HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Veterans (Group) » Analysts: Cutting aircraf...

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:11 AM

Analysts: Cutting aircraft carriers a real possibility

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/analysts-cutting-aircraft-carriers-real-possibility



Four aircraft carriers, from back to front, the Abraham Lincoln (72), the Enterprise (65), the George H.W. Bush (77) and the Dwight D. Eisenhower (69), tied up at Norfolk Naval Station on Thursday, February 14, 2013.

Analysts: Cutting aircraft carriers a real possibility
By Mike Hixenbaugh
The Virginian-Pilot
August 9, 2013

Really? Mothballing aircraft carriers?

The idea floated last week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed particularly shocking in this Navy town - home to half the nation's fleet of nuclear flattops, where carrier deployments and homecomings routinely lead evening newscasts.

It's tempting to dismiss the notion of retiring two or three of the world's most recognizable warships as political brinkmanship - a veiled attempt to push Congress into reversing big national security cuts.

But defense analysts say people shouldn't roll their eyes at Hagel's warning or other drastic changes described last week in the Pentagon's first formal attempt to detail the long-term effects of sequestration.



unhappycamper comment: Sequestration appears to be finally working at the DoD - they're actually talking about it

3 replies, 1710 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Analysts: Cutting aircraft carriers a real possibility (Original post)
unhappycamper Aug 2013 OP
Aristus Aug 2013 #1
Victor_c3 Aug 2013 #2
unhappycamper Aug 2013 #3

Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:58 AM

1. There's a difference in the number of carriers we need for national defense,

as opposed to how many we need for global military domination.

I think if we stop the hypermilitaristic Rambo posturing all over the world, we will see a lot of potential conflicts resolve themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:37 AM

2. I completely agree with that

I'm not the most eloquent, but I read a pretty decent analysis on how our excessive military strength and buildup in fact makes the world more unstable. For example, in our desire to contain or curtail the role of China in world politics, we find ourselves allies and standing up for nations that we wouldn't have much to do with. This in turn gives these small guys the courage to get involved with nations and conflicts they normally wouldn't involve themselves with.

For example, would the Vietnamese be messing around in the South China Sea if they didn't have us in their back pocket?

How would Japan have dealt with their territory dispute with China over those uninhabited islands this last fall/winter if we weren't sitting in their laps?

Also, our large military presence in Germany and Japan basically encourages these countries to spend next to none of their own resources on their own defense. I might be a little off with the numbers, but I believe Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on defense while Japan spends roughly 1%. The US spends roughly 4.7% of its GDP on defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:22 AM

3. We may spend 4.7% of GDP on defense, but

the DoD gets 57% of the budget we rely upon for things like school, food, transportation, veteran's benefits etc.:




Keep in mind that all this DoD whining about money is a five fucking percent cut in their budget. A lousy five fucking percent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread