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.

(Hampton Roads)   280 ships, ah-ah-ah. 271 ships, ah-ah-ah. (Scribble scribble.) 283 ships, ah-ah-ah   (hamptonroads.com) divider line 11
    More: Silly, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Budgetary Assessments, Randy Forbes, navies  
•       •       •

7730 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:21 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-12 02:11:10 PM
3 votes:

Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]


How about we look at total spending instead

nationalpriorities.org
2014-03-12 03:17:12 PM
2 votes:
codigo:
How about we look at total spending instead

img.fark.net
Translated.
2014-03-12 01:54:39 PM
2 votes:

Cygnus God of Balance: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]

You're right all those hospital ships and the good will missions they undertake are just wasteful.

Yeah, except that's not what's happening. At all.  They are manipulating their numbers by reclassifying those ships thus enabling the addition of more high dollar war ships.  Nice try, though.


I'm pretty sure the article indicates the opposite.  The number of actual ships is decreasing but they are saying it isn't by adding in ones they never counted before.  This enables the Navy to say they still have 280 ships even after budget cuts so that people don't use the 'we have fewer ships than any time since the Barbary Pirates incidents' since people are stupid and equate number of ships with effective power.
2014-03-12 04:05:55 PM
1 votes:

Ishidan: Why would China piss off their number one trading partner?


Who was Germany's biggest trading partner in 1938?

I doubt China is that crazy, but nation-states do things for a lot of reasons, not just trade.
2014-03-12 03:51:37 PM
1 votes:

CitizenjaQ: "People should not put emphasis on the total ship count the way they do," Harrison said. "It doesn't make sense."

"A better way is looking at types of ships," he said.

No kidding. I'd rather have a single Sovereign than a whole squadron of Novas any day.

/farkin' Borg


Despite the obvious sarcasm, this is still correct.

We can't even go by names, really, since ships with the same type name have varied widely over the years.  Today's Burke class destroyer is over four times the displacement of a WWII Fletcher class, for instance-and nobody complained about counting "Escort" ships as ships back in WWII, even though those were as underpowered compared to a ship of the line of its day.  On the other hand, we're far more into force multipliers these days-such as providing healthcare via hospital ship, or staying on station longer via supply ship.

Saying that China is going to take a military action that will catch the USA with their pants down if we don't have more big bada boom ships is rich.
Why would China piss off their number one trading partner?  That's a bit of politics we didn't have back in WWII--nobody was buying stuff that had "Made In Russia" stickers on it.
2014-03-12 03:51:00 PM
1 votes:
codigo:

How about we look at total spending instead

[nationalpriorities.org image 620x459]


I fail to see how this advances your point. Unless you think we're all idiots who will look at a different pie chart and think "ooooh! smaller number! I prefer that one!".

Carousel Beast:
You realize the navy is doing this specifically to avoid that, right? They don't want more ships, they just want to modernize what they have.

Excessive military spending is an artifact of congress, not the military itself.


This is very, very true. And the top brass in the military have tried to warn us about it for quite  some time (oblig). There's a very good documentary about the military-industrial complex that's more recent than the first two links found here for free.
2014-03-12 02:54:34 PM
1 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]

You're right all those hospital ships and the good will missions they undertake are just wasteful.


You mean all those...USNS Mercy & USNS Comfort? All of those two? Yeah, I'm sure that's what CGoB was talking about. Good catch; I'm sure most ordinary sane people would have thought he/she was referring to the pork spent on planes the military doesn't want (for example). Thanks for clearly that up.
2014-03-12 02:41:29 PM
1 votes:

brandent: I'm pretty sure the article indicates the opposite.  The number of actual ships is decreasing but they are saying it isn't by adding in ones they never counted before.  This enables the Navy to say they still have 280 ships even after budget cuts so that people don't use the 'we have fewer ships than any time since the Barbary Pirates incidents' since people are stupid and equate number of ships with effective power.


They're also trying to dodge the "more admirals than ships" talking point. There are currently 275 admirals, but the pace of shipbuilding is slowing down faster than the pace of new admirals being promoted (beyond replacing retirees).
2014-03-12 02:12:16 PM
1 votes:

Rhino_man: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]

That chart needs a "Help! We're being oppressed" word balloon added to the Military slice for when they start crying about reduced defense budgets.

[img.fark.net image 620x459]


Keyword: Discretionary.
img.fark.net

Military spending still a huge amount, to be sure.
2014-03-12 01:55:17 PM
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]

That chart needs a "Help! We're being oppressed" word balloon added to the Military slice for when they start crying about reduced defense budgets.


img.fark.net
2014-03-12 01:46:18 PM
1 votes:

Cygnus God of Balance: Hooray for the honorable cause of ensuring more military spending, cause we don't hemorrhage nearly enough there now:
[nationalpriorities.org image 425x316]


That chart needs a "Help! We're being oppressed" word balloon added to the Military slice for when they start crying about reduced defense budgets.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report