Trump to unveil plans for new U.S. ‘battleship’, reports say

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think they are all planning on getting rail guns in the future.....

You mean those rail guns that don't work and were too expensive to make work?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mean those rail guns that don't work and were too expensive to make work?

I think he means the ones that did work, but were expensive to make work...

..... ..... ..... And whose barrel had to changed after 10's of rounds.

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Oh, and remember it only has 1 rail gun.

WW
.
.
.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Name a more powerful Navy

The Navy has three Zumwalt class destroyers and they have been welded to the piers since they were built. Their gun systems are so bad, the Navy decided they would be better off without them. They are being replaced by more missiles.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think he means the ones that did work, but were expensive to make work...

..... ..... ..... And whose barrel had to changed after 10's of rounds.

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Oh, and remember it only has 1 rail gun.

WW
.
.
.
View attachment 1199304

If they are too expensive, that means they do not work. You can never use them.

 

[rightwinger]

The Navy has three Zumwalt class destroyers and they have been welded to the piers since they were built. Their gun systems are so bad, the Navy decided they would be better off without them. They are being replaced by more missiles.

Doesn’t negate the fact that we have the most powerful Navy in the world does it?

Try to keep up with the thread

 

[rightwinger]

Depends on how you count "power". If by total megatonage of nuclear weapons on this fleet, nowadays Russia with more than 16 gigatons is the first.

Ukraine, with no naval power showed how meek the Russian Navy is

 

[Zavulon]

Ukraine, with no naval power showed how meek the Russian Navy is

As it was said many times, it's not a war, not yet. Just a little and gentle disciplining of unruly children.

 

[eagle1462010]

As it was said many times, it's not a war, not yet. Just a little and gentle disciplining of unruly children.

Gentle.

LMAO.

But yeah Strategic Bombers could flatten cities.

But that might spark WWIII wirh NATO so you dont do it.

 

[Zavulon]

Gentle.

Yep. Not ironically. We could and probably should do much more.

LMAO.

But yeah Strategic Bombers could flatten cities.

But that might spark WWIII wirh NATO so you dont do it.

No. There are two very basic types of deterrence. (Trenin and Karaganov decribe nine, Herman Kahn - three, but those two are basic and simpliest):

Deterrence type I ("providing stability" in modern American jargon) is like saying: "You shouldn't attack our nuclear forces, because even if you do your best, there will be enough of survived nuclear assets to retaliate and cause to you unacceptable damage".

If your adversary is rational, he won't attack your nuclear forces if this "unacceptable damage" is worse than any profit he can get from this attack.

Deterrence type II ("providing multistability" in modern American jargon) is something a bit opposite. It is like saying: "You shouldn't do anything too provocative, (that is not a nuclear attack against our nuclear forces), because if you do it, we'll be able to attack your nuclear forces the way, that it will degrade enough to not cause to us unacceptable damage, even if you decide to retaliate".
And the question is what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for the decision-makers. And, for the USA, even total nuclear annihilation of Ukraine doesn't worth even ten million Americans killed (and Russia can kill much more even in the worst scenario). If America can't sacrifice even one million of American soldiers in the war against, say, Mexican carthels, it means that America isn't ready to sacrifice a way more civilians in vain attempt to defend Ukraine.

From the Russian point of view, demilitarisation of Ukraine and Eastern Europe is a vital goal, Russia can sacrifice more than forty million civilians to achieve this goal, and Russia (even in worst scenario) can, by its first strike, degrade US nuclear forces to the level at which they can't kill more than 1 mln Russian civilians.

 

[22lcidw]

What "huh"? During economic booms, supporters of capitalism extol the virtues of a free market economy and free competition.
But as soon as a inevitable crisis hits and someone pulls ahead, calls like yours to destroy (or sink, as you said) the successful competitor follow.
Of course, not because they are successful, but because they are “commies” or, stooping to the level of the nazis, “mongoloids.”
Capitalism in the age of nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence is a stinking corpse infecting everything around it.

There is ups and downs. The fiat currency sold to our corrupted politicians in 1913 were told there was no ups and downs in a fiat currency economy. So, there would be no recessions and depressions as gold and silver backed dollars are barbarous relics. Now we run two trillion dollars a year deficit and need to keep the prime rate low to grease the wheels.

 

[rightwinger]

As it was said many times, it's not a war, not yet. Just a little and gentle disciplining of unruly children.

Resulting in a million Russian casualties

 

[Zavulon]

Resulting in a million Russian casualties

It depends whom exactly we count as Russians. If we count Ukrainians as Russians (as I do), than yes. It is sad, but it is the lesser evil.


Allowing NATO in Ukraine might cause death of billions.

And no, your peace with Mexico in those four years caused much more number of casualties (counting both ODs and crippled).

 

[eagle1462010]

Yep. Not ironically. We could and probably should do much more.

No. There are two very basic types of deterrence. (Trenin and Karaganov decribe nine, Herman Kahn - three, but those two are basic and simpliest):

Deterrence type I ("providing stability" in modern American jargon) is like saying: "You shouldn't attack our nuclear forces, because even if you do your best, there will be enough of survived nuclear assets to retaliate and cause to you unacceptable damage".

If your adversary is rational, he won't attack your nuclear forces if this "unacceptable damage" is worse than any profit he can get from this attack.

Deterrence type II ("providing multistability" in modern American jargon) is something a bit opposite. It is like saying: "You shouldn't do anything too provocative, (that is not a nuclear attack against our nuclear forces), because if you do it, we'll be able to attack your nuclear forces the way, that it will degrade enough to not cause to us unacceptable damage, even if you decide to retaliate".
And the question is what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for the decision-makers. And, for the USA, even total nuclear annihilation of Ukraine doesn't worth even ten million Americans killed (and Russia can kill much more even in the worst scenario). If America can't sacrifice even one million of American soldiers in the war against, say, Mexican carthels, it means that America isn't ready to sacrifice a way more civilians in vain attempt to defend Ukraine.

From the Russian point of view, demilitarisation of Ukraine and Eastern Europe is a vital goal, Russia can sacrifice more than forty million civilians to achieve this goal, and Russia (even in worst scenario) can, by its first strike, degrade US nuclear forces to the level at which they can't kill more than 1 mln Russian civilians.

And here again you go to the threat of Nukes and winning a Nuclear War which is INSANITY.

 

[Zavulon]

And here again you go to the threat of Nukes and winning a Nuclear War which is INSANITY.

As it was said by STRATCOM to POTUS in the nice movie "The House of Dynamite" (2025):

"No, mr. President. This is reality."

Nuclear Deterrence is effective because it is believable. And it is believable because nuclear war is both survivable and winnable. Of course, it's still gambling, but sometimes Russian roulette gives you a better chance of survival. Or it is just funny.

 

[eagle1462010]

As it was said by STRATCOM to POTUS in the nice movie "The House of Dynamite" (2025):

"No, mr. President. This is reality."

Nuclear Deterrence is effective because it is believable. And it is believable because nuclear war is both survivable and winnable. Of course, it's still gambling, but sometimes Russian roulette gives you a better chance of survival. Or it is just funny.

Only a fool thinks it is winnable.

 

[Zavulon]

Only a fool thinks it is winnable.

Did you just say, that all those well-payed decision-makers, who have been playing nuclear deterrence from both sides for more than seventy years, and have been successfully preventing bigger wars, were fools?
And you consider yourself kinda smart, saying something that counter-intuitive?
Why? Do you know something what I don't?

 

[eagle1462010]

Did you just say, that all those well-payed decision-makers, who have been playing nuclear deterrence from both sides for more than seventy years, and have been successfully preventing bigger wars, were fools?
And you consider yourself kinda smart, saying something that counter-intuitive?
Why? Do you know something what I don't?

I know you fire nukes at us you will end up just as DEAD AS US.

 

[Zavulon]

I know you fire nukes at us you will end up just as DEAD AS US.

How so? Let's play scenario from The House of Dynamite. Russia and China have US C3I system hacked smart way. They didn't stopped it, they made it inaccurate. And they have some moles among higher US decision-makers.
Step one: Russia nuke Chicago, and test their systems (both humans and systems). Everything going well. American GBI missed incoming warhead. Chicago agglomeration destroyed, 9 mln dead and wounded.
Step two: America retaliate, without taking in account that their systems are inaccurate. America makes counter-force strikes, mostly military targets - siloes, command centers, bases. Russia was ready, American warheads were inaccurate. And Russia, as already prepared side, successfully made launch-under-attack by less-protected mobile complexes. In Russia, mostly because of American misses one million is already killed. Russian missiles effectively eliminated most of pre-planed American military targets, and killed twenty more million civilians in cities.
At the step three Russia suggested to the USA peace plan with mutually acceptable (but Russia-prefered) terms. If America refuse, Russia plans to destroy seven American cities for every damaged Russian city. America at this moment has only one Ohio-class submarine in Atlantic and two Ohio-class submarines in Pacific, and in few days it will achieve capability to kill one more million of Russians. And Russia still have a capability to destroy 30% of American population with further death or migration of almost 90% of American population because of destroyed infrastructure.

American decision-makers decide that it is much better to lose Alaska and California but save America. So, America lost 30 mln people, Russia lost one million. But Russia got Alaska and California. Russia won.

Where is here Mutual Assured Destruction?

 

[22lcidw]

So, build the ships with current to near ready technologies with the abilities to change what is on the ship as the technologies advance. Also, unmanned aircraft and ships would do good on this ship for control. We must get newer ships into the ocean. If smaller aircraft carriers are desired, we have the ability to produce them. These ships need to be built. Zumwalt, LCS, Constellation are failures in costs and time to build. The Ford Carrier is still correcting technology issues and has for years.