Do you have adblock enabled?
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 (2 years 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 01:42:50 PM  

Wrongo: [cyclesc.org image 641x361]

What a nine-hour debate comeback strategy session might look like at Romney HQ.


I had not thought about that... he had 9 hours and a team of campaign advisors and this is the best comeback they developed.

How about... Hey Obama the Jerk Store called and they are running out of you.
-or- I slept with your wife!
-or- Yeah, the president is a naval expert. His mom knew all the sailors in Hawaii.
 
2012-10-23 01:57:31 PM  
Just had a conversation with the vice principal and one of the secretaries at my school. It was segueing from free food being available at some school events...

Me: ...Yes, I was at the election (sp) potluck dinner one of the clubs was holding last night.
Sec: Oh, who won?
Me [realizing my mistake]: Er, debate. I think Obama won the debate, but the election's still two weeks away.
VP: Did you see the reaction shots? During one line where Romney was saying we have the fewest ships since 1916, and Obama said "Well we have these things called aircraft carriers", and he was being so sarcastic. Romney was giving him a death glare.
Me: Right, and he said "We also have the fewest horses and bayonets we've ever had." The kids were cheering.
Sec: Well, I saw the fact check. There were three things on the fact check, and the first was a Marine called in and said they still use bayonets. So there were three things, that, the auto industry, and one other, and on all three Romney was right and Obama was wrong, so--
image.shutterstock.com
Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.
 
2012-10-23 01:59:36 PM  

RminusQ: Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.


And to think that I'm going to have to move if I can't get my daughters into that school.

/not serious
 
2012-10-23 02:09:02 PM  
That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.
 
2012-10-23 02:12:42 PM  
Hell with the ice caps melting, the ocean is actually GETTING BIGGER. That's why we need more ships, because those damn Libs made up global warming!
 
2012-10-23 02:18:49 PM  

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.


Is it though? I thought SUTXNET set them back a bit.
 
2012-10-23 02:18:52 PM  

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.


The Harpoon won't do squat against an Iowa's armor belt. It's not armor-piercing. It would do considerable damage to the upper works, but considering how honeycombed the internal construction is - ships at Jutland took 40 and 50 direct hits from 12 - 14 inche shells and kept moving, and the Iowas are a generation better - it's highly unlikely even a blown turret would sink it or stop it from fighting.

And if you're talking post-upgrade, well...that Iowa would have missiles of her own. She couldn't catch the Ticonderoga (Iowas are faster, but lose too much speed in maneuvering), but I guarandamntee you that cruiser would do everything in its power to stay well out of range, just in case.
 
2012-10-23 02:24:07 PM  

JerseyTim: RminusQ: Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.

And to think that I'm going to have to move if I can't get my daughters into that school.

/not serious


Well she's just one of the secretaries. And I try not to bring too much politics up during math team.

/are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious
 
2012-10-23 02:26:13 PM  

AttawaYawattA: A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho


It can be surprisingly effective.

Link
 
2012-10-23 02:32:56 PM  

bulldg4life: 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.


The original question wasn't how likely that scenario is - impossible - but how would the firepower compare if it did. That's the question I answered.

Put another way: in the extremely unlikely possibility that these two ships were 1) fighting each other and 2) doing so without accompanying vessels or air support, if the Tico was in range of the Iowa, they had best get as many missiles off as possible ASAP as well as a helo with torpedoes, because that hull can neither dish out nor take even a fraction of the damage that the Iowa can.

But I agree: it's a stupid question. Why not ask 'if the Constitution were in boarding range of the Iowa, could her crew board and seize the upper decks in time to keep their ship from being sunk?'
 
2012-10-23 02:33:30 PM  

RminusQ: /are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious



My girls are 4 and 2. I was just kidding. That was my best impression of an overzealous Bergen County parent.
 
2012-10-23 02:44:28 PM  

Holfax: That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.


Mts of Afghanistan have lots of snow. There used to be a ski resort there til the Taliban tore it down.
 
2012-10-23 02:48:54 PM  

raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.


Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:13 PM  

AttawaYawattA: A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho


Every Marine is a rifleman... even the pilots!
 
2012-10-23 02:51:16 PM  

Sgt Otter: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.


Using female pronouns to refer to ships is sexist.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:28 PM  

Rich Cream: 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!


lol, that would have been the best reply.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:43 PM  

Sgt Otter: The USS Gerald Ford


hearts!!
 
2012-10-23 02:53:56 PM  

Sgt Otter: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.


The USS Gerald Ford sailed today. He was delicious.
 
2012-10-23 02:59:10 PM  

JerseyTim: RminusQ: /are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious


My girls are 4 and 2. I was just kidding. That was my best impression of an overzealous Bergen County parent.


Overzealous Bergen County parents? I know of nothing of the sort!
 
2012-10-23 02:59:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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?


We don't have battleships because they're too expensive, not because there isn't a useful role for them.
 
2012-10-23 03:01:53 PM  

bbfreak: The real reason Romney is for a bigger navy. Also, the idiot wants to buy more F-22's.


www.wired.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com 

Sorry, couldn't resist
 
2012-10-23 03:11:19 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: 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?

We don't have battleships because they're too expensive, not because there isn't a useful role for them.


If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.
 
2012-10-23 03:27:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.


The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.
 
2012-10-23 03:30:37 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.


The Marines need to accept that they are never going to make an opposed beach landing again.
 
2012-10-23 03:39:40 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: They slept on it and this is all they could come up with? That's like retorting with: "Oh yeah? Well, your mom!"


Came here to post pretty much this.

/Does Ryan still have a bedtime? Because I'm starting to think he might be a bit young for this.
 
2012-10-23 03:40:52 PM  
So does Paul Ryan realize that a Pearl Harbor style attack couldn't happen today? It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age. Even subs aren't as stealthy as they used to be. Our planes have a wider range allowing them to attack any target anywhere in the world. The modern carrier task force allows for a degree of force multiplication that would make Admiral Halsey die of priapism. Oh yeah, and we have cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be fired from pretty much anywhere. No, Congressman, the ocean isn't smaller but our reach is much much bigger.
 
2012-10-23 03:41:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.

The Marines need to accept that they are never going to make an opposed beach landing again.


They probably already do. This argument was had a while ago.

Another example of why the Iowa isn't obsolete: when the HMS Sheffield sank, the Captain of the New Jersey was asked what he would have to do if the NJ was hit by an Exocet. "Break out the mop and paint buckets," was his reply. Now, that's a bit of an exaggeration, as the superstructure would be having a really bad day. But, I say again, modern anti-ship weapons are not designed to penetrate armor. That won't last much longer as the lethality and delivery systems are changing a lot - a completely different kind of terminal ballistics - but so far, you'd be hard-pressed to do something to an Iowa with the weapons that are currently deployed.
 
2012-10-23 03:44:10 PM  

Mentat: So does Paul Ryan realize that a Pearl Harbor style attack couldn't happen today? It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age. Even subs aren't as stealthy as they used to be. Our planes have a wider range allowing them to attack any target anywhere in the world. The modern carrier task force allows for a degree of force multiplication that would make Admiral Halsey die of priapism. Oh yeah, and we have cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be fired from pretty much anywhere. No, Congressman, the ocean isn't smaller but our reach is much much bigger.


When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.
 
2012-10-23 03:45:38 PM  

Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.


So we'd have been better off then?
 
2012-10-23 03:47:25 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.


So what you're saying is, they're not obsolete, they were just replaced by newer, better technology.

*snerk*
 
2012-10-23 03:48:13 PM  

Mentat: It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age.


Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk.


oh ok
 
2012-10-23 03:56:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.

So we'd have been better off then?


Probably.
 
2012-10-23 06:03:11 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.



Difficulty: Ships displace water, so putting more ships into the ocean causes the ocean levels to rise.

This is, of course, Obama's fault.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-23 06:19:11 PM  

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


I wonder what sailors from 1917 would think of a Supercarrier.

Given the size of a period South Carolina class battleship, a Nimitz class supercarrier is twice as long and 50% wider at the waterline and so high above it they couldn't see onto its deck.
They'd likely laugh at a guided missile cruiser if they got close enough to it to actually see it. "heh. where are all the guns, is that some futuristic paint sprayer?"
 
2012-10-23 06:32:53 PM  

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


Heck - the difference between 1914-1942 is huge. Here's the hulk of the USS Oklahoma (the one that rolled over) next to the USS Wisconsin:

www.bitlogic.com 

Both of those ships are "Battleships"
 
2012-10-23 06:59:40 PM  
He wanted to talk about the economy...

in a debate about foreign policy
 
2012-10-23 09:02:14 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


Done in one.
 
2012-10-23 09:31:02 PM  
depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu
upload.wikimedia.org
www.waterencyclopedia.com
 
2012-10-23 10:42:51 PM  
How are we in terms of pylons? Do we need to build more pylons? The South Koreans could help
 
2012-10-23 10:43:01 PM  

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

John Paul Jones was a Commie TRAITOR who gave all of our Naval technology to the RUSSIANS!!1!


wasn't he the bassist for Led Zeppelin?
 
2012-10-24 03:18:49 AM  

whistleridge:
The Harpoon won't do squat against an Iowa's armor belt. It's not armor-piercing. It would do considerable damage to the upper works, but considering how honeycombed the internal construction is - ships at Jutland took 40 and 50 direct hits from 12 - 14 inche shells and kept moving, and the Iowas are a generation better - it's highly unlikely even a blown turret would sink it or stop it from fighting.

And if you're talking post-upgrade, well...that Iowa would have missiles of her own. She couldn't catch the Ticonderoga (Iowas are faster, but lose too much speed in maneuvering), but I guarandamntee you that cruiser would do everything in its power to stay well out of range, just in case.


There are currently none, ZERO, Iowa class battleships left operational. Nor have there been any successor classes. Obviously, Romnoids would consider this an absolute travesty.

On the other hand, those ships that planes can land on? AKA Nimitz class aircraft carriers? We've got nearly a dozen of them. Know how many ships of a similar or better class any OTHER country has? ZERO. Know why? Because these days we're all into precision strikes, not just Stuff Blowing Up Somewhere Over There (like we did back in the days of B-52 bombings carpet bombings and nine-ton battleship broadsides) -and a formation of Hornets guided by an AWACS and backed up by a tanker can intrude further into enemy territory before dropping smart bombs.

Ships racing EACH OTHER? Quaint. Did you think ships still shot GUNS at each other from over the quarterdeck? Hell no, and there's no ship that can outrace a Harpoon or Exocet...which is exactly why no Nimitz ever goes out alone, they always move in battle groups loaded with guided missile destroyers and antiaircraft frigates whose entire job is to intercept incoming missiles and their launch platforms.

Obama really missed the main point to the argument, that the Navy isn't what we are currently using. Are we fighting any enemy that has a blue-water navy right now? Nope. On the other hand, do our land warfare personnel still tool around in open-topped Jeeps? Nope. Seems to me that we have a lot less horses and bayonets, but a lot more fifteen ton Marine Corps Juggernauts
 
2012-10-24 06:56:52 AM  

Ishidan: Know how many ships of a similar or better class any OTHER country has? ZERO


One, soon to be three. France has a supercarrier and the Brits are building two. (Although to call the French one a supercarrier is admittedly... aggressive - not to offend our French friends.)

We also no longer have Carrier Battle Groups - we don't really have enough ships for them. Harpoon is also an old weapon and we really ought to hope we're not going to have any surface engagements anytime soon. And our DDs are more responsible for air defense than our frigates.
 
2012-10-24 05:43:21 PM  

monoski: Holfax: That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.

Mts of Afghanistan have lots of snow. There used to be a ski resort there til the Taliban tore it down.


I suspected that might have been the case. I should have went with pogo-sticks.
 
2012-10-24 09:32:22 PM  

Rwa2play: kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.

This; good God Ryan's a whiny little biatch ain't he.


You'd rather have someone in office who will just lie back and continually take it?
 
2012-10-24 10:49:27 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd swear capacity has increased. Who gives a shiat how many ships we have as long as we have the capacity to get our armed forces where they're going?
 
Displayed 45 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report