Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Nobody's talked me down yet on why y'all need heavy carriers (or why we need so many, but I take the insanity of the Pentagon-driven US foreign policy as a given).

I see one of two possible options:

a) We don't, and are just building them because it makes the Pentagun go starry-eyed, and we really, really luv the Pentagun.

b) When the American hegemony comes to an end, we'll want to be prepared to make the most of it with a little smash-and-grab at some former US colonies. Think Panama, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth and etc. Kinda like the US-supported colour revolutions, except with CTFs...

Of course, the former could easily morph into the latter. In fact, I bet it will eventually do just that if we don't get our act together and develop an intelligent foreign policy doctrine.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
a) We don't, and are just building them because it makes the Pentagun go starry-eyed, and we really, really luv the Pentagun.

Why would there be any more than this?

The one thing the military hardware types are reliably bad at is strategy. There's very little evidence that they have even basic strategic skills and plenty of evidence that they make bad, stupid and expensive decisions.

These carriers are being built primarily for symbolic and political reasons, not strategic ones.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for at least the last hundred and fifty years, the military of almost every nation has been planning to refight the last major war that it fought, The US navy is configured to fight a modern equivalent of the Japanese Navy, whereas European navies are mainly configured to fight Nazi Submarine fleets. The Coalition in Iraq, would be doing much better if the enemy fought like the Germans in WWII,

The fact that other countries have fought differently in conflicts since hasnt altered strategy because they havent been "serious" opponents

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The US navy is configured to fight a modern equivalent of the Japanese Soviet Navy, whereas European navies are mainly configured to fight Nazi Communist Submarine fleets.

Fixed it for ya.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Fri Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was the appeal of the Soviets as an adversary in the Cold War ... if you squinted, it was possible to wargame it as WWII, Take 2. Talking the Soviets up as an adversary that would be fighting to dominate a major Ocean was harder than talking up the Soviet sub threat, but the argument for enough carriers to make a continuous air cover force across the Atlantic for supplies from the US to Europe did the trick.

But it was written as intended, no correction needed. "Re-fighting the last war" is often the last Great  Power hot-war, and there wasn't anything in the Korean War or the Second Indochinese War to knock the Navy out of re-fight WWII mode.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Oct 17th, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series