5 ms·
Does the US Navy’s mission require it to maintain readiness to blow up anything in any ocean to smithereens at a moment’s notice?
by duado 8y ago
Does the US Navy’s mission require it to maintain readiness to blow up anything in any ocean to smithereens at a moment’s notice?
- crooked-v 8y agoWell... yes. Maybe it shouldn't, but that decision isn't up to people actually in that branch.
- mc32 8y agoThey’re mostly reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and defensive. Occasionally might fire cruise missiles if necessary. Helps keep the bad guys and gals from trying too much.
- camjohnson26 8y agoWhere bad people means enemies of the US.
- mc32 8y agoNo, enemies of the western world and those who have the same values as us such as Korea, Japan, Chile, Brazil, Botswana, etc.
- gdy 8y agoClearly the US and the EU have different positions on Iran - the US considers it an enemy and imposed new sanctions, the EU haven't followed the suit. So, no, even traditional clientele have left the US
- mc32 8y agoSure we don’t agree on everything— our agendas can diverge. The EU still gets gas from Russia, clearly we differ with them on Russia.
- gdy 8y agoExactly, you don't agree on who the enemies are and 'bad guys' mean the enemies the US, not of all the countries you lumped together.
- mc32 8y agoThat’s to be expected, we’re not a ‘bloc’ ala USSR and its satellites.
- gdy 8y agoExcept you claimed the opposite, saying that the objects of the US military's attention - 'bad guys' - are the enemies of the whole bunch of countries including the EU.
- gdy 8y agoLooking at how the US tries to bully Turkey - a NATO member - into cancelling the S-400 deal with Russia, by saying the US is not going protect it despite the NATO article, you are not as different from Warsaw pact as you claim.
- gdy 8y agoSounds like a lot of enemies. I wonder how 'the good guys' ended up being hated by so many.
- trevyn 8y agoIt does require continuous readiness to launch nuclear ballistic missiles from a surprise location, otherwise the “mutual” part of mutually assured destruction is less assured: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike Also, the US essentially controls the world’s oceans, and that comes with a whole bunch of benefits, wartime or peacetime.
- Pharmakon 8y agoI think you’ve made an honest error here, confusing the power plant of the subs with their payload. SSN’s are attack subs, not armed with nuclear SLBMs like an SSBN.
- drdeadringer 8y agoYes, at least for SSBNs -- the subs that have nuclear ballistic missiles. An "undetectable" nuclear launch platform that could be anywhere in the world [ocean-wise] at any given time is part of the "nuclear deterrent". Sure, lay waste to the continental US and all of it's farm-based missile installations; the floating, traveling, launch pad will still strike back, 24 missiles each with multiple payloads each on board. That's not including the UK's fleet.