If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Paul Ryan hits back at Obama's "horses and bayonets" quip: "The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING   (thehill.com) divider line 295
    More: Hero, President Obama, navy, Budget Control Act, sea lanes, foreign policy, oceans  
•       •       •

2589 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 10:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 11:14:11 AM

bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.


Battleship do have their place. As museums.

www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org
 
2012-10-23 11:14:14 AM

what_now: gilgigamesh: That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO

Yes, but Obama didn't run with it. I'm not sure if he didn't hear, he ignored it, or what.

I have to imagine that Barack Obama's mental map of the Middle East is more clear than mine, but I thought to myself "...wait...what? Iran is on the ..what? " and then I googled mapped to make sure *I* wasn't the crazy one.


I don't know why Obama didn't hit that either. It was ripe for picking, seeing as we've had at least 2 or 3 confrontations (and I believe at least one rescue) involving Iranian vessels in the Gulf of Oman this year alone.

I guess Obama felt he had to pick his battles. Still, it is weird that the media and the meme-o-sphere isn't giving it more love.
 
2012-10-23 11:14:21 AM
Force projection. How the fark does it work?

Seriously, a guy who is running to be the nation's presidential spare tire should not be this dumb.
 
2012-10-23 11:15:32 AM

tonguedepressor: oblig.


I can't look at that picture without thinking "What's Jack Donaghy doing on that ship with Sen. Fred Thompson and the butler from The Nanny? "
 
2012-10-23 11:15:39 AM
Monsieur Ryan, the esprit de l'escalier has found you again.
Touche.
Dumbass.
 
2012-10-23 11:16:23 AM
"This trillion-dollar cut in defense will make us weak."

No.

It.

Farking.

Won't.

Jeebus, can we dispense with the whole "if we ever cut a single dollar from the military spending we'll be overrun by terr'ists and commies" mantra?
 
2012-10-23 11:17:15 AM
public.dcexp.com

Our fleet of Navy Attack Dirigibles has been decimated by Obama's policies, and the sky hasn't shrunk!
 
2012-10-23 11:17:41 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


And we're done. Sure, it's the same area size, but tech has made it easier to see more of it with fewer boats. This goes for all brances of the military, tech is making it unneccessary to have huge standing armies IMHO. Yes, we will always need ground troops and what not, but we don't need as many. The powers that be need to get out of the meat grinder mentality and embrace technology.
 
2012-10-23 11:18:48 AM
Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?
 
2012-10-23 11:19:08 AM

sprawl15: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

[imageshack.us image 850x1076] 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible


Well played, sprawl, well played.
 
2012-10-23 11:19:40 AM

Fark It:


For the record, China is believed to be building two aircraft carriers, to be completed in 2015.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:12 AM

zedster: [www.neptunuslex.com image 850x606]

no but the ships have gotten bigger

Class & type: Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate
Displacement: 4,100 long tons (4,200 t), full load
Length: 453 feet (138 m), overall
Beam: 45 feet (14 m)
Draught: 22 feet (6.7 m)

USS Constitution (heavy frigate)
Tonnage: 1,576
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 204 ft (62 m) billet head to taffrail;
175 ft (53 m) at waterline[2]
Beam: 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
Height: foremast: 198 ft (60 m)
mainmast: 220 ft (67 m)
mizzenmast:172.5 ft (52.6 m)[2]
Draft: 21 ft (6.4 m) forward
23 ft (7.0 m) aft[4]


DDX violates the Washington Naval Treaty capping heavy-cruiser sizes. It's pretty amusing.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:24 AM

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


They're glued to Fox, at least until the trembling quells somewhat.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:52 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


Doesn't matter how good the room is if the missile is still 25 years old.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:55 AM

riverwalk barfly: what_now: John Paul

I want so badly to make a Led Zeppelin joke, but I'm just not that funny.


♪ ♫Wanna whole lotta boats!♪ ♫

*shrugs shoulders**
 
2012-10-23 11:22:22 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.

Battleship do have their place. As museums.

[www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org image 654x307]


It belongs in a museum! indy.jpg
 
2012-10-23 11:22:53 AM

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.
 
2012-10-23 11:22:57 AM

ha-ha-guy: Philip Francis Queeg: Obsolete as compared to what?

Atago Class, KDX-III Class, Type 052C, Type 45.


Ally, friendly, limited number in service, ally.
I'm not seeing the urgency unless the goal is "be better than everyone else, even our friends, combined... forever".


They supposedly don't have that long of a lifespan in a hostile environment near China.

Oh? How frequently does China blow them up? You are speaking of theoreticals and using words which invoke reality.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:32 AM

Bloody William: "The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?


Nowhere near as big. That CVN and escorts will dominate everything in-theater. The 1912 navy will have presence in every theater.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:51 AM
The distance from my ranch to town hasn't shrunk either, but it doesn't still take 2 days on horseback to get there, pinhead.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:13 AM

sprawl15: mayIFark: odinsposse: To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison.

- Paul Ryan, policy genius and the intellectual leader of conservatism.

OMG1!

He really did say that. But to be fair, Trig did not understand it either.

Torg got it on the third try, though.


What about the Romney boys: Tagg, Flip, Scrunch, Herk, and Frrrrrrrp?
 
2012-10-23 11:24:28 AM
So our ships have anti-ship missiles that have a range of 125km right? And anti air missiles that have a range of 300km. And we have 11 carriers with F-18 squadrons which can carry all our sexy weapons and have a range of 2000km...

A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho
 
2012-10-23 11:24:34 AM

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


Rush isn't on yet, once the derping points have been downloaded I'm sure they'll all be here.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:45 AM

Dogberry: Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.


That and "the Perez is mean"
 
2012-10-23 11:25:20 AM

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


They're probably gathering in fallout shelters as we speak since (turns off lights, sticks flashlight under face) IRAN IS FOUR YEARS CLOSER TO A NUCLEAR BOOOOOOOOMB!!!!
 
2012-10-23 11:25:26 AM
Nine hours and that's the best he's got?

pictat.com
 
2012-10-23 11:25:44 AM

urbangirl: Shadowknight: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

New Super Carriers like the Bush are really only limited by the people onboard. Given an intimate supply of food and creature comfort items, they could really go nonstop for the entire life of it's fuel.

I have a feeling the people would hang themselves or go on murder sprees long before that, though.

I really, really hope you meant "infinite".


Farking auto correct. Wow, that really makes that sentence kind of creepy, doesn't it?
 
2012-10-23 11:26:29 AM

Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.


Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.
 
2012-10-23 11:26:50 AM

EyeballKid: gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?

They're probably gathering in fallout shelters as we speak since (turns off lights, sticks flashlight under face) IRAN IS FOUR YEARS CLOSER TO A NUCLEAR BOOOOOOOOMB!!!!


I CANT STAND THAT COMMENT!!!!

what does that even mean? We're also 4 years closer to 2020. I was mostly surprised that Obama didnt just ask him when Iran would have Nuclear weapons if he knew we were 4 years closer.
 
2012-10-23 11:28:16 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.

Battleship do have their place. As museums.

[www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org image 654x307]


BBs are not cost- and personnel- effective. Beyond that, they are still be incredibly formidable ships, even today.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:28 AM
cyclesc.org

What a nine-hour debate comeback strategy session might look like at Romney HQ.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:31 AM

Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.


This is the key to defeating the modern US Navy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jp g

We have no defense against this superior technology!
 
2012-10-23 11:29:41 AM
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's "This Morning." "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

I know it has been covered but since I am here. Due to technology, the footprint per ship has gotten bigger.
 
2012-10-23 11:30:09 AM
Bears repeating; old steel cannon pointed out the portal really does not compare to a deck full of Cruise Missiles
 
2012-10-23 11:30:49 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.

This is the key to defeating the modern US Navy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jp g

We have no defense against this superior technology!

 

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-23 11:31:44 AM
Either Mr Ryan thinks we are all too stupid to understand why we don't need as many ships as we had 100 years ago, or he is that stupid. Nether would get my vote.
 
2012-10-23 11:31:54 AM
The total displacement of the US Navy exceeds that of the next 13 navy's combined, of which include 11 of our NATO allies.

But we TOTALLY need to keep buying more and more ships because we'll never be safe if we don't.
 
2012-10-23 11:34:12 AM

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)
 
2012-10-23 11:34:27 AM
So wait, if he says the Ocean hasn't shrunk, did he acknowledge global warming?
 
2012-10-23 11:34:53 AM

Raharu: PanicMan: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.

I would watch the shiat out of that cooking show.


HUMAN ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY.
 
2012-10-23 11:36:23 AM

Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.


Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?
 
2012-10-23 11:36:25 AM

Adam West for President: DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.

Believe it or not, the Navy NWU is not intended to be camouflage. It is designed to mask the most common paints, oils, and grease used in the maintenance of naval vessels.

We get to be dirty and not look dirty.


I suppose that explains why the most usage I've gotten out of my Air Force ABUs is that they cover up coffee stains really well.
 
2012-10-23 11:36:39 AM

spiderpaz: The total displacement of the US Navy exceeds that of the next 13 navy's combined, of which include 11 of our NATO allies.

But we TOTALLY need to keep buying more and more ships because we'll never be safe if we don't.


We probably need to cut back simply because we cannot afford to do it anymore. But we need to recognize what the difference in capability is, and not simply hand-wave it away as not being relevant to the discussion. One has to decide what a nation should be able to do and how we want to do it, and recognize what options leave the table at the current replacement rate.
 
2012-10-23 11:38:18 AM

costermonger: Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.

Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?


Hydrodynamics seriously favors longer/larger ships. iirc, they looked at adding 1m SHP to the Iowa and found out it would add 1kt of speed.
 
2012-10-23 11:39:03 AM
Ryan: "to compare modern american battleships and navy with bayonet's, I just don't understand that comparison"

Do you know why you don't understand? Because bayonets were being compared to the 1917 navy.

DUMBASS! (even if he is pretending to mis-remember the comparison.
 
2012-10-23 11:40:46 AM

DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.


We need a "Not Funny" button
 
2012-10-23 11:41:04 AM
In 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 active ships, a number that eventually peaked during World War II, then fell, then peaked again more modestly during the Korean War, followed by a slow, consistent decline over the next five decades.

In 2011, the number was 285. More than any of the last four years under President Bush. But suddenly now it's a problem.
 
2012-10-23 11:41:25 AM
We have planes that are stationed in Missouri that attack Afghanistan and come back 3 days later.
We have single carrier groups that can singlehandedly take out the entire combined navies from WWI.

Hell, one or two carrier groups could probably take on the entire combined navies from WWII if they wanted to try. What in the f*ck is the Yamato or Bismark going to do against a bunch of missiles that they have no chance of shooting down when launched from 600 miles away? And, a bunch of zereos are going to do dickall against the defenses of a carrier.

The ocean has shrunk. We shrunk it through technology. That's why one nation is able to be the single greatest naval force the world has ever seen. And, it isn't even freaking close.
 
2012-10-23 11:42:11 AM

Cythraul: This is like someone giving you a horribly scathing insult based on complete truth regarding your character that catches you off-guard leaving you with no adequate reply, and then after hours of mental self-torture over the truth of it, you finally think of a reply and call that person up and say, "Nuh uh!"


Link 

He always looked French to me....
 
2012-10-23 11:43:55 AM
Is that supposed to be Republican humor or something? Because as a zing! rejoinder, it's a big failure.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report