Why is 40% of our carrier fleet moored in Norfolk?

[MaxPF]

This pic was posted up on the 8th, so it is unknown whether any of these ships have put to sea since then. Pictured above are the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). They are all moored at the US Naval Station Norfolk, Va. The Enterprise is now retired and awaiting defueling and scrapping, but the other four are all active Nimitz-class ships, with the George HW Bush being only 4 years old!

This reminds a lot of people of Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor in 1941. What I wonder is why Obama has allowed (or ordered) 40% of our active nuclear carrier fleet moored in harbor? The only reason to put a nuclear ship in harbor for an extended period is for refueling or refit, but you would never do more than one or perhaps two at a time. And, as I pointed out, the Bush is only 4 years old, so it would not be due for any in-harbor maintenance for years.

I wonder if it is a slashing of DOD budgets that has put these 4 ships in harbor? Whatever the case, it is more than a bit troubling to me to see our nation's most powerful force-projection assets sitting in a harbor collecting barnacles

 

[MaxPF]

Maybe this is why the navy can't afford to put it's carriers out to sea:

http://azpundit.com/navy-forced-to-buy-biofuels-from-obama-connected-firm-at-outrageous-prices/

 

[3Hummers]

Budget cutbacks. They are saying the Army will get smaller by 200,000, that naval air groups will be cut back, ship at sea time curtailed, ie the hollowing out of our military. Virtually every major weapons program has been eliminated or cut back under Obama, the size of the military is going to be significantly reduced, pay/benefits will be lowered, unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons will likely be undertaken, all under the watch of a President that won't even go out of his way to prove he meets the most basic qualifications to be President, runs the least transparent administration in my memory and has almost complete blind loyalty from the press( and we all know that isn't good ). We are in big trouble people. China and Russia are getting stronger, militarily and financially and Obama is accelerating unnecessarily the decline in our military power and using every power he has to hurt the economy. ( NLRB, HS, Energy, EPA.......)

 

[abearden]

Sadly, the moment I read the title my first thought was "because someone can't remember Pearl Harbor."

 

[07Custom]

These budget cuts are ridiculous. Especially cutting from the armed forces. What an idiot.

 

[abearden]

If we're really pulling out of two wars, cuts make sense. However, they're gutting the wrong parts and cutting too quick.

 

[MaxPF]

Budget cuts ARE necessary. Instead of cutting our national defense, how about we DON'T give F-16's and Abrams tanks to Egypt. How about we cut off foreign aid. How about we quit giving free **** to illegals. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

 

[3Hummers]

There will have to be some cuts, we can't keep spending at this pace however to borrow the words of our fearless leader we need every program to " pay it's fair share ". That means that Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Energy, IRS, Czars, Department of Education, Interior, etc all have to cough up their share of the cuts. You can't take 50% of the cuts from 25% of the budget. If we quit handing out free cheese, health care, turned off the lights of the midnight basketball leagues, endless unemployment benefits, free welfare and quit wasting time trying to overturn our Constitution we might be able to get by on what the government takes in. The politicians don't want to see that happen because that would diminish their power and influence. Our generation has seen the evolution of a political class with power and influence like no other in the history of this country. It will be a long term struggle to turn the tide and momentum back our way.

 

[ArtHummer]

I hope this graph will show you why cuts are necessary
This is 2012 budget spend on military in US compared to others

 

[3Hummers]

Don't forget that the US pays for all of the technological advances in radar, guidance systems, weaponry, etc while the Chinese and Russians steal it from us. No wonder their budgets are less than ours. Our wimpy ass President won't stand up to the Chinese on the cyber warfare front. Winding down two wars will drop our defense budget by a large amount. Killing all of our major weapons systems under development will save even more. Hollowing out our military capability by cutting back troop strength, training, etc will save even more and also bring us dangerously close to military capability closeness with people that we would rather be stronger than.

 

[MaxPF]

#Hummers is correct. ArtHummers chart neglects a few things. First off, in terms of purchase power parity dollars spent on defense, we are about 3x that of China. A 50% reduction will take us down to 1.5x China, who as 3Hummers pointed out steals much of their technology. While we don't need to be policing the world, we DO need to keep our technology 2 generations ahead of the Chinese, especially considering their superior numbers.

The bigger picture is that our current military spending as a percent of GDP is on par with many other nations. The government has plenty of annual revenue to continue defense expenditures at the current rate. They just need to quit wasting money on crap like giving F-16's and Abrams tanks to Egypt, supporting the UN, foreign aid in general, free $#!t for illegals, free $#!t handouts in general, etc. etc. etc.

 

[DJinCO]

I concur with your comments MaxPF.

 

[Silverton34]

:no:I think I found the reason.:roll::whaa:

 

[Bigunit]

I know why... :sigh:

 

[ajk150]

So when is he creating these millions of jobs again? I've been waiting for nobama to do this for 4 years and while he has created I think it was 400,000-600,000 jobs he has also cut away 2-3 times that much.... So I guess I will continue to wait. On a plus only 4 more years of this sh!t show

 

[bro of bro of 3 & 3hummer]

While we are cutting what about all of the federal funding for grants for stupid things.

 

[Silverton34]

Without the "stupid things" we would have little left to spend money on it seems.

Shouldn't we get back to what the federal government was supposed to do in the first place? Protect our shores and deliver the mail? Leave the rest to the states, liberal states will attract, well,,,, idiots and free states will attract free Americans. The liberals would never go for this, it's all about "other people's money."

 

[ArtHummer]

#Hummers is correct. ArtHummers chart neglects a few things. First off, in terms of purchase power parity dollars spent on defense, we are about 3x that of China. A 50% reduction will take us down to 1.5x China, who as 3Hummers pointed out steals much of their technology. While we don't need to be policing the world, we DO need to keep our technology 2 generations ahead of the Chinese, especially considering their superior numbers.

The bigger picture is that our current military spending as a percent of GDP is on par with many other nations. The government has plenty of annual revenue to continue defense expenditures at the current rate. They just need to quit wasting money on crap like giving F-16's and Abrams tanks to Egypt, supporting the UN, foreign aid in general, free $#!t for illegals, free $#!t handouts in general, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks on elaborating on it this. That was really well put out. And even do the chart is neglecting some, the main point is we do spend 5-6 times more than China. And even do we do need to stay "2 generations ahead of China", the main point is that we spend to much sh$t on the allot of unnecessary bullsh%t.