you know... Its too bad N. Korea isnt a desert... cant make it a glass parking lot without sand.

they have beaches

No theories tying this together w/ China's UFO?

lol.

Xer0 \^/

It's hard to get too excited about UFOs. Mostly because of the U part. Sure, I can speculate, but since no one seems able to really prove themselves right or wrong, I can't get too excited.

But I think Pandas have discovered jetpacks.

Yeah and since the early 90s, the US may have started working on its own version who knows?

Thats a good point about  the carriers, I remember reading somewhere that some in the US Navy thinks that aircraft carriers are obselete.

Could you please provide a link? This sounds very interesting.

Carriers are and aren't obsolete.

A carrier is a large factory of sorts, capable of maintaining a great deal of equipment and cleaning a large amount of sea water for potability. It also can act as a medical ship and bring in large amounts of supplies. In areas where we don't have bases (not that it's many) or where bases are eliminated by preemptive strikes, it allows us to get our forces in. It's also a very powerful asset in civilian assistance, such as after a tidal wave.

Carriers are also expensive because we are using nuclear fuel, but we don't get the full benefit because the escorts are still diesel. Surface vessels are also easier to track and strike than submarines or a large number of smaller vessels. And economically, escort carriers (also called jeep carriers) are better and provide less loss if sunk.

All in all, it depends on how you choose to apply the asset. All in all, I feel that the Navy should be scaled back a great deal from what it is and that the Marines, a branch of the Navy, should be eliminated altogether. Just my two cents.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Nimitz-Class-Patrick-Robinson/?isbn=9780060593063

^That's for details about it^

I couldn't find a way to read it online, sorry.

Xer0 \^/

Sounds like a Tom Clancy Novell.  So who is the Author?  I would like to read that one!

Oops!  Thanks Xer07. I see you already provided a link.  Now to check it out - perhaps ABE books?

The US found out the hard way the same thing about Battleships in 41.  Big and pretty and pretty useless over all.

Something tells me that even if we were to be involved in a conflict on the Korean front, it would be at about the same level of commitment as Kosovo. We would use our naval power to provide support and other such to the Korean military.

I think this mostly because I'm fairly certain the current President isn't too keen on putting more boots on the ground other than what we already have there. He's already angered his base by not coming down hard on the whole pulling out of the middle east thing. I'm not bashing the guy even though I'm not his most ardent fan, it's all just conjecture.

China actually scares me more than what the rest of you seem to be saying. Maybe it's because I'm a conservative and subject to more fearmongering than others, but I get the impression China is attempting to become a sort of economic hegemon of the East Asian area. I could be wrong though because most of my opinions come from my days of policy debate and foreign extemp (which were about 4 years ago...I wish my college had speech and debate).

No argument that China isn't trying to become an economic power, but with the rise and proliferation of nuclear weaponry, I think they've realized that the true means of becoming a super-power is economic strength. It means that, if they do it right, they could become the next police nation, but it also means that their rise will be a fairly non-violent one. Do keep in mind that many countries are brought to the forefront of power by the violence of others, not by engaging in violence. The U.S. became a super-power after Japan engaged us and we participated in WWII. England became a super-power after the Spanish assaulted them, leaving England the dominant naval power. Even Rome and Alexander were responding to outside aggressions. Not to say that one can't rise through engaging in violence, but it is far from the only way.

I agree with all but the Police part.  They learn from others mistakes.  In today's world, they know the best way to keep your "enemies" under control is to dominate them economically (not make them paupers, just dependent upon you for their standard of living).  With that in their pocket, why would they want to be the cops?  That they will be forced into that role is a given (given the UN abrogating their responsibilities).  But I see that as being done grudgingly.

Even if it is grudgingly, they will act as world police, even if they do it through money, because once a super-power, they are invested in the status quo which keeps them there.

I would love to get a quote on that. I'm sure there are some officers that think everything should be submarines or whatever, but they've been there since World War II so unless it is a really high rank guy whose main line of duty is not submarine related, I wouldn't give it much credit. A single Nimitz carrier has enough firepower to sink the entire (at least blue water) Chinese navy, and while they are vulnerable if anything gets close, being able to be hundreds if not thousands of miles from their targets still gives them an edge even in the age of long range antiship missiles. Granted, subs with Cruise missiles or ICBMs can say the same thing, but we are leading in that field as well, and in many cases air support is much better than simple missile strikes. Also everything said about supply/logistical uses also makes them invaluable. Furthermore, if the navy really thought aircraft carriers were obsolete, why are we building the new Gerald Ford class ships again?

In peace time.  But a sitting duck in a naval war.

In the 1940s, the Navy still was building Iowa class battleships, and we saw how well they did at Pearl Harbor.  Old habits die hard.

Even in war time. How often is it that you have a conventional airbase that is close to a country you are at war with. Not often.

Also all of the Iowa's were laid down before Pearl Harbor, so it hardly made sense to just scrap them in the middle of construction (though they did do that with two of them, and they did stop plans for the Montana Class Battleships). Though I would bet that if all the battleships at Pearl Harbor were Iowas it probably would have been no where near as bad. All the battleships there were carry overs from around World War I, and it should be no surprise that those antiquated things were annihilated to much newer planes and ordinance.

When fighting 3rd rate powers (Iraq, Iran, and such), it is nice and convenient.  Because they are not a threat to the Carriers. However fighting a foe that is the equal of the US - at least almost - they are a hindrance when Missiles will do that job of planes.  If we go to war with Russia or China and expect to fight it like an Iraq or Afghanistan, we will get our butts handed to us on a platter.

Don't get me wrong.  I am navy blue as they get!  And I do love the carriers.  But if I am going to war with a major power (and it can be someone as puny as France), I am leaving the carriers behind and using Intercontinental stuff - planes and missiles.

And slight correction - most of the Battleships were built post WWI (albeit not by much - early 20s).

I don't think it mattered which ships were there is any kind since it was taken by surprise and most of the ship's were grossly undermanned at the time of the attack.. Plus a sneak attack like that won't be able to happen again unless our entire satellite and early warning systems were compromised.

Either way to get back on topic the military drills they are doing are just fluff to battle the other fluff N. Korea is putting out.  Its just 2 peacocks ruffling up their feathers.....  Of course I don't see how sanctions are going to work on a country that already doesn't export much either.

Oh yes, I didn't mean that they would be able to completely repel the attack or anything. I just meant that the death toll and damage would have been far less because they probably wouldn't have blown up Arizona style (which contributed to over half the death at Pearl Harbor), and it takes a ridiculous amount of firepower to sink a well built "modern" battleship. While none of the Iowa's were ever sunk, if the Yamato class is any comparison (Iowa's weren't quite as armored, but they would be in the same league), they would have still probably been floating. Yamato took at least 11 torpedo and 8 bomb hits, while Musashi took an incredible 17 bomb and 19 torpedo hits before sinking. I don't know the statistics for the battleships that were at Pearl Harbor, but it was likely nothing close to that, and even then only two battleships were "total losses".

I know this is way off topic at this point, but keep in mind that the Japanese used over 400 aircraft, most equipped with a single torpedo. I think the vessels, especially when immobile, were a guaranteed loss.

Nobody will comment on the development that N. Korea fired a Salvo of artillery into South Korean waters recently, and that South Korea has threatened attack if they do it again?

Xer0 \^/

NK supposedly also captured a SK fishing boat outside of their waters.  The mad just keep getting more insane.

this topic has gone for a bit now and nothing has gone boom thus far. N Korea has a bad history of not holding up their end of the violence.

Yea Kim Jung Il is bluffing.  These days he's too busy watching hardcore pornography to actually do anything world-threatening.

So that's my problem