Developing carriers is hard!

You for got about "build up for deployment." Do we send our ships to sea where the crews are untrained ? It's a six month procedure to build up to deployment.

You seem to have the idea that the job of the U.S. Navy is to "defend the CONUS from sea born attacks." The primary mission of the U.S. Navy is to keep the sea lanes open for maritime trade. That's been the mission of the U.S. Navy during it's entire history.

Your scenario leaves no ships in the 5th, Fleet AOR. The Muslim pirates in the Horn of Africa uncontested. It also leaves the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf uncontested where most of the worlds oil travels through.

Your scenario also repeats the mistakes of the current incompetent Commander and Chief Barrack Obama, no Carriers Strike Group (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the Mediterranean Sea, the AOR of the 6th Fleet. Another Benghazi just waiting to happen where the navy isn't where it's suppose to be.

(Since 1801 America always had a Mediterranean Squadron on station in the Mediterranean Sea. Since 1946 from President Truman through G.W. Bush, there was always a carrier CBG or CSG on station in the 6th Fleet AOR 24/7. Until Obama became President. The first Cn'C who was derelict in his duty as Cn'C and that CSG that was suppose to be in the Mediterranean on 9-11-12 (Benghazi) was tied up to a wharf in Northfolk Naval Station because of no money for fuel because Obam's spending money on social engineering experimentation instead of for maintenance and fuel. Remember that Obama cut over $500 Billion dollars from our national defense during his first four years as Cn'C,. That doesn't include Obama's sequestration.)

Your "Rule of Two" only works with a "green water navy." A navy that doesn't venture more than 600 miles from it's shores. A coastal defense navy.

A three month deployment (cruise) !

http://navysite.de/navy/fleet.htm

 

Buy a dumpster, paint it gray. Invite 200 of your not so closest friends, and live in it for 6 months straight.

Welcome to the Navy.

 

Liberals and Obama feel our sailors pain so to make life at sea more bearable they are spending over $500 Million Dollars of removing all urinals on navy ships and replacing them with "friendly gender" commodes in the name of political correctness.

Update: As usual, the libs didn't think things completely through. Ends up these politically correct crappers use three times more water that your politically incorrect urinals. Liberal landlubbers didn't take in to consideration that a navy warship black water holding tanks aren't large enough to handle the 300% increase of black water.

Libs didn't take in consideration that women sailors use three times more water when peeing than male sailors.

 

Stop deploying the US military on missions that have absolutely nothing to do with defense of the United States from foreign attacks and invasions. The United States has not engaged in a single military campaign related to an attack or invasion of US soil by any nation since WW II.

This does not and never has required the use of air craft carriers.

As of 2005 the US only had 195 flagged "merchant" ships that the US Navy has a responsibility to safeguard on the high seas.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/merchant-marine.htm

Addressing piracy is addressed in the US Constitution and certainly requires consideration especially related to the piracy off the E African continent. Predominately this is a responsibility of those nations in the region and I know for a fact that China, which is more concerned about this area where piracy is a problem has increased its naval presence. We should also note that the US is predominately using the wrong type of naval ship to address it.

This task would be best addressed by much lower costing ships centered around the National Security Cutter (NSC) class ship. This ship class specifically has a 12,000 mile un-resupplied range and a flight deck for helicopter use. Smaller cutters and resupply and fuel tankers could round out an "anti-pirate" combat operational fleet. Fighting piracy requires relatively small and fast naval ships and not large carrier groups.

Persian Gulf oil isn't all that much of a concern for the US as we only use a small percentage of the Persian Gulf oil today. Actual security for the Persian Gulf waterways is the responsibility of the Persian Gulf nations and not the United States. The United States needs to stop paying for the national security of other nations. No where in our Constitution does it delegate this role to the United States government or authorize our government to tax Americans to pay for it.

The United States provides security for it's embassy and other diplomatic outposts fall under the security of the host country. The US Marines provide security and not the US Navy for our embassies. BTW apparently the Benghazi facility had never provided any diplomatic services so why did it exist? Of course I wouldn't recommend having diplomatic outposts in hostile countries to begin with.

I hate to be the bearer of "bad news" but defense spending started out at about $800 billion for FY 2009 (Obama's first year) then went above that in actual expenditures for 2010 and is above that in estimated expenditures for 2011, 2012, and 2013. This can be verified on the following link.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2013USb_14s2li111mcn_30t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadron_(naval)

Frigates, destroyers, and cruisers are major warship that could be used for temporary assignments in the Mediterranean Sea which are predominately for show anyway. The US really doesn't have any naval responsibility in the Mediterranean Sea so why don't we let countries like Italy and France deal with it?

Of course, as noted above, the best way to avoid a "Benghazi" type incident is to not have these outposts in hostile countries. The US Embassy is protected by US Marines but these outposts are under the protection of the host country and if the host country can't protect them then close them. That's real simple.

The Rule of Two works for the blue water navy,

Coastal defense for green water operations is a US Coast Guard responsibility. Get the connection? "Coast" is along the coast and can extend up to 600 miles out to sea. "Guard" is to protect us in these coastal waters. Coast Guard addresses costal waters or "green" waters and not "blue" water operations performed by the US Navy.

A 3 month deployment for Naval Reserve forces meets with their 90-day commitment for annual training and that can be accomplished off the West Coast between the mainland and Hawaii. Let the regular Navy provide the primary patrol duties the "blue" waters of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Reserve Navy provide limited patrols between the mainland and Hawaii. The Pacific is really large so the additional patrols would help the main US naval fleet deployed in the Pacific Ocean.

By the way 600 miles off-shore can be reached in less than two-days at 15nm/hr so I wonder why that limit was established. It's not a bad distance for establishing the responsibility area for the US Coast Guard that can easily provide naval security for up to 600 miles off shore on both the East and West Coast as well as the Caribbean, Hawaii and Alaska. Coast Guard cutters are certainly capable of patrolling over 600 miles off shore and getting there quickly when need dictates.

 

So strange, I've never needed a urinal at home so why do sailors need one at sea? Making "heads" non-gender specific could certainly save money that's wasted by requiring twice as many gender specific "heads" on a ship. Is there any logical reason for spending the extra money for our navy ships?

How much more would it cost to retrofit and add more "female" heads to the ships to accommodate the growing number of women onboard ships in the US Navy?

 

How many times has the United States gone to war ? Since we no longer teach history in our schools any longer except liberal revisionist history, most Americans are unaware and think we only fought a dozen or so wars.
Remember, the Constitution only mentions that only Congress can approve sending the Army to war, it doesn't mention the Navy.

America has used it's military and landed on foreign soils over 200 times. Mostly Navy Bluejackets and U.S. Marines.


>"This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here.


The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941.


Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war.


The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events, such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or legation, which later were considered normal peacetime practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the West."<
Here's the list-> http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

 

Here's the bad news, you believed Obama. How could you believe any thing that comes out of the Obama administration ?

Now remember, G,W. Bush fought two unfunded wars. But the cost of fighting those wars and fighting terrorism were kept separate from the regular defense budget.

When Obama entered the White House one of the first things he did was to combine the cost of the wars against terrorism including Iraq and Afghanistan with the national defense budget. So during 2009 - 2012 the $500 Billion to $800 Billion dollars that Obama cut from the national defense doesn't show up. (Remember those cuts were before Obama's 2013 sequestration.)

This is how the Obama administration operates. They cook the numbers.

You may remember a year or so ago the Obama administration got busted by Congress by cooking the numbers on the size of the Navy's combat fleet.

What Obama did to make the U.S. Navy's battle force to appear larger than it really is, was to classify navy hospital ships, coastal craft and even some barges as part of the Navy's battle force.

 

In 1998 thos cost would have been around $540,000,000.

9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan delayed the removal of the politically incorrect urinals. But as soon as Obama became POTUS this was one of his top priorities.

But liberals are always getting involved in things they have no knowledge of like calling rifle and pistol ammunition magazines clips.

A urinal on a warship uses 1 pint of water per flush. A gender friendly PC commode uses 3 pints of water per flush. When warships were built, they never thought that women would be part of the ships company. That women would use three times more water when nature called. Navy warships were designers and built with black water holding tanks that were sized to handle the (*)(*)(*)(*) and poop on a all male ships company at one pint of water per flush.

The word came down "stop removing the urinals !" Our ships can't handle the 300 % increase of black water waste.

That was a big blow to the Obama White House and liberals in Congress.

But all new ships will have "gender friendly" heads costing the tax payers billions more than the politically incorrect heads.

 

So it costs less today to simply make the heads unisex... correct.

Human waste can be discharged in blue water. The only time it can't be discharged is in costal waters.

There is no lack of water on the ocean.

Next question or issue?

 

Yes, Bush engaged the US in two completely unnecessary and unfunded wars, one of which has been the longest war the US has ever engaged in where the original intent was to serve an arrest warrant (that he failed to accomplish), and created a huge war against a tactic that has been predominately a huge waste of money (e.g. $300 million per Air Marshall arrest) and grossly violated more Amendments to the US Constitution than any other president in history. In all of this he doubled the national debt as opposed to cutting it in half as he promised in 2001 which left the US government virtually unable to address the scope of the economic disaster he left the country in when he departed office.

The War in Iraq is over and so there is no spending for it to be accounted for in the DOD budget while the War in Afghanistan remains a money pit of wasted dollars. The US has "lost" in both Afghanistan and Iraq and both wars were a gross waste of dollars.

How about this simple fact. The US spends on more on our military than the next 11 highest spending nations on their military combined. None of these nations are hostile to the United States and most of which are allies. In fact there isn't a single nation on the planet that represents a threat of invading the United States and only one, N Korea, even represents a potential threat on paper of attacking the United States and the only reason it's even a potential threat is because the US has troops on it's border representing a nuclear threat against it. North Korea spends about 5% of what the US spends on its military.

The United States could cut it's military budget in half with no reduction in its technological advantage or mission superiority when compared to any nation in the world. If we deployed all of our naval forces to a single conflict the greatest threat wouldn't be the enemy but potential collisions between our own ships.

What part of "There is no Threat" do so many fail to understand? Our military budget is based upon fighting the Boogeyman.

 

Sure was Just like there was really a MiG-31. After all, it has to be true, I saw it in a movie!

 

The Constitution does not even mandate that a Declaration of War be made prior to conflict, it simply states that only Congress has the power to declare war.

And I can't think of a single instance where Congress refused to support a President's decision to send troops into combat. And even prior to taking office, we had Congress approve the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. And Congress approved both that Law (signed by President Clinton), as well as the Iraq War Resolutions.

Whenever people try to talk about "Not a declared war" and "exceeding his authority as intended by the Founding Fathers", it reminds me how little most people really know history.

 

And the president has the authority to wage war but does not have the delegated authority to start a war.

This is the problem with the War Powers Act because it delegates an authority to the President to "declare war" by starting one and Congress cannot give it's powers to the executive branch.

Unfortunately like the Patriot Act the Executive Branch has been very successful in preventing any lawsuit challenging the War Powers Act and key provisions of the Patriot Act from ever being subjected to scrutiny by the US Supreme Court. They've managed to establish thar no one has "standing" to challenge the War Powers Act and have managed to hide all of the evidence that could be used the challenge the Patriot Act under the veil of secrecy preventing anyone from being able to challenge because the evidence of violations of the Constitution are all "Secret" documents.

 

It cost more for friendly gender heads.

I don't think you understand the layout of a warship. You have black water holding tanks that are for human waste. Then you have Grey water holding tanks that holds water from sinks from the galley, the numerous scuttlebutts aboard the ship and also the sinks and showers that are in the heads.

Now since I'm a Marine and not a sailor I don't know the procedure when they discharge the black and Grey water holding tanks. Don't know if they have to reduce speed or not while at sea.

A urinal on a ship isn't the same kind of urinal that landlubbers use on shore. It's a long trauf where six or ten males can stand side by side and relief themselves. Females have to squat and require an individual commode. Do you see where the cost comes in ?

On order warships like your Gearing class DD's they use to have urinals on the weather decks. These urinals were just like the same kind of urinals used in the civilian world. A sailor is on watch on deck and needs to take a leak, it took him a minute or less to relieve himself never having to leave his watch or work detail. A female would have to go below deck and make her way to one of the heads. She's gone for almost twenty minutes. Not very productive when it comes to man hours being wasted when nature calls.

 

Back during the 1970's liberals didn't want to serve in the military, be it during war time or peace time. So they wanted an all volunteer military ending a 200 year tradition of the citizen soldier. An all volunteer military is expensive, you have to pay them more. And unknown at the time the all volunteer military would become a married military that became even more expensive. Today the political left doesn't want to pay for that all volunteer military.

You can't compare America's defense spending to other nations because those civilians working in the defense industries building ships, planes, etc. are paid a lot more than those in China, Russia, etc. Blame it on the unions if you want.

Lets not forget the benefits of the military industrial complex. Well paying jobs that resulted in a large disposable income. What else did we get out of it ? Look around you, the internet, microwave oven, cordless tools, tubeless tires, commercial jet aircraft, cell phones, that GPS unit in your car, weather satellites, solar panels, satellite/cable television, etc, etc. etc.

 

I concur.

A declaration of war is nothing more than a protocol that sovereigns follow as the last resort to negotiate with another sovereign before actual combat begins. Under "The Law of Nations" it's not required. In fact "The Law of Nations" which our Constitution is based from describes exactly what a declaration of war is. Even the laws of war and the Geneva Convention are based upon "The Law of Nations."
It's all there.-> http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

 

Uh, what?

The President does not have the power to "Declare War", that is solely reserved to Congress. What the President has the right to do is "wage war", as the Commander in Chief. But he still has to get authorization from Congress.

And this has been accepted since an accepted fact of Constitutional Powers since the turn of the century.

No, not the last one. Nor the one before that. I am talking about the First Barbary War, in 1801. When President Jefferson repeatedly petitioned Congress for an authorization prior to engaging in hostilities during the First Barbary War. And this has remained the same for over 200 years since then.

So I think you need to go back and reread the Constitution again, and the precedents involved. The President has no right at all when it comes to "Declaring War", all they can do is ask Congress to do so (like FDR's famous "Day of Infamy" speech).

 

This is the problem with "selective memory", and people only looking at things that they do not like now, and thinking that it is wrong simply because they do not agree with it.

I look at over 200 years of history with the US and conflict with other nations. Some of them actually involving the very people who wrote the Constitution (or had influence upon it) in the first place.

When it comes to what some call "Illegal Wars", they love to throw around LBJ, Nixon, Bush, and Bush, and call them Criminals because there was no Declaration of War. Yet they completely ignore Harry Truman, William McKinley, and even Thomas Jefferson who did the same things (along with most other Presidents).