Ron Paul foreign policy--who really wants it?

[angrysoba]

And there hasn't been a world war since.

This is true only if you count the two periods of time known as World War One and World War Two. In fact, the Cold War was a pretty global event which involved hot wars all over the place. The GWOT is often referred to as a global war.

 

[Travis]

Well, it could be that your characterization of Ron Paul's position is ever so slightly misrepresented.

You seem to be assuming that the world will descend into anarchy and economic chaos if the United States isn't there to police the world and keep everybody in line. It certainly isn't necessarily true that this will happen. The United States has only fairly recently been a global power.

That's not what I assume. That's exactly what I predict would happen.

Remember that Paul has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't want the USA to either have diplomatic relations or engage in free trade with any other nation. Do you not think doing this would have huge and profound negative effects on the rest of the world?

Why does "Isolationism" sound so much worse than "non-interventionism"

Does it? They both sound pretty terrible to me.

 

[angrysoba]

That's not what I assume. That's exactly what I predict would happen.

What's the difference?

Remember that Paul has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't want the USA to either have diplomatic relations or engage in free trade with any other nation. Do you not think doing this would have huge and profound negative effects on the rest of the world?

I didn't know he wanted to have no diplomatic relations with other countries. I am sure you are right but do you have a source for this claim?

If, he were only to say he wanted to close down military bases and no longer intervene abroad what would you say to that?

Actually, I am not on Ron Paul's side about this but I do think that most of his arguments that I have heard are nowhere near as batcrap crazy as some people make out. It seems he is a bog-standard isolationist and I've heard quite a number of Americans say something along the lines of "Why are we spending money fighting other people's wars? Why don't we just leave 'em to it and go home."

 

[SezMe]

So what would you cut from it? Be as specific as you can.

Three areas:
1) Navy submarines. Do we really needs scores of nuclear capable subs roaming the oceans. They do absolutely nothing to deter terrorism.

2) Air Force. We have the most powerful air force in the world. The second most powerful is our Navy. There has to be enormous duplication here.

3) Aircraft carriers. We have 11. The rest of the world has ½. We have 2 more on the way and 5 more planned after that. These things are incredibly inviting targets and if one does get hit we'll have to go to war with someone for revenge. Not good.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

And there hasn't been a world war since.

And here I thought that was largely due to everyone having nukes and facing mutual extinction.

Some of the gung-ho crap America pulls, it's probably only the nukes that kept us from starting another World War.

 

[Corsair 115]

These things [aircraft carriers] are incredibly inviting targets ...

But they'd also be hard targets to hit given the plethora of support ships that always sail with them. A carrier battle group would be a formidable target to take on.

 

[MG1962]

But they'd also be hard targets to hit given the plethora of support ships that always sail with them. A carrier battle group would be a formidable target to take on.

In reality those carrier groups are almost untouchable - and could on their own defeat a fair percentage of nations on the planet completely unsupported. In the 70s US planners considered 7 task forces to be a suitable number - Today there is 11 with new additions on the way

 

[SezMe]

But they'd also be hard targets to hit given the plethora of support ships that always sail with them. A carrier battle group would be a formidable target to take on.

Oh, I very much agree. I suspect they are most vulnerable in port. Do those carriers ever pull into port except in the USA for periodic maintenance?

 

[MG1962]

Oh, I very much agree. I suspect they are most vulnerable in port. Do those carriers ever pull into port except in the USA for periodic maintenance?

Yeah they will pull in for goodwill visits crew R&R stuff like that - Sydney used to be a very popular destination for US crews

 

[Travis]

I didn't know he wanted to have no diplomatic relations with other countries. I am sure you are right but do you have a source for this claim?

Well there's the bill he introduced for the USA to pull out of the UN and expel all artifacts of the UN from US territory.

Then there is his track record of voting against virtually every single international treaty the US has entered into since he became a representative. Including treaties for more open free trade between nations.

If, he were only to say he wanted to close down military bases and no longer intervene abroad what would you say to that?

I'd say it would be foolhardy. For one thing we'd never be able to maintain a free flow of economic goods without someone protecting them. I think we need to pick our interventions better but I'm all in favor of interventionism as a concept.

 

[trustbutverify]

Right, he's for free trade but votes against it at every single opportunity.

It just astonishes me that anyone takes this assclown seriously.

You understand there were many people who found the sitcom "Home Improvement" to be funny, right?

I get less and less astonished every day.

 

[Spindrift]

Oh, I very much agree. I suspect they are most vulnerable in port. Do those carriers ever pull into port except in the USA for periodic maintenance?

The carriers themselves don't have to come in to port. They can send in support vessels for re-supplying.

 

[SezMe]

I know they can resupplied at sea, but surely some maintenance requires being in port. For example, refueling the nuke.

 

[WildCat]

I know they can resupplied at sea, but surely some maintenance requires being in port. For example, refueling the nuke.

I really doubt that would be done in a foreign port.

 

[SezMe]

Of course not. That didn't even occur to me.

 

[MG1962]

I know they can resupplied at sea, but surely some maintenance requires being in port. For example, refueling the nuke.

I think they only have to do that every 20 years or so - A ship would have to put into port well before that to clean the hull and stuff.

 

[Travis]

My understanding is that reactor refitting is only done in Norfolk and maybe Everett.

To the original point carriers have been homeported in Japan and occasionally make visits to secure allied ports like Sydney.

I should also point out that aircraft carriers have proven to be quite tough in actual battle. They can take a huge amount of damage and stay afloat. Something to do with all the watertight compartments and the huge crews who are well drilled in damage and flood control.

 

[SezMe]

I think they only have to do that every 20 years or so - A ship would have to put into port well before that to clean the hull and stuff.

You're about right. This is actually interesting.

 

[Chaos]

I think they only have to do that every 20 years or so - A ship would have to put into port well before that to clean the hull and stuff.

It´s actually quite a major operation, I think - it is done along with all sorts of overhauls and upgrades.

According to Wikipedia, USS Enterprise, the first nuclear carrier, made its maiden voyage in ´58 and had its first refueling in ´64. The second seems to have been in ´69/70, the third presumably during the ´79-´82 overhaul, the fourth in ´90. That should give some sort of idea how often this happens.

 

[MG1962]

My understanding is that reactor refitting is only done in Norfolk and maybe Everett.

To the original point carriers have been homeported in Japan and occasionally make visits to secure allied ports like Sydney.

I should also point out that aircraft carriers have proven to be quite tough in actual battle. They can take a huge amount of damage and stay afloat. Something to do with all the watertight compartments and the huge crews who are well drilled in damage and flood control.

US carriers have always been a bit more fragile than most - However that fragility ensured very fast turn around times for repair. One area the US navy absolutely excels in is damage control. Many ships that should have been lost wern't simply because of the level of training

The Forestel incident in the 60's showed the value of these preparations when virtually all the deck fire fighting crews were killed in the first few minutes of the fire