Sure they're not useful now... but God help us without them if the terrorists finally join up with the Mermen

I would much rather spend $14 billion on eight submarines than on bailouts for mismanaged businesses. At least there is something to show for the expense.

What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

If we can't move our ships absolutely freely on the open seas, we lose a significant bit of global power projection ability. Submarines are necessary for this.

Right. Because there will only be insurgency operations from now on.

Any insurgency would stop pretty quickly if the nation in question suddenly reached a temperature of 1000 degrees.

Of course, everything else would stop pretty quickly too - it's just a question of how badly you want to stop the insurgency.

/ did you know that it's really fun to sing "K-19" instead of "Hey 19" to the Steely Dan tune? I mean, if you're into replacing the words of old popular songs with submarine names.

Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Wrong class of boat. These launch tomahawk cruise missiles.

Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Uh, no. RTFA. These are attack subs with Tomahawk cruise missile launchers.

What's another $14 billion when you're $10 trillion in the hole. Meh.

Better than paying $17 billion to a bunch of car companies without actually buying cars.

well, subby, they might help with the pirates, which are evidently a problem once again.

Can't be too careful, subby; meet the latest Al Qaeda #2:

well, lets see. war may indeed kill people, but it sure is good for big business contractors!! go war!!

CrankMyBlueSax: I would much rather spend $14 billion on eight submarines than on bailouts for mismanaged businesses. At least there is something to show for the expense.

I'd much rather have that money pumped into, say, the education system so that hopefully Bush III doesn't get elected in the future.

tedbundee: I'd much rather have that money pumped into, say, the education system

we already spend more than any other county. Money isn't the issue.

MTV is.

John Coyote: well, subby, they might help with the pirates, which are evidently a problem once again.

Considering the pirates are using rubber rafts with outboard motors this might be a bit of overkill.

But remember, providing the poor with basic health-care and starving nations with food is a REAL waste of money!

Hummmm, the British with one nuke sub pretty much kept the Argentina Fleet in port during the Falklands war.

Now thats firepower you can count on.

Subs are game changers, we need them even at a high price.

If you left wingers would even read history// Naw they can't read....

Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

They do a little more than that. They're excellent intelligence platforms.

However, their real task is not to launch nuclear missiles at other countries, but to ensure that other countries do not launch nuclear missiles at us.

Its a proven missile defense shield.

/ MAD works.

incendi: Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Wrong class of boat. These launch tomahawk cruise missiles.

LordPistachio: Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Uh, no. RTFA. These are attack subs with Tomahawk cruise missile launchers.

which can can carry nukes (new window).

they don't anymore, but they could.

CrankMyBlueSax: I would much rather spend $14 billion on eight submarines than on bailouts for mismanaged businesses. At least there is something to show for the expense.

While I'll agree with the sentiment of having something physical to show for the money being spent, I would rather not have even MORE money being pumped into the military industrial complex than already is. We already have enough power on one or two Boomers to destroy all life on the planet, and we have enough attack subs to pretty much destroy any ship any enemy can throw at us fifty times over. And don't get me started on the ability of our aircraft carriers to unleash a swarm of supersonic hell on almost any part of the world.

Our army and marines may have trouble fighting a hidden enemy ducking behind civilians in crowded cities, but there is no hiding on the oceans. You either have power, or you don't. And we are completely, utterly unmatched in our Navy right now. Even the Chinese are a long way off from coming close to the power we possess on the open seas. We own the water.

Do we really need to make that any bigger at this point in history, when our country's very economic survival is at stake? Why not back off the military expansion, especially in the one part of the military no one can deny our complete supremacy, and put it into something that could help our future? Education? Housing investments? Universal health care? Our collapsing infrastructure?

Eight more new subs just seems like compensating for a small dick when you're already sporting 18".

Hey subby:

,

Pay now to maintain a first class military or pay more later in lives and treasure to rebuild said military.

There will be war.

Shadowknight: CrankMyBlueSax:
Do we really need to make that any bigger at this point in history, when our country's very economic survival is at stake? Why not back off the military expansion, especially in the one part of the military no one can deny our complete supremacy, and put it into something that could help our future? Education? Housing investments? Universal health care? Our collapsing infrastructure?

Apparently you haven't been reading your Keynes. If we spend money even on something like digging holes and then filling them in again, that will help us survive economically when low short term aggregate demand is the problem. And that is what our problem is. Military spending, from a purely economic view, would be one of the best things we could do, along with infrastructure projects or basically any other type of spending.

Oh, and I should add this:

My wife is a Naval Officer. My friends, by and large, are all in the Navy. My two best friends are working for military contractors Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin.

I still want to see our military expansion get a little less priority.

winterwhile: If you left wingers would even read history// Naw they can't read....

But I thought the "left wing" controlled all colleges? How can they control the educational system and also not be able to read?

V. M. Molotov: Apparently you haven't been reading your Keynes. If we spend money even on something like digging holes and then filling them in again, that will help us survive economically when low short term aggregate demand is the problem. And that is what our problem is. Military spending, from a purely economic view, would be one of the best things we could do, along with infrastructure projects or basically any other type of spending.

I would counter that improving our education, and creating new industries like medical research or other production areas, might help us even more long term and keep us competitive in the global market.

Right now, we are (in comparison to the rest of the world) becoming bigger, fatter, dumber, and more dangerous. Eventually, our military strength won't be enough to keep us on top. All the ships in the world won't do any good when we can't pay the sailors enough to man the ships and still feed their families.

CrankMyBlueSax: I would much rather spend $14 billion on eight submarines than on bailouts for mismanaged businesses. At least there is something to show for the expense.

Yep. Building them will also create jobs that pay a living wage. That has to be worth something. At least until they figure a way to outsource the manufacturing of military equipment.

Boeing to outsource US fighter jet components to India (new window)

Rent Party: However, their real task is not to launch nuclear missiles at other countries, but to ensure that other countries do not launch nuclear missiles at us.

Its a proven missile defense shield.

/ MAD works.

How many submarines do we really need in order to do that? I would think that even just a couple of modern nuclear weapons would be enough to deter an attack. I don't think we need the ability to launch thousands of nuclear warheads, and I think that the nuclear forces should be pared back to maybe 100 warheads and the subs to launch them, at most. Both to save money, and to reduce the chances of a world-ending war.

I also think that "missile defense" is a huge MIC program that could be cut way back. It's in many ways a corporate welfare program for defense contractors, and one that is extremely technologically difficult and potentially destabilizing for the whole world. I think that "missile defense", if we can ever get it working in an effective manner and deployed, will just encourage other countries to build more effective nuclear missiles.

Considering the pirates are using rubber rafts with outboard motors this might be a bit of overkill.

...well, they're ALSO using small boats, but they have to use actual medium-sized ships to get out far enough in the ocean to use them to attack smaller freighters and cruise ships. Most of the real pirate operations are using freighters and fishing boats now (some of which are converted from ships they captured), which mean you need actual military ships and submarines to go after them. Since they're now pretending to NOT be pirates whenever military ships are visible, submarines are becoming the weapon of choice.

Shadowknight:
I would counter that [other possible spending=better, etc].

But my point is that spending of all types will help with our country's very economic survival. In this case, the economic survival requires increased short term aggregate demand, and military spending is just as good as any other type of spending for that.

You made it sound like military spending would hurt the economy before, when in fact it would help. That is wrong.

/That is all

Mnemia: Rent Party: However, their real task is not to launch nuclear missiles at other countries, but to ensure that other countries do not launch nuclear missiles at us.

Its a proven missile defense shield.

/ MAD works.

How many submarines do we really need in order to do that? I would think that even just a couple of modern nuclear weapons would be enough to deter an attack. I don't think we need the ability to launch thousands of nuclear warheads, and I think that the nuclear forces should be pared back to maybe 100 warheads and the subs to launch them, at most. Both to save money, and to reduce the chances of a world-ending war.


Ships need maintenance. They need dock time. They need to be refitted. They need rested and trained crews. You can't have 100% of your fleet at sea at all times. The US Navy has about 30% of it's fleet forward deployed at any one time.

We need enough subs to have enough fire power at sea at any given moment to remain a credible threat to destroy everything a hostile nation might have, should they decide to launch at us.

The D in MAD is is for "destruction." The US does not have "appropriate and measured" strategic nuclear response. If we decide that you're getting nuked, you're getting the whole enchilada.

V. M. Molotov: But my point is that spending of all types will help with our country's very economic survival. In this case, the economic survival requires increased short term aggregate demand, and military spending is just as good as any other type of spending for that.

You made it sound like military spending would hurt the economy before, when in fact it would help. That is wrong.

I agree that government spending helps the economy during a downturn, and that military spending is one way to do that in the short term, but I don't think that military spending is the best investment in the long run. I'd prefer that we invest in something to make us more economically competitive in the future, like infrastructure, health care, or energy efficiency. Government spending in those areas could help stimulate the economy AND help create something new for the future instead of just destroying things.

CrankMyBlueSax: I would much rather spend $14 billion on eight submarines than on bailouts for mismanaged businesses. At least there is something to show for the expense.

Absolutly

Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Wrong. You're thinking SSBN's. Learn the difference please.

incendi: If we can't move our ships absolutely freely on the open seas, we lose a significant bit of global power projection ability. Submarines are necessary for this.

Exactly..... The Navy does a lot more other than fight an insurgency. Plus, attack subs are a handy thing to have around in anti-piracy ops.

Rent Party: Ships need maintenance. They need dock time. They need to be refitted. They need rested and trained crews. You can't have 100% of your fleet at sea at all times. The US Navy has about 30% of it's fleet forward deployed at any one time.

We need enough subs to have enough fire power at sea at any given moment to remain a credible threat to destroy everything a hostile nation might have, should they decide to launch at us.

The D in MAD is is for "destruction." The US does not have "appropriate and measured" strategic nuclear response. If we decide that you're getting nuked, you're getting the whole enchilada.

Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

The missions of Virginia include Covert Strike Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Covert Intelligence Collection/Surveillance, Covert Indication and Warning and Electronic Warfare, Anti-Surface Ship Warfare, Special Warfare, Covert Mine Warfare, and Battle Group Support.

Actually subby most of those things are particularly useful against an insurgency. This is not your parents nuclear sub.

Ontos: Wrong. You're thinking SSBN's. Learn the difference please.

I realize there is a difference, but frankly I don't care much. I'd rather we do a lot less "power projecting" in the first place.

Man On Fire: incendi: Marcus Aurelius:

which can can carry nukes (new window).

they don't anymore, but they could.

Yes, yes, they're tlam/n capable, but we've got no use for tactical nuclear weapons. The Ohio class has the strategic nuclear deterrent tasking well in hand, we've got much better uses for fast, quiet, conventionally armed-to-the-teeth subs. Much, much better uses. Like intel gathering, escorting battle groups, and keeping the Russian and Chinese subs close to their own home, vice ours.

Putting a nuclear weapon on a submarine substantially increases the PITA factor for doing virtually anything. Most subs are in some way nuclear capable, but until we decide we're gonna start using tactical nukes on a first-strike basis, the Ohio class is going to be maintaining the submarine leg of our nuclear triad, and there's really no need to put them on anything else.

Mnemia:
Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

Funny how most nations aren't the world's sole remaining superpower and oldest continuous democracy. Funny how there are a number of nations in the world that would like to become the former, and have no interest in becoming the latter.

The point of the nuclear sub is this: If you don't want all your cities nuked, keep your ICBMs in their silos.

John Coyote: well, subby, they might help with the pirates, which are evidently a problem once again.

Yea, here they are...terrifying indeed...




The CAnadian Navy can take those guys out. What are you, French?

Man On Fire: incendi: Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Wrong class of boat. These launch tomahawk cruise missiles.

LordPistachio: Marcus Aurelius: What exactly is the likelihood that we'll ever launch a thermonuclear weapon at an enemy from one of these things? Because that's all they really do. Or not do, in this case.

Uh, no. RTFA. These are attack subs with Tomahawk cruise missile launchers.

which can can carry nukes (new window).

they don't anymore, but they could.

While the W80 is a nuke, it's not a thermonuclear weapon. Thermonuclear means fusion, the W80 is strictly fission.

Don't mind this too much, all the contractors are American based corporations who employ Americans (true, mainly ex-military) but the money is staying in the country.

This is why I don't mind the "Auto Bailout" either. It's all staying here.

The government gets most of this cash back by attrition anyway, only a very small portion of it ends up over seas, so the "real cost" in dollars to our deficit is very minimal.

Maybe someone with more time on their hands could explain this concept to our fellow farkers?

Mnemia: Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

Funny how with U.S. global military hegemony that other nations don't need a big military force. If you take a look at history prior to 1950, I think you will find that over the past thousand years, give or take a few hundred, that a powerful military force was essential.

Mnemia: V. M. Molotov: But my point is that spending of all types will help with our country's very economic survival. In this case, the economic survival requires increased short term aggregate demand, and military spending is just as good as any other type of spending for that.

You made it sound like military spending would hurt the economy before, when in fact it would help. That is wrong.

I agree that government spending helps the economy during a downturn, and that military spending is one way to do that in the short term, but I don't think that military spending is the best investment in the long run. I'd prefer that we invest in something to make us more economically competitive in the future, like infrastructure, health care, or energy efficiency. Government spending in those areas could help stimulate the economy AND help create something new for the future instead of just destroying things.

That's fine, and I agree with you. I just can't stand people who shout "Cut spending! Stop the recession!" without realizing that they are completely contradicting themselves. subby, for example. Or shadowknight.

/Basic economics

Rent Party: Funny how most nations aren't the world's sole remaining superpower and oldest continuous democracy. Funny how there are a number of nations in the world that would like to become the former, and have no interest in becoming the latter.

The point of the nuclear sub is this: If you don't want all your cities nuked, keep your ICBMs in their silos.

I don't think us being a "superpower" is that important.

Rent Party: Mnemia:
Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

Funny how most nations aren't the world's sole remaining superpower and oldest continuous democracy. Funny how there are a number of nations in the world that would like to become the former, and have no interest in becoming the latter.

The point of the nuclear sub is this: If you don't want all your cities nuked, keep your ICBMs in their silos.

And why can't the ones we already have do that job? Why do we need these new ones? I don't think China or Russia are thinking "Well shiat, the Americans are going to make a couple more subs. I guess we should hold off on our nuking them into oblivion plan"

Doublek111: Mnemia: Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

Funny how with U.S. global military hegemony that other nations don't need a big military force. If you take a look at history prior to 1950, I think you will find that over the past thousand years, give or take a few hundred, that a powerful military force was essential.

And if you take a look at history prior to 1945, I think you will not find nuclear weapons, and therefore you will not find mutually assured destruction, which is what Mnemia was talking about.

Doublek111: Funny how with U.S. global military hegemony that other nations don't need a big military force. If you take a look at history prior to 1950, I think you will find that over the past thousand years, give or take a few hundred, that a powerful military force was essential.

I agree, but I don't think we need as powerful a military as we have. Other countries should pay for their own military.

Aarontology: Rent Party: Mnemia:
Funny how most other nations get along just fine, and don't get nuked, with a fraction of our nuclear forces. And I don't agree that we need to "destroy everything a hostile nation might have" in order to deter them from doing something. Most countries wouldn't want even a single one of their cities nuked.

Funny how most nations aren't the world's sole remaining superpower and oldest continuous democracy. Funny how there are a number of nations in the world that would like to become the former, and have no interest in becoming the latter.

The point of the nuclear sub is this: If you don't want all your cities nuked, keep your ICBMs in their silos.

And why can't the ones we already have do that job? Why do we need these new ones? I don't think China or Russia are thinking "Well shiat, the Americans are going to make a couple more subs. I guess we should hold off on our nuking them into oblivion plan"

And what's even more interesting is that China, with only enough nukes to launch a second strike (counter attack), not a first strike (extremely successful first attack that prevents a second strike), is on its way to becoming the next superpower, while Russia, which had for quite some time nearly as many nukes as we do, was on its way to becoming a 3rd world nation for nearly a decade after its collapse. Nukes =/= Power. A minimum number of nukes prevent first strike capabilities, and we have many, many times that minimum number.

This applies to subs as well. We have enough to prevent a first strike. We don't need more.