More Shit The WLB Can't Comprehend

[Minimalist]

Yeah - this is complicated too, asswipe.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/trump-ba...ars-study/

Trump-backed Navy expansion would boost costs some $400 billion over 30 years: study

Taking into consideration older ships being retired, creating a 355-ship fleet would require the Navy to buy about 329 new ships over 30 years, compared with 254 under its previous plan for a 308-ship fleet, the CBO study found. The Navy would have to buy about 12 ships per year under the larger fleet plan, versus about eight per year under the earlier plan.

The study said the earliest the Navy could achieve a 355-ship fleet would be the year 2035, or 18 years from now.

Apparently this fucktard thinks money does grow on trees.

[Brian37]

Yeah - this is complicated too, asswipe.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/trump-ba...ars-study/

Trump-backed Navy expansion would boost costs some $400 billion over 30 years: study

Taking into consideration older ships being retired, creating a 355-ship fleet would require the Navy to buy about 329 new ships over 30 years, compared with 254 under its previous plan for a 308-ship fleet, the CBO study found. The Navy would have to buy about 12 ships per year under the larger fleet plan, versus about eight per year under the earlier plan.

The study said the earliest the Navy could achieve a 355-ship fleet would be the year 2035, or 18 years from now.

Apparently this fucktard thinks money does grow on trees.

To be fair, and believe me, he still is a fuckface asswipe, the GOP has had a long history of loving weapons and investing in war. And not just America, the word's economic conservative rich both friend and foe alike invest in the global weapons industry. 

This is a long term issue, and it wont change even if Trump gets impeached today. The sane really have to work on taking the narrative way from the entire GOP with their bullshit cold war crap and "don't tax the rich". The GOP loves to complain about waste, yet we have more weapons than we will ever use.

[Minimalist]

As George Carlin noted some years back, war is about the only thing we are good at any more.

But no other republicunt was calling for an enormous expansion of the navy.  I wonder if that is because most of the shipyards are in Blue States?

[vorlon13]

If we were good at war, Afghanistan would have been fucking conquered 10 years ago . . .

[Minimalist]

The problem is that in Afghanistan and Iraq we went in, overran the whole fucking country and then stayed there.  Unlike normal conquerors we don't go in, kill a metric fuckton of people, steal whatever we want and leave.  We stay there and want them to love us.

The US Army says "We Love You A Long Long Time."

[Jackalope]

A couple of things occur to me -

As far as I know and can recall, the USA has not had a problem with projecting the capacity to conduct naval warfare pretty much anywhere it pleases in navigable waters. Why on Earth do we need to increase our fleet at all, much less to this degree?

We can't afford to subsidize health services for the needy, yet we have plenty of money to piss away on this shit.

I don't expect a lot of conservative resistance to this sort of spending.

You know how you know when this administration's policy positions are fucked in the head? When they seek to gut our capacity to conduct diplomacy (Department of State) and increase our capacity for warfare.

[Jackalope]

The problem is that in Afghanistan and Iraq we went in, overran the whole fucking country and then stayed there.  Unlike normal conquerors we don't go in, kill a metric fuckton of people, steal whatever we want and leave.  We stay there and want them to love us.

The US Army says "We Love You A Long Long Time."

I don't really think the "normal conquerers" approach would make us any more tolerable to the explosive overcoat crowd, tbh. (Yeah I know you're not advocating for that)

How about we just stop waging aggressive warfare instead? Continuing to squander lives, treasure, and goodwill is not the way to go.

[Minimalist]

Why on Earth do we need to increase our fleet at all, much less to this degree?

Jobs.  And making 'murrica great again.  And showing the Chinks and the Russkis who is the boss. 

I'm sure we could come up with a lot of reasons.  Stupid, expensive, dumbfuck reasons.

[Nanny]

Yeah - this is complicated too, asswipe.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/trump-ba...ars-study/

Trump-backed Navy expansion would boost costs some $400 billion over 30 years: study

Taking into consideration older ships being retired, creating a 355-ship fleet would require the Navy to buy about 329 new ships over 30 years, compared with 254 under its previous plan for a 308-ship fleet, the CBO study found. The Navy would have to buy about 12 ships per year under the larger fleet plan, versus about eight per year under the earlier plan.

The study said the earliest the Navy could achieve a 355-ship fleet would be the year 2035, or 18 years from now.

Apparently this fucktard thinks money does grow on trees.

I was watching USA propaganda films from WWII on Netflix. I'm pretty sure every "article" about the USA's military starts as propaganda. Drop the big ass bomb, move a shoot-bullet-with-bullet air defense system to Seoul to show that we can do it, send bombers to syria, look how Uge our .mil is, world!

We're a nation that's been at war for 16 years straight. Some things never change. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There seems to be a "Next Three" policy much as what drove irrational spending by the UK on the RN ... the goal being that the RN should be able to defeat the next three-largest fleets.

With China building a blue-water navy to control the South China Sea, we seem intent on being able to keep those sea-lanes open and thwart, say, Russia's Northern Fleet at the same time. That will be a very expensive policy with little ROI if pursued, I think.