They became complete obsolete when Billy Mitchell proved that air power could be used to sink capital ships. Once that occurred, naval tactics shifted from a three dimensional conflict (surface, sub-surface and time) to a four dimensional conflict (aerial bombardment), and the battleship had little hope to stay relevant.

They had about three decades of prominence - from the 1890s through the end of the 1910s. Even then, the British Dreadnoughts were so expensive and so technologically advanced that they immediately made the rest of the British fleet obsolete and incompatible...the Dreadnoughts were too fast for the rest of the fleet to sortie with them and the British Empire couldn't afford to build the cruisers, destroyers and submarines with the same propulsion technology to allow the fleet to sortie simultaneously and then stay in formation.

Battleships were very valuable when providing naval gunfire to land targets. Calling in a 16" shell the size of a Volkswagon would make the enemy's day very, very bad indeed...the issue is having the freedom of maneuver to have a battleship on station offshore without any possibility of being destroyed.

TenuredVulture wrote:Just to be clear--Battleships are totally useless. Probably were never useful.

http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... some-idea/

what a waste. too bad none of them have a chance and i can't vote for 'em anyway.

virgil is just a moron.

omg would gary johnson destroy obama


and i wish this was the debate to run our country, not yesterday's

i love gary johnson

i wouldn't vote for him, but he would win the presidency if things were fair. he's like a less insane ron paul.


i agree with jill stein on most all issues but wish someone else was saying them.

pacino wrote:i wouldn't vote for him, but he would win the presidency if things were fair. he's like a less insane ron paul.

i agree with jill stein on most all issues but wish someone else was saying them.

she lost me at free education. (also, with that voice). johnson slammed her on it anyways.

rocky is mostly correct here. money money money, need to get it out of politics, for good.

Christina Tobin sounds like a dumb sorority girl who won this job at Spring Fling.

that's a suburban chicago accent

Free and Equal's website has buckled due to traffic, it seems

yeah, i just went to vote for rocky

pacino wrote:that's a suburban chicago accent

i was thinking more of the giggling and strung together platitudes

jh might be able to answer this best, but are there any traditional democratic states that republicans have a shot at changing over the next 8 to 12 years? obviously it is hard to predict the future, but from a demographic standpoint. this question is prompted by the article silver wrote on arizona and to a lesser degree the texas one as well.

last presedential election dems were able to make virginia, colorado, and nevada part of their map. new mexico to an en extent, but looks like that shifted moreso in the 90s.

CalvinBall wrote:jh might be able to answer this best, but are there any traditional democratic states that republicans have a shot at changing over the next 8 to 12 years? obviously it is hard to predict the future, but from a demographic standpoint. this question is prompted by the article silver wrote on arizona and to a lesser degree the texas one as well.

last presedential election dems were able to make virginia, colorado, and nevada part of their map. new mexico to an en extent, but looks like that shifted moreso in the 90s.

At the state level, Arkansas is in the midst of a transition to Republican, but I don't think that's what you mean.

I think PA is a possibility under the right set of circumstances. Does Wisconsin count as a traditionally D state?

Nothing is permanent. 12 years from now things are likely to be substantially different.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Good luck with that. The DoD is so badly managed from a fiscal perspective that the entire department cannot even have an audit performed on it. As far as Rumsfeld, he was going to cut four divisions from the Army and four more from the National Guard prior to the 9/11 attacks - which would have been disastrous for both forces because of the strategic failures of Afghanistan and Iraq.

And businessmen rarely have success "reforming" the Pentagon. The last guy to make significant fiscal reforms within DoD was Robert McNamara.

TenuredVulture wrote:You know, Romney probably could reorganize the military and make it a lot more efficient--it's one area where his specific business experience would be a real asset. But he's not going to do it. Rumsfeld was going to try to do it, but then they decided to invade Iraq "with the the army you have, not the army you want".

My dad was a civilian DoD employee for his entire career--he worked in research. Anyway, one time, some people came around and asked him to account for a bunch of office equipment--desks, chairs and the like. He had to tell them he lost a desk. How do you lose a desk? The place was a secure facility, and it's not like someone could "accidently" stick it in their briefcase.

TenuredVulture wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:jh might be able to answer this best, but are there any traditional democratic states that republicans have a shot at changing over the next 8 to 12 years? obviously it is hard to predict the future, but from a demographic standpoint. this question is prompted by the article silver wrote on arizona and to a lesser degree the texas one as well.

last presedential election dems were able to make virginia, colorado, and nevada part of their map. new mexico to an en extent, but looks like that shifted moreso in the 90s.

At the state level, Arkansas is in the midst of a transition to Republican, but I don't think that's what you mean.

I think PA is a possibility under the right set of circumstances. Does Wisconsin count as a traditionally D state?

Nothing is permanent. 12 years from now things are likely to be substantially different.

i guess wisconsin could be? seems like dems haven had the narrowest of margins there though.

i dont know. it is just interesting too look back and see what states have changed of the course of time.

and with the majority the white population has ever declining, how will it impact both parties? is the republican party in any sort of jeopardy?

very cool documentary. only five bucks

I can't wait to retire so I can publish a couple of books about my service.

One of the main themes is going to be the utter waste of taxpayer money. The way DoD operates is a sin. So much waste.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Good luck with that. The DoD is so badly managed from a fiscal perspective that the entire department cannot even have an audit performed on it. As far as Rumsfeld, he was going to cut four divisions from the Army and four more from the National Guard prior to the 9/11 attacks - which would have been disastrous for both forces because of the strategic failures of Afghanistan and Iraq.

And businessmen rarely have success "reforming" the Pentagon. The last guy to make significant fiscal reforms within DoD was Robert McNamara.

TenuredVulture wrote:You know, Romney probably could reorganize the military and make it a lot more efficient--it's one area where his specific business experience would be a real asset. But he's not going to do it. Rumsfeld was going to try to do it, but then they decided to invade Iraq "with the the army you have, not the army you want".

My dad was a civilian DoD employee for his entire career--he worked in research. Anyway, one time, some people came around and asked him to account for a bunch of office equipment--desks, chairs and the like. He had to tell them he lost a desk. How do you lose a desk? The place was a secure facility, and it's not like someone could "accidently" stick it in their briefcase.

My college roomate did nearly two years in Iraq and he says the same thing. They used to start up a tank and heat up coffee on top of its engine in the morning. That's probably like hundreds of dollars of gasoline per day. He also has a cool story about how his sniper shot a guy setting up a roadside bomb right through the eyeball, so I say heat up that coffee

A report from the American Association of University Women shows that women are paid 7% less than men when controlling for major, job and hours.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/pf/coll ... ?iid=HP_LN