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 11:45:11 AM

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

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.


That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:44 AM

InmanRoshi: Hold up babe, I've been investing in these two Howitzer's for the last 45 minutes.


/And yet the media still try to portray Biden as the dumb meathead, and Ryan as the "serious" policy guy.


I saw that and "Sexy And I Know It" popped into my head.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:57 AM

Ricardo Klement: 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.


FWIW Wiki (I know, I know) has them at the same top speed.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:37 AM
Actually, Congressman Ryan, you're incorrect. The ocean has actually risen due to global warming, a subject that you and your running mate refuse to talk about. Still want to go with that defense? I have some lovely followup questions to ask you.
 
2012-10-23 11:47:09 AM

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

That and "the Perez is mean"


And near.
 
2012-10-23 11:47:17 AM

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

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.


I think that to hit anything at that range they would have to have forward spotters, at least for the WWII setup which had no RADAR targeting and used analog fire control with visual inputs.
 
2012-10-23 11:51:04 AM
"The ocean hasn't shrunk".

These guys are clown-shoes.
 
2012-10-23 11:51:20 AM

whistleridge: If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.


Considering the Iowa would never get within 75km of the Tic, then you should be agreeing with everybody that it is pointless.

What's the Tic gonna do, let the Iowa get in range just for the fun of it? The Iowa would never get within 50km of its max range.
 
2012-10-23 11:52:37 AM

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

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!


Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-23 11:54:07 AM
to be fair on horses, they'd actually be more effective than rolling around in tanks in afghanistan
 
2012-10-23 11:55:10 AM
choosepp.net
 
2012-10-23 11:56:02 AM

dudemanbro: what_now: John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.

I love you
/that is all


You stoled my sentiment!
 
2012-10-23 11:56:05 AM

Smidge204: PsyLord: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!

Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=


Re: China, does it count as an aircraft carrier if they don't have any aircraft on it?
 
2012-10-23 11:58:03 AM

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

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.



Also as the Navy has been working on VTOL drones, the range delta between then and now becomes even more pronounced, also as the explosive power of the warheads have also changed quite a bit the comparison becomes even greater. We are talking orders of magnitude.
 
2012-10-23 11:58:44 AM

Paul Baumer: Ricardo Klement: 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.

FWIW Wiki (I know, I know) has them at the same top speed.


Well, the Iowa has more fuel, so the Tico would run out first. :)
 
2012-10-23 11:58:50 AM

choo: [choosepp.net image 543x340]


My friend's kid has a toy plane with twin chain saws mounted on the front.

Your picture is therefore the second most Awesome Thing in the Universe.
 
2012-10-23 11:59:18 AM

Raharu: Man, I hate to pound the shotglass or just toss out ten lbs of cheddar, but even an environmentally minded dude can see that the President won the last debate.


Oooooo!

Pretty! +1!!eleventy!


/THE saying of the politics tab. Substitute your point after "...can see that..."
//satire yellow looks good on ya
 
2012-10-23 11:59:25 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.


Is displacement really the right metric when there are 100-foot submarine vessels that technically put out like four orders of magnitude greater overall firepower in ten minutes than a thousand-foot aircraft carrier with a hundred times the personnel can muster in half an hour?

Just sayin', we've kinda been in the age of automation since the middle of the cold war, and we've recently taken that shiat to the next level with drones. Size maybe not the important metric anymore.
 
2012-10-23 12:00:11 PM

gilgigamesh: what_now: trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!

I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.

That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO. Like Sarah Palin level of geographic blundering. In fact the 'horses and bayonets' comment was Obama's sarcastic response rather than Romney's gaffe.

I don't know why that one got so much traction but his WTF geography gaffe got no love at all. I guess I will never get memetics.


I did laugh my ass off when they put up a map on MSNBC after the debate and outlined Iran and Syria. Rachel Maddow commented something like "they don't share a border, and Iran has coastline".
 
2012-10-23 12:00:43 PM
What with all those paths to the sea being created even as we speak, one could argue that the ocean is getting even bigger.
 
2012-10-23 12:01:20 PM

sdd2000: Arkanaut: whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.


Also as the Navy has been working on VTOL drones, the range delta between then and now becomes even more pronounced, also as the explosive power of the warheads have also changed quite a bit the comparison becomes even greater. We are talking orders of magnitude.


Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor. Back in the '90s some analysts discussed the value of armoring DDs because, while it's expensive, we were able afford to do it a lot more than our enemies could afford to upgrade their anti-ship weapons.
 
2012-10-23 12:02:20 PM
From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.
 
2012-10-23 12:03:04 PM

UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...


This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.
 
2012-10-23 12:03:55 PM

burndtdan: gilgigamesh: what_now: trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!

I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.

That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO. Like Sarah Palin level of geographic blundering. In fact the 'horses and bayonets' comment was Obama's sarcastic response rather than Romney's gaffe.

I don't know why that one got so much traction but his WTF geography gaffe got no love at all. I guess I will never get memetics.

I did laugh my ass off when they put up a map on MSNBC after the debate and outlined Iran and Syria. Rachel Maddow commented something like "they don't share a border, and Iran has coastline".


Seeing as Iran is acknowledged by both sides as the #1 foreign policy challenge, you'd think this would be a bigger issue.
 
2012-10-23 12:04:26 PM

Smidge204: PsyLord: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!

Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=


Plus, as per the graphic posted above, the US has a pile of mini-carriers in all but name for USMC air assets. You wanna talk about overkill...
 
2012-10-23 12:07:05 PM

Slaxl: That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip



Well, the ocean called and it's running out of YOU!
 
2012-10-23 12:09:27 PM

Ricardo Klement: Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor.


Yabut who has armored warships that would necessitate those weapons?
 
2012-10-23 12:12:14 PM

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.


You missed the joke I see.
 
2012-10-23 12:15:13 PM

MrBallou: UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...

This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.



That's an excellent site. Ohio may have something to do with it but their awards are paltry compared to Virginia. And without examining closely, Virginia has a shiat-ton of Navy related work.
 
2012-10-23 12:16:28 PM

SN1987a goes boom: 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.

You missed the joke I see.


I may have missed your joke, but you obviously missed mine.
 
2012-10-23 12:17:38 PM
"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."

oh yeah? well you can't make footprints in water unless you're Jesus. Are you Jesus Ryan? Are you?
 
2012-10-23 12:22:50 PM

UberDave: MrBallou: UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...

This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.


That's an excellent site. Ohio may have something to do with it but their awards are paltry compared to Virginia. And without examining closely, Virginia has a shiat-ton of Navy related work.


True, but they're not winning in Ohio and they absolutely have to. The kind of reasoning that this thread has been laughing about has nothing to do with why they're saying we need a bigger navy.
 
2012-10-23 12:26:04 PM
What is with the people who think the Iowa would trash a Tic or anything else? When the Tic's radar detected the Iowa (hours before the Iowa got into range), all they would need to do is send the SH-60 up. A couple of torpedoes dropped off the pylons of the Seahawk and scratch one Iowa. Did people miss the parts of WWII where biplanes crippled the Bismarck or Japanese naval bombers swarmed and killed British warships like the HMS Repulse/HMS Prince of Wales/etc? One Seahawk dropping a couple modern torpedoes would be the end of it.

Failing that the Tic can prevent the Iowa from closing for a long period of time and take it out with missiles. You don't have to sink a BB to cripple it, just sweet the decks clean. That also happened to Bismarck, the British BBs and CAs didn't sink her, but they swept her decks clean of working guns and then sent units in for torpedo attacks to finish the deal. At that point either the Germans scuttled her or a torpedo took her out (depending on which theory you like). A TSAM hitting between the A and B currents, followed by a TSAM hitting between the C and D turrets, and suddenly the Iowa is short on teeth.

/with the explosion occurring underwater, you have the water attempting to push the explosion upwards and into the hull of the ship, it is very hard to armor against that or channel the blast around it
//above water armor belts are easy to do because it is easy to channel the force of the explosion into thin air
 
2012-10-23 12:29:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.


Got that one already.

Of course, the converse of that is that the ocean is invading US shores and beaches. We cannot tolerate this, and need a larger Navy to withstand ocean aggression.
 
2012-10-23 12:30:24 PM

zedster:

www.neptunuslex.com

no but the ships have gotten bigger

 

Ha! You just proved Ryan's point--I just measured those two ships with my fingers, and the Constitution is definitely bigger!
 
2012-10-23 12:34:50 PM

Renart: Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 641x361]

/Hot.


I love how the mom and sister are doing chores in the background.
 
2012-10-23 12:35:33 PM

Arkanaut: Ricardo Klement: Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor.

Yabut who has armored warships that would necessitate those weapons?


Sorry - thought that was part of a different thread of conversation.
 
2012-10-23 12:38:38 PM

that bosnian sniper: Ricardo Klement: From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.

Got that one already.

Of course, the converse of that is that the ocean is invading US shores and beaches. We cannot tolerate this, and need a larger Navy to withstand ocean aggression.


www.the-romans.co.uk

Sees what you did there.
 
2012-10-23 01:03:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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 image 850x578]


Iran:

www.popsci.com

USA:

upload.wikimedia.org

XCOM:

xcom2.addicted-gamer.com
 
2012-10-23 01:05:39 PM

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

Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

Florida is a lost cause. Hope for Nevada to do the smart thing.


An Ohioan here. I did my part and mailed in my ballot last week.
 
2012-10-23 01:09:08 PM

KarmicDisaster: [public.dcexp.com image 600x400]

Our fleet of Navy Attack Dirigibles has been decimated by Obama's policies, and the sky hasn't shrunk!


Actually, dirigible use has expanded greatly under Obama. They're using unmanned ones as observational platforms now; real heavy use of them in Afghanistan.
 
2012-10-23 01:11:59 PM

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.


I disagree. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile is a beam rider. It follows a Continuous Wave Illumination (CWI) from a fire control system. Those systems use the I and K band for acquisition and track. If that fails, you can also lay the FCS with optics, paint it with CWI and the ESSM will follow it all the way in.
 
2012-10-23 01:14:28 PM

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


Furthermore JPJ has probably the least comedy potential of any Led Zeppelin member.

Including Sandy Denny.
 
2012-10-23 01:16:20 PM

Charlie Freak: Assuming there are no escorts for either ship


So, assuming reality is not real...

Got it. I like to change the goal posts in my arguments too. I can win every time that way.
 
2012-10-23 01:17:45 PM
The real reason Romney is for a bigger navy. Also, the idiot wants to buy more F-22's.
 
2012-10-23 01:23:32 PM

InmanRoshi: [cdn04.cdn.socialitelife.com image 600x450]

Hold up babe, I've been investing in these two Howitzer's for the last 45 minutes.


/And yet the media still try to portray Biden as the dumb meathead, and Ryan as the "serious" policy guy.


if those '40' are true than I'll have to admit Ryan is a pretty strong guy. Not many people can curl 90ibs dumbells so easily
 
2012-10-23 01:33:25 PM
But our enemies' navies have, which is what matters to the size of our navy.
 
2012-10-23 01:33:29 PM

Ricardo Klement: 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.)


hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.
 
2012-10-23 01:38:46 PM

SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: 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.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.


Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.
 
2012-10-23 01:39:48 PM

Ricardo Klement: SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: 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.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.

Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.


Really? You don't think we have fewer battleships because they're completely obsolete now? REALLY?
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report