Cite.
You can’t put an OP out like that and not expect some negative reaction. I don’t discuss the latest surgery techniques with heart surgeons because I’m not a doctor. I would be operating from a position of ignorance. Your OP indicated a rather large lack of understanding about the Navy and the military in general. Don’t be offended because I called you on it.
There are?!?!? We should’ve burnt that damned town to the ground when we had the chance to. :mad:
Wait–we did. Okay, this time we’ll burn it to the ground AND salt the earth, too. That’ll teach those terrorists who’s boss.
Early out, why do you hate America?
Seriously, this is a good point. Police work doesn’t have to be limited to actual US police in the US. Much of the success in the struggle against global terrorism has been in good old fashioned police work in places like Pakistan.
A good sub is also an assest for monitoring. Obviously not in places like Hamburg, but in places like Libya (to pull a place out of my ass). This new sub sounds like it would be an asset, and an improvement over the older and largely outdated 688 class. However, to package it solely in terms of the “War on Terror” is obviously an attempt to get its funding voted on. The Navy know which side their bread is buttered on.
Crazy.
[sub]btw that should have read you’re[/sub]
No, it wasn’t, and to think so is naive, to put it kindly. Its use against terrorists was included as a shameless PR gesture. This administration is trying desperately to convince us that they’re moving heaven and earth to protect us from terrorists. I swear, if Dick Cheney got pissed off and shot a Senator, they’d claim that it was all part of the War on Terror.
If you’d read a bit more carefully, you’d see that I said that I’m sure the submarine is a fine piece of military hardware, with many useful functions. Fighting terrorism isn’t one of them. Any official who makes that claim is blowing smoke, and deserves some ridicule.
This was the planned mission of the sub all along.
The Navy has had to hustle for funding since the Soviet Union collapse has deprived it of its primary reason for existance post-WWII. Nontraditional conflicts like Yugoslavia have been the model for a decade now. This sub was marketed as a “multi-use” platform to secure funding for these types of conflict. The War on Terror[sup]tm[/sup] just allows them to sell to the public conveniently.
I absolutely agree with you that touting the anti-terrorism aspect of a piece of military hardware like the submarine in question is an attempt to present it in the best possible light. There are those who are of the attitude that any military money is wasted, and this is aimed at them.
Submarines have been used as insertion platforms many times…it’s just not something that is normlly talked about.
Forgive me if I jumped to the conclusion that you were clueless about the military and its hardware. I am ex-Navy myself and am quite familiar with platforms, tactics and missions.
Fair enough, Evil One - truce? (Have I just made a pact with the devil?)
I just couldn’t resist using the Calvin Trillin line. He said it was the title of a column he never got around to writing. In fact, he said he wasn’t sure what the column would even say. For some reason, it’s always made me chuckle.
Let’s try this idea, hmmm?
The Fleet is getting old.
Ships must be periodically replaced.
Vessels that are well-designed for fighting a blue-water Russian Navy may be less flexible than we might need. :rolleyes:
Then just fucking say that instead of feeding us some “for fighting terrorism” line.
Well, if they say subs are needed for fighting terrorism, then that’s one “self evident” truth that hasn’t been eroded. That’s because national defense isn’t like business. In the world of defense, those in charge of production can say “New Coke is Better than old Coke” and get away with it. The consumer can’t say “I’m not buying a new sub” the same as not buying New Coke. To do that, they’d have to wait a few years to vote out of office a politician who whose opponenet would have to fight “soft on defense” sound bites.
And the funny thing is, even if a weapons system has no clear need, it often finds one. Even as simple a system as a bunch of guys with muskets: Andrew Jackson was making noises about disbanding the Marines when, coincidentally, a pack of Mayay pirates jacked an American whaling ship. This gave the Marines an excuse to sail halfway around the world and wale on the Mayays, which gave the American newspapers something to write about, which bought the Marines a few more years of congressional funding.
Or, the world of defense still being cloud cuckoo land, weapon systems don’t have to go looking for work to be justifed: such as the multiple glut of nukes during the cold war. Even though the nukes on our subs were an adequate deterrent, we had bombers and missles and plans to dig miles and miles of tunnels with missles on rails so that we could launch from any number of locations instead of targetable silos - just like, um, submarines, except in the ground instead of water. But of course this was all justifiable since, y’know, the Soviets never did attack.
Or maybe we’re still fighting the last war and, by buying multiple defense systems we’ll bankrupt the terrorists the same as we supposedly did the Soviets. Wolves, Bears - basically the same campaign ad so basically the same war, right? Right?
Please remember the history of US military preparedness.
[ul]
[li]After the Civil War, we had one of the largest & most technically-advanced Navies on Earth. Then, we disbanded it, & let others take the technical lead.[/li][li]During WW1, we played Naval catch-up, at vast costs. After WW1, we let our Fleet slip back in priority. We all but disbanded Naval Intelligence.[/li][li]We started modernizing just before Pearl Harbour. This was fought tooth & nail by, well, everybody! We then played catch-up. After WW2, we let the Navy decline.[/li][li]Korean War/Cold War. We played Naval catch-up again, and again at great cost.[/li][li]Now, the Cold War is over, but gradual modernization is better, in cost & preparedness, for the Fleet & the US. [/li][li]But given the past, the Admirals are obviously worried.[/li][/ul]
Great points. Again, why not tell us something that you’ve described above instead of the other route. Yeah yeah, I know pulling out the T word will get things done faster.
This game of wolf is going to come back and fist us bigtime.
Also, it’s a hell of a lot easier to explain than littoral warfare.
Say again? 
Decrypt, please?
I was simply suggesting that the Navy type say what you said above, instead of saying “TERRORISM!”
Constantly screaming “TERRORISM!” is going to catch up with us in the long run.
I didn’t notice Bosda mentioning terrorism anywhere in this thread. Wha’choo talkin about, Willis?
Hmm, I’m not explaining myself too well here. I was agreeing with what Bosda was saying about reasons for needing a sub. They seem legitimate enough to me, so why would the Navy toss in some “we need it because umm, terrorism, yeah that it!”?
Hopefully that makes a little more sense.
Because of our fellow citizens–a.k.a “The Teeming Millions”–who exemplify the phrase “Why Can’t Johnny Read?” :rolleyes:
The only things they respond to besides fear & buzzwords are pizza, beer & sex.
Can you justify building a sub using those?