21–30 of 47 posts
And Iraq has chemical weapons, and Iran is a dangerous nuclear power, blah blah blah... Isn't $500 billion a year (50% of the federal budget!) enough for you people?
More like 27% of the 2008 federal budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
And Iraq has chemical weapons, and Iran is a dangerous nuclear power, blah blah blah... Isn't $500 billion a year (50% of the federal budget!) enough for you people?
The federal budget is significantly more than 1 Trillion USD
Anyway, the fraction of the budget is really besides the point. We spend an inordinate amount of money on the military, and there is no viable threats to defend against. China is the best pick because they spend the second most money ($85 billion), but can we legitimately think that we'll go to physical war with such a huge trade partner?
Our military is funded by campfire stories and yellow press.
Out of every $100 spent on national defense worldwide , $40–$50 are spent by the United States. About 30% of the US Federal budget is military spending, and about 13% is paying interest on money we borrowed for previous military spending.¹ Any hypothetical war that the US couldn’t win unless it spends even more coin on military hardware is not a hypothetical war that the US should be hypothetically fighting in the fi…
The EU as a whole spends about half what the US does on defence and ends up with about 10% of the capability. Hmm.
Out of every $100 spent on national defense worldwide , $40–$50 are spent by the United States. About 30% of the US Federal budget is military spending, and about 13% is paying interest on money we borrowed for previous military spending.¹ Any hypothetical war that the US couldn’t win unless it spends even more coin on military hardware is not a hypothetical war that the US should be hypothetically fighting in the fi…
The US spending 40-50% of the world's defense budget doesn't say much other than the fact that a lot of people are getting very rich in America. Don't get me wrong, they are still far ahead from everyone else, but I don't think that's a valid metric unless you adjust for purchasing power.
And another from the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
He repeats this quote from the US Naval Institute about 10 times in that last article: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack," and points out that ballistic missiles are 50 year old tech.
The solution to defending a surface navy isn't to throw money at it, but to mothball it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
No. They have effectively none.
The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
It's a known thought that since the late 80s, the Chinese Navy has been led by strategists who follow Mahanian decisive battle theory. It'll be interesting to see how carrier air groups are integrated into a theory that was adopted in the turn of the 20th century for a 'big gun'/dreadnought/battleship navy that was made obsolete by the emergence of naval air power.
Billy Mitchell just keeps winning...
Surface navies are useless against competent organized opponents. Carrier groups are for power projection to scare the natives, little else. During a $250 million war game in 2002, OPFOR sunk the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. Sorry I can't find the original: http://bassreport.com/forum/rec.boats.t664050.htm And another from the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier... He repeats this…