isn't the navy a waste of money?

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
besides carriers, I find that the navy is a big waste of money (the ships - not the marines / troops / submarines). the ships are so dang expensive and can get sunk relatively easily for their cost.

I don't know much about the military / how battles work, but ships just look so big, conspicuous, and bulky. If the ship gets hit and starts sinking, the whole ship of thousands has to evacuate.

The only ship that I can see as useful is the carrier, but besides that...
can someone here defend ships and their usefulness in modern wars?


-Just wanted to let everyone know that I was surprised at the number of serious responses I got considering that I wasn't being serious in more than half of my posts in this thread

ps: I didn't even know that they made a USS Mayflower - I pulled that out of my ass
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,019
216
106
i for one think xylitol should be put in charge of the universe. he clearly knows his shit.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,671
1
0
Since our planet is 70% ocean, I'm kinda glad we have a Navy. Planes can't just patrol over the ocean with carriers, after all.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

edit: i was only being half serious about the first part since i know that it's almost impossible
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Do you have ANY f-ing clue how useful having the "soft power" of the ability to put a humanitain hospital and food distribution center in any disaster zone in any port in the world in a few days is? How about the hard power of being able to land marines on any beach in the world in a few weeks? How about the deterrent value of submarines that can nuke any target on the planet even if the entire US was glassed? How about the ability to stop an enemy from doing the same thing? How about the ability to do an airstrike almost anywhere without needing friendly airbases nearby? How about the value of having cruisers and destroyers to partol the waters incase of an actual naval invasion.

What the fuck were you thinking. The navy may be the best value in the military.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: So
Do you have ANY f-ing clue how useful having the "soft power" of the ability to put a humanitain hospital and food distribution center in any disaster zone in any port in the world in a few days is? How about the hard power of being able to land marines on any beach in the world in a few weeks? How about the deterrent value of submarines that can nuke any target on the planet even if the entire US was glassed? How about the ability to stop an enemy from doing the same thing? How about the ability to do an airstrike almost anywhere without needing friendly airbases nearby? How about the value of having cruisers and destroyers to partol the waters incase of an actual naval invasion.

What the fuck were you thinking. The navy may be the best value in the military.

meh
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
okay to be honest - i see So's point
still though... those ships are so expensive, i still think it'd be a better deal to put that money into other defense groups
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: Deeko
Do you know how much an F22 costs?

less than a ship
but isn't the f22 a really expensive airplane? i'm sure you'd get a better deal by getting more, cheaper, decent ones
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

Yup, worked very well for Nazi Germany. They had a very strict list of things that were "banned", and as a result they built them anyway and took over half of Europe.

Who exactly is going to enforce these bans?

Hint: The guy with the battleships.;)
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: JLee
And who's going to defend the carrier, hmm?

I defended it

That's not what he meant. The other ships in the navy defend the carrier from attacks.

oh
the submarines and the airplanes on board?

...

Xylitol, I think that you are hereby banned from posting anything about the Navy since you clearly have no idea WTF you're talking about.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
okay to be honest - i see So's point
still though... those ships are so expensive, i still think it'd be a better deal to put that money into other defense groups

Defense is expensive. Either you buy it and use it when you need it or gamble that you don't need it and really regret it when you do. I'm sure if there were a cheaper option, most other countries wouldn't have a navy, but even georgia has a navy. It's just far too useful.

FYI, the only way the military can move things like tanks overseas is with ships. If we didn't have a navy to defend our transport capacity, we'd be SO screwed in a shooting war.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
I'd love to see a Twilight Zone with this idiot as Defense Secretary.. maybe put Cheech & Chong in as President and VP
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
okay to be honest - i see So's point
still though... those ships are so expensive, i still think it'd be a better deal to put that money into other defense groups

Defense is expensive. Either you buy it and use it when you need it or gamble that you don't need it and really regret it when you do. I'm sure if there were a cheaper option, most other countries wouldn't have a navy, but even georgia has a navy. It's just far too useful.

FYI, the only way the military can move things like tanks overseas is with ships. If we didn't have a navy to defend our transport capacity, we'd be SO screwed in a shooting war.

you're beating a dead horse So
You won :(
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

We tried that in the 20's -- see the "Washington naval treaty". Guess what? As soon as nobody had a good navy, a few rogue states (Japan, Germany) built a navy and the whole thing was a wash.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
okay to be honest - i see So's point
still though... those ships are so expensive, i still think it'd be a better deal to put that money into other defense groups

Defense is expensive. Either you buy it and use it when you need it or gamble that you don't need it and really regret it when you do. I'm sure if there were a cheaper option, most other countries wouldn't have a navy, but even georgia has a navy. It's just far too useful.

FYI, the only way the military can move things like tanks overseas is with ships. If we didn't have a navy to defend our transport capacity, we'd be SO screwed in a shooting war.

you're beating a dead horse So
You won :(

:cool:
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
Do you know how much an F22 costs?

less than a ship
but isn't the f22 a really expensive airplane? i'm sure you'd get a better deal by getting more, cheaper, decent ones

F-22s cost about $140 million per jet. Yes, they are more expensive than other jets, but they are the best.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

We tried that in the 20's -- see the "Washington naval treaty". Guess what? As soon as nobody had a good navy, a few rogue states (Japan, Germany) built a navy and the whole thing was a wash.

yea i was only being half serious about the first part
i was being serious about the 2nd part about the defenses though

couldn't you just get defenses ready for the shores in case of an attack? And if the ships do come close enough to attack, you could just send out planes to bomb it?

regardless, i do see the point of a ship navy, but i also think that something has to be done about ships being easily sunk for their cost (ie: 1 submarine hit could sink a ship)