[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

Trump planning biggest US Navy fleet expansion, will cost $5 Billion+

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 32
Thread images: 0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/09/navy-trump-planning-biggest-fleet-expansion-to-deter-russian-chinese-threats.html

>BATH, Maine – With President-elect Donald Trump demanding more ships, the Navy is proposing the biggest shipbuilding boom since the end of the Cold War to meet threats from a resurgent Russia and saber-rattling China.

>The Navy's 355-ship proposal released last month is even larger than what the Republican Trump had promoted on the campaign trail, providing a potential boost to shipyards that have struggled because budget caps that have limited money funding for ships.

>At Maine's Bath Iron Works, workers worried about the future want to build more ships but wonder where the billions of dollars will come from.

>"Whether Congress and the government can actually fund it, is a whole other ball game," said Rich Nolan, president of the shipyard's largest union.

>Boosting shipbuilding to meet the Navy's 355-ship goal could require an additional $5 billion to $5.5 billion in annual spending in the Navy's 30-year projection, according to an estimate by naval analyst Ronald O'Rourke at the Congressional Research Service.
....
http://www.janes.com/article/66762/cbo-highlights-budget-challenges-for-308-ship-us-navy
>The US Navy's (USN's) 2017 shipbuilding plan requires an extra 36% (USD18.9 billion as opposed to USD13.9 billion) in funding annually compared with the navy's historical average for new ship construction, according to a 4 January US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.

>The US CBO estimates that average annual costs of new-ship construction under the USN's 2017 shipbuilding plan is more than the USN anticipated, and the cost gap widens over time.
>>
>Cutting other programs that actually help people to build more ships that will just sit at a dock and rust

Brilliant!
>>
>>98278
I understand what you're saying but China has been acting bold lately.

Look at what they're doing in Africa and the south china sea. We need to stay on top.
>>
>>98301
why?
>>
>>98301
>Look at what they're doing in Africa

Exploiting Africa for its resources? Who gives a fuck?

>the south china sea

Building bases? Who gives a fuck?
>>
>>98312
>Exploiting Africa for its resources? Who gives a fuck?

You mean fair business deals? lol I love how everyone assumes when a bigger power does business in Africa it's always one-sided.
>>
>>98303
These are your options: communism, Islam, or America.

America is better in every measurable way.

>>98312
As they spread throughout Africa, there is potential taking land. This much land could turn the Chinese population into a serious threat.
>>
>>98319
i pity your atrophic imagination. i know it sounds arrogant, but its true. have a nice day, kid.
>>
>>98316
It's China and Africa. I'm sorry if I can only think of exploiting instead of actual fair deals.

>>98319
China is overpopulated and will need to start importing gain within the next 15 years to feed its population. Colonizing Africa will do good for China.
>>
>>98323
Okay.

These are your options, Communism, Islam, America, OR SOME NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET LOL.

Is this better? You needed that included?

Fucking idiot.

>>98324
Good for China. Bad for not China.
>>
>>98334
who gives a fuck about africa anyways lmfao
>>
>>98334
its nice to see that you're ideologically solidified. nuances ain't your cup of tea, i presume, but thats not really coming as a surprise.
i will simply assume that you've extensively studied the numerous varieties of the political systems humans have lived in and under and are not just parroting slogans you picked up.
thanks for the conversation.
>>
>>98324
>It's China and Africa. I'm sorry if I can only think of exploiting instead of actual fair deals.

Fair enough.

Chinese population growth is in the decline due to the rise of the new middle class. They expect issues to arise from this by 2050.

This of course can change if their economy also continues to slow down. More manufacturing concerns are moving to SE Asia because the cost of labor there is now much cheaper than in China (again, this coincides with the rise of the Chinese middle class).
>>
>>98350
>This of course can change if their economy also continues to slow down.

Speaking of, I wonder how fucked China will be as a whole if Trump keeps his promises to bring back manufacturing jobs from China
>>
>>98354
I honestly don't know. Bear in mind, though the US has the biggest flow of offshore manufacturing in China, they are not the only ones there. Lots of EU nations also do business there as does East and South east Asia. I guess the disaster at that point would be on China: if they don't adjust their spending accordingly they're going to be in for a world of hurt.
>>
chins isn't colonizing Africa. Why ate Americans so obsessed with China and us "colonization"?
>>
>>98301
Quality american post
>>
>>98319
I choose communism
>>
>>98272
Any mention of where this $150b+ will come from?
>>
>>98345
OK Mr. Nuance

What potential world powers exist besides those under Communism, Islam, or America?

Do enlighten me, oh wise one.

>>98364
Typical jelly foreigner

Wanna call me fat, too?


>>98365
Jew.
>>
>>98373
raising the debt ceiling and selling treasury bonds to the Chinese?
>>
>>98377

It's not monetary malfeasance bordering on treason when a Republican does it!
>>
>>98278

Based on this article, it seems to be a lot more about propping up heavy manufacturing jobs than actual military value. Just like most over-funded projects in the military, it's all justified by the number of people employed instead of the protective value added to the military. For example, right now the M1 Abrams is still being produced despite zero demand for additional Main Battle Tanks, and the justification is that you need to keep those people employed, even if the factory is running are minimal capacity (though there is some better justification: closing and then reopening the plant when the new tank is ready would cost more in rehiring and retraining than just running the factory 24/7 at minimum production).

>>98301

In terms of actual military value, the US has enough hardware and technology to counter China in a hot war before nuclear exchange. The problem now is trying to leverage that power to avoid the hot war while still achieving goals by getting China to step down, and additional ships aren't exactly needed for that as much as economic and diplomatic pressure. We have the big stick, now we need to speak softly.

>>98379

I'm not sure there's much left of the fiscally responsible, small government types left in the Republican party, they've mostly been dead since GWB's first term. Which is sad, it's one of the things I really liked about the old Republican party. Thankfully Trump somehow managed to stick a few of them in his cabinet (I don't know if that was a mistake on his part or a concession to the GOP or what) so hopefully they'll keep him in check.
>>
>>98394
In terms of military hardware, the us can solo the rest of the entire world m8
>>
>>98394
>Based on this article, it seems to be a lot more about propping up heavy manufacturing jobs than actual military value. Just like most over-funded projects in the military, it's all justified by the number of people employed instead of the protective value added to the military.

There's a shit ton of potential jobs in repairing/updating/maintaining our embarrassment of an infrastructure, but I guess the people responsible for that didn't stuff as many dollar bills into Congress' G-string as the military industrial complex lobbyists did.
>>
>>98413

Exactly, which is why this reeks more of job protectionism than any actual improvement of of military quality.

>>98415

Protecting existing jobs often trumps making news jobs in politics, because unemployed people have less political power than the combination of unions and corporate. In addition those jobs are usually spread among multiple districts to try and ensnare as many politicians as possible. In addition, the optics are generally worse if you lose jobs in one area to gain jobs in another, it's much better to have headlines of "Trump saves jobs in heavy manufacturing while bolstering defense" instead of "Trump destroys heavy manufacturing" alongside "Trump expands infrastructure jobs."

Anyway, Trump wants to have both infrastructure spending and this new fleet expansion without a clear plan to pay for either outside of "rack up more debt, lol" which is hilarious given that his party was bitching about raising the debt ceiling every time and leading government shutdowns over it to the point the US credit rating was knocked down a notch.
>>
>>98303
Because we're trying to fend off the somalian pirates.
OOGASHAKA!
OOGASHAKA!
HOOM.
>>
Because the biggest navy on the planet was too fucking small, apparently. Fucking yanks.
>>
>>99073
The point is to have an army that is a certain amount larger than the others
>>
>>98373
How about eliminate and auditing government agencies to find out where the waste is coming from.

How about getting rid of most government welfare programs that basically punish poor people who try to actually get OUT of poverty and go with a basic income?
>>
>>99119
>How about eliminate and auditing government agencies to find out where the waste is coming from.

It's the Department of Defense. Did anyone ever figure out where that $6.5 trillion went?
>>
>>99131
>Did anyone ever figure out where that $6.5 trillion went?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spacecraft)
Thread posts: 32
Thread images: 0


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.