Navy Expansion

>>32551850
Isn't that go in contradiction to what he said in the campaign trail: that we should to take less of an active role in the proceedings of other nations. The Navy wants a bigger fleet for three reasons: ops tempo, maintenance and to keep meeting our commitments to other nations around the world.

It seems kinda silly that he say's America first and that everything that we have gotten into in the past 20 years is a "mess" then turn around and OK a naval fleet size where one of the main justifications for that size is so we can help out other nations by guaranteeing their safety so they can focus on establishing or maturing the institutions that lead to democracy.
Not even baiting here, I really think Trump was a terrible choice (not like Hil Dawg was any better by ANY stretch of the imagination).

>>32551998
Wow its like he is a compulsive liar or something! Who would have known?

>>32551850
>The only Navy scared of water

>>32551998
the 2016 election was an awful non-choice between the corrupt puppet of wall street and foreign governments and an inexperienced, easily manipulated emotional manbaby

no good choice was in evidence

>>32552023
>>32551998
>wow, its not like we cant have a bigger navy without medling in the affairs of other nations
>so wow
>not like the greeks said it best with "peace time is the getting ready for war period". Paraphrasing of course.

>>32552054
kys ctr

>>32551998
Trump was never an isolationist, dumbass

>>32551998
This election was between two power hungry monsters. Will it be the utterly despicable criminal, or the shameless, totally inexperienced demagogue?

the only people that won't like it are the chinks

>>32552043

+11 to sinking damage control

>>32552054
>>32552084

This election was between Donald J Trump and Hillary R. Clinton

>>32552081
>Trump was never an isolationist

He claimed we were too involved in the world, that we shouldn't take our NATO commitments seriously, and promotes protectionist policy.

>>32552101
Are you actually that retarded?

>>32551998
He sees China as a threat and direct competitor to America. In fact a major talking point of his was how the Chinese are fucking us. If you didn't see this coming with the naval build up in China, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're just pretending to be stupid or just want to shill for your defeated candidate? Either way, this thread is cancer. egas

>>32552043

I see what you did there.
I see what you did and i like it.

>>32552116

>He claimed we were too involved in the world

In reference to stupid wars like Iraq yes.

>that we shouldn't take our NATO commitments seriously

Actually he said that other NATO states needed to start taking THEIR commitments seriously. Very few NATO countries spend the required amount on defense. There needs to be consequences for that.

>and promotes protectionist policy.

No argument.

>>32552023
>>32552054
>>32552084
Yeah, whoda thunk it. I unironically don't like him, her or any of the choices he's made for his administration.

>>32552081
He certainly sounded isolationist during the campaign trail.

>>32552198
>Very few NATO countries spend the required amount on defense. There needs to be consequences for that.

Its like those countries care about their citizens and don't blow half their fucking budget on gold plated tomahawk missiles to decorated villages

>>32552189
But we're already doing that with Obama, the shift toward the Pacific. It's not like he bringing any new ideas to the table or anything.

>>32552198
Well if he wants to complain about Iraq being a mistake, he can gt inline, I never wanted to go in in the first place (shoutout to SF). Many nations that are feeling threatened by recent Russian moves DO meet their requirements or at least have made an effort to take their training seriously. Look at Poland, the Baltic nations, etc. Would those consequences mean we not go to their aid if Russia were to make some sort of move.

>>32552266
adding too

>>32552198
many nations that make up NATO are very small meaning it's sometimes not easy for them to invest such a large amount of money into their military when adjusted for how large their nation, population and economy is. So as a result, they'll go a year where they invest only a percentage and get only upgrade to tanks, then the air force the next, then the navy.

>>32552189
I've been keeping up with Chinese naval development, and even when their full navy is built it will still be far smaller than ours.

>>32552198
And end up 19 trillion in debt? Even a backwater shithole island who is apart of NATO has the brains not to do that, and can put 2 and 2 together that spending that much on military is a shit idea

>funny typo
>Anti-trump faggot autist REEEEE

>>32552057
It was the romans
"If you want peace, prepare for war"

>>32552057
Its not like we already have the largest and most powerful navy on the planet already. Spending hundreds of billions more on a navy that is already unmatched is mindless.

>>32552474
>unmatched is mindless.

>What is Df-21?
>What is FC-31?
>What is J-20?

>>32552309
It will be small, but due to the spreading of our current navy, protecting the majority of trade routes in the world stretches out the capacity we would have to combat Chinese ships.

>>32552520
Increasing the size of the navy isn't the silver bullet to these problems. Our navy is more than well equipped and the gap in war potential between the US and China is apparent to anyone who is actually informed.

File: map-missile-ranges-2013.jpg (127KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 720x720px

>>32552520

>DF-21
>1770KM maximum range

>FC-31
>2 Prototypes

>J-20
>8 Prototypes, 4 Production

>>32552262
>>32552283
>>32552339
>A:"Trump wants us to ignore our NATO obligations!"
>B: "Actually Trump just wants our NATO partners to step up and actually start fulfiling their treaty obligations because many of them don't."
>A. Sheeeeit that's expensive man, ain't nobody got time for that!
reeeeeeeeeee

>>32551850
That's not such a bad idea actually, pirate in general I mean. Then again state sponsored pirates are call Privateers then.

>>32552559
>hurrr the DF-21 is only dangerous if you're fighting a war near China

>nobody commenting on the fact that yahoo posted the word nigger.

Am I the only one that noticed this? Really niggers?

>>32552671
We're all niggers of modernity

>>32552266
>>32552283
Only 4-5 out of 28 members are meeting the 2% goal. The tiniest/poorest ones are understandable, but some of them are clearly just being bums. I mean really, Germany?

>>32551998
You can build up a large navy while not getting involved in other nation's affairs. Teddy Roosevelt built a fuck huge navy and there were zero wars during his presidency.

>>32552266
>But we're already doing that with Obama, the shift toward the Pacific.

His "shift" has been a joke and a majority of our forces are still located in the mid east and europe. The "shift' is in name only.

>>32552695
We have a large navy, the largest in fact. Also Teddy built the navy because ours was inadequate, this is clearly not the case.

File: natopercgdp.png (157KB, 2329x1881px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 2329x1881px

>>32552687
I don't even understand the tiny poor ones either.
It's 2%.
I refuse to believe any country that isn't Africa-tier can't afford to spend 2% of it's budget on the military. Fucking GREECE meets the 2% goal.

>>32552698
>Also Teddy built the navy because ours was inadequate, this is clearly not the case.
So, for the record.
You believe the US Navy can in it's current form decisively defeat the Chinese navy with an acceptable level of casualties?

>>32552748
Absolutely, however casualties will be high but within acceptable ranges considering the size of both powers. The US navy is unmatched, period.

>>32552766
>casualties will be high but within acceptable ranges considering the size of both powers
Whose acceptable ranges?
The public's or those of some penny pincher on the internet?

>>32552789
Our casualties would likely be far lower than those of China, this should be clear from the start as our forces are more numerous, better equipped, and more experienced. It is highly likely that whatever strategic objectives the US sets out will be accomplished considering the overwhelming superiority of its forces. There is absolutely no way such a war could be sold to the public however.

>>32552818
>There is absolutely no way such a war could be sold to the public however.
Then clearly our navy is not up to the task.

>>32552748
>>32552766
>>32552789
We could destroy the PLAN with minimal US loss of life. China's Navy isn't dangerous to the US Navy, our navy is tremendously more powerful. The danger to the US navy is land based systems that it will have to face while supporting land based campaigns.

The reason why we need a naval buildup isn't that there's an opponent that would be capable of standing against us, it's that we don't have enough ships to achieve an acceptable level of coverage worldwide.

We want to keep a carrier group in every ocean and have two carrier free to support land campaigns. That requires a bunch more ships than just fighting a war. It's about controlling and occupying sea space, and frankly cleansing an enemy navy from that sea space doesn't require vastly more ships than just being there.

>>32552827
People die in wars, if a war is not sufficiently justified then dissent will rise. I assumed the worst case scenario being full confrontation in which conflict would continue until one side had either taken far too many losses to continue or has had its organizational capacity destroyed. The Iraq war is still a hot topic and couldn't have been more one sided.

The navy, air force, and army are the most capable armed forces on the planet, yes you can always improve but there comes a point where you begin to see diminishing returns on the effectiveness of your investment.

>>32551850
>Will Trump's Navy have it's own version of the Somali Pirates?
>US Navy uses modern day privateers and helps funding itself by raiding enemy trade

Truly a great business man.

>>32552722
Well desu Greece is horrible when it comes to money and they don't really deploy, so they don't really count.

>>32552687
Yes, many nations don't have money nor do they have the need to keep purchasing military equipment for no reason. Especially when their national doctrines or geographic locations conflict with whatever they're buying.

Case in point, Croatia, a small country settled in the mountains of the Adriatic Coast, decided to buy Kiowas for heliborne recon that could better work with their light infantry (their doctrine like most former Yugoslav nations still revolves around guerilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare). They have tanks, but seeing as it would be a moot point to buy tanks then station them in a mountain range, it makes no sense for ramp up the military budget. Many of these nations actually put into practice what many idiots here shout from the rooftops: "We don't need to spend less, we need to spend it more efficiently".

to be frank, i'd much rather take a 1.4% nation that knows it's limitations and knows it strengths that could be used effectively in a war as opposed to a country that meets the 2% goal just for political brownie points (although both would be nice). Also funnily enough, many nations in Africa have well equipped militarizes (not trained mind you). IIRC I think either Uganda or Rwanda has the latest Su-30 variants. They took out a load that was supposed to be used for food and bought fighter jets
>lol starvation :(

>>32552849
>The Iraq war is still a hot topic and couldn't have been more one sided.
The public was sold on the Iraq war though.
If the public cannot be sold on a war with China, then it doesn't matter how strong you think our Navy is because it will not be allowed to go to war with China in the first place.

The American public in the prelude to Iraq considered our military to be more than a match for Iraq, and for the most part was ok with the idea of invasion. The actual war however revealed that our military was ill prepared for the actual operation and the fact that unnecessary casualties were taken, ruined our national confidence despite the fact that victory was achieved. It doesn't matter if the war is one-sided if it doesn't FEEL one-sided because "you go to war with the army you have not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time".

I say if war with China is a realistic prospect then it is better to already have the navy we might want, rather than roll the dice with the thought "meh, it's good enough and I would rather spend American lives than American treasure."

I'm fine with him beefing up the military is we can start extorting NATO for some protection money.

>here's a funny tweet
>serious argument erupts over naval expansion and trump's foreign policies

how fucking autistic does it get?

>>32553128
>how fucking autistic does it get?
you haven't seen anything yet

>>32552929
I meant being sold on the outcome of a war, it would require truly exceptional circumstances to for a cascus belli to even materialize for a war with China. What point is there . The main point is that resources must be used wisely, and we are more than prepared for any conflict, however unlikely, with the Chinese or anyone else. Also the '04 invasion went about as well as it could have considering the entire Iraqi CnC was taken out swiftly and the Iraqi's lost harder than they had during the gulf war. "Unnecessary Casualties" will be a part of every war and almost completely unavoidable. The idea that if we spend enough on the military we can take down any country is actually a fairly dangerous notion, one that could lead to international instability, and the needless loss of American lives.

>>32552081
Back to your Nazi hugbox

>>32553179
cry more

>>32552023
>People who run for political office lie
That's like first grade, Star Wars prequel, Obi-Wan disappointment, obvious shit

>>32553128
Welcome to the current and final form of political discourse until society implodes.

>>32552262
As someone from one of those countries, there is a middleground somewhere in there. Both healthcare/education AND our Army gets enough ammo to last them more than 1 week.
Oh, how one can dream..

File: Profion_i_can_live_with_this.gif (3MB, 240x282px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x282px

TFW you wrestle with your desire to balance the budget or boost your already huge military.

>>32551998
He's just talking out of his ass.

Congress isn't going to want to pay for it and he'll get distracted when someone writes something about him.

>>32552153
No but you are

>>32551850
gotta love Typing errors

>>32551998
Are you new to politics?

File: original[1].jpg (184KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 636x358px

>>32551998
>hurr durr I am pretending I don't know the word "deterrence" gib me replies pls

SO

STRONG

WE'LL

NEVER

HAVE

TO

USE

IT