'Murica. OC, information is accurate.. Alla the world' s Aircraft Carriers Carriers Under. But the US has two huge coasts to defend... 'Murica OC information is accurate Alla the world' s Aircraft Carriers Under But US has two huge coasts to defend
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (249)
[ 249 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#8 - legyplegy
Reply +92 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
But the US has two huge coasts to defend...
But the US has two huge coasts to defend...
User avatar #15 to #8 - godtherapist
Reply -23 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Canada has DOUBLE the coast that the US does.
#21 to #15 - sonofagun
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Most of Canada's coast has a harsh environment besides they are allied with the US and the UK they have no need to create a defence system with those two powerhouse
User avatar #22 to #21 - godtherapist
Reply -35 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Canada and the US are not allies.
#23 to #22 - sonofagun
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Canada and the US are apart of NAFTA not to mention NATO and the UN so Id say that qualifies as an alliance of sorts
User avatar #26 to #23 - godtherapist
Reply -35 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
No it doesn't. An alliance means that we would be required to fight any war that America is in, and give aide to their efforts. This is absolutely not true.
#27 to #26 - sonofagun
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
According to clips of the Iraq Afgan war there has been some Canadian efforts over there. I am pretty sure it was with the British troops but none the less they were fighting in an American war not to mention that there is is the UK/USA agreement AKA Five Eyes that consists of Canada US Australia New Zealand and Great Britan
#29 to #27 - anon id: df195e74
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
The Us and Canada have a military alliance...its called NORAD you ******* idiots. Also NATO also includes things that would be considered a military alliance...Go read Act 5.
#30 to #29 - sonofagun
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Rumor has it that they might be closing NORAD down though which is a shame the mountain is an outstanding feat in human engineering
#40 to #30 - anon id: df195e74
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Yep. NORAD is also kinda of out dated because of new tech n stuff. Id love to tell you all about it but not even i know what it is!
#43 to #40 - sonofagun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
It's probably for the best Nukes are being phased out and replaced by MOABS Rail-guns and Tungsten Rods
User avatar #34 to #27 - godtherapist
Reply -20 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
We went to Afgan as Peace Keepers for the UN, not to fight in the war.

We are there to make sure that if any war crimes happen whoever commits them they are made accountable.
#39 to #34 - anon id: df195e74
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
9/11 was because of the Taliban, afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban.
NATO agreement states, and member that is under distress from an enemy country will be invaded (not worded like that but thats what it means)
Aghanistan is invaded by NATO (not the un, though they approved the invasion)
Canada was part of the Invasion (airforce, special forces)
We helped invade aghanistan
#37 to #34 - sonofagun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Then explain NORAD like the anon under me mentioned if that isn't an alliance than there are some idiotic commanders in the US and Canadian military
User avatar #47 to #26 - imakejewburgers
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter if Canada and the U.S. are allies or not. There's no way we would stay out of any war that involved Canada that was actually on their soil. Whether or not they wanted us to get involved we would jump all over that.
User avatar #238 to #26 - defender
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/03/2013) [-]
Ever hear of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense) it is a joint facility run by both the US and Canada which started during the Cold War because Canada knew if **** happened with the USSR it would affect them also, like it or not Canada and the US are very close allies.
#58 to #26 - KievLeviathan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
They are our allies. Iraq isnt a war-- it's an extended conflict, because congress never declared war. As a result Canada was not obligated to send troops (but still did)
#31 to #26 - anon id: df195e74
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
That doesnt mean they dont have a military alliance...NATO is one. If you actually went a read the NATO agreement youd know how stupid that sounds.
User avatar #63 to #22 - traelos
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Ha.

Ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You think America would let someone **** with our hat?
User avatar #237 to #22 - defender
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/03/2013) [-]
Pretty sure they are
#104 to #22 - anon id: 5231bbae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
stop being retarded.
User avatar #17 to #15 - flemsdfer
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Canada never acts like an asshole though
#140 to #8 - anon id: af4a9290
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Correction: the US has the whole entire ocean to defend
murica
#149 to #8 - anon id: 05ce4248
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Aircraft-carriers aren't defensive systems, they're offensive. Coasts can be defended with ground based aircraft, artillery and surface and submarine warships. To employ aircraft-carriers defensively would be a massive waste of resources that could be invested in cheaper but equally effective systems.

The sole purpose of aircraft-carriers is to provide air power, where air bases are unavailable or insufficient, such a necessity is only present when fighting in foreign waters or soil.

Also: So Russia doesn't have a massive coastline?

User avatar #243 to #8 - bowservoltaire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/03/2013) [-]



from?


#13 to #8 - blackandgold
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
it's true, we do
it's true, we do
User avatar #101 to #8 - rainbowrush
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Defend against who?
#175 to #101 - jthwdragon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
just because we couldnt name anyone who would fight america doesnt mean its a bad idea to have plenty of defense, yes this is horribly overkill but we still need a bigger defense than most other countries because of the large coasts.
tl;dr: we need more defense than other countries but this is ******* overkill

now time for me to get red thumbs since im fighting against someone who has green thumbs because bandwagons
User avatar #187 to #175 - cresel
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
u know if u didnt mention u would get red thumbs and just stated your opinion and let people disagree or agree i wouldnt have thumbed u down
#190 to #187 - jthwdragon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
and if i cared about thumbs all that much i would have posted as anonymous but i would rather post my opinion and take my thumbs either way so i know if people like my opinion or not, me stating the thing about thumbing is just for people that look at the thumbs and just thumb up who has the already more thumbed up comment and not having their own opinion about the matter, whatever you decide (thumbing up or down) just please make it your own decision and not someone else's
#121 to #101 - anon id: 5231bbae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Any possible disasters like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
User avatar #123 to #121 - rainbowrush
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Well, if the defenses hadn't been called of for the first time in the history of the USA, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. There is no threat on America, and wasting so much money on nothing is just down right retarded.
User avatar #116 to #101 - ihaveakeyboard
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
...any one they go to war with... come on now
User avatar #93 to #8 - msypsylon
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Yeah because the threat of a naval attack is huge.
User avatar #139 to #93 - MythBuster
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
guy.. those are aircraft carriers.. portable ******* airstrips!!
User avatar #176 to #93 - thefloppinater
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
And the fact that we have a bunch of huge ******* ships dissuades the notion of that threat even further.
#189 to #176 - anon id: 40db6a7a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
^ What he said.
#1 - walkerjam
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
This is Chinas current carrier, before they bought it from the Russians.

That is one badass looking ship.
User avatar #152 to #1 - ptolomeus
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
piece of **** piss ship i hate you die
#159 to #152 - llanox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
#148 to #1 - nicknakc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
That is one ****** looking ship...
User avatar #50 to #1 - fantomen
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Looks cool, but it's not veryimpressive.
It was half built by the Soviets, but the Soviet union fell mid-constuction, so the ship was sold of as scarp to company in the Ukraine where it spent the last 20 years rusting away.

Then the Chinese bought it and they are currently fixing it up.
It will be their first carrier.

They tried to make their own engines for it at great expense, but they broke down beyond repair after like 30 hours, so they bought some engines from the Germans instead.

And after all that it will still be more modern than the American carriers.
The American carriers may be huge lumbering nuclear powered steel behemoths, but they were designed and built in the 60s and 70s.
#212 to #50 - anon id: e07189a9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/03/2013) [-]
Well considering the US carriers can carry 100-150, depending on the type, of the most advanced planes in the world and this carrier could only carry up to 20 at the most i think the American carriers have it beat.

American carriers are considered super carriers and well the first was designed in some time ago they were not all built at once. They are constantly being retrofitted and redesigned so that a new carrier is built and replaces an old carrier every 4-5 years, so they are always up to date. I believe the newest will actually launch next year and is considered the most advanced carrier in the world.

Also, the United States is the only country that still has a dry dock capable of building a super carrier. The Chinese Navy that everyone is talking about is actually being built in American dry docks because China does not have the dry docks to produce modern warships.
User avatar #61 to #50 - walkerjam
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
Not very impressive?
I'd say anything that carries around tens of airplanes all around the world while looking that badass is very impressive.
#98 - almightysausage
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
India be like
#2 - murphypop
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
India...
India...
#14 to #2 - ballisticmistype
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
#118 - jellyballs
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
USA USA USA
#115 - kommandantvideo
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
#150 - ducewilliams
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
hey uk whats goin on
#197 to #150 - doddythechef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
we've lost so much of our naval and army strength

its ******* disgraceful
#166 to #150 - Magnisethered
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
This made me giggle like a child, thank you.
User avatar #247 to #166 - ducewilliams
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/03/2013) [-]
welcome
#105 - DeathclawRulez
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
#174 - juciefruit
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]
#97 - tmdarby
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(07/02/2013) [-]