Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Missile/Drone Intercept by U.S. Navy Destroyer in Red Sea Shows Why We Need a Bigger Navy

The USS Carney, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer in the northern Red Sea, on Thursday shot down multiple missiles and drones launched by Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen that the Pentagon said were potentially headed toward targets in Israel.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-navy-destroyer-red-sea-185700181.html

---

How long before state sponsored terrorists launch missiles or drones directly at the United States by concealing them on ships, possibly even hijacking ships on the high seas and using them as platforms to launch such attacks?

It's clear that a bigger navy is needed to intercept such attacks anywhere near our coastlines as well as to be continuously on station near hostile nations, such as Iran and North Korea.

We also need our national missile defense system to encompass protecting our southern border should terrorists smuggle such weapon platforms into Mexico.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration reached out to Hollywood screen writers to envision scenarios in which terrorist attacks might occur against the United States because of the alleged lack of imagination in our national security aparatus. 🤔

Let's not wait for another terrorist attack on our soil before we engage in prepardedness to help thwart such attacks.

We need a trillion dollar national defense budget... NOW!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Elessar · 26-30, M
I think you guys are fine with your current allocation, it's Europe that needs to step up. And not necessarily by putting more money into it, at least not initially: having a common army, a common navy and a common airforce would already shave off a lot of pointless management costs coming from having each country currently operating their own.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Elessar Agreed.
Jimmy2016 · 61-69, M
We need to cut our military budget in 1/2........That money could go to better use............The US needs to stop killing people.........And we are NOT fighting for our freedom.........They need to stop using that slogan...........
specman · 51-55, M
@Jimmy2016 idiot
justanothername · 51-55, M
@Jimmy2016 You say that while China is able to build warships faster than the US and has a newer more capable battle fleet than the US.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@justanothername

China does not have a more capable battle fleet than the U.S. It's not even close.

But the mission of China's navy is one of sea denial. Ours is of sea control. China does not need to have a fleet equal to ours to achieve its goal.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
America has almost half the world's military spending. This is not realistic, so make it three quarters.

Maybe don't arm Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen. That might also help with security.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero I thought you confused the two in your comment.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Burnley123

😂 Why would you think that?

Isn't it a little too early across the Pond to be nipping at the bottle? 😉
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero Nah, I'm drinking coffee. And eating toast. Not tea and crumpets.
Then we need universal single-payer health to help pay for that.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@SomeMichGuy
get people to understand their personal good health is a public duty (incl. via $ incentives),

Except incentives often turn into "punishments."

Like if you get a hybrid, you get to drive alone in the car pool lane. i.e. "incentive"

If you don't (regardless of affordability), then you get stuck in the regular traffic lanes. i.e. "punishment." Even though your tax dollars went to built and pave those car pool lanes.
@beckyromero

People already pay higher or lower prices for normal life insurance based upon age, sex, smoking history, health screening.

This is not a new idea.

If you want to get Jethro to be goaded into understanding the social aspects of health, what better way? "My body my choice" is killing our longevity and raising our healthcare costs.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@SomeMichGuy
People already pay higher or lower prices for normal life insurance based upon age, sex, smoking history, health screening.

So how about when you go to Kroger for a pound of coffee, the store charges YOU more for than the next person in line. No matter coupons, store card, etc. YOU will pay more because, I don't know, you have blonde hair.

Don't be a Bloomberg!
Given we have not got a great knowledge of all who have crossed our border, who they are ( vetted) where they have gone into the country we may have potential terrorist attacks being planned as we speak.
That said we’re a day late and a dollar short with regard to thwarting whatever might come in the way of hostile acts against this country.
Very likely our capabilities to thwart something from another country are strong and being quietly and effectively dealt with.
You are being optimistic to hope we give our military a trillion dollar national defense budget, but you can hope.
masterofyou · 70-79, M
A trillion dollar defense budget won't help a woke Dept of Defense.... My take....
This message was deleted by its author.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@masterofyou I just defined the word for you. Must I provide evidence? I'll give you links.

Here. Here's the Oxford definition of the word. Maybe you'll believe them. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/woke_2

When I say that you are stubbornly ignorant, that's not calling you names. That's describing your attitude.
This message was deleted by its author.
Vin53 · M
I just can't accept this argument. You're literally saying we need to expand our navy to allow us to better protect other countries? Are they paying for it?
Vin53 · M
@beckyromero The UN, NATO etc. We have International Courts to decide maritime matters, we don't have the right to take it upon our country to decide national disputes across the globe. We're the nation of laws after all.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Vin53
The UN, NATO etc. We have International Courts to decide maritime matters, we don't have the right to take it upon our country to decide national disputes across the globe. We're the nation of laws after all.

The UN?

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.


NATO?

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.


The International Criminal Court ?

We're not a signatory.

For that matter, neither is China, Iran, North Korea or Russia.
Vin53 · M
@beckyromero If we have naval disputes with any of those 4 countries then hostilities will include the entire breadth of war.
Vin53 · M
No. We have a redundancy factor an average of about 5. There is literally nothing we can't affect from 17 different compass points of the world at every single instance. Fact.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
specman · 51-55, M
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
I can't help but feel like if the US hadn't been fucking around and everybody else's business all these years, we'd be less of a target now.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@LordShadowfire

If the "US hadn't been fucking around and everybody else's business all these years," you'd probably be goose stepping and singing, Deutschland über alles.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@beckyromero I'm not saying we made a mistake getting involved in that one. But let's be honest. What good did we actually do in Vietnam, for example?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@LordShadowfire

We tried - but failed - to prevent the complete communist takeover of that country. Gen. MacArthur had warned both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson against getting involved in a land war in southeast Asia. Might there have been different ways of going about it? Perhaps.

But as to the question what good did we do in trying? Perhaps ask Vietnamese-Americans.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
Aw, Becky... I'm so sad. The old man who thinks he's smarter than the entire staff in charge of the Oxford English Dictionary blocked me.

 
Post Comment