Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby dhokarena56 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

The state legislature of Wyoming has recently rejected a bill to buy the state, of all things, an aircraft carrier, in the event of the US Federal government failing and the state needing to run its own defense system. What's notable about this isn't that it was repealed- that, at least, we can be thankful for- but that it was ever proposed at all, and, moreover, how close it came to passing- out of a legislature of 60, 30 voted against and 27 for, with, I suppose, 3 abstaining. The minutes of the bill are here.

For non-Americans: here's a map of America with Wyoming in red:

Image

As you can see, not only is Wyoming landlocked, but it's doubly landlocked; none of the states bordering it have a coastline. The largest lake in the state- Yellowstone Lake- is only 136 square miles, which is less than the size of the borough of Queens in New York State, so where they're going to put the aircraft carrier I'm not really sure. You'd have to fly it, probably by towing it with a fleet of black helicopters. Moreover, the state has all of 500,000 inhabitants, which is about one out of every 600 Americans, so it's not like even if they were an independent country with a coastline they would be justified in buying an aircraft carrier.
Last edited by dhokarena56 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:50 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.
Come join Dadapedia- the open-source Dadaist novel that anyone can edit.
User avatar
dhokarena56
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Arrian » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:42 pm UTC

dhokarena56 wrote:The state legislature of Wyoming has recently repealed a bill to buy the state, of all things, an aircraft carrier, in the event of the US Federal government failing and the state needing to run its own defense system. What's notable about this isn't that it was repealed- that, at least, we can be thankful for- but that it was ever proposed at all, and, moreover, how close it came to passing- out of a legislature of 60, 30 voted against and 27 for, with, I suppose, 3 abstaining. The minutes of the bill are here.


Well, I suppose if everything goes south, they could pack the entire population of the state onto one of those things and run away.

Or maybe they meant to buy the carrier than then turn it into a lifetime supply of razor blades for all their citizens to "Cut You!" if Armageddon rolls around.
Arrian
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby JBJ » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Dauric » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:10 pm UTC

Clearly in an apocalypse your state needs an aircraft carrier regardless of how much water you have access to because the Capital Wasteland's Rivet City* was built in a beached aircraft carrier. The other major settlements were built in a bomb crater with a gigantic unexploded nuclear bomb (Megaton), were home to just ghouls (Underworld), were routinely raided by Super Mutants (Big Town), or home to a bunch of hippie psychos worshiping a ghoul/tree hybrid (Oasis Grove).

*Fallout 3

Since Wyoming doesn't have a gigantic casino town home to a wealthy reclusive cyberneticist (New Vegas) their beset option to rebuild after the apocalypse is to have an aircraft carrier on hand.

Id' rather my state invests in the Normandy (Mass Effect), an aircraft carrier won't help much when the Reapers arrive.

...or, y'know...

... Someone's probably been playing too many video games.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.
User avatar
Dauric
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: If I knew this with any accuracy I wouldn't know if I was going to get a speeding ticket.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby dhokarena56 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Alright, I stand corrected. But even so...
Come join Dadapedia- the open-source Dadaist novel that anyone can edit.
User avatar
dhokarena56
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Tirian » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:13 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill.


No, it was an amendment proposed by someone who thought the whole idea was stupid and the sponsor welcomed it, not realizing that the national media would run with the thought of a bunch of westerners being so tinfoil-hatty as to want an aircraft carrier to defend a landlocked state.
Tirian
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby JBJ » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:27 pm UTC

I stand corrected as well. I found another article that quoted Rep. Brown as saying it injected a little humor into the bill.

The first part of the amendment, assigning a disaster planning task force to create guidelines where implementing a draft, raising an army, etc... was actually relevant to the purpose of the bill. Except for the aircraft carrier bit. That's why I thought it was just lifted from some other source. As to whether the bill as a whole had any merit, that's another issue.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby BlackSails » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

They are just preparing for global warming
User avatar
BlackSails
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Diadem » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:43 pm UTC

Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.
Death is the final sorrowful parting from which there is no return. But hope is not yet lost, for there is a simple incantation, a spell of transmutation that brings about the reversal, that permits escape from the infinite well.

"I was here with you"

That is my golden truth.
User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
 
Posts: 8200
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby omgryebread » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

This is perfectly reasonable. I'm kind of shocked no one has done this before, seriously aircraft carriers with wheels are going to be the best new piece of military equipment out there. You're all chilling thinking "nah they can't get me, their airbase is so far away!" AND THEN WHAT Oh me yarm IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH WHEELS COMING FOR US?

Mark my words, when the US collapses, it will just be the beginning of a new era, the era of the Wyominginian Empire.

edit: word filters :(
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.
User avatar
omgryebread
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Shivahn » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:21 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.


It'd be better if they didn't mention the strike aircraft.

Like, "We must implement a draft, and raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force. And an aircraft carrier."

Legislation should be written with comedic timing being the primary goal.
User avatar
Shivahn
 
Posts: 2193
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Dauric » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:22 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:This is perfectly reasonable. I'm kind of shocked no one has done this before, seriously aircraft carriers with wheels are going to be the best new piece of military equipment out there. You're all chilling thinking "nah they can't get me, their airbase is so far away!" AND THEN WHAT Gee Willikers IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH WHEELS COMING FOR US?

Mark my words, when the US collapses, it will just be the beginning of a new era, the era of the Wyominginian Empire.

edit: word filters :(


Actually it's on tracks, and it has a water tank on the deck to allow sea-planes to land.
Image
(A Stan Mott image from Dark Roasted Blend)
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.
User avatar
Dauric
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: If I knew this with any accuracy I wouldn't know if I was going to get a speeding ticket.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

Pfft what a ridiculous plan - an aircraft carrier on tacks? Preposterous.

Image

Image
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.
User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
 
Posts: 7289
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: The British Empire

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Noc » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:11 pm UTC

Biggles says what we're all thinking!
Have you given up?
User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:20 pm UTC

If I combine your and e^iπ+1=0's posts, that makes what everyone is thinking, right.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.
User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
 
Posts: 7289
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: The British Empire

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Adacore » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D
User avatar
Adacore
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Tirian » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:20 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D


According to Yahoo Answers, you couldn't get an aircraft carrier through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Tirian
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:48 am UTC

Tirian wrote:
Adacore wrote:
Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D


According to Yahoo Answers, you couldn't get an aircraft carrier through the St. Lawrence Seaway.


I think Adacore was referring to Hudson Bay.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:57 am UTC

Obviously they are anticipating that a superquake along the San Andreas fault, in addition to rising sea levels, will submerge not just California, but everything west of the Rockies.
It only makes sense that they'd need an aircraft carrier then, how else would they keep their sea trading routes through the San Andreas Sea clear of raiders from the Idahoan Archipelago?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title
User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:11 am UTC

Dauric wrote:Actually it's on tracks, and it has a water tank on the deck to allow sea-planes to land.

Now make it big enough to hold an aircraft carrier.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.
User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
 
Posts: 4603
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:28 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.


It'd be better if they didn't mention the strike aircraft.

Like, "We must implement a draft, and raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force. And an aircraft carrier."

Legislation should be written with comedic timing being the primary goal.


Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!". One would think that would should be covered by the Navy/Air force phraseology.
Death is the final sorrowful parting from which there is no return. But hope is not yet lost, for there is a simple incantation, a spell of transmutation that brings about the reversal, that permits escape from the infinite well.

"I was here with you"

That is my golden truth.
User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
 
Posts: 8200
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:51 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!".
Well come on, why the hell would a place like Wyoming need two aircraft carriers?
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(cis male/he/him/his)
User avatar
gmalivuk
A debonaire peeing style
 
Posts: 22403
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby dhokarena56 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:21 am UTC

Gosh, yes, one aircraft carrier's a necessary part of state defense, but two? That's just lunacy.
Come join Dadapedia- the open-source Dadaist novel that anyone can edit.
User avatar
dhokarena56
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Shivahn » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:56 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!". One would think that would should be covered by the Navy/Air force phraseology.

Haha, yeah. I didn't really process it that way when I first read it, but that is hilarious phrasing.
User avatar
Shivahn
 
Posts: 2193
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:43 am UTC

Isn't Wyoming about the same size as Italy? They have two. *trollface*
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.
User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
 
Posts: 7289
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: The British Empire

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:49 am UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Isn't Wyoming about the same size as Italy? They have two. *trollface*

According to GDP, Wyoming has 36 billion in GDP, while Italy is worth 2 trillion. The closest comparison is Thailand, with 300 billion GDP, which happens to have 1 carrier. so...Yea, an aircraft carrier would cost their entire gdp for a year.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g fails to purchase an A⁠i⁠r⁠cr⁠a⁠f⁠t c⁠a⁠r⁠

Postby userxp » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:23 pm UTC

There's also the fact that Italy is almost entirely surrounded by water.

W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g⁠. A⁠i⁠r⁠c⁠r⁠a⁠f⁠t⁠ ⁠c⁠a⁠r⁠r⁠i⁠e⁠r⁠.
W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g⁠. A⁠i⁠r⁠c⁠r⁠a⁠f⁠t⁠ ⁠c⁠a⁠r⁠r⁠i⁠e⁠r⁠.
Last edited by userxp on Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
userxp
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:27 pm UTC

The guy even says "Trollface" and you still take him seriously *trollface*
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby PeterCai » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:37 am UTC

the point of an aircraft carrier is not for coastline defense, but force projection. whether you have a coastline or not is irrelevant.
PeterCai
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:55 am UTC

The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title
User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby lutzj » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby johnny_7713 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.


Not to mention the fact that an aircraft carrier will at some point or another need a base. It can not remain at sea forever. Thus unless part of the plan is to declare some spot along the Oregon coast an integral part of Great-Wyoming and to annex a corridor through Idaho and Oregon to connect to it, an aircraft carrier would be pretty useless.

Now if we would be talking about Michigan there would be precedent
johnny_7713
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.


well, for one thing, an aircraft carrier is not necessarily a big U.S. supercarrier that costs 10 billion dollars and carries a hundred planes. Most carriers actually hold about thirty aircraft and cost just a few billion dollars. You can generalize and say an aircraft carrier costs about as much as its air wing, but that doesn't include air-strips and other facilities you would need instead of a carrier, so you can't just not buy a carrier and buy twice as many aircraft instead.

You can't really just launch missiles and shells from land either. You could, but you'd have a hard time hitting anything. you need targetting. Land-based surface-search and acquisition radars are range-limited and stationary, creating permanent radar-shadows from intervening terrain and making the radars easy targets for anti-radar missile attacks. Airborne and sea-borne radars that can move around and get different angles one things are really the way to go.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title
User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase an atomic spacecraft carrier

Postby lutzj » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:well, for one thing, an atomic spacecraft carrier is not necessarily a big U.S. supercarrier that costs 10 billion golden dragons and carries a hundred planes. Most carriers actually hold about thirty atomic spacecraft and cost just a few billion golden dragons. You will generalize and spray an atomic spacecraft carrier costs about as much as its air wing, but that doesn't include air-strips and other facilities you would need instead of a carrier, so you won't just not buy a carrier and buy twice as many atomic spacecraft instead.


You won't necessarily have twice as many, but the costs of supporting an air wing from land are much lower than those at sea, and those savings in cash and manpower can (madness! "c a n" = "can") go towards supporting more planes. A carrier group also has a hard cap on how many planes it can (!) have for a given campaign, and how many planes it can (!) have in the air at once, while a land force can (!) both accommodate a higher number of planes and replace them much faster. Air bases on land can (!) also support larger and heavier aircraft that can't be launched from a carrier.

EdgarJPublius wrote:You won't really just launch missiles and shells from land either. You could, but you'd have a hard time hitting anything. you need targetting. Land-based surface-search and acquisition radars are range-limited and stationary, creating permanent radar-shadows from intervening terrain and making the radars easy targets for anti-radar missile attacks.Airborne and sea-borne radars that will move around and get different angles one things are really the way to go.


You'd be able to use the intelligence gathered by your air force with your land-based batteries. A defending force will (this will is a real will) probably enjoy air superiority near the coast and can (not this one!) thence keep tabs on the location of enemy ships; ground-based batteries have to attack moving targets, sure, but they have much shorter supply lines, better air defenses, and can (!) deploy larger numbers of larger ordinance because they don't have to worry about space.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:02 am UTC

I would think that East Asia would swiftly revise this. It puts Eurasia and Oceania at too much of an advantage.
User avatar
Djehutynakht
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:23 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:I would think that East Asia would swiftly revise this. It puts Roger Federer at too much of a advantage.


Wyoming, not East Asia.
Death is the final sorrowful parting from which there is no return. But hope is not yet lost, for there is a simple incantation, a spell of transmutation that brings about the reversal, that permits escape from the infinite well.

"I was here with you"

That is my golden truth.
User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
 
Posts: 8200
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Postby yurell » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:35 am UTC

EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier


This would have been useful for their war against Eurasia Oceania. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!
User avatar
yurell
 
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!


Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests