EPTWonder if any conservatives are going to call this fake news because Trump doesn't have any friends
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5397
| 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 | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2575 Posts
Wonder if any conservatives are going to call this fake news because Trump doesn't have any friends | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43987 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17743 Posts
On December 30 2025 01:20 Yurie wrote: 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. But wouldn't changing the engine system, size and dropping some components in favor of others make it effectively a completely different design? Also, the video I linked argues that battleships were a failed concept ages ago and they're inferior in every way to carriers as capital ships so there's no space for them in the modern navy as they would be more of a liability than an asset. | ||
|
Billyboy
1719 Posts
Battleship the Game teaches you strategy, I win Every time, just like these ships will. You don't hide a BATTLESHIP, No,no you place it smartly, you protect it. Look if you get their battle ship you win. When we have more BIGGER, Stronger, More powerful ones we can't lose. Also - Presence, when you say I sunk you battleship its dramatic, everyone stops. It is a moment. Nobody says that about a patrol boat? Or Tug boat. The battleship gets RESPECT. HUGE respect. Lets be honest, it is in the name Battleship, Strong name, Powerful name. It is not called the Maybeship or probably ship. It's about winning, dominance, just like me which is why it needs a STONG POWERFUL name. Trump Battleships. The game is a STRATEGY game, it teaches more than some leftist school. Battleship is clearly the best BOAT. Always has been. Everyone knows it. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17743 Posts
On December 30 2025 08:49 Billyboy wrote: Alright listen, this is very important Okay? Battleships are the best ships in the Navy, and Honestly, We learned this Very EARLY on from the greatest educational took ever created, BATTLESHIP the game. Incredible game, maybe the bestest and very underrated by the Fake game media. First, what's the hardest ship to Sink? Its the Battleship, everyone knows this, even the radical Left and Sleepy Joe. It takes MULTIPLE hits, very Resilient, Very tough. Battlships are Strong, Powerful, the Bigliest, Manly and don't fold under Pressure. Just like the Man they will be named after. No matter what the fake Leftist Antifa news is telling you. Those little ships one or two hits, gone, they're Crying. Sad! Battleship the Game teaches you strategy, I win Every time, just like these ships will. You don't hide a BATTLESHIP, No,no you place it smartly, you protect it. Look if you get their battle ship you win. When we have more BIGGER, Stronger, More powerful ones we can't lose. Also - Presence, when you say I sunk you battleship its dramatic, everyone stops. It is a moment. Nobody says that about a patrol boat? Or Tug boat. The battleship gets RESPECT. HUGE respect. Lets be honest, it is in the name Battleship, Strong name, Powerful name. It is not called the Maybeship or probably ship. It's about winning, dominance, just like me which is why it needs a STONG POWERFUL name. Trump Battleships. The game is a STRATEGY game, it teaches more than some leftist school. Battleship is clearly the best BOAT. Always has been. Everyone knows it. Thank you for making my day  | ||
|
KwarK
United States43987 Posts
| ||
|
RenSC2
United States1090 Posts
His strategy might actually be better if he learned from a boardgame. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On December 30 2025 11:46 RenSC2 wrote: Sadly, if he actually learned from Battleship the board game, he'd know the damn destroyer (2 squares) is the hardest to find and usually the last one killed. Barring some bad luck, It'll keep you in the game long after your carrier (5 hits) and battleship (4 hits) have been found and killed. His strategy might actually be better if he learned from a boardgame. I watched a few videos on the topic, and US naval construction has only been about funding domestic industry for a long time. It is honestly embarrassing that the Republicans who otherwise complain so much about government spending show no interest in holding the military accountable for wasted billions. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1151 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On December 30 2025 18:42 Slydie wrote: I watched a few videos on the topic, and US naval construction has only been about funding domestic industry for a long time. It is honestly embarrassing that the Republicans who otherwise complain so much about government spending show no interest in holding the military accountable for wasted billions. Reoublicans caring about spending is performative. They are fine with spending as long as they get the biggest slice if the pie. None of them are interested in solving problems. | ||
|
Yurie
12087 Posts
On December 30 2025 08:25 Manit0u wrote: But wouldn't changing the engine system, size and dropping some components in favor of others make it effectively a completely different design? Also, the video I linked argues that battleships were a failed concept ages ago and they're inferior in every way to carriers as capital ships so there's no space for them in the modern navy as they would be more of a liability than an asset. Yes, a useful design in a large frame. If they want a large non-carrier ship that is useful without being a pure missile lobber with some other stuff on it they should go nuclear and smaller than dreadnought size battleships. Perun argued the same, just using different words and examples. They are pretty much the same video. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11835 Posts
On December 30 2025 23:23 Yurie wrote: Yes, a useful design in a large frame. If they want a large non-carrier ship that is useful without being a pure missile lobber with some other stuff on it they should go nuclear and smaller than dreadnought size battleships. Perun argued the same, just using different words and examples. They are pretty much the same video. Doesn't sound like Trump class. Trump class must be the biggest, and a really smart cool idea that only the very smartest can see, not just an iteration on something like an aircraft carrier. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2787 Posts
On December 30 2025 23:23 Yurie wrote: Yes, a useful design in a large frame. If they want a large non-carrier ship that is useful without being a pure missile lobber with some other stuff on it they should go nuclear and smaller than dreadnought size battleships. Perun argued the same, just using different words and examples. They are pretty much the same video. If you want to lose naval dominance without obvious sabotage this is almost the perfect ship to do it with. Order them built with ironclad private contracts and pour billions into r&d, research and construction infrastructure over the next years. Next administration either goes with it and the lack of shipyards to build them and existing tech guarantees they will be severly over budget and extremly late. Or decides to cancel the contract wasting billions of dollars and delaying any new ships. As a bonus if they get built there is a good chance key systems will never work as intended and regardless there is no nuclear powerplant so you don't even have that. It's almost perfect. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
Also, the problem with American ship building is bipartisan. There are a lot of bad laws and rules that no one wants to touch. It's not really about wasting $$$ | ||
|
oBlade
United States6122 Posts
On December 30 2025 08:25 Manit0u wrote: But wouldn't changing the engine system, size and dropping some components in favor of others make it effectively a completely different design? Also, the video I linked argues that battleships were a failed concept ages ago and they're inferior in every way to carriers as capital ships so there's no space for them in the modern navy as they would be more of a liability than an asset. Gun battleships became obsolete a long time ago, yes. The thing is gun everything is obsolete. 1940s gun destroyers and cruisers are obsolete. It's just an accident (or inevitability) or the historical development of technology that battleships went off a cliff, while destroyers and cruises have a historical continuity where the same size gradually switched to missiles. But every destroyer and cruiser now is a missile ship and it's not significantly harder to hit a 150m hull than a 250m hull that makes destroyers invincible. The design thus released (advertised) is subject to revision. The navy has confirmed that. Gas engine part is either disinformation or a bad decision that would never stay. There is really no way a final design of that size gets through without nuclear considering what the other systems need and how much gas it would use otherwise. Or the only real reason I see for consciously not going nuclear would be there might be a longer period in queueing up reactor production, especially many, and they want to get the ships moving, but that shouldn't be a limiting factor with other statements about these coming out in the 30s which is plenty of time to get reactors moving. On December 30 2025 11:46 RenSC2 wrote: Sadly, if he actually learned from Battleship the board game, he'd know the damn destroyer (2 squares) is the hardest to find and usually the last one killed. Barring some bad luck, It'll keep you in the game long after your carrier (5 hits) and battleship (4 hits) have been found and killed. His strategy might actually be better if he learned from a boardgame. Your analogy breaks down in several places because in the tabletop game Battleship, whether you have one ship or all ships, you still get the same one peg of offense per turn. You can't afford to lose stuff and have the same capabilities in reality. To wit, the goal of the US navy is not "have a destroyer left after everything else blows up." Wasn't at Midway and isn't today. | ||
|
Yurie
12087 Posts
On December 31 2025 02:55 oBlade wrote: Gun battleships became obsolete a long time ago, yes. The thing is gun everything is obsolete. 1940s gun destroyers and cruisers are obsolete. It's just an accident (or inevitability) or the historical development of technology that battleships went off a cliff, while destroyers and cruises have a historical continuity where the same size gradually switched to missiles. But every destroyer and cruiser now is a missile ship and it's not significantly harder to hit a 150m hull than a 250m hull that makes destroyers invincible. The design thus released (advertised) is subject to revision. The navy has confirmed that. Gas engine part is either disinformation or a bad decision that would never stay. There is really no way a final design of that size gets through without nuclear considering what the other systems need and how much gas it would use otherwise. Or the only real reason I see for consciously not going nuclear would be there might be a longer period in queueing up reactor production, especially many, and they want to get the ships moving, but that shouldn't be a limiting factor with other statements about these coming out in the 30s which is plenty of time to get reactors moving. Your analogy breaks down in several places because in the tabletop game Battleship, whether you have one ship or all ships, you still get the same one peg of offense per turn. You can't afford to lose stuff and have the same capabilities in reality. To wit, the goal of the US navy is not "have a destroyer left after everything else blows up." Wasn't at Midway and isn't today. The problem with a 250m ship is that you could have 2 150m ships doing the same thing at same cost (in most cases). That means an opponent has to launch more missiles to kill both ships, making any engagement more expensive. If you got them down to 20m and automated instead, the ships might be cheaper than the most expensive missiles in opponent inventory. That is just one reason for scaling down. The economics of the fight becomes better with smaller ships. They can also be on more spots and are thus a more distributed threat and economical way to apply force. Send a $150M ship that can do the job or a €2.5 Billion one? You need a reason to make it €2.5 Billion. Nothing has been shown that would motivate the money. The main reason you do large aircraft carriers (which are finally switching away from steam unless Trump wrecks it) is that the ship needs to be that big for the runway. If vertical launch planes were as good you would have more and cheaper aircraft carriers. Edit. I think this entire thing is a good example of clouding the media space. Just throw tons of bad shit at it and people are too busy to do anything about the last garbage idea being implemented. The topics move on so fast that the most egregious things gets overclouded by something new that is only bad. Edit 2 As has been said before, naval strategy is build strategy. The years this project is going to waste means the pacific stance of the US will 100% lose to China and change the strategic setup for that region. The only way it wouldn't is if the US just gives up on the classical Navy and does something new that works better, can't catch up to the Chinese build pace any longer. Already losing a decade on bad projects means the US is close to out of time. | ||
|
Ze'ev
159 Posts
| ||
Sermokala
United States14123 Posts
On December 31 2025 02:52 Introvert wrote: I don't know enough about the design of ships to comment too much but when it comes to actually building them, I think the administration has been working with Japanese and South Korean companies to have them buy American shipyards and spend at least part of their time building ships for the Navy. I don’t think they are starting big, but that's the idea. Also, the problem with American ship building is bipartisan. There are a lot of bad laws and rules that no one wants to touch. It's not really about wasting $$$ Thats not how ship building works. They're not going to magically make the shipyards more profitable or big enough to build capital grade vessels. Let alone how you get to the idea that it would be okay to have classified military technology on foreign-owned operations. I could legitimately see the argument to license the japanese style mini carrier and to refit american yards to construct them. That would be a deal to name a Trump-class of ship after. A massive doctrine shift that still allows america to dominate the seas. The railguns that would make a railgun battleship worth it or any other type of ultra high energy weapon that would justify a battleship grade reactor are still a decade off from production. Devils advocate it could be a good idea to say that this generation of aircraft carrier is the last, and that the yards will be used to produce platforms for these high energy concept weapons. Instead switching to more economical and flexable japanese style destroyer carriers. Railgun style plane launchers would replace the need for large decks. This is not what is being proposed. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43987 Posts
| ||
| ||
