Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

The dwindling number of ships is a strain on the men and the women of the US Navy. At the moment the USN is stretched to capacity. Regardless of technological advances, the ships can still only be in one place at a time. The average deployment has increased from 6 months to somewhere between 8-9 months. This is due to the fact that the number of ships is at a critical low. Factors that play into this are ships going in to dry dock for scheduled maintenance/repair.

You cannot maintain air superiority with Drones therefore those are irrelevant to this discussion. You cannot deploy an entire MEU with drones either. The Navy offers more versatility and power projection that any other branch of the armed forces. More ships would go along way to ensure the dominance we currently have.

reply to post by butcherguy


Over 400,000 bayonets ordered for the military since 1984.

reply to post by buster2010


Wow did you misrepresent what he said......soooooooo disingenuous...outright lie.

That's not what he said at all.

Originally posted by hangedman13

Of course he doesn't understand the remark because he knows nothing of the military. If it isn't game of counting ships the why is he and Romney complaining about fewer ships? "To keep our strength abroad" this says he supports our Navy protecting other nations instead of protecting our coastal waters which is their main job. Ryan is clueless and this interview shows it.

reply to post by buster2010

 

Actually the prez showed the lack of understanding. A aircraft carrier is vulnerable without a escort. Imagine the effect if one of our carriers went down, the loss of life would be staggering. That's why we have destroyers and battleships, to protect carriers for one. And honestly why bother with a carrier when the guns on a battleship deal more damage then risking the life of a pilot. The carrier mentality is more appearance then practical. "Look at all the planes" Plus the bad news is that we as a nation have made certain alliances and treaties that do require us to go beyond our coast. Like was pointed out in the debate over Poland and the missile defense system. We have a coast guard for our coastal waters, the navy to deal with our interests abroad.

Wrong while yes a carrier needs an escort for defense that defense is primarily concerned with locating submarines. A battleship is virtually useless in a modern navy and the role they once had can be done by smaller more versatile ships. The airplane put the battleship into retirement, it is a sitting duck. The aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield that carries more planes than most countries entire air force.

The focus of today's navy is not one concerned with international warfare. The days of international ship to ship combat are over. It is now almost entirely pirate interdiction another role the battleships of yore are poorly suited to. The focus is going to be on smaller faster more maneuverable craft.

Two things the President also said in the same statement that no one here seems to remember or want to touch on:

1) We have nuclear submarines.

One nuclear submarine can sink 5 naval ships easily! One nuclear submarine can also hit any countries mainland with a nuke. You do know what nuclear warheads do right?

2) Our advancements in technology allow for less American lives to be in harms way.

You people talk as if a destroyer with thousands of souls on board just miles off of a countries coast (sitting duck?) or actively engaging an enemy in the middle of the ocean is better than nuclear submarines (stealthy/underwater) or aircraft carriers (100 miles away) which can reach and DESTROY any target in minutes is better.

This is ATS! We have hundreds of threads on DARPA and our militaries technology. Have we all forgotten about the RAIL GUN?

The part that blows me away on this is that Romney/Ryan speak of the navy as though it is only ships. No one is mentioning that the majority of WAR AIRCRAFT in our military are navy. That we need less ships, because of said AIRCRAFT.

Good lord, I wish people would do some research.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Over 400,000 bayonets ordered for the military since 1984.

since 1984.

How many are actually USED?

The spin out there is pathetic.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Over 400,000 bayonets ordered for the military since 1984.

since 1984.

How many are actually USED?

The spin out there is pathetic.

Well, most of them, I would think. They are not only made to mount on a rifle and perform a 'bayonet charge'. They serve a multitude of purposes. Soldiers need knives too, things don't just cut themselves.

Contemporary bayonets have been modified to fit a variety of uses. Bayonets are often multi-purpose knifes such as the American M7 bayonet which is also an effective fighting knife or the Soviet AKM bayonet which was also a ground breaking survival knife that can be used as a wire-cutter when combined with its scabbard. Some bayonets can also be used as utility knifes, bottle openers or can even be used by troops to cut their way free through the relatively thin metal skin of a crashed helicopter or airplane. Also, issuing one modern multi-purpose bayonet/knife is obviously more cost effective than issuing two or three specialty bayonets and knifes.

Bayonets- Wikipedia It isn't spin, it's reality.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Over 400,000 bayonets ordered for the military since 1984.

since 1984.

How many are actually USED?

The spin out there is pathetic.

1984 was 29 years ago!! That equals to 13,333 bayonets a year.

We have 1,456,862 Active personnel (ranked 2nd in the world). LINK

If by chance we still have all 400,000 bayonets (from 30 years ago) that would be ONE bayonet for every 109 service members.

I live in NYC and in mid-town Manhattan some police officers still ride horses and have six shooters. Most of them drive police cars and have automatic weapons however

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Over 400,000 bayonets ordered for the military since 1984.

since 1984.

How many are actually USED?

The spin out there is pathetic.

Well, most of them, I would think. They are not only made to mount on a rifle and perform a 'bayonet charge'. They serve a multitude of purposes. Soldiers need knives too, things don't just cut themselves.

Contemporary bayonets have been modified to fit a variety of uses. Bayonets are often multi-purpose knifes such as the American M7 bayonet which is also an effective fighting knife or the Soviet AKM bayonet which was also a ground breaking survival knife that can be used as a wire-cutter when combined with its scabbard. Some bayonets can also be used as utility knifes, bottle openers or can even be used by troops to cut their way free through the relatively thin metal skin of a crashed helicopter or airplane. Also, issuing one modern multi-purpose bayonet/knife is obviously more cost effective than issuing two or three specialty bayonets and knifes.

Bayonets- Wikipedia It isn't spin, it's reality.

Are you really claiming that hand to hand combat is the norm in this day and age?

It is VERY rare for a service member to use a bayonet in today's military. Just as the president said. WE HAVE LESS. they arent completely out of service. But they CERTAINLY are not as imperative as they once were, which is THE WHOLE POINT.

Yeah, no spin at all

Oh, and for the record:

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Army discontinued bayonet instruction during basic training in 2010. Read more: newsfeed.time.com...

What a ridiculous exchange...last night on the debate and right here on these boards.

The Navy is not the Navy of a century ago, not even of a decade ago. It is faster, stronger and far-far more efficient. We don't need ships every hundred miles apart because we have tomahawks and fighter planes coming from those ships. We can deploy and be anywhere in the world in a matter of days or hours...not weeks. Our submarines are some of the most powerful craft in existence...right along side the destroyers and aircraft carriers.

We don't need as many of them to do what needs to be done...not like we did a decade ago. But if it makes the right wing feel better, the technology to make that happen costs A LOT more ...so ...their cronies in the military industrial complex are still making bank off of our tax dollars.

Isn't that REALLY what this bullsh!t is about? Yes, it is.

So many barbs going back and forth, but the crux of the matter is this....

Who here thinks the problem with our military is not enough boats?
How about not enough money allocated?

Of course not! The problem with our military is lack of credible intelligence gathering, lack of credibility in foreign nations, lack of goodwill due to our foreign policy, lack of resolve because we are fighting for something we don't believe wholeheartedly in. The problem with our military has nothing to do with bullets or boats, and that was Obama's point.

And I am by no means an Obama fan, nor a Romney fan, and I actually like Paul Ryan, but on this singular point, Obama nailed it, Romney punted it, and Ryan is being intentionally obtuse.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Are you really claiming that hand to hand combat is the norm in this day and age?

I guess you missed the parts about the bayonet being a multi-use tool? Wirecutters, etc.
Whatever, I can't read it for you, that's on you.

reply to post by butcherguy


I guess you missed that bit about a 'bayonet' being something being attached to the business end of a rifle and used much like a spear. These days, with automatic weapons, it's far easier to just shoot a few rounds rather than sticking your assault rifle into an enemy combatant and then having to do the 'struggling to pull it out again' dance.

That's why bayonet drills were dropped from training.

You can call a knife a bayonet if you like, though.

I happen to have a friend who "was' in the navy a few years ago. During these cuts he was released and is now a big Romney/Ryan supporter.

I had an argument recently with him because for the past four years we have been friends, he spent at least 10 hours a day online talking to women on the internet while being paid by the Federal Government to do it. It was ridiculous and he knows it but will not admit it to me.

Ryan is lacking imagination.

Apparently the claim that the USA is an equal opportunity nation, means that the idiots get their turn at being our leaders because that is who are leading us.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by buster2010

 

Wow did you misrepresent what he said......soooooooo disingenuous...outright lie.

That's not what he said at all.

To which of my posts are you replying? It would help if you use the quote button.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.

Did Romney expect to be taken seriously when comparing today's Navy with the one in the early 1900's? One of our battleships today could decimate most of the fleet we had in the 1900's.

The last "battleship" was decommissioned in the 1990’s. That was the Mighty Mo, aka the US Missouri. we dont have battleships anymore. that was so 1910's. if your going to bash someone make sure you know what your talking about.