Supercarrier named after George H.W. Bush commissioned

I'm a former sub guy and I don't buy that. You think a supercarrier is expensive, try propelling one underwater. I actually think we've done ourselves a bit of disservice by getting out of the diesel submarine business. They have some advantages in littoral warfare that the nukes don't (at least the way nukes are usually used). And fast-attack/cruise-missile subs lack the ability to bring massive amounts of weaponry to bear. Subs can help provide shoreline intel, but a lot of that stuff can be done by satellites/aircraft, too. They're also useful for covert operative insertions.

 

I'd rather pay the price for one carrier too many than for one too few.

 

amen

 

Thank you both.

If we're so concerned about spending, there are about a million other places in the budget where money is really being wasted. Having 11 carriers simply is not wasting money. I can't explain it any better than that, Fen, I just know. I lived it and I saw it. I saw it make a difference. When we're not making the world angry by our aggression, having a carrier showing that presence in normally friendly ports actually makes a positive difference. I hope that's good enough.

 

It's called projection of power. Teddy Roosevelt didn't send the Great White Fleet around the world on a vacation. He sent it to show the rest of the world what they'll get if they screw around with us.

 

In terms of practical knowledge, you've already demonstrated yourself to be a greater military expert than Rummy.

 

This has been a good thread. I remain unconvinced that 11 of these things are necessary to meet the kind of threats facing the country these days, and I don't think "showing the world what happens if you screw around with us" constitutes a foreign policy. I don't know exactly what "price" we would be paying for having, say, eight or nine, rather than 11. And I believe that blithely overlooking what Mr. Gee said earlier about the pork in the DoD budget is to miss a big part of the picture. And I certainly didn't aim to set off an intraservice squabble between the surface fleet and the submariners.

 

Think it's fair to say that there are tens of thousands of better circumstances under which the gummit could save tons of money, were the whores in question so inclined.

 

Ben, that was going to be my answer. Fenian started a thread about Marshals escorting d-bag TV announcers. That's a perfect example, and I bet there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of similar examples of waste. Aircraft carriers are not one of them.

 

I have always said a large military is the best way to stimulate the economy. See World War II as an example.

Let's take one aircraft carrier:
Thousands of shipyard workers have jobs building the thing. They require steel and parts to build it, so those industries are revived. The immediate area around the shipyard gets a boost because of all the people working.
Once the carrier is ready, 5000 people have jobs in the Navy. The sailors need to be fed and clothed, so farmers, food prep and textile workers have jobs. The farmers have to have tractors and things, so it trickles down to those industries.
A carrier isn't much without planes. Aircraft makers and their associated sub-contractors for components have jobs.
With all those people working, they are in turn buying automobiles, TVs, new homes, going out to eat, etc. and those industries are in demand for workers.
(Of course all this relies on not using foreign products and people buying American made consumer goods)
From one splash of cash to build a carrier, I believe the overall result would be far better than the billions given to bail out bankers.

 

Exactly. I'll take the benefits provided from a $5 billion expenditure like a carrier before I'd do the same with a bailout or other reactionary measure.

 

Except that any one of a hundred economic studies down through the years indicates that defense-spending is one of the least-beneficial industries to the overall economy. This argument sounds like the same ones we hear for wasting public money on baseball stadiums.