CDZ Can You Answer These Questions?

[yiostheoy]

...Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission...?...What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

You're absolutely right, Why!

[the understanding being here is that you're posing rhetorical questions and you're not interested in gaining new information because you've already made up your mind about this...]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

--

...Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission...?...What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

You're absolutely right, Why!

[the understanding being here is that you're posing rhetorical questions and you're not interested in gaining new information because you've already made up your mind about this...]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

--------------------------------------- whats RATIONAL ?? Do you think that we all go by your definition of Rational eh ?? Rational is a matter of Opinion and you just don't like some peoples Opinions Robo .

Rational is opinion that actually answers the questions in a manner that makes common sense.

Benjamin Franklin:

Common sense is uncommon.

 

[Dekster]

Well off hand sometimes issues crop up in different places at the same time. Carriers are protected with planes among other things so I'm not so sure they are easy to knock out. But I don't run the Navy so don't have all the low down. Semper Paratus.

There is growing concern about Supercavitation Technology both in the world of torpedoes and, apparently, China is working toward a sub that uses the technology.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well off hand sometimes issues crop up in different places at the same time. Carriers are protected with planes among other things so I'm not so sure they are easy to knock out. But I don't run the Navy so don't have all the low down. Semper Paratus.

There is growing concern about Supercavitation Technology both in the world of torpedoes and, apparently, China is working toward a sub that uses the technology.

I'll check wikileaks and get back to you.

 

[yiostheoy]

The best book to read in order to understand the critical need for sea power is this book by the US Naval Institute:

"Sea Power," edited by E.B. Potter.

He describes how throughout history the Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Venetians, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, English, French, Russians, Americans, Japanese, and Germans each learned in turn quite by accident that a world class navy was critical to their prosperity and success and security.

 

[2aguy]

Thanks folks for responding to my first post here.

I'll simply have to ask now, why is America the world's sucker and protector of ALL of the sea lanes? Where's our so-called allies? Why shouldn't they be supplying at least half of the sea lane protection, like 6 of the carriers if they really are necessary?

What about our 20 trillion $ national debt and crumbling infrastructure?

I'll give you this.

If we don't, china, Russia and Iran will.....

 

[2aguy]

Controlling the Seas is vital.....and now controlling space will also be vital.

 

[westwall]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

 

[usmbguest5318]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

 

[westwall]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

 

[I amso IR]

This entire exchange has been interesting, however, did the original question asked by the OP get answered? The one about are 12 twelve Navy boats really needed or will 11 make do? The closest I ever came to a genuine Navy boat was an oil exploration ship converted to troop carrier, tho a small one, named the USNS Upsur which commuted between the NYC Navy Yard and Bremerhaven, Germany. What a treat that was!

 

[ABikerSailor]

This entire exchange has been interesting, however, did the original question asked by the OP get answered? The one about are 12 twelve Navy boats really needed or will 11 make do? The closest I ever came to a genuine Navy boat was an oil exploration ship converted to troop carrier, tho a small one, named the USNS Upsur which commuted between the NYC Navy Yard and Bremerhaven, Germany. What a treat that was!

Well, in addition to building a carrier, you would also have to have the support ships that go with them, usually 5 other ships and a submarine.

And no............we don't really need 12 carriers, really, we can project seapower any time we need to, and if necessary, they can be there in a matter of a couple of days.

 

[westwall]

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

And you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist. Conditions that have only existed for the last 65 years, conditions that have never existed before. And conditions that will likewise not continue for very long as evidenced by the actions of the EU. Ultimately all of the countries you listed were protected by the armed forces of the EU, and ultimately the USA. Conditions that are rapidly changing, and will probably cease within the next dozen years or so.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

And you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist. Conditions that have only existed for the last 65 years, conditions that have never existed before. And conditions that will likewise not continue for very long as evidenced by the actions of the EU. Ultimately all of the countries you listed were protected by the armed forces of the EU, and ultimately the USA. Conditions that are rapidly changing, and will probably cease within the next dozen years or so.

you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist.

What will it take for you to grasp that "why" is irrelevant when the facts simply do not exist to support the argument in the first place?

 

[westwall]

You used landlocked countries, that are small, and have historically either had limited or no military forces of their own, relying on treaties with the larger country's around them for their protection, or as in the case of Luxembourg merely having the national flag of whoever the current invader happens to be. Ask the Jews of Luxembourg how they fared under the Nazi occupation. Your argument is specious at best.

Your argument is specious at best.

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

And you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist. Conditions that have only existed for the last 65 years, conditions that have never existed before. And conditions that will likewise not continue for very long as evidenced by the actions of the EU. Ultimately all of the countries you listed were protected by the armed forces of the EU, and ultimately the USA. Conditions that are rapidly changing, and will probably cease within the next dozen years or so.

you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist.

What will it take for you to grasp that "why" is irrelevant when the facts simply do not exist to support the argument in the first place?

You are factually wrong. You get the benefit of living in one of the most stable periods of mans history.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have news for you: I didn't present an argument; andaronjim did in the form of a categorical syllogism. What I did is note examples of countries that remain to be defended even though they have no military, thus explaining what makes his argument unsound/fallacious.

• OP's argument that is unsound: "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend."

To show that argument as fallacious, one need only produce examples of countries that have no military and yet remain to be defended and indeed are defended. Your statement asserted that some of the countries I noted are indeed defended; thus you amplified (unwittingly) the lack of logical soundness in the original argument.

(Click the links above and read the content found there before replying.)

Wrong again. The countries exist only because of the largesse of others. They can be extinguished in a second, they are able to continue to exist merely because the countries around them are friendly. Change that dynamic and those countries cease to exist. The fact that they have remained for as long as they have is due to the very stable political situation that we have enjoyed for the last 50+ years. Prior to that they were under German occupation, or were paying a bribe to Germany, and prior to that they were parts of larger States. Luxembourg was a Grand Duchy as a for instance, a part of the holy Roman Empire.

As I said, your argument is specious.

You keep offering explanations for why they exist, but you ignore the central points:

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

And you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist. Conditions that have only existed for the last 65 years, conditions that have never existed before. And conditions that will likewise not continue for very long as evidenced by the actions of the EU. Ultimately all of the countries you listed were protected by the armed forces of the EU, and ultimately the USA. Conditions that are rapidly changing, and will probably cease within the next dozen years or so.

you keep ignoring the extraordinary conditions that allow them to exist.

What will it take for you to grasp that "why" is irrelevant when the facts simply do not exist to support the argument in the first place?

You are factually wrong. You get the benefit of living in one of the most stable periods of mans history.

You are factually wrong. You get the benefit of living in one of the most stable periods of mans history.

And that remark too has nothing to do with the soundness, or lack thereof, in the central point of the categorical syllogism the OP made.

1. The countries exist as sovereign nations.
2. They are defended.
3. They do not have a military of their own.

The argument "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" is thus shown to be fallacious. Period. The argument doesn't make a claim regarding why they exist, which all you have remarked upon.

Moreover, the only statement that is factually wrong is the categorical syllogism -- "If you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend" -- the OP made. It is factually true that the countries I mentioned:

1. Exist as sovereign nations.
2. Are defended.
3. Do not have a military of their own.

 

[Picaro]

Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.

I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?

As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?

Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?

As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.

What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

For one, do away with the corruption and the price falls considerably; it is affordable if Americans actually cared about cleaning up their ow government.

For two, we've learned the hard way over and over and over again that isolationism and neutrality don't work, not even a little bit; they just come after you because you're weak and seen as an easy mark. Washington and Jefferson both learned this right off the bat when our country was brand new, especially re Britain and France and Spain, and Jefferson also declared our first war. Seems islamo-bandits laughed at our neutrality as well. WW I and WW II both saw our neutrality ignored and we ended up with subs prowling our coasts and sinking our shipping all across the Atlantic, and our major Pacific base bombed in a surprise attack.

Forget the whining about 'neutrality' and 'isolationism'; its garbage from ideologues, dumb ones at that.

For three, carriers and carrier groups are capable of handling a large variety of missions, many of the peaceful, along with taking wars and conflicts to others' borders, something that by itself is of great value in preventing wars from breaking out in the first place, and also helps keep allies safe and productive, a necessity in today's world.

For four, we need to keep more around for the reason that we no longer have the domestic industrial capabilities that made us able to respond relatively quickly to the threats in WW I and WW II and keep several allies supplied while fighting on three fronts on our own account. We don't have the means to just ramp up and start spitting out ships, tanks, food, etc. within a couple of months of a war breaking out any more, so we need to plan a lot further ahead. 13 carrier groups is about what we need.

 

[yiostheoy]

...You get the benefit of living in one of the most stable periods of mans history.

Yup, exactly -- Pax Americana.

Preceded in history only by Pax Britannica and Pax Romana.

 

[yiostheoy]

... protected by the armed forces of the EU...

What a joke.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well, in addition to building a carrier, you would also have to have the support ships that go with them, usually 5 other ships and a submarine.

And no............we don't really need 12 carriers, really, we can project seapower any time we need to, and if necessary, they can be there in a matter of a couple of days.

I think carriers like all other military/naval equipment prefer to travel in pairs.

That way if one gets sunk then the other one is there to recover the planes.

That has not really been an issue since 1942, but back then it sure was.

The Japanese were really good at attacking American carriers. They burned a couple of them which sank later.

Our side (including my uncle) sank all 20 of theirs.

So 12 is not necessarily that many to have ready for war.