform multi-ton circumglobal bombing sorties. That kind of capability doesn't come cheap, and shouldn't be dismissed. Take away the B2 and we are fighting to-to-toe with Russian/Chinese long range bombers Without the F-35 we are on equal footing with Chinese/Russian carrier based aircraft Without Zumwalt class ships, we are going head on against Chinese missile destroyers and subs of equal capability. The whole point is that you don't want an even remotely fair fight. "Keeping up" with others's spending, even within an order of magnitude, is a really bad idea if you can help it.

vkou 8y ago
If the US military is, in any serious way, going toe-to-toe with Russian/Chinese bombers, I hope you've got your fallout shelter stocked, because as likely as not, both sides in the conflict will cease to exist ~20 minutes after that point in time.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Ukraine is still alive after 4 years of war with Russia. Relax.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    They’re at war with Russia because they gave up their nuclear weapons. No one is invading a nuclear power, which I think is the point the post you’re responding to was making.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      How you know that Ukraine still doesn't have nuclear weapons?
      - vkou 8y ago
        Because I assume that the Russians, when they armed it (In Soviet times), and then disarmed it (In post-Soviet times), could count up to, and back down from twenty. If they still have weapons, they sure as hell haven't been using their existence as a deterrent. The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        > The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them. You must know that Ukraine was attacked 4 years ago. So the "whole point" is not applicable in this case.
- aphextron 8y ago
  The point is not “Russia vs. USA” in an all out conventional war. It’s about spheres of influence. If I can project my will upon the (non-nuclearized) world more effectively than anyone else, my power increases substantially. It’s why Russia is considered only a regional power, despite having a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. Their ability to perform intercontinental conventional bombing and troop deployment is non-existent. To cede this power to any other nation would be catastrophic to world peace.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Its about spheres of influence. If I can effectively project my will upon the (non-nuclearized) world more effectively than anyone else, my power increases substantially. Its why Russia is considered only a regional power, despite having a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. Their ability to perform intercontinental conventional bombing and troop deployment is non-existent. To cede this power to any other nation would be catastrophic to world peace. What world peace? The US has started two wars that destabilized a whole region, and it shows no sign of restoring anything like peace there. World peace from such a belligerent nation, one that drone strikes most days of the week, is a bad joke or a real example of Orwell in action. How many pointless losing wars does the US need to start, how many governments does it need to overthrow only to see them revert to something even worse before you get that you’re about world peace. You are not “the good guys.” The US is just in it for money, and that money only for a fraction of its population. It’s just a good thing the US can’t actually win a war it starts, or they’d have taken over by now. What’s actually happened is the likes of North Korea looked at what happened to Libya and Iraq and realized that they needed nuclear weapons. What a great outcome for “world peace” right? I’m sure those nuts won’t sell the technology, and other countries won’t follow suit so as not be “projected” all over.
hollerith 8y ago
I don't disagree with your post, but you shouldn't use the Zumwalt class as an example because the US has decided to stop production of it after 3 ships. For a citation see the bottom of the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Background_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Backgr...
- jandrese 8y ago
  I don't think the Zumwalt was ever meant to be a mass production ship. I think it was built the prove the concept of lower signature vessels. Notably it's too small and lightly armed to accomplish most Navy objectives. The stealth technology makes it hard to modify for specific objectives. Basically, what are you going to do with a Zumwalt that you couldn't do with a submarine? Is it better at any of those tasks than a conventional destroyer?
  - hollerith 8y ago
    >>I don't think the Zumwalt was ever meant to be a mass production ship You think wrong.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Maybe I should have clarified that the Navy never considered it to be a real ship, for the aforementioned lack of a role in the fleet. Bath Iron Works probably wanted to build hundreds of them but that was little more than a hopeful fantasy on their part.
      - hollerith 8y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html states that 10 "were originally planned" though the intro to the wikipedia article says that "the class was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support," so I'm not going to dispute your clarification because I know that Congress sometimes forces the Navy to buy things the Navy does not want.
Taniwha 8y ago
how exactly do modern day bombers go "toe to toe"? do you send one into the other to crash into it? Surely all you want to do is shoot them down. Bombers are purely offensive weapons. No one needs them unless they plan to attack somewhere else

vkou 8y ago

If the US military is, in any serious way, going toe-to-toe with Russian/Chinese bombers, I hope you've got your fallout shelter stocked, because as likely as not, both sides in the conflict will cease to exist ~20 minutes after that point in time.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Ukraine is still alive after 4 years of war with Russia. Relax.
- GW150914 8y ago
  They’re at war with Russia because they gave up their nuclear weapons. No one is invading a nuclear power, which I think is the point the post you’re responding to was making.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    How you know that Ukraine still doesn't have nuclear weapons?
    - vkou 8y ago
      Because I assume that the Russians, when they armed it (In Soviet times), and then disarmed it (In post-Soviet times), could count up to, and back down from twenty. If they still have weapons, they sure as hell haven't been using their existence as a deterrent. The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        > The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them. You must know that Ukraine was attacked 4 years ago. So the "whole point" is not applicable in this case.
aphextron 8y ago
The point is not “Russia vs. USA” in an all out conventional war. It’s about spheres of influence. If I can project my will upon the (non-nuclearized) world more effectively than anyone else, my power increases substantially. It’s why Russia is considered only a regional power, despite having a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. Their ability to perform intercontinental conventional bombing and troop deployment is non-existent. To cede this power to any other nation would be catastrophic to world peace.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Its about spheres of influence. If I can effectively project my will upon the (non-nuclearized) world more effectively than anyone else, my power increases substantially. Its why Russia is considered only a regional power, despite having a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. Their ability to perform intercontinental conventional bombing and troop deployment is non-existent. To cede this power to any other nation would be catastrophic to world peace. What world peace? The US has started two wars that destabilized a whole region, and it shows no sign of restoring anything like peace there. World peace from such a belligerent nation, one that drone strikes most days of the week, is a bad joke or a real example of Orwell in action. How many pointless losing wars does the US need to start, how many governments does it need to overthrow only to see them revert to something even worse before you get that you’re about world peace. You are not “the good guys.” The US is just in it for money, and that money only for a fraction of its population. It’s just a good thing the US can’t actually win a war it starts, or they’d have taken over by now. What’s actually happened is the likes of North Korea looked at what happened to Libya and Iraq and realized that they needed nuclear weapons. What a great outcome for “world peace” right? I’m sure those nuts won’t sell the technology, and other countries won’t follow suit so as not be “projected” all over.

hollerith 8y ago

I don't disagree with your post, but you shouldn't use the Zumwalt class as an example because the US has decided to stop production of it after 3 ships. For a citation see the bottom of the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Background_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Backgr...

jandrese 8y ago
I don't think the Zumwalt was ever meant to be a mass production ship. I think it was built the prove the concept of lower signature vessels. Notably it's too small and lightly armed to accomplish most Navy objectives. The stealth technology makes it hard to modify for specific objectives. Basically, what are you going to do with a Zumwalt that you couldn't do with a submarine? Is it better at any of those tasks than a conventional destroyer?
- hollerith 8y ago
  >>I don't think the Zumwalt was ever meant to be a mass production ship You think wrong.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Maybe I should have clarified that the Navy never considered it to be a real ship, for the aforementioned lack of a role in the fleet. Bath Iron Works probably wanted to build hundreds of them but that was little more than a hopeful fantasy on their part.
    - hollerith 8y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html states that 10 "were originally planned" though the intro to the wikipedia article says that "the class was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support," so I'm not going to dispute your clarification because I know that Congress sometimes forces the Navy to buy things the Navy does not want.

Taniwha 8y ago

how exactly do modern day bombers go "toe to toe"? do you send one into the other to crash into it? Surely all you want to do is shoot them down. Bombers are purely offensive weapons. No one needs them unless they plan to attack somewhere else