It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Future of The American Armed Forces?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

Err, first off they were not carriers. I never said that the battle group wouldn't lose ships. I said that the CARRIER wouldn't be so easy to take out. Secondly, you are making the assumption that the weapons are improving but the defenses aren't. Those ships were not Aegis ships. Current Aegis ships are capable of detecting Theater Ballistic Missiles in orbit and determining decoys from real warheads. With datalinking to other Aegis ships, and AWACS aircraft, they can detect threats hundreds of miles away from the group.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by magicmushroom

Again I ask the question can the US continue to afford its military might.


But once again, why haven't you answered all my other previous questions?

Also, based on your argument, since the ships are "vulnerable" we shouldn't have them.

That can be said about literally everything. Houses, buildings, cars, planes, computers, huts, caves, etc...

Everything is vulnerable to something. That doesn't automatically mean we should scrap it.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

this kind of reminds me of the former USSR
they spent billions to be on the same level as the US
and as its econemy starting going under it soon felt the pinch
(going onto Russia) one of the largest Navies and Air force and ground forces
under budget due to crappy econemy.

Ships and Subs not being maintained well, along with other Military Branches and their equipment going down hill,

the United states isnt no diffrent

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:22 PM
No thats what you said, I said can America continue to afford them which is quite a different thing. I could understand your reasoning if no carrier was ever sunk but as we know lots of them were. And even though we are talking about todays weapons systems such systems have a habit of keeping parity with each other. So formidable as they are they can and would be sunk and damaged in any full on naval action and given the cost and technology of such ships they would not and could not be easily replaced.

The carriers of ww2 were in the main sunk by bombs and torperdoes "missiles" despite the counter measures of the day these weapons did their job. Despite the offensive and defensive capabilities of the modern carriers or any ship the counter measures are just as good if not better. And the facts of the matter is that no America cannot afford these weapons and if it did loose any in combat they would not be replaced because the money simple does not exist. Whilst America is trying to keep apace and on top it is doing so at the expense of everything else. That is a position that cannot be maintained and sooner or later such weapons platfoms will disapear.

Thats just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it but it will happen none the less as it has happened to all such nations.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Even with the economy in tatters, the US military spending will still be enormous. After all, a lot of jobs rely on military spending, and it will be unlikely that any politicians will overtly gut the military machine.

It would be interesting though if the US were to pull back, and tell everyone, "you're on your own."

Can you imagine the wars and turmoil within the next couple years?

We could do just like the Chinese, and sit back and watch the entertainment.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

And I've never said that carriers CAN'T be sunk. But you make it out that it would be easy for any country to hit a carrier. That's far from the truth. Yes a carrier can be sunk, any ship out there can be sunk. But it's not "easy" to do, like you make it out to be. Aegis and Sea Ram make it harder to hit a carrier. Can they be sunk, sure. Is it easy to sink them? No way.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:20 PM

Here is the future of the U.S. military. If you don't believe it, look at the flag that they represent.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

I think part of what you're missing is that you're assuming our military has not advanced or will not advance in certain area's.

Sure the Sunburn and sizzler are dangerous but we've already found defense systems to combat them.

It's a huge ping pong match, back and forth.

One side comes up with advanced ICBM's.
We come up with ABL system.

As for tank defense
Read this

As the OP, you should do research about things like this before making all those wild statements. Just my opinion of course.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by jfj123

JFJ123, you stole my thunder. For some reason, MagicMushroom seems to think that when the Russians, Chinese, etc, come up with a new weapon, the US defense industries just shake their heads and mutter, "Damn, we're finished. We just can't top that." And vice-versa.

That's the whole idea behind the defense industry. They WANT the other side to come up with new toys, since it keeps them in business designing a counter-measure for it.

And don't let a bad economy think that will stop. In fact, if you want to work, try to get a job at a defense plant. That's one thing the US will always be making.

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

you play way to many games delta

by the way why does his gun look like that of gears of war 2

also what game is that

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by bodrul

Its call Section 8 and there is a reason for that. I play games cause I don't want to work every second of my life.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:29 PM
90% of the ships that have been sunk in battle in the last 100 years did not sink because of the damage caused by the weapon used against them.
but because of the lack of skill, training or design in damage control systems or people.

USS Stark even hit by TWO the damage was controlled and the ship made its own way to port.

USS Cole hit by over a ton of RDX and TNT was saved by the fast damage control work of the crew.
few anti ship missiles have anywhere near that size warhead.

Any country firing a nuke at a US Navy ship might as will have fired it at the US its self because the retaliation will be the same.
They will glow in the dark.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:21 PM
Another great example of how the US is progressing with our weapons R&D programs

The Navy is developing a new type of rocket engine to make missiles faster and more deadly.

a hybrid propulsion system called an "Integral Rocket Ramjet" -- also known as a "ram-rocket."

used to knock out enemy air defense radar

If a surface-to-air radar locks on to your aircraft, then your survival may depend on knocking the radar out before its missiles can hit you. Some Russian-built SAMs are huge and have a speed of mach 5 or more , so being the "fastest gun" can be a matter of life or death.

There are plenty of examples that show the US Armed Forces have made incredible improvements in technology.

These tech improvements are necessary to stay in front of our potential adversaries and keep our advantage.

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:23 AM
"With the US econmy in tatters and a military that is devouring more and more of the budget just how long can America afford to waste trillions on expensive weapons platforms most of which will never be used in action

The total US defense budget, as a percentage of national GDP or as a percentage of the annual fiscal budget, has been getting smaller every year for several decades, and at $512B for FY'09 it is nowhere near even 1 trillion. The US "econmy" is still much better off than it was during the Carter administration. And the (professional, all volunteer) US military is more effective than ever at utilizing the weapons it has to defeat their enemies, while also minimizing civilian casualties.

The biggest threat to the US budget, and thus US taxpayers, are bloated, wasteful, ponzi-scheme entitlement programs like social security and medicare. By the GAO's own estimates, just the annual dollar amount of waste and fraud in social security and medicare would be more than enough to fund the total war on terrorism effort.

Next time do a little research before you post your leftist propaganda. It doesn't cost anything.

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by magicmushroom

As long as other nations are willing to buy our debt we can maintain our military force levels.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in