Mittens unveils his foreign policy vision today

Started by CountDeMoney, October 08, 2012, 05:59:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Josephus

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention;  maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.

REally? Why?

So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings?  :huh:
Civis Romanus Sum<br /><br />"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." Jack Layton 1950-2011

Viking

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?

China is building pretty fast, although that raises the question of how you define "quality ship"

Any ship, which when in contact with the enemy does not provoke anybody serving on her to utter any variant of

QuoteChatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.

well, either that or

QuoteAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111oneoneoenoen
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

jimmy olsen

Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:46:03 AM
Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?

.....

+ "Build 15 ships per year, including three submarines" - presumably included in above.  -  This proposal appears to come from John Lehman (now a Romney defense advisor).  For comparison the plan for 2013 is 2 subs and 8 surface ships of various types, for a total of 10.  The five year plan is rougly 2 subs per year and 7 other ships per year.  The merits are difficult to evaluate without some insight into the specific additional ships proposed.

......

Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?
The Japs are building three more "helicopter" carriers to counter the Chinese. The Chinese are building a ton of submarines.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Viking

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 08, 2012, 05:43:16 PM
The Japs are building three more "helicopter" carriers to counter the Chinese. The Chinese are building a ton of submarines.

I also suspect they are carpeting the East and South China Seas with modern SOSUS as well.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

The Minsky Moment

Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.

To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.

Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain?  Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station?  Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

mongers

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
Are even the rest of the world's navies combined building more than that number of ''quality' ships a year ?

China is building pretty fast, although that raises the question of how you define "quality ship"

Hence its inclusion in my sentence; proof in the pudding and so forth.
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

MadImmortalMan

Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention;  maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.

REally? Why?

So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings?  :huh:

I'm sure it's only the other major party candidate. Not just anybody. Think of them like the shadow govt.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

mongers

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.

To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.

Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain?  Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station?  Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?

Not being a languishista navalists, but Bahrain itself seems to resemble an aircraft carrier, if push came to shove it might be able to perform that role, without the need to risk 90,000 tons of steel in confined waters.
Oh that's assuming the base perimeter could be protected.
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

Eddie Teach

Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
The number 15 must have done well in focus groups.  Like Obama's 100,000 math & science teachers (which btw I guess social studies teachers can bugger off :angry: ).

:yes: Korea is welcome to them.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

garbon

Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Mittens and Ryan have been getting daily security briefings since the week before the convention;  maybe not to the level of the POTUS, but all candidates get them once they receive the nomination.

REally? Why?

So any joke candidate gets daily security briefings?  :huh:

Here's a detailed history.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/cia-briefings-of-presidential-candidates/cia-5.htm
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

derspiess

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Don't know why that would get a :angry: from you;  falls right in line with the GOP's desire in reducing civic participation.  :P

Then I guess you can call me a *maverick*.  Science was sometimes interesting but I could take it or leave it.  Math was pretty easy but I hated it with a passion.  It was history, geography, etc. that always held my interest.  Unfortunately the school system had no interest in offering anything but the bare minimum in those areas. 

I tried to take college history classes when I was a high school senior but my principal doubted it would be worth the time (which was otherwise spent in office practice & study halls).
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Neil

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.

To the extent it requires pulling a group or more out of the Pacific, seems like not such a great idea.

Re feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain?  Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station?  Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?
The USN has been heavily expanding their base in Bahrain for a couple of years, so I would say that the Superior Service has been planning ahead for basing a second carrier group for a while.

Honestly, I don't think that losing a carrier group in the Pacific is especially important.  I mean, you'll miss the Aegis cruisers and whatnot, but when it comes to the ability to put aircraft in the air around China, you can't sink Taiwan, Luzon or Okinawa.  There's still the rest of the Seventh Fleet to show the flag and hunt Chinese subs.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Would be curious if the languishista navalists have a view as to the feasibility or advisibility of basing carrier strike groups "permanently" in the Gulf region.

I think it's an incredibly bad idea.  Grumbler thinks they're all safe inside the Gulf since they're not dealing with swarms from the Soviet Naval Air Arm anymore.  I believe they don't even belong in there.

QuoteRe feasibility - are the basing facilities in the region (Bahrain?  Diego Garcia?) sufficiently stocked and secure to supply carrier groups on permanent station?  Would it be feabile to supply via air or sea replenishment?

Even though Bahrain is home of the 5th Fleet now and has a pretty big base, has been an important hub for military activity and projection, and the USN may very well have the capability to make it a permanent home port for an entire forward-deployed carrier battle group if they made it big enough, but it isn't now--it's not a San Diego or Yokosuka, and I don't trust the permanency or stability of an island nation smaller than metropolitan Baltimore run by a royal family with a proven track record of head-bashing its people, all under the range of Iranian SSMs. 
It's just a bad place to set up camp, politically and militarily.

Neil

On the other hand, where's a good place to base them in the Indian Ocean?  It would be better if the fleet had easy acccess to the open ocean, but then again supporting Kuwait and the Saudis is why they're there in the first place.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 09:35:10 PM
On the other hand, where's a good place to base them in the Indian Ocean?

We never had a problem with them steaming on their own in the Indian Ocean before;  IIRC, the 7th Fleet usually had one somewhere on station in the Indian Ocean, always a couple days' away or closer to the Gulf if necessary.  Worked very well for many years before GW1.   I'd prefer the old way we did things:  that the Indian Ocean and Gulf was an extended area of operations split between the 7th and 6th Fleets, as needs and deployments dictated.  But the ground wars in the area have made Bahrain necessary.

It would be cool, but I don't think the Indians would be open to the idea of a major USN presence on their soil  :lol:  Not with them having visions of their own naval ascendency now.   Too bad we pissed on that relationship decades ago making hot monkey love with Pakistani strongmen instead, or things could look different today. 

QuoteIt would be better if the fleet had easy acccess to the open ocean, but then again supporting Kuwait and the Saudis is why they're there in the first place.

Yeah, and I don't like it.  I'd rather we not have any permanent naval bases in Arabia or East Africa, and if so, they should be just enough for berthing and resupply of surface combat groups.