This Is What It Looks Like To Launch A $360 Million Battle Ship

  1. M_Eagle

    I love America. Don’t question that. But I have to say that the LCS platform is riddled with flaws.

    And, for all the haters who question my credentials, I was present at the commissioning of the first ship in this class, in uniform.

    11 years ago at 4:57 pm
    1. Reagonomics_

      I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one, Mr. Anonymous Internet Persona

      11 years ago at 6:00 pm
  2. Pissing with a boner

    There is way to many irrelevant flags on that ship, all they need is red, white, and blue.

    11 years ago at 6:11 pm
  3. imaunicornxx

    sorry guys – my Dad was in the Navy. The U.S. Navy does not have any active battleships. it’s probably a Destroyer or a Cruiser.

    11 years ago at 7:04 pm
  4. Jewishboy

    Are you guys aware that someone, most likely the top 1%, has to pay for this? We have no reason to be building huge battle ships. Specifically, I don’t want to be paying for this shit, especially considering it’s being built with debt money, which will only grow with interest.

    I guarantee our founding fathers would be against this sort of thing. George Washington warned specifically against standing armies in his farewell address. Another badass president, Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate welfare and handouts too, but in all honesty, this isn’t much different. The only difference is that the welfare recipients are big military industrial complex companies like Lockheed Martin, not crack heads or the elderly.

    11 years ago at 7:36 pm
    1. PursuitofFrattiness9

      Lockheed Martin and Boeing, two of the military’s biggest suppliers, employ around 300,000 people together. Defense is necessary and therefore not a handout. Besides, I want everyone to know how royally fucked they are if they event think about messing with us.

      11 years ago at 7:50 pm
      1. Jewishboy

        Those companies do a lot of commercial work, but for the portion of workers the U.S. is paying for (let’s just say 150,00), we might as well just pay those people to dig ditches.

        This is obviously not what I think they should be paid to do, but I am pointing out that if we are paying people to do something useless they can be doing something else and it doesn’t make a difference. Realistically, we might as well be paying for them to innovate with new forms of energy or something that will actually BENEFIT SOCIETY.

        “Defense is necessary and therefore not a handout.” – To what extent is this true? Some defense is necessary, but surely not having 12 deployed aircraft carriers when the rest of the world only has around 10. There is a point at which “defense” is overkilled and becomes a handout, and it’s pretty clear that we’ve passed that point.

        And to your last point, we have nukes, so yes, everyone who wants to mess with us knows how royally fucked they are.

        Anyways, you still didn’t acknowledge how you will be paying for this shit. Remember when Bush started two wars and cut taxes simultaneously?

        11 years ago at 8:07 pm
      2. PursuitofFrattiness9

        Lockheed announced a few days ago that they had made a breakthrough in fusion technology; the biggest BENEFEIT TO SOCIETY today would be finding a clean source of energy before we pollute our atmosphere to shit. While these claims are likely a publicity stunt (see Bloom Energy promising a fuel cell in 1 of 5 homes back in 2010), without the government contracts that Lockheed has funding these programs their fusion project would be shut down. If we get another badass battleship out of the deal I’m not complaining.

        Wartime and government funding have yielded some fantastic breakthroughs- initial computer engineering attempts were funded almost solely by the government, the Manhattan Project yielded not only the biggest deterrent to an all-out global conflict as you said, but the only plausible source of alternative energy that can be scaled to met our demands today. The issue is we can’t exactly go nuking the middle east for obvious reasons, so that’s not a very good intimidation tactic. However, the presence of this ship in your backyard that can put a missile up your ass whenever they want is a plausible deterrent, driving at the ultimate goal of saving American soldier’s lives which is the real reason we spend so much on crazy stealth ships and planes etc.

        It’s unfortunate that we as a species can’t just get the fuck along, but you’re a dumbass if you think that we didn’t get to being the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth by having the best military by leaps and bounds. It’s hard to progess without money- if you want progress, we need to protect our global assets.

        11 years ago at 9:15 pm
      3. PursuitofFrattiness9

        I miss the good ‘ol days of this website when I could just say shut up you Geed and be done with it.

        11 years ago at 9:16 pm
      4. Jewishboy

        Why did we have to build the ship to have fusion technology? Why did we have to build the F-22 or F-35? You might as well be the government telling me that the one good thing you did warrants all the bad shit you’re also doing. You can spend billions and have fusion advancements without the other bullshit.

        Also, the military does contribute to new technologies. So does NASA. However, it seems like you’re forgetting what advances humanity in the fastest way possible–THE FREE MARKET. If we didn’t have the highest corporate tax rate in the world to pay for all this military and medicaid shit maybe companies would have more $$$ to invest in research in the first place. That research is what develops the fusion technology you’re talking about. Letting the government pay people to research is the most inefficient way to do advance as a society, and it seems like you’re probably intelligent enough to know that.

        And “you’re a dumbass if you think that we didn’t get to being the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth by having the best military by leaps and bounds.” – This isn’t really worth addressing. America’s success can be attributed to low government regulation, low taxes, civil freedoms, a stable government not plagued by international crisis, and the vast natural resources of the land. Not sure what any of that has to with being successful as a country.

        11 years ago at 9:43 pm
      5. PursuitofFrattiness9

        Do we overspend on our military? Of course we do. Yes, we can have fusion advancements without the newest military tech, but I’ll get to that in a sec.

        Yes capitalism and competition provide the most efficient atmosphere for advancement, free market etc. You forget that this type of competition is driven by company greed, and in order for this competition to exist, there has to be a real desire or market for the type of product that is being pursued- in this case alternative energy. Unfortunately we have 500+ years of natural gas, and 2000+ years of coal. We’ve had 40 years of oil left every year since oil was discovered, so let’s just say we have 200 years of oil. It’s cheap, it works, and save the correlation, not causation, of increased emissions and earth temperature, there is no fiscal reason to find another source of energy. There is no market for this alternative energy, and it never would have gotten as far as it has without government subsidies. Companies have absolutely no reason to invest in this tech because there are more lucrative avenues. However, the government, unlike energy startups, don’t run out of money, and can’t be snuffed out by the oil conglomerates. In this case, our best bet unfortunately is not through competition, but instead the bottomless pit that is our government. It sucks, but it is what it is.

        Yes all of what you said is true, but our global military prominence has allowed us to ensure that we maintain an environment conducive to technological progress, specifically ensuring that we don’t allow anyone to cut off the natural resources that we import which would cripple our economy. Consider where we’d be if we didn’t kick the Nazi’s ass in WW II as an example. Also, personally, although China needs our buisiness and would just be shooting themself in the foot if they demanded we repay our debt, we’re not always going to live a world where we have everyone by the balls. When that day comes, or the dollar crashes, whatever pick your poison, and it will, I want to have the most advanced military on earth

        11 years ago at 10:36 pm
      6. Jewishboy

        The point of having energy independence (easiest avenue for that is renewable) is so that we can avoid the conflicts over resources that you’ve already mentioned. We can avoid the Arabs and South American communists altogether with green energy. Besides, who doesn’t want to live in a clean environment without polluted air and stable wildlife environments? Arguing that pollutions (not just from cars but also from factories) do not contribute to the earth is laughable. IMO, it’s comparable to arguing that evolution doesn’t exist. Both are agreed upon and can be easily observed in the real world. Is it at the point that we should be worried? Probably not, but consider that China and India, the two most populated countries, have rapidly expanding middle classes that are going to demand resources. We need to face the reality that we have limited resources and prepare for the reality that as these resources dry up, we are not going to be able to live the same quality of life.

        The “we need to protect resources” argument really only applies to oil in the Middle East, and judging by what you’re saying, I doubt you think that we’re in the ME for oil. Our wars in Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with resources. Really, I don’t think you can actually point to an example of fighting for resources. We just haven’t reached that point yet. Not entirely sure where the WWII example came into play with your argument. WWII does not justify modern US over-expansion.

        The best argument you’ve made is the “the dollar is going to crash so let’s prepare for war” argument. To that, I’d say lets not focus (spend money on) on the possibility of a future war but rather develop the resource infrastructure to prevent that war altogether. That is how we can best ensure we maintain our current quality of life.

        11 years ago at 11:15 pm
      7. Jewishboy

        The political ignorance here is no different than that of the liberals unfortunately…

        11 years ago at 8:14 pm
      8. TooBusyYachting

        We don’t come to TFM to talk politics or be politically correct. We come to celebrate America, check out chicks post slutty pictures and watch videos of cool shit or stupid people.

        11 years ago at 4:29 am
  5. Knucklehead

    so this is being launched in northern wisconsin on the Menominee River, geographically that doesnt seem to make sense

    11 years ago at 9:41 pm
  6. Clarkgrizz

    My brother helped build this ship. This jabronie saying its a waste of money obviously hates America.

    11 years ago at 10:37 pm