Syria: Iran's Path To The Sea

[Direckshun]

Can somebody explain this to me, please?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in Syria and how important it is. First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster.

Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a -- a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. We don't want to get drawn into a military conflict.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

I have a question, and I don't think it's been answered anywhere.

But at what point do ships lose value? I mean, don't we assume that Russia and China have the technology to 1) find our massive ships/carriers/whatever they're called, and 2) have the missile capability to destroy them without driving a boat up next to them? Or they would have that technology by the time any conflict between us would likely exist (if they don't already?).

Carriers move about the world in a task force or a ring of smaller ships around the main carrier to protect it from incoming threats. You would be blown to hell long before you ever seen the carrier you intended to attack. & there is just shit tons of anti air defenses for incoming missals ect

Edit/ What does bother me is that our military now relies more than ever on satellite to operate. & now we need Russian help to reach orbit. I dnt like NASA being dismantled I DNT LIKE IT ONE BIT!

[WoodDraw]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Carriers move about the world in a task force or a ring of smaller ships around the main carrier to protect it from incoming threats. You would be blown to hell long before you ever seen the carrier you intended to attack. & there is just shit tons of anti air defenses for incoming missals ect

That's a fair point, and one I agree with. But I think my point still stands. In that you can't just build 5/10/15 new ships and change things. You have your forward force projection, which operates in task forces, and your strategic assets that do and do not.

So if the argument is that we need another aircraft carrier group, or another battle group, that's fine. But that's a significant investment, and one that takes decades to undertake. And at some point it becomes a question of what are we trying to accomplish that we can't already? Are we really stretched that thin?

And long-term, the major powers are going to improve their technology to the point that these massive deployments matter less and less. You can have the best missile defense in the world, and still not stop a complete barrage if they know where you are and can track you.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

That's a fair point, and one I agree with. But I think my point still stands. In that you can't just build 5/10/15 new ships and change things. You have your forward force projection, which operates in task forces, and your strategic assets that do and do not.

So if the argument is that we need another aircraft carrier group, or another battle group, that's fine. But that's a significant investment, and one that takes decades to undertake. And at some point it becomes a question of what are we trying to accomplish that we can't already? Are we really stretched that thin?

And long-term, the major powers are going to improve their technology to the point that these massive deployments matter less and less. You can have the best missile defense in the world, and still not stop a complete barrage if they know where you are and can track you.

well the trick has been since the Manhattan project to make sure we are light years ahead of the rest of the world in military technology. Kinda why our grandparents shivered when they first heard the beeps coming from Sputnik.
With out better Tech you are right, carriers at the bottom of the sea do us no good

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

That's a fair point, and one I agree with. But I think my point still stands. In that you can't just build 5/10/15 new ships and change things. You have your forward force projection, which operates in task forces, and your strategic assets that do and do not.

So if the argument is that we need another aircraft carrier group, or another battle group, that's fine. But that's a significant investment, and one that takes decades to undertake. And at some point it becomes a question of what are we trying to accomplish that we can't already? Are we really stretched that thin?

And long-term, the major powers are going to improve their technology to the point that these massive deployments matter less and less. You can have the best missile defense in the world, and still not stop a complete barrage if they know where you are and can track you.

See the problem is people are being duped into this belief that any future wars will be against terrorist types. I'll say that if we were ever to get into a true war with a Korea, Russia or China you'll wish we had built those extra carrirers.