Next level combat

>Lunex would cost $62trillion today
>f35 is only $1trillion
I dont think your math quite checks out.

I think what we really need is a massive gun in space, something so huge that you can easily see it from the ground. And not just as a bright dot, but literally as a giant gun in space. When some county starts acting up we move it over them, so there is this constant presence in the sky, a giant gun aimed right at them.

If they don't listen. Rods from god.

I love when people say something so blatantly false with total confidence.

You are wrong.
And you are stupid.
Take care.

Threadly reminder that the us never ratified that treaty

Also, the outer space treaty exclusively applies to weapons of mass destruction.

90% of the world's trade is on the ocean OP, a weak navy would leave the US's cargo ships vulnerable, not to mention our ports and territories will left open to invasions or attacks.

>current year
>thinking we don't already have a strong presence in LEO

Hi there.

Attached: arleighs-burke.jpg (2887x1844, 1.12M)

Attached: retard.png (232x217, 3K)

>space
kek'd. Ameriniggers will find a way to get themselves conquered even from space!

Is your countries flag on the moon? No? Didn't think so.

Based

do you understand that that gap is closing quickly?

>India

Attached: 1560749513215.jpg (500x313, 20K)

OP, you're not wrong. In the early 90s, civilian strategists started taking a look at the consequences of continuing Reagan's SDI, and came to the same conclusion.

The reason it hasn't been done is internal politics. Bureaucrats like receiving money, navies are expensive, and so is space; and reallocating from one to the another will make and break careers. Since the military is reluctant, and civilians even more so (after the Moon, space race money was redirected to welfare gibsmedats), no-body will until it becomes cheap and/or a major threat. Which are both gradually happening now, 30 years after the strategists laid out the meta.

weve already got space pretty much covered.
with the current level of tech, satellites are pretty much all youre going to get with space warfare, and the US military has those in spades.

yeah, if you made it out of pot mettle and glue

this. china and russia already have space locked down.
when a war starts, "bye bye cell phones" lmao

sure would be nice if the USA had some kind of rapid reusable launch capability, spare satellites, dispersed network, counter-asat ability, and reusable booster HGV swarm designs.

too bad none of it exists. China strong.

Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in the Hollywood basement my man

china even proved they didnt go to the moon when they landed their probe

americans are fat fucking liars, everyone knows it.

>he doesn't know moon trutherism was invented by a jewish hollywood/media boomer

yikes

>great white accomplishments are fake, goy!

Bart Sibrel, look him up.

You could have a moon base, yeah.
But not a big one, and not a permanent one.

and certainly not a well built one

Moon? Soon you won't even have the US flag in Texas or California.

No one's mentioned it yet but the biggest reason more carriers are being made is because the ship's are about to start hitting their retirement age. The US Navy's oldest in-service carrier was commissioned 44 years ago and was designed to have an approx 50 year service life. The Nimitz is so old, the navy barely wants to spend money to upgrade it. New carriers take the better part of a decade to get into the fleet. The Navy doesn't want a gap in carrier coverage or to have to start extending the service life of the oldest ones.

Attached: Artist's_impression_of_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_in_1968.jpg (800x357, 68K)

Force erection

No, just anything that's not small arms.

>>chinese, being totally inept
>>you, hurr durr if cheenah cant den murika cant

>No

Even with SpaceX, it costs hundreds of dollars *per pound* to put something in orbit, along with a base price of tens of millions per launch.

Keep an eye out for Starship and StarLink.

This. It's simple math; if you want to maintain a fleet of 10 CVNs, each with a life expectancy of 50 years, then you have to build a new one every 5 years just to break even.

It would if you were using the calculator at Space X and not the one at ULA.
Do away with the lockmart tax and things get affordable real quick.

Tarkin Doctrine bois

>Even with SpaceX, it costs hundreds of dollars *per pound* to put something in orbit, along with a base price of tens of millions per launch.
Build a space elevator and then the next thing you do is build another space elevator

space elevators arent possible on earth. the atmosphere prohibits it.

atmo has nothing to do with space elevators. gravity is what makes the earth a poor place for them, although technically a carbon allotrope could do it. rotating tethers are probably a better choice.

ordinary kevlar rope is enough for a moon elevator btw.

So US carriers are being built not because of their efficiency at war, but because they are big floating scary threats for 2nd and 3rd world shitholes.

Cool.

yes. deterrence is a big military thing, and so are preparing for wars we actually fight. and ofc historical inertia.

>tfw the revolt of the admirals succeeded in the long run

We need to worry about the Arctic first. The arctic and then space aligns with manifest destiny

Then why did the Soviets not deny that we landed on the moon?

China and Russia will just shoot all our shit down in the event of war.

well shit user. we should just give up then!

Seems like a silly way to invest precious resources.

>preventing your country from getting demolished is a worse waste of resources than just destroying it outright
okay

How can space assets bomb into submission defenseless nigger-nations? This is the core pillar of the Zio-American Empire hence the fact that aircraft carriers are here to stay.

I'm talking about space assets. To expensive to just get blown up

The most effective weapon is also the most effective deterrent.

which is why weapons are so heavily invested upon. thats why we make them.

>Space is the next strategic high ground. So why are we wasting money building more of these?

because the rest of the world is too stupid to put anything in space. There are countries out there that literally lack Mars programs and others than don't even have space vehicles that have managed to travel past the boundaries of the solar system.

Has anything happened with the Space Force yet?

They're supposed to be the sensor half of the sensor/hypersonic cruise equation.

>"Whoever controls space, therefore, will control the world’s oceans. Whoever controls
the oceans will control the patterns of global commerce. Whoever controls the patterns of
global commerce will be the wealthiest power in the world. Whoever is the wealthiest
power in the world will be able to control space."

t. George Friedman's 1996 book

Truth