EPTAnd we know the Navy has no interest in a battleship because at no time has their material assessment (which is conducted regularly) said "We wish we had missile battleships"
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5396
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
And we know the Navy has no interest in a battleship because at no time has their material assessment (which is conducted regularly) said "We wish we had missile battleships" | ||
|
Yurie
11971 Posts
On December 28 2025 19:30 Gorsameth wrote: A single Arleigh Burke destroyer carries 90 to 96 missile tubes, The US is not going "If only we could launch more missiles at the same time". And we know the Navy has no interest in a battleship because at no time has their material assessment (which is conducted regularly) said "We wish we had missile battleships" I guess the only way they would want one of them would be if they are lower maintenance and has lower manning needs per missile tube than smaller ships. You would still need the smaller ships since the US navy hasn't fought another large navy in a long time. Thus small ships that can shoot down drones or support other operations are more economical when you need 4 tubes ready in 20 locations at once. Basically the question would be, is adding this to a carrier group going to lower costs? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17156 Posts
@1:40. I agree with O'leary here. I think the tariffs with Canada need to be fine tuned. Fine tuning tariffs will help bring down inflation. Regarding the big growth #s without jobs growth. Welp, in 1992 when we were recovering from a nasty recession we had GDP growth without jobs growth. In fact, it was worse in 1992... unemployment was rising more sharply than it is today. Unemployment went from 6.8% to 7.8% in mid-1992 as GDP was rising. Source: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/employment-situation-144/june-1992-56002 So, I don't think what we are seeing today is some bizarre phenomenon. Also, Median salaries are up $1300. They were up $1196 by the 2nd quarter and continue to rise. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/median-weekly-earnings-were-1196-in-second-quarter-2025.htm So, things are looking up! | ||
micronesia
United States24751 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17156 Posts
 If the USA ends up getting some of Canada's mineral rights then I'd have to acknowledge that Trump's rhetoric about making Canada the 51st state was a brilliant negotiation tactic. Ask for the sky, the sun, and the stars when all you really want is the moon. The USA needs to grant concessions on tariffs in the areas O'Leary alluded to in his FOX interview and get some concessions from Canada in return. Canada put itself in this weak position long before Trump arrived on the scene. #1. Declining of diversity of trading partners. John Turner warned Canada about this during the first Free Trade debates. He was right. #2. Declining military making it impossible to guard its massive amounts of arctic land. It now relies on the USA for protection. To put a poker spin on it. Canada has been over playing its weak hands for about 20 years now. The country can not maintain its sovereignty in the Arctic. Sooner or later a US leader was going to call Canada's bluff and force them to turn over their cards. Its kinda brutal when its a loud-mouthed, jerk like Trump that is doing it. However, sooner or later some leader was going to do this. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43358 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1343 Posts
Most of the supply chains that changed are not going to change back. Tourism might come back post Trump, it will just take some time. But a lot of the supply chain stuff is very expensive and work intensive to change. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17156 Posts
On December 29 2025 00:57 Billyboy wrote: No one in Canada is making any serious long term deal with Trump. He's one McDonalds fueled late night tantrum from tearing it up and having to go through it all again. It is going to be short term appeasement and wait for a grown up in office. And while we wait it all about diversifying markets so that we need the US less. Most of the supply chains that changed are not going to change back. Tourism might come back post Trump, it will just take some time. But a lot of the supply chain stuff is very expensive and work intensive to change. Canada wants tariffs removed and will bargain for that. As O'leary pointed out removing a few tariffs will greatly improve things for the USA. THere is a deal to be made. On December 29 2025 00:56 KwarK wrote: They already had a deal dictated to them by Trump. He reneged on it. meh, Canada has been claiming the USA is breaking free trade agreements with the USA since 1992. nothing new here. Nothing special about Trump's antics. member when Mulroney called Bush a "tin pot dictator" ? https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-03-10-fi-3712-story.html | ||
|
Yurie
11971 Posts
On December 29 2025 01:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada wants tariffs removed and will bargain for that. That is the point Billy is making, Canada wants a deal. Trump cannot make and keep deals, so they have to wait until he is out of office to make one. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17156 Posts
On December 29 2025 01:05 Yurie wrote: That is the point Billy is making, Canada wants a deal. Trump cannot make and keep deals, so they have to wait until he is out of office to make one. and my point is Canada does not want tariffs on potash and boxite. and they want the tariffs to end... today. Therefore, Canada will come to the bargaining table. They're scheduled to come to the bargaining table in mid-January.. .so i don't even get what point this other guy is trying to make. My point is... i hope they include removing tariffs that O'Leary discusssed on FOX https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cusma-review-2026-what-trump-wants-9.7026216 "My judgement is that, that is now going to roll into the broader CUSMA negotiations," he said. Carney added, "We're always ready" if the US wants to return to the agreement the countries had before U.S. President Donald Trump called off the trade talks after Ontario's anti-tariff advertisement. Trump called off the talks... not Canada. Talks are set to resume mid-January. I see some day light. THings are looking UP! Or, to put a humourous spin on it: "Reaganomics Is Working!" | ||
|
Yurie
11971 Posts
| ||
|
hitthat
Poland2275 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2682 Posts
On December 29 2025 03:20 hitthat wrote: I had different impression. I see here a criticism, or more accurately, significat concerns about the idea, listed here pretty neutral way. "Relying on technology that still don't exist", massive logystic chalanges and concerns about other concept canceled to make a way to Trump-class. Perun is not Lazer Pig and he doesn't tend to call the ideas shit because it's not professional. He is open to ideas, but I do not see a big entusiasm to idea in this video. Yeah me to. Watched about half of it. Very little punch for a lot of ship. A bit of everything. A railgun that doesn't seem to help kill other ships, provide cheap and effective land bombardment or meaningful AA or CIWS. Lasers that might work. Basically a lot of money for very little reliable stuff and a ton of wishful thinking that hasn't even tested well. Meanwhile, the other superpower who just built their next gen missile destroyer/cruiser that has a shitload of vertical launch tubes and that is currently testing their next gen missiles that looks scary as fuck has come to a drastically different conclusion. Which seems to be somewhat along this line of thinking: missiles are now so good that their carrier is secondary because whatever we are shooting at dies. Our state of the art ships are gonna get fucked. The winning move is to stick lots of missiles on the cheapest thing that floats so we have something left when the dust settles. | ||
|
Yurie
11971 Posts
On December 29 2025 03:20 hitthat wrote: I had different impression. I see here a criticism, or more accurately, significat concerns about the idea, listed here pretty neutral way. "Relying on technology that still don't exist", massive logystic chalanges and concerns about other concept canceled to make a way to Trump-class doesn't sound like positivity at all. Perun is not Lazer Pig and he doesn't tend to call the ideas shit because it's not professional. He is open to ideas, but I do not see a big entusiasm to idea in this video. He is highly negative to the idea. Just more positive than I expected him to be overall since the idea is very bad and he usually does rate things fairly. The last half also goes into how this wrecks the navy budget if they want to get to the amount of ships they are required to have. Basically removing tons of more useful projects. It also risks delaying any new platform since you now have two competing projects and people will do neither until the dust settles. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
On December 29 2025 01:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote: and my point is Canada does not want tariffs on potash and boxite. and they want the tariffs to end... today. Therefore, Canada will come to the bargaining table. They're scheduled to come to the bargaining table in mid-January.. .so i don't even get what point this other guy is trying to make. My point is... i hope they include removing tariffs that O'Leary discusssed on FOX https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cusma-review-2026-what-trump-wants-9.7026216 Trump called off the talks... not Canada. Talks are set to resume mid-January. I see some day light. THings are looking UP! Or, to put a humourous spin on it: "Reaganomics Is Working!" Eh. I won't believe we are close to signing a deal until after we've signed it. (That man is such a flip flopper on almost everything except his 1700s mercantalist view on tariffs/ wealth.) And then only once he's out of office would I count on it meaning anything. That is unless Putin is for it. A couple phone calls from best pal Putin and Trump will think it's the greatest idea that you'll never believe it. Many are saying it. Big men too. The biggest men. But Russia wants Ukraine to succeed. And Trump said it, so you know things are looking UP! What a smart man. The smartest. No-one has ever been more big-brained. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17552 Posts
On December 29 2025 01:20 Yurie wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUbx9TvOwk Perun was more positive to the new ship design than I expected. Here's a more realistic take by other analysts. Including some history of battleships and all the woes that have been troubling the US Navy and their projects for the past few decades (basically almost all of their attempts at modernizing existing or releasing new ship types were failures). | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17156 Posts
On December 29 2025 18:01 Gorsameth wrote: JJR has been saying Canada will surrender for the last 12 months, its meaningless. really? when did i say that? Here is what happened,. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/non-sectoral-tariffs-dropped-1.7643253 The federal government quietly removed more counter-tariffs on American goods than initially advertised, according to an order-in-council published online. This, while steel and aluminum tariffs continue. So, who surrendered? By the way, if you check my posts you'll see my comments that this is a smart move by Carney. for a more detailed discussion on Canada feel free to hit the Canadian politics thread, although, i'm not sure what you can add. | ||
|
Yurie
11971 Posts
On December 29 2025 18:36 Manit0u wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uxmwsB7lSY Here's a more realistic take by other analysts. Including some history of battleships and all the woes that have been troubling the US Navy and their projects for the past few decades (basically almost all of their attempts at modernizing existing or releasing new ship types were failures). The videos basically say the same thing in different ways. This one was slightly more frank on how bad of an idea it is and speculated on how it got approved but basically make the same points in a different way. Even arguing the design could make sense as a nuclear powered design that is smaller than the proposed design. Perun lowering the size to fit in existing yards as one detail difference while yours had a bit more on the impact on the Ford project. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2615 Posts
On December 29 2025 18:01 Gorsameth wrote: JJR has been saying Canada will surrender for the last 12 months, its meaningless. You're right about it being meaningless, but wrong about JJR saying anything substantial or specific. His takes are as concrete and reliable as a fart in the wind. | ||
| ||
