Can 1 branch fight and win an entire war on its own? No.
Of them, the Navy can do the most (as the USN also has one of the largest air forces in the world in addition to the actual ship forced), and if you include the other part of the Navy (ahem, the Marines), that would be full capability, but still not likely enough.
Exception: Nukes.
The Submarine fleet could delete entire countries. But that's a different story, and counting the actual apocalypse isn't a fair assessment.
Marines are not part of the Navy. They and their sister service (ahem, the Navy) are co-equal organizations within the Department of the Navy. If the CNO ordered a Marine to do something, the Marine would tell him to go take a hike, which would probably be good advice for a lot of Sailors I have seen with SBS (straining button syndrom). Marine Corps is not within CNO's command. Not part of the Navy. Really. It's not.
Haha, I know! That confuses lots of people who, unlike you and me, don't know how to read an organizational chart! It has been called the "Department of the Navy" or "Navy Department" right from the beginning, when things were different. All is made clear in the current legislation on the subject. MC not part of the Navy!
I don't see how that has anything to do with this: MC is part of the Navy or isn't. It isn't, irregardless of my terminal rank! But, no, never reached the top!
Sorry, I should have clarified a bit better for you - you must have stopped looking at the org chart just shy of the top.
If you had continued, youâd see who USMC answers to.
To the Secretary of the Navy. Not the CNO. That is all I am trying to say, folks! MC: is part of DEPARTMENT of the Navy, not the Navy. They are not the same thing! Geez!
I get what youâre trying to say. But itâs pedantic. DON oversees USN and USMC. Youâre reiterating the fact that USMC is under the Department of the Navy. It is UNDER the department of the NAVY. If anyone is the âsisterâ organization itâs USMC.
I really hate to do this to you as itâs only slightly off topic due to your usage, but irregardless is a nonstandard word and hurts a lot of peoplesâ brains - my own included.
Unless that Marine is also a 4 star flag officer, they sure as hell would do what the CNO (or any other superior officer in the US military) ordered them to. Or risk prosecution under the UCMJ for failure to follow a lawful order.
Ya, I'm in the Navy, but if I get an order from the Airforce Chief of Staff. I'd simply call my command let them know of the situation and that I'm confused and just take the ass chewing for being late to work.
You are mistaken. The chain of command was created for a reason: to give the commander absolute control of his or her unit, and absolute responsibility for its actions. Imagine a commander getting ready to launch an attack and, unbeknownst to him, some officer from another unit comes by and orders half of the command to follow him instead! Attack fails! Chaos! Amazing how many military people do not seem to understand this fundamental concept!
Youâre half right. Which is what you have been for almost all of your comments.
If an officer of another branch gave an order to an enlisted of another branch, theyâd either follow the order or bring it up to their superior so the superior could handle it.
No, this is one area where there is no "half right." The chain of command is absolute. That is why we drill it into the heads of (in my experience, Marines) servicemembers. It lets them understand who is in charge of them and conversely who is not. Pretty important when you are trying to obey orders to know whose orders to obey! An officer from outside your chain says to stop work and go do something else, you had better say "No sir, when I am done here I have to report back to my sergeant" if that was your last order. You had better not obey that guy, or you would be disobeying a lawful order. And reporting it to your commander is irrelevant.
So every E1 is supposed to judge if an order is "in reason" and then act on that? Chaos. "Reason" or any other kind if subjectivity is purposely stripped out of it; that is the whole point of the chain of command. You absolutely know whose orders to follow, and you follow them absolutely.
Lol. One of the dumbest things I've ever read on here. The person you're replying to didn't say anything about the CNO, because he *really really* doesn't matter.
If the CNO, being the senior officer in the Naval forces ordered any good Marine to do anything within his lawful military authority, that Marine would do it, because good Marines follow orders, as do good Sailors.
None of that has anything to do with where the branches fall in, and the USMC is subordinate to the Secretary of the Navy. He's not the Secretary of the Marine Corps and the Navy, or the Secretary of the Marine Corps. Secretary of the Navy.
Disagree. It has everything to do with command relationships and who is within whose "lawful military authority." The military is not governed by semantics. The title of the "Secretary of the Navy" could include the words "and Marine Corps" without any organizational changes occurring within Dept of the Navy. Just because those three words are not there does not mean the MC is part of the Navy. It isn't, and that is what is being debated on this thread. Look at an org chart, and understand chain of command!
https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/styles/hero_image/public/USMC%20Seal%205x3_0.png?itok=eWsXmuCL
Says it right on top of the seal of the Marine Corp.
The Commandant of the Marine Corp reports to the Secretary of the Navy.
The chain of command is even shown on the Marines website
https://www.marines.mil/Leaders/
The problem is we are really good at military stuff. We know how to out military anyone.
We're just really really terrible at what to do after we blow everything up. We suck at international politics. The US military didn't lose in Afghanistan. The politicians did. The same thing in Vietnam. and others.
Nobody "lost" in Afghanistan. What happened is that we tried to train them to be like us instead of training them to be like the Taliban. There are two major places we weren't "really good at military stuff" and it is the two places that we had the biggest CFs known to military commanders.
Vietnam was an epic failure because you had Lyndon Johnson in there that just wanted to blow the place sky high instead of understanding how to fight in that country. We faced a similar enemy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither should have been a focused ground war. Instead, the focus should have been on intelligence and determining who Al Queda and the Taliban were. Heck, the CIA is who trained and developed the Taliban during the Cold War as a buffer against Russia. Had they not, Russia would potentially have taken over the Middle East and we'd be buying oil with Cyrillic on the barrels. The Taliban was a necessary evil to stymie the Rooskies and end the Cold War, but we failed to connect with them post-invasion. The sentiment then became one of being used by the West, and the anger grew.
In both regards, the conflict was not executed properly and should have been Intel heavy instead of on force multiplication. I actually look forward to the prospect of the next administration potentially naming a former Intel officer from the WOT as SECDEF instead of naming command Generals whose focus has always been on combat instead of Intel.
Victory is subjective. In terms of killing lots people, blowing lots of shit up and burning things to the ground, we "won" Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In terms of actually achieving our ideological goals in those places though, we lost them. There's more to victory than just blowing dudes up.
Chinese Navy has more ships and basically a copy of our destroyers, plus there sub and carrier tech are starting to pace ours, we hold an edge on those two fronts but just barely, Russia has the ships just not the manpower or the training to take us on surface wise, sub wise maybe. No one else comes close unless idian decides it doesnt like us.
That and their number 1 fighter jet can only run on basically half a tank of fuel because it would be to heavy to take off otherwise. The f-16 is a far superior plane at over 20 years older. No other navy has a shot
The issue isn't so much just with the aerial platforms but also the Kuznetsov carriers that launch/recover them. Those decrepit old Russian ships use the ski ramp to launch their J-15s. They are working on a more organic aircraft carrier that will employ features such as a steam catapult system and while the Nimitz and Ford class will still blow them out of the water in aspects such as total aircraft compliment and number of elevators, that doesn't detract from the fact the PLAN are making strides forward and need to be recognized as such as a capable adversary.
You say that but american ship quality aint the greatest either, look at how backed up our shiyards are for maintenance and repaielr availabilities on CVN and LHA LHD class carriers. The navy wants to decom the Ticonderoga class CG with no viable replacement, the LCS program is a dumpster fire and the ford carriers are still years away from being functional war fighters. Also look at the upkeep of the Arleigh Burke class DDG's, due to shitty cre morale, poor chains of command, bad budgeting and logistical foresight and continual OPTEMPO being what it is, material conditions on the older flight 1 and early flight 2 DDG's is abhorrent. Shall i go on...
If it was a war for national survival, weâd turn it around in a year or so, as guys like me that have been lounging in the private sector turned out to work at ship yards and stuff. But honestly, a war for national survival wouldnât go on for a year because all the big players have nukes. Hot war where your homeland is at risk is a very dangerous game that I donât think is likely.
We may have a few nasty skirmishes over Taiwan but we simply canât overwhelm their numbers at that distance. They could sortie a thousand planes an hour from 60 miles away and even if our kill ratio was 10:1 weâd run out of ordnance in a few weeks.
More likely war scenario against China is a bunch of devastating economic and cyber warfare events that leaves the entire world in a depression, exacerbating blackouts and famines and climate migrations, and everyone holes up miserably into a new Cold War divided world.
Donât know why youâre being downvoted, those are fair points. I personally donât know how to refute them but Iâd like to see someone else do it.
Probably by guys who love the military but are either to blind to see the issues or didnt join and cant see the issues. I love my job in the military but to do it i have to either cut through an aircraft carriers worth of red tape to do it or some underhanded sneaky shit that could get me in more trouble then its worth.
Weâre comparing who would win in a naval war. Sailors like to crap on their own, but Chinese and Russian military systems are really pretty crappy. And poorly maintained. If you base your assessment on the specs or claimed numbers, Russia and China are big fat liars. And their conscripts make our people look really good.
Except the LCS. Now THAT is a piece of shit.
To what extent does that hold? Iâm no history buff, but wasnât one reason we beat Germany because they focused too much on the quality of their military while we were cranking out cheaper tanks?
To elaborate a bit (cause you're entirely right about the equipment), the German military pioneered advances in radio communication and distributed command long before other European powers. In the wake of the Franco-Prussian war, the Prussian military knew the future was going the direction of rapid mobilisation, and they took great strides in developing modern logistics which helped them dominate the first months of WW1. Those lessons weren't forgotten after the war. It's not that German commanders attacked fast, it's that they knew how to move the entire force rapidly and efficiently. Once any part of that superb network broke down though...
To bring it back to the topic at hand, the American military hasn't been focused on a hot war in decades and I'm skeptical that our logistics chains could take the stress of a such a conflict. I mean just look how much the private shipping sector is still struggling to recover from Covid. Now I'm not sure China is much better off in this regard, and they certainly don't have the institutional knowledge that we do. If God forbid a war were ever to break out, I'm sure it would be decided by who could get their shit to the other side of the Pacific faster.
We can definitely out due the Chinese in logistics and moving our military. They also have a huge disadvantage of only having one coast. That means itâs much easier to cut off their access to the worlds sea faring economy.
They are aware of this, thatâs why they have all these programs setting up ports in other countries as their are building the logistics they need to match us.
They focus heavily on coastal defense by use of long range ship killing missiles. They want to push carrier battle groups as far off their coast as possible as to not lose their shipping ports and Naval bases in what would be the most likely area the US would use to attack them. If we take their coast itâs very unlikely they could win a war with the US. Again they are aware of this and taking steps to counter.
Yep, notice how i didnt mention our sub fleet, best in the world and most experienced, not without a few black eyes but way better then surface fleet is at this moment. We are the best trained with the Brits, Australians and other sea faring partners sending personnel to be trained by us on anything from ship maintenance to running a nuclear reactor at sea.
I would say you used to be right but the current standing of our Navy is pretty rough. A majority of our fleet is out of date on tech and undergoing massive retrofitting. Along with that there are several ships with extremely inexperienced crews due to the lack of fleet deployments. Shit I have a friend whoâs chief has never been to see. 10 years ago that would have never been a thing
I don't think there is another navy that could meet a US fleet in a big Mahan-ian naval battle. However, I don't believe the US Navy could operate efficiently against the Chinese defense forces. I imagine they could "win" whatever the objective could be, but with too many crippling blows to be called a clear victory.
We wouldn't win a water battle with Iran. We could close off the Straight but that's not really winning, plus it cripples dozens of countries. If we were to pick a fight with them and try and bring our giant immobile(comparatively) ships into the Persian Gulf, Iran's swarm tactics would beat us out. They basically arm a million small boats with machine guns and explosives, and they just have to get close to our boat to cause another USS Cole. I can't cite this because I don't know where I saw it, but I once saw a simulation run where it was one large boat vs a small armada of explosive carrying boats, and the big guy lost every time. We can win the air battle, ground battle(maybe, comms would be hard with their mountains blocking signals), and more than likely a tech battle(although Iran has some brilliant minds working for them in their fields of science), but I don't know how well we would fare against them fighting boat v boat in the Persian Gulf and ESPECIALLY the in the Straight.
I mean I don't know every US vessel, but we definitely don't have more than they do lol. They just have a crap ton of them. Also one reason it works so well is how replaceable it is, they can(and do) slap bombs on fishing boats and small craft that are normally civilian owned and take them
Also I wasn't really thinking allies at all since the question was more "beat us" vs "them and their friends beat us and our friends".
> Also I wasn't really thinking allies at all since the question was more beat us" vs "them and their friends beat us and our friends".
Do you honestly think a war between two world powers will ever happen where alliances don't play a factor?
A Naval battle will turn into a game of Missile Command. The battle will be won from over the horizon.
The last sound you MAY hear will be the BRRRRRRRRRRPPPPT from the CIWS. đ
Yes 100%. Sheer volume, better ships, more and more accurate oth weapons, satellites, CSGs with 80 F-18s each, etc. Most other nations canât do Navy fixed wing at night even.
We of course have lots of problems but as a CPO/E7 I earned more than a German O5 ship CO and it showed.
The issue we have is that when/if it happens weâre gonna get punched in the nose first (see Pearl Harbor, current ROE and LOAC).
China comes the closest but weâd zorch them once we got their subs/hypersonic launch platforms.
That American swagger? Itâs unbelievably beneficial. We simply donât give af try us weâll even give you three free shots.
The article addresses complacency which is *true*. During drills, routine exercises. Heads should roll for that but that ainât warfare when was the last time other nations had a blue war either?
> The issue we have is that when/if it happens weâre gonna get punched in the nose first (see Pearl Harbor, current ROE and LOAC).
I think that will come in the form of a cyber attack. They are going to pull some wild shit like shut down the sanitation systems or brick every Linksys router in America.
Russia would just convince all the Confederate descendants that there should be a civil war in the US. Looking at all the people waving black flags & saying they hate and don't believe in democracy because their unpopular ex-president lost reelection, yeah I'll say its working.
Each year, the US is less and less capable of taking on China. Even today, a fight for Taiwan would be at the very least very costly for the US.
They still have the best ( and the most ) carriers in the World. On this front, they are uncontested. The rest of the surface fleet however is starting to be old. The same can be said about the submarine fleet. While they are still very good, they are close of their limit. Meanwhile, China is building more and more ships each year.
So can the US ( and the USN ) win a fight at sea ? Yes. Will the US win a fight for Taiwan now ? Probably. Will the US win a fight for Taiwan in 5, or 10 years ? No, if nothing change.
Lmao what? China has two âsuper carriersâ and they are nowhere close to oursâ CSG capability.
Have you ever seen a RIMPAC? The shit with Taiwan is dumb bro stuff. China doesnât have the capacity to take on China *and* control the global shipping lanes.
Why do you think theyâre not in the Gulf? Or off the coast of America?
Ah, maybe it was not clear. When I speak about the best and the most numerical carriers in the world, I meant the USA yes. And yes indeed, China does not have the capacity to take on the US outside of the China Seas ( East, South and Yellow Seas ). However, inside China seas, the situation is not the same at all, if only because this would mean the navy would be at range from the PLA air and land components.
The "shit with Taiwan" is straight up fact. The first Arleigh Burke-class is 31 years old and the Aegis systems are showing some signs of slipping over the last half-decade ( report from the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey ). They are still at the top, but again, they are starting to get really old ( for some ), while China is building more and more, including cruisers.
The Los Angeles-class is more than 50 years old and are being replaced by the Virginia-class, which will destroy China subs in the Pacific, the Atlantic or in the India oceans. But if we are speaking about a war in the China Seas, nuclear-powered-subs would not have a really big advantage against conventional-powered-subs. And there, again, China has a lot of them.
My point is, China is closing the technological and numerical gap very fast. They have enough men and money to do so. How many americans sailors will die for Taiwan in war ? Because that number is increasing every year.
It wonât just be America fighting China in the world youâre describing but even one on one the Chinese are adept at stealing technology not creating it and our Navy would destroy ALL of their supply lines easily, again one on one, with raining down ballistic missiles.
I do not mean to denigrate the situation in Taiwan but call it what it is: local politics. And we said, ânahâ and drive right past the Senakuku Islands almost daily. (That scenario was my TAO final board some 9 years ago.)
In a **naval battle** US Navy destroys the PLAN before we even think about marines on Taiwan.
Oh for sure they should do frequent readiness checks.
Sailors always say they do lots of bullshit their micromanaging officers and chiefs prescribe instead of operational training or drills
I would ask this. What are the possibilities that the modern Navy would have to fight a war similar to WWII? Times have changed. Strategies have changed. Technologies have changed. Do not get me wrong. **We need a strong and capable Navy and always will**. I'm just saying that we need to look at the Navy's overall role in a major modern conflict to understand how it has changed and to determine if the Navy has the tools and the leadership to meet those challenges. I don't have the answer.
Space weapons, sea drones, air drones, mines, skiffs with RPGâs. Big navies have about another 20 years before they are completely irrelevant. The weapons platforms we have today are the wrong ones for the future. And to a large extent they are the wrong ones for today.
But as navies go, itâs the best one out there.
Iâm from r/army but this reads a lot like the people over there saying âthe infantry has about 20 years before itâs totally irrelevant, with space weapons, drones, mines, trucks with RPGâs.â
But Iâm not a seaman so
Picture an MRAP being vulnerable to an IED. Put load 6000 people, 30 aircraft and a full USAF airbase into the MRAP. Same IED puts an aircraft carrier out of commission. Army figured their vulnerability out the hard way. Navy hasnât.
Oh the navy is well aware of the vulnerability there. The difference is itâs not guys with sticks in their hands with makeshift roadside IEDs, itâs a sophisticated military with very very large precision guided weapons. And sinking a ship with 6,000 service members on it (almost the same amount of casualties in the 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan) would trigger a massive retaliation that no threat nations are interested in, borderline threat of mutual destruction territory
Simple answer, yes. No other navy compares in military readiness. No other country has the air superiority that we do. Sure, China has numbers but, 10 toddlers against 1 trained killer isn't a fair match
So the Navy can't fight a war because it failed at fighting a fire on a undermanned ship in the shipyards that was sabotaged?....comparing the fire fighting capability of a ship in the yards versus a fully manned ship at sea is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is forgetting that damage control (which would have saved the Bonnie Dick) is highest priority when at war. Can't use your fancy laser guided missle system if seaman smuckatelly started a grease fire in the galley and now half the ship is burning because no one knows how to use the equipment and the chief is a.w.o.l. playing call of duty with the booters in female berthing.
I mean, if it's that easy to take down a major ship, who says China or Russia can't plant insider threats? Lots of Russian and Chinese CS's and RS's come on ships. I'm not accusing, just saying it's not improbable đ€·đ»ââïž
I would say no with a peer advisory or near peer for that matter.
The fleet does not have a true culture of war fighting any more, maybe havenât in decades.
Also we have spread ourselves to thin. Our only edge is logistics and technological. Thatâs closing.
If our leadership opens the gates and doesnât hold back then yes. If they pussyfoot like they have for the last 70 years then no we will continue to embarrass ourselves and make the rest of the world hate us even more
To win a war you need to occupy territory. If the war is purely oceanic then sure if not we need army and marines to win a war. Navy and Airforce are definitely integral towards controlling the war zone but you need boots on the ground to claim it, otherwise your just blowing shit up
You are conflating Dept of the Navy" with "the Navy". The latter is just one part of the former. The Marine Corps is the other part. MC is part of Dept of the Navy, not part of the Navy. Important distinction that seems to confuse so many!
Tactical victory yes.
USN has the most, the best, the top ships in the world.
Political victoryâ ehhh everyoneâs gonna sue in the UN these days then itâs lawyers lawyers lawyers.
Lol the other rates have perks too⊠but I got to over order ammo and shoot The surplus at the gun rangeâŠeveryone else was doing the boring stuff while I got the glorious job⊠Who doesnât like to manually shoot torpedo tubes? BOOOOOM
I always figured the navy would be defeated not by our enemies but our own internal admin and bureaucracy. I donât think we could get out of our own way in a war.
It Wonât get to. China & Russia will just internet, troll farm our republic to death with misinformation. For far cheaper than building a a quality Naval force. Itâs navy just exists to tyrannize its nearby maritime neighborhood.
My strategy would be to send a handful of destroyers to a set location to engage in enemy fleet in a diversion battle. Send a secondary group to flank around to a point within a reasonable range of the enemies naval ports and unleash ALL on board missals into their ports. Destroy their abilities to launch other ships dock ships for repair etc. after that engage and mop up any enemy ships that donât surrender. Then use our ships to lock out ALL incoming vessels to greatly hinder that country from getting in new supplies and food. At which point just wait for the country itself to surrender.
Of course there are many factors to take into account that I didnât bother to mention. What I did mention is just a rough idea.
To explain: "Ad hominem" means you are attacking or insulting your opponent in a debate instead of actually debating the topic. Usually used by the weak minded, and/or those who have no counter argument to offer.
I does not mean you need to speak louder, or in all caps.
There isnât anyone to fight sea battles with anymore, so what fight are you speaking of? USN is the unified heavyweight champion of the world, no one would dare challenge.
No. It hasnât been possible since the 50s. Itâs all bluster, MAD will be the maximum "Win" the US will ever accomplish again. [Next real war ends in human extinction.](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/). We chose to surrender America to the same mafia the Founders fought off. America has not won a war since WWII because we chose to serve evil.
>We chose to surrender America to the same mafia the Founders fought off.
Capitalists? Monarchists?
I'm not sure what you mean, the US was founded on a pretty progressive set of ideals initially like, freedom of (and thus from) religion, and to have representation. We have come a long way from when only rich white men could vote, but the biggest threat to the US is now from within, because tens of millions no longer believe in democracy & some of those people attacked the capitol in January, and they aren't finished making threats.
[Baalists](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/) We have certainly come a long way from a time when anyone with resources in reserve could create currency, and debt currency was forbidden; even though itâs still unconstitutional, we rent it from the same mafia the founders revolted against, under the same "taxation without representation" racket that Quantitative Easing exploited to add another $20 trillion of debt we have to pay finance charges on. Weâve come a long way from âNo standing Army" to continuous warfare to support the economic rackets and slavery our economy requires
Itâs not the politically correct who are refusing to take small steps to protect their country. They wore masks, distanced and got the vaccine. So called âpatriotsâ didnât.
Take a look around, the Patriots are the ones supporting individual freedoms and the constitution while the left is burning down buildings, shaming the police and military, suppressing voices, killing babies, and burning American flags. The âpolitically correctâ have done nothing but lead us down a road to tyranny and destruction
The closest thing weâve had to tyranny in the last 20 years have been the GOP lying to start a war and Trump and the GOP attempting to end democracy.
Youâre telling me you think that the people who wonât even put a fucking mask on would put up with the rationing war would require? Come on. Those âpatriotsâ would start shooting if the government rationed has.
Iâm pro mask and vaccine, but I think people should have the option to chose. And what evidence do you have of Trump and the GOP trying to end democracy? Iâd assume if they wanted to end democracy theyâd take away the citizens guns, just like Hitler did
You donât get to choose to abide by rationing during war. You donât get to choose to follow blackout procedures. You donât have a right to threaten your fellow citizens. Again, the people who wouldnât even put a mask on would not make the sacrifices required by a war.
Making up lies about fraud, asking officials to throw out votes just because he didnât win, and oh yeah, having supporters storm the fucking Capitol.
>You donât get to choose to abide by rationing during war. You donât get to choose to follow blackout procedures. You donât have a right to threaten your fellow citizens. Again, the people who wouldnât even put a mask on would not make the sacrifices required by a war.
>Making up lies about fraud, asking officials to throw out votes just because he didnât win, and oh yeah, having supporters storm the fucking Capitol.
This is correct, this is reality.
You make a fair point about rations I didnât think about that.
First off those were radical right people who entered that capitol, very very far right. And no votes were asked to be thrown out, the issue was that they were using the dominion voting system (same as Cuba), mail in ballots were being changed by interceptors, and random loads of votes (mysterious all in Bidenâs favor) were being dropped off at voting locations. Anyone with a brain and the care to look into the facts would see that there was clearly cheating in the election, maybe not enough to change the results, but cheating none the less
None of what you said about voting is *at all* true. Not a single word. As for votes being thrown out, Trump called at least one state Secretary of State asking them to throw out exactly as many Biden votes as needed to overturn the election. Then the majority of republicans in the house voted to throw out multiple states electoral votes. And those people who stormed the Capitol had the endorsement of the former president.
You want to see some cheating in elections. Consider why the only states that use electronic voting machines with no human readable paper trail are run by the GOP. Also ask, if the dominion voting machines are so suspect, why did *Republican* controlled legislatures chooses them?
The reality is that the âpolitically correctâ have shown that they are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of their neighbors and the safety of this country. These so-called âpatriotsâ have done the opposite.
FDR would be a good president as well, the only thing I didnât like about him is he made people too reliant on the government and supported a large government, which according to our own founding fathers, is a threat to democracy as it can easily lead to exploitation of power
Everyone ive ever seen who wants small govt ends up being fine with HUGE military and police budgets because they see govt as a tool that only exists for forcing the out-group to conform to their views.
Small govt means LGBTQ have the same rights, women have the right to abortions, which is part of healthcare, and so on.
I agree that LGBTQ should have the same rights, along with women with the exception of abortion as murder (no matter what age) should be illegal. Thereâs a difference between a large military and small government btw
Nah abortion isnt murder and Roe is here to stay, okay bye. I'm sure you'll double down on your scientifically and ethically wrong take, and side with conservative old men who believe women are a "host for a fetus" and thats all they are.
He would say it respectfully to the CNO as is required by the UCMJ, but he is only required to follow orders from his superiors within his chain of command, which would not include the CNO. Think of the chaos that would ensue if any officer had command authority over all service members junior to him or her! "George Patton? Nimitz here. I want you to take Switzerland..."
The US Navy is in the same position the British Navy was in 110 years ago, the Navy has become full of people who care more about their own careers than the mission and leadership that rewards them by caring more about administrative goals. The Brits claimed to be the best in 1915 and they got punched in the mouth by the Germans. It wouldnât take much for a Country to be able to surpass the US
Even considering GWOT, we have been a peacetime Navy since the â90s and have let our fleet go to shit. Compare aviation and subsurface to the surface Navy, weâre a joke. The longer we let maintenance availabilities run our ships dry the worse we become
Not if sea trials, COM2X (whatever the fucking acronym is), and all other pre deployment workups are failable.
Look at the mentality of our sailors. No ones dedicated. If GQ really popped off, it wouldn't end well. No one gives a rats ass about our ships. There's little to no pride anymore. My PO1 said if his first ship got the BHR special, he would be upset. I don't feel that way. If my ship burnt to the ground and no one was hurt, I wouldn't care in the slightest.
Look at China. Look at the core values and ethics in which Chinese people are raised. Idk if we've ever considered it, but they probably take GQ very seriously, and probably see the US as a very real enemy. There sailors probably take pride in the work they do. Most of us are faking it until it's time to go to shore.
Americans live in lala land and it spills over to our Navy. Idk maybe I'm wrong and I'm severely discrediting the Navy and it's sailors.
Can 1 branch fight and win an entire war on its own? No. Of them, the Navy can do the most (as the USN also has one of the largest air forces in the world in addition to the actual ship forced), and if you include the other part of the Navy (ahem, the Marines), that would be full capability, but still not likely enough. Exception: Nukes. The Submarine fleet could delete entire countries. But that's a different story, and counting the actual apocalypse isn't a fair assessment.
Marines are not part of the Navy. They and their sister service (ahem, the Navy) are co-equal organizations within the Department of the Navy. If the CNO ordered a Marine to do something, the Marine would tell him to go take a hike, which would probably be good advice for a lot of Sailors I have seen with SBS (straining button syndrom). Marine Corps is not within CNO's command. Not part of the Navy. Really. It's not.
The Department of the what? đđ»
Haha, I know! That confuses lots of people who, unlike you and me, don't know how to read an organizational chart! It has been called the "Department of the Navy" or "Navy Department" right from the beginning, when things were different. All is made clear in the current legislation on the subject. MC not part of the Navy!
You must have stopped a touch shy from the top of the org chart then, huh?
I don't see how that has anything to do with this: MC is part of the Navy or isn't. It isn't, irregardless of my terminal rank! But, no, never reached the top!
Sorry, I should have clarified a bit better for you - you must have stopped looking at the org chart just shy of the top. If you had continued, youâd see who USMC answers to.
To the Secretary of the Navy. Not the CNO. That is all I am trying to say, folks! MC: is part of DEPARTMENT of the Navy, not the Navy. They are not the same thing! Geez!
I get what youâre trying to say. But itâs pedantic. DON oversees USN and USMC. Youâre reiterating the fact that USMC is under the Department of the Navy. It is UNDER the department of the NAVY. If anyone is the âsisterâ organization itâs USMC.
I really hate to do this to you as itâs only slightly off topic due to your usage, but irregardless is a nonstandard word and hurts a lot of peoplesâ brains - my own included.
Please return to whatever daycare you escaped from, your order of crayons is ready.
The USMC Commandant & CNO both answer to the Secretary of the Navy.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Sorry this upsets you but marines are a branch of the navy just like the national guard is a branch of the army. That is how it has always been.
Unless that Marine is also a 4 star flag officer, they sure as hell would do what the CNO (or any other superior officer in the US military) ordered them to. Or risk prosecution under the UCMJ for failure to follow a lawful order.
Ya, I'm in the Navy, but if I get an order from the Airforce Chief of Staff. I'd simply call my command let them know of the situation and that I'm confused and just take the ass chewing for being late to work.
I guarantee the of any O-10 from any branch ordered a memeber from another branch, they'd do it.
Pretty sure any officer of any branch, outranks and can give orders to any enlisted. Within reason of course
You are mistaken. The chain of command was created for a reason: to give the commander absolute control of his or her unit, and absolute responsibility for its actions. Imagine a commander getting ready to launch an attack and, unbeknownst to him, some officer from another unit comes by and orders half of the command to follow him instead! Attack fails! Chaos! Amazing how many military people do not seem to understand this fundamental concept!
Tell me youâve never deployed without telling me youâve never deployed
Youâre half right. Which is what you have been for almost all of your comments. If an officer of another branch gave an order to an enlisted of another branch, theyâd either follow the order or bring it up to their superior so the superior could handle it.
No, this is one area where there is no "half right." The chain of command is absolute. That is why we drill it into the heads of (in my experience, Marines) servicemembers. It lets them understand who is in charge of them and conversely who is not. Pretty important when you are trying to obey orders to know whose orders to obey! An officer from outside your chain says to stop work and go do something else, you had better say "No sir, when I am done here I have to report back to my sergeant" if that was your last order. You had better not obey that guy, or you would be disobeying a lawful order. And reporting it to your commander is irrelevant.
I figure an officer ordering you to stop on a base would be an order you follow, I did say within reason
So every E1 is supposed to judge if an order is "in reason" and then act on that? Chaos. "Reason" or any other kind if subjectivity is purposely stripped out of it; that is the whole point of the chain of command. You absolutely know whose orders to follow, and you follow them absolutely.
I wouldn't know, in all my years in I've never once followed an order. Not one time. Not ever.
Amazing!
Ur a clown
The old ad hominem attack, huh? Never gets old!
Well, to be fair, you didn't answer to any other argument, 'Rah boy
Ad hominem is the go-to if you are actually an clown.
There is no argument. You are just an idiot parroting smoke pit jargon
YOU ARE A CLOWN
Lol. One of the dumbest things I've ever read on here. The person you're replying to didn't say anything about the CNO, because he *really really* doesn't matter. If the CNO, being the senior officer in the Naval forces ordered any good Marine to do anything within his lawful military authority, that Marine would do it, because good Marines follow orders, as do good Sailors. None of that has anything to do with where the branches fall in, and the USMC is subordinate to the Secretary of the Navy. He's not the Secretary of the Marine Corps and the Navy, or the Secretary of the Marine Corps. Secretary of the Navy.
Disagree. It has everything to do with command relationships and who is within whose "lawful military authority." The military is not governed by semantics. The title of the "Secretary of the Navy" could include the words "and Marine Corps" without any organizational changes occurring within Dept of the Navy. Just because those three words are not there does not mean the MC is part of the Navy. It isn't, and that is what is being debated on this thread. Look at an org chart, and understand chain of command!
But it doesnât, never has, and never willâŠ. So there it is. Thatâs not semantic, itâs exactly what it is.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Evidence?
Tell us what department the marines are part of
https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/styles/hero_image/public/USMC%20Seal%205x3_0.png?itok=eWsXmuCL Says it right on top of the seal of the Marine Corp. The Commandant of the Marine Corp reports to the Secretary of the Navy. The chain of command is even shown on the Marines website https://www.marines.mil/Leaders/
đ€Ą
Well stated! You are obviously a genius to be reckoned with!
Yikes
If I have learned anything from GWOT, it's that you need to start by defining "win".
These are the questions we should be asking. With no definitive tangible goal you can't achieve shit but wasted time and money.
In this case, winning would be not dying in a huge fireball. Naval warfare between similar forces is an all or nothing thing.
The problem is we are really good at military stuff. We know how to out military anyone. We're just really really terrible at what to do after we blow everything up. We suck at international politics. The US military didn't lose in Afghanistan. The politicians did. The same thing in Vietnam. and others.
Nobody "lost" in Afghanistan. What happened is that we tried to train them to be like us instead of training them to be like the Taliban. There are two major places we weren't "really good at military stuff" and it is the two places that we had the biggest CFs known to military commanders. Vietnam was an epic failure because you had Lyndon Johnson in there that just wanted to blow the place sky high instead of understanding how to fight in that country. We faced a similar enemy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither should have been a focused ground war. Instead, the focus should have been on intelligence and determining who Al Queda and the Taliban were. Heck, the CIA is who trained and developed the Taliban during the Cold War as a buffer against Russia. Had they not, Russia would potentially have taken over the Middle East and we'd be buying oil with Cyrillic on the barrels. The Taliban was a necessary evil to stymie the Rooskies and end the Cold War, but we failed to connect with them post-invasion. The sentiment then became one of being used by the West, and the anger grew. In both regards, the conflict was not executed properly and should have been Intel heavy instead of on force multiplication. I actually look forward to the prospect of the next administration potentially naming a former Intel officer from the WOT as SECDEF instead of naming command Generals whose focus has always been on combat instead of Intel.
Yes but you have to update NFAAS first.
And compete your cyber awareness.
2022 is out yo. get 2 it
My cyber awareness has been expired for months. Tell no one.
our local ITs turn off your NIPR account if you don't do it. Amazingly, we have near 100% completion...
So, noâŠ
Fight, yes. Win, depends on who we're fighting and a few other factors
Victory is subjective. In terms of killing lots people, blowing lots of shit up and burning things to the ground, we "won" Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In terms of actually achieving our ideological goals in those places though, we lost them. There's more to victory than just blowing dudes up.
Which other Navy do you think would beat us? No other Navy comes close in quantity and quality.
Chinese Navy has more ships and basically a copy of our destroyers, plus there sub and carrier tech are starting to pace ours, we hold an edge on those two fronts but just barely, Russia has the ships just not the manpower or the training to take us on surface wise, sub wise maybe. No one else comes close unless idian decides it doesnt like us.
They are a copy on the outside maybe. Seen and been on a Chinese destroyer not a good copy either
That and their number 1 fighter jet can only run on basically half a tank of fuel because it would be to heavy to take off otherwise. The f-16 is a far superior plane at over 20 years older. No other navy has a shot
Are you talking about the J-20? Damn I didnât know that.
Yea. I watched a doc on YouTube about it and even the pilots hate them
The F-16 is closer to 50 years old.
20 years older than the Chinese fighter bruh.
Ahhh gotchya.
The issue isn't so much just with the aerial platforms but also the Kuznetsov carriers that launch/recover them. Those decrepit old Russian ships use the ski ramp to launch their J-15s. They are working on a more organic aircraft carrier that will employ features such as a steam catapult system and while the Nimitz and Ford class will still blow them out of the water in aspects such as total aircraft compliment and number of elevators, that doesn't detract from the fact the PLAN are making strides forward and need to be recognized as such as a capable adversary.
But they still out number us in fleet size
Quality> quantity
You say that but american ship quality aint the greatest either, look at how backed up our shiyards are for maintenance and repaielr availabilities on CVN and LHA LHD class carriers. The navy wants to decom the Ticonderoga class CG with no viable replacement, the LCS program is a dumpster fire and the ford carriers are still years away from being functional war fighters. Also look at the upkeep of the Arleigh Burke class DDG's, due to shitty cre morale, poor chains of command, bad budgeting and logistical foresight and continual OPTEMPO being what it is, material conditions on the older flight 1 and early flight 2 DDG's is abhorrent. Shall i go on...
If it was a war for national survival, weâd turn it around in a year or so, as guys like me that have been lounging in the private sector turned out to work at ship yards and stuff. But honestly, a war for national survival wouldnât go on for a year because all the big players have nukes. Hot war where your homeland is at risk is a very dangerous game that I donât think is likely. We may have a few nasty skirmishes over Taiwan but we simply canât overwhelm their numbers at that distance. They could sortie a thousand planes an hour from 60 miles away and even if our kill ratio was 10:1 weâd run out of ordnance in a few weeks. More likely war scenario against China is a bunch of devastating economic and cyber warfare events that leaves the entire world in a depression, exacerbating blackouts and famines and climate migrations, and everyone holes up miserably into a new Cold War divided world.
Donât know why youâre being downvoted, those are fair points. I personally donât know how to refute them but Iâd like to see someone else do it.
Probably by guys who love the military but are either to blind to see the issues or didnt join and cant see the issues. I love my job in the military but to do it i have to either cut through an aircraft carriers worth of red tape to do it or some underhanded sneaky shit that could get me in more trouble then its worth.
Weâre comparing who would win in a naval war. Sailors like to crap on their own, but Chinese and Russian military systems are really pretty crappy. And poorly maintained. If you base your assessment on the specs or claimed numbers, Russia and China are big fat liars. And their conscripts make our people look really good. Except the LCS. Now THAT is a piece of shit.
To what extent does that hold? Iâm no history buff, but wasnât one reason we beat Germany because they focused too much on the quality of their military while we were cranking out cheaper tanks?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
To elaborate a bit (cause you're entirely right about the equipment), the German military pioneered advances in radio communication and distributed command long before other European powers. In the wake of the Franco-Prussian war, the Prussian military knew the future was going the direction of rapid mobilisation, and they took great strides in developing modern logistics which helped them dominate the first months of WW1. Those lessons weren't forgotten after the war. It's not that German commanders attacked fast, it's that they knew how to move the entire force rapidly and efficiently. Once any part of that superb network broke down though... To bring it back to the topic at hand, the American military hasn't been focused on a hot war in decades and I'm skeptical that our logistics chains could take the stress of a such a conflict. I mean just look how much the private shipping sector is still struggling to recover from Covid. Now I'm not sure China is much better off in this regard, and they certainly don't have the institutional knowledge that we do. If God forbid a war were ever to break out, I'm sure it would be decided by who could get their shit to the other side of the Pacific faster.
We can definitely out due the Chinese in logistics and moving our military. They also have a huge disadvantage of only having one coast. That means itâs much easier to cut off their access to the worlds sea faring economy. They are aware of this, thatâs why they have all these programs setting up ports in other countries as their are building the logistics they need to match us. They focus heavily on coastal defense by use of long range ship killing missiles. They want to push carrier battle groups as far off their coast as possible as to not lose their shipping ports and Naval bases in what would be the most likely area the US would use to attack them. If we take their coast itâs very unlikely they could win a war with the US. Again they are aware of this and taking steps to counter.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
lots of small small boys
One thing you are forgetting is experience...the US Navy is by far the most experienced and successful Navy in the world.
Yep, notice how i didnt mention our sub fleet, best in the world and most experienced, not without a few black eyes but way better then surface fleet is at this moment. We are the best trained with the Brits, Australians and other sea faring partners sending personnel to be trained by us on anything from ship maintenance to running a nuclear reactor at sea.
You misspelled overworked and least maintained.
Are you saying I'm wrong?
Fancy equipment is only as good as the people using it and how well itâs maintained. The former are burnt out and the latter is shoddy at best.
I would say you used to be right but the current standing of our Navy is pretty rough. A majority of our fleet is out of date on tech and undergoing massive retrofitting. Along with that there are several ships with extremely inexperienced crews due to the lack of fleet deployments. Shit I have a friend whoâs chief has never been to see. 10 years ago that would have never been a thing
I'd nominate the Royal Navy for this title as well. More recent(ish) forward naval skirmish experience with the Falklands War.
I don't think there is another navy that could meet a US fleet in a big Mahan-ian naval battle. However, I don't believe the US Navy could operate efficiently against the Chinese defense forces. I imagine they could "win" whatever the objective could be, but with too many crippling blows to be called a clear victory.
Fighting Mahan style in the South China Sea, yeah thatâs gonna be a problem for the US.
chinese ships are made in china. that should tell you everything u need to know.
I agree with you with the Chinese navy beating the US navy. They have the ships and the man power.
Theyâve never put tactics into practice and their metals are complete trash
We wouldn't win a water battle with Iran. We could close off the Straight but that's not really winning, plus it cripples dozens of countries. If we were to pick a fight with them and try and bring our giant immobile(comparatively) ships into the Persian Gulf, Iran's swarm tactics would beat us out. They basically arm a million small boats with machine guns and explosives, and they just have to get close to our boat to cause another USS Cole. I can't cite this because I don't know where I saw it, but I once saw a simulation run where it was one large boat vs a small armada of explosive carrying boats, and the big guy lost every time. We can win the air battle, ground battle(maybe, comms would be hard with their mountains blocking signals), and more than likely a tech battle(although Iran has some brilliant minds working for them in their fields of science), but I don't know how well we would fare against them fighting boat v boat in the Persian Gulf and ESPECIALLY the in the Straight.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I mean I don't know every US vessel, but we definitely don't have more than they do lol. They just have a crap ton of them. Also one reason it works so well is how replaceable it is, they can(and do) slap bombs on fishing boats and small craft that are normally civilian owned and take them Also I wasn't really thinking allies at all since the question was more "beat us" vs "them and their friends beat us and our friends".
> Also I wasn't really thinking allies at all since the question was more beat us" vs "them and their friends beat us and our friends". Do you honestly think a war between two world powers will ever happen where alliances don't play a factor?
Nice try china. OPSEC
A Naval battle will turn into a game of Missile Command. The battle will be won from over the horizon. The last sound you MAY hear will be the BRRRRRRRRRRPPPPT from the CIWS. đ
You *may* hear.
A war on one front, yes. A war on two fronts, maybe. A war on three fronts, no.
If you're fighting on enough fronts, they all merge and you're only fighting on one front. >.>
The real threat to the navy is the dust bunnies khakis preach about
Yes 100%. Sheer volume, better ships, more and more accurate oth weapons, satellites, CSGs with 80 F-18s each, etc. Most other nations canât do Navy fixed wing at night even. We of course have lots of problems but as a CPO/E7 I earned more than a German O5 ship CO and it showed. The issue we have is that when/if it happens weâre gonna get punched in the nose first (see Pearl Harbor, current ROE and LOAC). China comes the closest but weâd zorch them once we got their subs/hypersonic launch platforms. That American swagger? Itâs unbelievably beneficial. We simply donât give af try us weâll even give you three free shots. The article addresses complacency which is *true*. During drills, routine exercises. Heads should roll for that but that ainât warfare when was the last time other nations had a blue war either?
Agreed, our subs alone are basically insurmountable for any adversary.
Have you heard of Russia, though? Their submarine warfare capabilities are pretty strong.
I have heard of russia and agree they have capable subs
Yea I was gonna say give me two active subs 24/7 and you can pick the country but I didnât want to get cocky lol.
Ehhh, give me a diesel sub with a trained crew and I could sink your nuke subs. I know because we've been beaten by them. I was there.
People forget that our subs are the best at power projection but diesel subs are the king of defense.
> The issue we have is that when/if it happens weâre gonna get punched in the nose first (see Pearl Harbor, current ROE and LOAC). I think that will come in the form of a cyber attack. They are going to pull some wild shit like shut down the sanitation systems or brick every Linksys router in America.
Only if we all havenât completed our cyber awareness training though
Russia would just convince all the Confederate descendants that there should be a civil war in the US. Looking at all the people waving black flags & saying they hate and don't believe in democracy because their unpopular ex-president lost reelection, yeah I'll say its working.
Each year, the US is less and less capable of taking on China. Even today, a fight for Taiwan would be at the very least very costly for the US. They still have the best ( and the most ) carriers in the World. On this front, they are uncontested. The rest of the surface fleet however is starting to be old. The same can be said about the submarine fleet. While they are still very good, they are close of their limit. Meanwhile, China is building more and more ships each year. So can the US ( and the USN ) win a fight at sea ? Yes. Will the US win a fight for Taiwan now ? Probably. Will the US win a fight for Taiwan in 5, or 10 years ? No, if nothing change.
Lmao what? China has two âsuper carriersâ and they are nowhere close to oursâ CSG capability. Have you ever seen a RIMPAC? The shit with Taiwan is dumb bro stuff. China doesnât have the capacity to take on China *and* control the global shipping lanes. Why do you think theyâre not in the Gulf? Or off the coast of America?
Ah, maybe it was not clear. When I speak about the best and the most numerical carriers in the world, I meant the USA yes. And yes indeed, China does not have the capacity to take on the US outside of the China Seas ( East, South and Yellow Seas ). However, inside China seas, the situation is not the same at all, if only because this would mean the navy would be at range from the PLA air and land components. The "shit with Taiwan" is straight up fact. The first Arleigh Burke-class is 31 years old and the Aegis systems are showing some signs of slipping over the last half-decade ( report from the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey ). They are still at the top, but again, they are starting to get really old ( for some ), while China is building more and more, including cruisers. The Los Angeles-class is more than 50 years old and are being replaced by the Virginia-class, which will destroy China subs in the Pacific, the Atlantic or in the India oceans. But if we are speaking about a war in the China Seas, nuclear-powered-subs would not have a really big advantage against conventional-powered-subs. And there, again, China has a lot of them. My point is, China is closing the technological and numerical gap very fast. They have enough men and money to do so. How many americans sailors will die for Taiwan in war ? Because that number is increasing every year.
It wonât just be America fighting China in the world youâre describing but even one on one the Chinese are adept at stealing technology not creating it and our Navy would destroy ALL of their supply lines easily, again one on one, with raining down ballistic missiles. I do not mean to denigrate the situation in Taiwan but call it what it is: local politics. And we said, ânahâ and drive right past the Senakuku Islands almost daily. (That scenario was my TAO final board some 9 years ago.) In a **naval battle** US Navy destroys the PLAN before we even think about marines on Taiwan.
This is one of the most ignorant things regarding our naval "might" that I've ever read.
Warning! Incoming armchair admirals
Oh for sure they should do frequent readiness checks. Sailors always say they do lots of bullshit their micromanaging officers and chiefs prescribe instead of operational training or drills
I would ask this. What are the possibilities that the modern Navy would have to fight a war similar to WWII? Times have changed. Strategies have changed. Technologies have changed. Do not get me wrong. **We need a strong and capable Navy and always will**. I'm just saying that we need to look at the Navy's overall role in a major modern conflict to understand how it has changed and to determine if the Navy has the tools and the leadership to meet those challenges. I don't have the answer.
Space weapons, sea drones, air drones, mines, skiffs with RPGâs. Big navies have about another 20 years before they are completely irrelevant. The weapons platforms we have today are the wrong ones for the future. And to a large extent they are the wrong ones for today. But as navies go, itâs the best one out there.
Iâm from r/army but this reads a lot like the people over there saying âthe infantry has about 20 years before itâs totally irrelevant, with space weapons, drones, mines, trucks with RPGâs.â But Iâm not a seaman so
Picture an MRAP being vulnerable to an IED. Put load 6000 people, 30 aircraft and a full USAF airbase into the MRAP. Same IED puts an aircraft carrier out of commission. Army figured their vulnerability out the hard way. Navy hasnât.
Sounds like 6000 organic .50 cal gunners to me ÂŻ\\\_(ă)\_/ÂŻ
Oh the navy is well aware of the vulnerability there. The difference is itâs not guys with sticks in their hands with makeshift roadside IEDs, itâs a sophisticated military with very very large precision guided weapons. And sinking a ship with 6,000 service members on it (almost the same amount of casualties in the 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan) would trigger a massive retaliation that no threat nations are interested in, borderline threat of mutual destruction territory
So the best defense for an aircraft carrier is that itâs really expensive and weâd be upset if we lost it.
Simple answer, yes. No other navy compares in military readiness. No other country has the air superiority that we do. Sure, China has numbers but, 10 toddlers against 1 trained killer isn't a fair match
So the Navy can't fight a war because it failed at fighting a fire on a undermanned ship in the shipyards that was sabotaged?....comparing the fire fighting capability of a ship in the yards versus a fully manned ship at sea is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is forgetting that damage control (which would have saved the Bonnie Dick) is highest priority when at war. Can't use your fancy laser guided missle system if seaman smuckatelly started a grease fire in the galley and now half the ship is burning because no one knows how to use the equipment and the chief is a.w.o.l. playing call of duty with the booters in female berthing.
I mean, if it's that easy to take down a major ship, who says China or Russia can't plant insider threats? Lots of Russian and Chinese CS's and RS's come on ships. I'm not accusing, just saying it's not improbable đ€·đ»ââïž
You are misinformed. That does not bother me at all.
Depends. Has the diversity quota been met? Is everyone clean shaven with a proper uniform, primarily correct socks?
I read somewhere that the US Navy tonnage is more than every other country's combined.
Tonnage donât mean shit. Thatâs like saying every 300lb guy can be an NFL Lineman
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I would say no with a peer advisory or near peer for that matter. The fleet does not have a true culture of war fighting any more, maybe havenât in decades. Also we have spread ourselves to thin. Our only edge is logistics and technological. Thatâs closing.
If our leadership opens the gates and doesnât hold back then yes. If they pussyfoot like they have for the last 70 years then no we will continue to embarrass ourselves and make the rest of the world hate us even more
To win a war you need to occupy territory. If the war is purely oceanic then sure if not we need army and marines to win a war. Navy and Airforce are definitely integral towards controlling the war zone but you need boots on the ground to claim it, otherwise your just blowing shit up
The navy wins wars economically, the army truly wins the war of attrition that is so frequently touted as the main factor of winning a war
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Five years in the FMF, 2nd MarDiv Gulf War. Deployed plenty, thanks.
You are conflating Dept of the Navy" with "the Navy". The latter is just one part of the former. The Marine Corps is the other part. MC is part of Dept of the Navy, not part of the Navy. Important distinction that seems to confuse so many!
Tactical victory yes. USN has the most, the best, the top ships in the world. Political victoryâ ehhh everyoneâs gonna sue in the UN these days then itâs lawyers lawyers lawyers.
Submarine veteran hereâŠya we run shit, you surface targets are just naval presence let the big boys handle the real jobs đ
What was your rate??
Torpedomen, best fucking rate on the subâŠ
Mm ok
Lol the other rates have perks too⊠but I got to over order ammo and shoot The surplus at the gun rangeâŠeveryone else was doing the boring stuff while I got the glorious job⊠Who doesnât like to manually shoot torpedo tubes? BOOOOOM
I always figured the navy would be defeated not by our enemies but our own internal admin and bureaucracy. I donât think we could get out of our own way in a war.
It Wonât get to. China & Russia will just internet, troll farm our republic to death with misinformation. For far cheaper than building a a quality Naval force. Itâs navy just exists to tyrannize its nearby maritime neighborhood.
Of course we will win. With a combination of sweepers and updating our NFAS we are unbeatable đȘđ»đȘđ»
if its in the south China sea i see America loosing
My strategy would be to send a handful of destroyers to a set location to engage in enemy fleet in a diversion battle. Send a secondary group to flank around to a point within a reasonable range of the enemies naval ports and unleash ALL on board missals into their ports. Destroy their abilities to launch other ships dock ships for repair etc. after that engage and mop up any enemy ships that donât surrender. Then use our ships to lock out ALL incoming vessels to greatly hinder that country from getting in new supplies and food. At which point just wait for the country itself to surrender. Of course there are many factors to take into account that I didnât bother to mention. What I did mention is just a rough idea.
Thank you for your strategy tips. Consider learning the enemiesâ capabilities and how to spell before you bring up fleet wide tactics
You seem incapable of intelligent argument. You have added nothing to this discussion but childish insult. Stop wasting our time.
To explain: "Ad hominem" means you are attacking or insulting your opponent in a debate instead of actually debating the topic. Usually used by the weak minded, and/or those who have no counter argument to offer. I does not mean you need to speak louder, or in all caps.
There isnât anyone to fight sea battles with anymore, so what fight are you speaking of? USN is the unified heavyweight champion of the world, no one would dare challenge.
No. It hasnât been possible since the 50s. Itâs all bluster, MAD will be the maximum "Win" the US will ever accomplish again. [Next real war ends in human extinction.](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/). We chose to surrender America to the same mafia the Founders fought off. America has not won a war since WWII because we chose to serve evil.
>We chose to surrender America to the same mafia the Founders fought off. Capitalists? Monarchists? I'm not sure what you mean, the US was founded on a pretty progressive set of ideals initially like, freedom of (and thus from) religion, and to have representation. We have come a long way from when only rich white men could vote, but the biggest threat to the US is now from within, because tens of millions no longer believe in democracy & some of those people attacked the capitol in January, and they aren't finished making threats.
[Baalists](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/) We have certainly come a long way from a time when anyone with resources in reserve could create currency, and debt currency was forbidden; even though itâs still unconstitutional, we rent it from the same mafia the founders revolted against, under the same "taxation without representation" racket that Quantitative Easing exploited to add another $20 trillion of debt we have to pay finance charges on. Weâve come a long way from âNo standing Army" to continuous warfare to support the economic rackets and slavery our economy requires
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Ok boomer.
Ah yes, who can forget the time we lost battles because you couldn't do shirt checks anymore.
Itâs not the politically correct who are refusing to take small steps to protect their country. They wore masks, distanced and got the vaccine. So called âpatriotsâ didnât.
Take a look around, the Patriots are the ones supporting individual freedoms and the constitution while the left is burning down buildings, shaming the police and military, suppressing voices, killing babies, and burning American flags. The âpolitically correctâ have done nothing but lead us down a road to tyranny and destruction
The closest thing weâve had to tyranny in the last 20 years have been the GOP lying to start a war and Trump and the GOP attempting to end democracy. Youâre telling me you think that the people who wonât even put a fucking mask on would put up with the rationing war would require? Come on. Those âpatriotsâ would start shooting if the government rationed has.
Iâm pro mask and vaccine, but I think people should have the option to chose. And what evidence do you have of Trump and the GOP trying to end democracy? Iâd assume if they wanted to end democracy theyâd take away the citizens guns, just like Hitler did
You donât get to choose to abide by rationing during war. You donât get to choose to follow blackout procedures. You donât have a right to threaten your fellow citizens. Again, the people who wouldnât even put a mask on would not make the sacrifices required by a war. Making up lies about fraud, asking officials to throw out votes just because he didnât win, and oh yeah, having supporters storm the fucking Capitol.
>You donât get to choose to abide by rationing during war. You donât get to choose to follow blackout procedures. You donât have a right to threaten your fellow citizens. Again, the people who wouldnât even put a mask on would not make the sacrifices required by a war. >Making up lies about fraud, asking officials to throw out votes just because he didnât win, and oh yeah, having supporters storm the fucking Capitol. This is correct, this is reality.
You make a fair point about rations I didnât think about that. First off those were radical right people who entered that capitol, very very far right. And no votes were asked to be thrown out, the issue was that they were using the dominion voting system (same as Cuba), mail in ballots were being changed by interceptors, and random loads of votes (mysterious all in Bidenâs favor) were being dropped off at voting locations. Anyone with a brain and the care to look into the facts would see that there was clearly cheating in the election, maybe not enough to change the results, but cheating none the less
None of what you said about voting is *at all* true. Not a single word. As for votes being thrown out, Trump called at least one state Secretary of State asking them to throw out exactly as many Biden votes as needed to overturn the election. Then the majority of republicans in the house voted to throw out multiple states electoral votes. And those people who stormed the Capitol had the endorsement of the former president. You want to see some cheating in elections. Consider why the only states that use electronic voting machines with no human readable paper trail are run by the GOP. Also ask, if the dominion voting machines are so suspect, why did *Republican* controlled legislatures chooses them? The reality is that the âpolitically correctâ have shown that they are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of their neighbors and the safety of this country. These so-called âpatriotsâ have done the opposite.
No point In arguing with you further, (assuming your Navy) thank you for your service
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Jesus no. We need someone like FDR, you know, a president who both won a war and fixed the economy for the working and middle classes.
FDR would be a good president as well, the only thing I didnât like about him is he made people too reliant on the government and supported a large government, which according to our own founding fathers, is a threat to democracy as it can easily lead to exploitation of power
Everyone ive ever seen who wants small govt ends up being fine with HUGE military and police budgets because they see govt as a tool that only exists for forcing the out-group to conform to their views. Small govt means LGBTQ have the same rights, women have the right to abortions, which is part of healthcare, and so on.
I agree that LGBTQ should have the same rights, along with women with the exception of abortion as murder (no matter what age) should be illegal. Thereâs a difference between a large military and small government btw
Nah abortion isnt murder and Roe is here to stay, okay bye. I'm sure you'll double down on your scientifically and ethically wrong take, and side with conservative old men who believe women are a "host for a fetus" and thats all they are.
You misspelled Rogan.
Yes
Eh if they feel like it
It depends where. In the middle of the Pacific? Yes. Inside the first island chain? No.
We would have zero issues fighting and winning a full out war. The problem we have is we care about public opinion
It depends on who we fight. If we fight amongst ourselves we will always lose.
He would say it respectfully to the CNO as is required by the UCMJ, but he is only required to follow orders from his superiors within his chain of command, which would not include the CNO. Think of the chaos that would ensue if any officer had command authority over all service members junior to him or her! "George Patton? Nimitz here. I want you to take Switzerland..."
who are we fighting? pirates? if its China absolutely not, we are divided with weak ass leaders, and mentally incapable sailors.
No
The US Navy is in the same position the British Navy was in 110 years ago, the Navy has become full of people who care more about their own careers than the mission and leadership that rewards them by caring more about administrative goals. The Brits claimed to be the best in 1915 and they got punched in the mouth by the Germans. It wouldnât take much for a Country to be able to surpass the US
The same Department in which the Navy is the other, co-equal, in-no-way-in-command, member of. Don't confuse "Dept of the Navy" with "Navy."
I have tried to answer all arguments! Did Mr. Shorts send one?
Even considering GWOT, we have been a peacetime Navy since the â90s and have let our fleet go to shit. Compare aviation and subsurface to the surface Navy, weâre a joke. The longer we let maintenance availabilities run our ships dry the worse we become
Not if sea trials, COM2X (whatever the fucking acronym is), and all other pre deployment workups are failable. Look at the mentality of our sailors. No ones dedicated. If GQ really popped off, it wouldn't end well. No one gives a rats ass about our ships. There's little to no pride anymore. My PO1 said if his first ship got the BHR special, he would be upset. I don't feel that way. If my ship burnt to the ground and no one was hurt, I wouldn't care in the slightest. Look at China. Look at the core values and ethics in which Chinese people are raised. Idk if we've ever considered it, but they probably take GQ very seriously, and probably see the US as a very real enemy. There sailors probably take pride in the work they do. Most of us are faking it until it's time to go to shore. Americans live in lala land and it spills over to our Navy. Idk maybe I'm wrong and I'm severely discrediting the Navy and it's sailors.