Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget

[insanebikerboy]

Don't be obtuse. I gave three examples of portable vehicles/tools that would have to run on batteries, not motors that can be connected to a constant power supply. It's not economical to use batteries that last for a couple hours and take a whole work day to recharge.

Then be specific and say batteries, not electric motors. Electric motors are quite capable, it's the batteries that is the long pole in the tent.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Squabble, squabble, squabble... You guys have nothing left to worry about....

 

[Fog]

Tell me more about our "empire". I don't think we've gained a single acre of "empire" since before I was born.

I think frogdr's point was that we've been paying for empire we don't own or necessarily benefit from. Can you imagine how the Chinese are ROTFLTAO at the U.S. paying in $$ and lives for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open and fighting jihadistas while they import Mideast oil to keep their own smog machine humming - and they get to lend us the $$ to do it which are generated by selling us their undervalued manufactured goods! I don't agree w/ FD on most things, but certainly do so here.

 

[jollygreen07]

Squabble, squabble, squabble... You guys have nothing left to worry about....

Funny article. As usual the comments don't disappoint. There's a surprising number who actually think that the U.S. Navy has been sold... Where's that damned facepalm meme...

 

[scoolbubba]

I love the comments on the bottom of the duffel blog, theonion.com etc. They never disappoint.

 

[Harrier Dude]

"You caused me to get my VietNam Navy veteran husband upset for nothing. You should really be ashamed of yourself. If you can’t tell the truth, don’t put anything out for others to read!
Shame on You!!"

Classic.

 

[phrogdriver]

How interesting it would be to live in a world where your grasp of reality is that tenuous. There are actually people who say "I read it on the Internet; it must be true," without sarcasm.

 

[Hozer]

How interesting it would be to live in a world where your grasp of reality is that tenuous. There are actually people who say "I read it on the Internet; it must be true," without sarcasm.

....and then they vote.

 

[707guy]

There are actually people who say "I read it on the Internet; it must be true," without sarcasm.

E.G.

 

[SkywardET]

I think frogdr's point was that we've been paying for empire we don't own or necessarily benefit from. Can you imagine how the Chinese are ROTFLTAO at the U.S. paying in $$ and lives for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open and fighting jihadistas while they import Mideast oil to keep their own smog machine humming - and they get to lend us the $$ to do it which are generated by selling us their undervalued manufactured goods! I don't agree w/ FD on most things, but certainly do so here.

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston:
"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, but they do have permanent interests."

Freedom of the seas has been one of our national interests since we were capable of pursuing it. Everything from the "shores of Tripoli" to one casus belli for the War of 1812 to our aiding of "independence" for Panama to many more recent situations and relationships all relate to that national interest. The historic norm for human activity on the sea is unfettered piracy, unannounced raids, and the opportunity for trade. One large reason that trade dominates the modern world of maritime affairs instead of global piracy and raiding is the implementation of American policy reflecting our national interest of freedom of the seas.*

Regardless of where it is being traded or even what is being traded, I think that freedom of the seas is still one of our most important national interests and always will be.


* - I'm not saying that piracy and raids don't exist, but they are relatively minor from a historic perspective.

 

[Renegade One]

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston:...

Damn my eyes, if this thread hasn't taken a long-overdue intellectual shift in the wind. "All hands wear ship!"

[N.B.: When you wish to wear quickly, I never could understand why the main-topsail should be shivered, more particularly in light winds, for in shivering the main-topsail you take off the propelling fore of the powerful sails on the main-mast; and as it is ship's way through the water acting on the rudder which is the principal cause of the ship's wearing quickly, you invariably diminish this power by the main-topsail being shivered.]

 

[jtdees]

Damn my eyes, if this thread hasn't taken a long-overdue intellectual shift in the wind. "All hands wear ship!"

[N.B.: When you wish to wear quickly, I never could understand why the main-topsail should be shivered, more particularly in light winds, for in shivering the main-topsail you take off the propelling fore of the powerful sails on the main-mast; and as it is ship's way through the water acting on the rudder which is the principal cause of the ship's wearing quickly, you invariably diminish this power by the main-topsail being shivered.]

Possibly to avoid a broach? Modern sailing has little square-rigged experience, but one can often see the painful effect of an unannounced gybe under full spinnaker and main before the wind, and particularly in seas bigger than flat. Ship rigs have a lot of mass and windage aloft, and are often in a dead-downwind point of sail. Wearing quickly, whether coming up on the wind or gybing across it, provides a lot of opportunity for the dynamics of the hull and rudder to change, meaning instability, with a large sail like the main top providing lots of leverage when fully drawing.

Speaking of sail-power, there's an industry that was exclusively wind-powered for centuries, then "evolved" into petroleum dependence. What gives?

 

[phrogpilot73]

What gives?

"All Ahead Flank" sounds cooler than "Tacking" or "Jibing"

 

[Random8145]

Developing North American hydrocarbon reserves has nothing to do w/ idealism and everything to do w/ national security, soundness of the US$ and the long-term viability of the US Navy. National security is involved because we would no longer have to be super-cop in the Mideast if we produce our own needs of crude & NG (refining capacity is another issue). Soundness of the US$ is involved because our current Fed policy of printing $$ to purchase Treasury Debt is devaluing the US$ & is what's pushing up the price of crude. The LT viability of the Navy is involved because our Mideast policy of the past decade is wearing out ships, a/c & budgets at an unsustainable rate. Being 69 yrs old has certain advantages of historical perspective. Also, I did spend 20 yrs of active/reserve duty in the USN and 30+ yrs of international & large corporate banking experience w/ Fortune 500 banks. Just sayin' for all the 30 somethings that lecture us daily on this board. If we feel there is value in open & honest exchanges of experiences & POV, let's hear each other out w/out being condescending to our shipmates.

Hey Sir, was reading through this thread, and was just curious about a few things:

Does developing our own fossil fuel resources really make us independent of the Middle East? I ask because oil is priced globally, so even if the U.S. got 100% of its oil domestically, wouldn't it still be tied to the global price of crude? In addition, since we are in a global economy, if the oil was cut to Europe and China and so forth, and thus tanked their economies completely, wouldn't that tank ours as well? Thus, even if we are not tied to Middle East oil, we inadverdently still are tied to it, aren't we?

 

[Fog]

Hey Sir, was reading through this thread, and was just curious about a few things:

Does developing our own fossil fuel resources really make us independent of the Middle East? I ask because oil is priced globally, so even if the U.S. got 100% of its oil domestically, wouldn't it still be tied to the global price of crude? In addition, since we are in a global economy, if the oil was cut to Europe and China and so forth, and thus tanked their economies completely, wouldn't that tank ours as well? Thus, even if we are not tied to Middle East oil, we inadverdently still are tied to it, aren't we?

Random: In no way was I trying to suggest our oil would be cheaper if we produce our crude needs in North America. Oil prices are set globally, although to the degree we add to the world's supply that would reduce somewhat OPEC's ability to control market prices [as they now do]. The big difference would be that we'd be paying for crude to the Exxons & BPs of the world - not to the arabs who have also recycled much of our oil $$ to terrorist groups. To the degree our economy is dependent on the availability of crude & refined oil products, an interruption to crude supplies in the Mideast would not hurt us - in fact we would then drive the world market to a significant extent.
These are opinions from FL300 based on having spent 30+ yrs in large banks - half of that in Texas, by the way.