Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (298936)	3/30/2009 4:34:35 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794301

Some "Big War" types want us to be prepared for a "Midway" type action against China. Nonsense! I agree and I am not hearing that. We still need the carrier groups. Our effort in Iraq and Afghan depend on them. We also need the subs and of course the ships that resupply the USMC, Army and protect the carriers.

To: LindyBill who wrote (298936)	4/2/2009 1:49:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794301

Some "Big War" types want us to be prepared for a "Midway" type action against China. Nonsense! Not quite a Midway type action, at least not for a long long time. China doesn't have the aircraft carriers. But as unlikely as such a (non-Midway type) action against China is (and I consider it very unlikely), I agree that we should be prepared for it. I don't find the idea to be ridiculous at all. The idea that the navy would be only carrier battle groups, is OTOH IMO rather silly. They are the backbone of the navy, but a healthy body isn't just a backbone. The "small war forces" that Barnett talks about should continue to receive increasing attention.