Aircraft Carriers Obsolete

[Speaker to Animals]

It's just Lolberg clickbait, $14 billion for a carrier and $6 million a day to run it, is chump change for the Pentagon, and nobody gives a shit about deficits, print more money, nobody cares, 5000 American sailors killed, particularly in a major shooting war which is what it would be, totally expendable, Americans would quickly get over it, and operationally, the US could afford to lose three or four carriers, and then when America won the war, build five or six new ones to replace them, ain't no thang.

Assuming your figures are correct..

$14 billion times 11 = $154 billion.
$6 million per year times 11 = $66 billion per year.


We spend more just maintaining these carriers each year than we spend on the entire Marine Corps.

The annual budget of the USAF is $170 billion. We spend almost half that just maintaining 11 carriers that duplicate what we already have??

The entire JSF program soaks up $11.4 billion. We could rebuild the F-22 program in addition to that with the savings of just cutting the carrier fleet in half.


I guess the video never said that, since you ignored the request for a timestamp..

[Smitty-48]

The firgures come from your dumb ass video, Ford Class Carrier is $14 billion plus $6 million a day. I mean, ca'mon, that's lunch money for the Pentagon, and the American public doesn't care, you printed a trillion dollars and handed it to Wall St, overnight, and then kept on printing and shoveling thereafter and are still printing and shoveling right now, the idea that $14 billion is an unsustainable cost, is silly.

Goldman Sachs & Co have a bad month, and you printed enough money to buy a hundred aircraft carriers and just handed it over to them, no questions asked, but all of a sudden there's no money for aircraft carriers? Lolberg, please, get real.

Ford Class carrier is stimulus, it's a boon not a bust, how many people work at Huntington-Ingalls? Losing a carrier would mean building another carrier; win-win.

[DBTrek]

All you really need in the 21st century is a fleet of nuke-mine towing fishing vessels I hear.

[Smitty-48]

Well, you could nuke one carrier, but you only get to do that once, and there are ten more where that came from, so it wouldn't be decisive.

If America was like France, and you only had one aircraft carrier, then it would be a problem, but since America has eleven aircraft carriers, there's plenty of redundancy built in.

[Speaker to Animals]

The stimulus argument is a loser.

We could spend that money on anything and still get the stimulus effect. I would rather spend money on something that has strategic value in a war against a major power. I would rather have more cruisers, destroyers, and submarines than 11 carriers. I would rather have more F-22 wings. I would rather have more Army divisions.

The carriers are wasteful.

[Smitty-48]

Everything the US government does is wasteful, big whoop.

[Speaker to Animals]

So you have no argument, then.

Carriers duplicate capabilities we largely already have. They are too costly to risk in actual naval battles. They provide a stimulus to build them, but we could literally build a giant toaster oven to get the same stimulus, and it would be better to build assets that are actually effective (It's not 1942 any longer).

[Smitty-48]

Your argument is that the US government is wasteful, I make no argument against that, because it is irrelevant. I mean, duh.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your argument is that the US government is wasteful, I make no argument against that, because it is irrelevant. I mean, duh.

*bzzt*

My argument is that the carrier groups are wasteful.

[Smitty-48]

Carrier groups are wasteful, also irrelevant, waste is not an argument against big ticket military purchases, because waste is the whole point, it's pork in the districts, which is what makes the whole American world go round, hence; win-win.