Posted on 07/29/2022 11:24:08 AM PDT by RomanSoldier19
Facing a growing threat from China, the Navy envisions drone ships keeping an electronic eye on enemy forces across the vast Pacific Ocean, extending the reach of firepower, and keeping sailors out of harm's way.
The Navy is speeding development of those robotic ships as an affordable way to keep pace with China's growing fleet while vowing not to repeat costly shipbuilding blunders from recent years.
The four largest drone ships are being used together this summer during a multination naval exercise in the Pacific Ocean.
Other smaller waterborne drones are already being deployed by the Navy’s 5th Fleet in the waters off the Middle East.
The goal in coming years is to see how these research vessels’ radar and sensors can be combined with artificial intelligence, and integrated with traditional cruisers, destroyers, submarine and aircraft carriers, to create a networked fleet that’s resilient because it’s spread over greater distances and more difficult for enemies to destroy, the Navy says.
“It’s about moving the technology forward, and having confidence in the capability. Everything takes time,” said Cmdr. Jeremiah Daley, commanding officer of Unmanned Surface Vessel Division One in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscentermaine.com ...
BTW: The United States recognized the nationalist government on Taiwan as the legitimate government of all of China up until January 1, 1979. The UN recognized the nationalist government up until 1971.
You also make light of our trade relations with Taiwan, which you claim I am “obsessed with.” I, personally, have no such obsession; though the world does: Taiwan is the world leader in semiconductors and chips (Taiwanese companies TSMC and United Microelectronics Corporation are the two largest contract chipmakers in the world).
I feel so safe under our Diversity, Equity and Inclusive Woke Military.
[ought-six #41] BTW: The United States recognized the nationalist government on Taiwan as the legitimate government of all of China up until January 1, 1979. The UN recognized the nationalist government up until 1971.
BTW, it is 2022.
[ought-six #42] You also make light of our trade relations with Taiwan, which you claim I am “obsessed with.” I, personally, have no such obsession; though the world does: Taiwan is the world leader in semiconductors and chips (Taiwanese companies TSMC and United Microelectronics Corporation are the two largest contract chipmakers in the world).
Our trade relations is what we care about. You make zero case for Taiwan independence or a supposed right of Nancy Pelosi to make an official visit to that part of China without permission of the State Department and the Chinese.
You can only make believe and mutter nonsense. Taiwan is part of China. Deal with it.
Read the official policy of the United States: "we do not support Taiwan independence."
Taiwan makes semi-conductors we care about. Taiwan independence not so much. We only maintain non-official relations with Taiwan.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/
U.S. Department of StateU.S. Relations With Taiwan
Fact Sheet
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
May 28, 2022
U.S.-Taiwan Relationship
As a leading democracy and a technological powerhouse, Taiwan is a key U.S. partner in the Indo-Pacific. Though the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have a robust unofficial relationship. The United States and Taiwan share similar values, deep commercial and economic links, and strong people-to-people ties, which form the bedrock of our friendship and serve as the impetus for expanding U.S. engagement with Taiwan.
Through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a non-governmental organization mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act to carry out the United States’ unofficial relations with Taiwan, our cooperation with Taiwan continues to expand. Taiwan has become an important U.S. partner in trade and investment, health, semiconductor and other critical supply chains, investment screening, science and technology, education, and advancing democratic values.
The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability -– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.
“You make zero case for Taiwan independence...”
Why would I?
“...or a supposed right of Nancy Pelosi to make an official visit to that part of China without permission of the State Department...”
She doesn’t need the permission of the State Department.
“...and the Chinese.”
She doesn’t need that, either.
Don’t you have an original thought or idea of your own? You were outed a long time ago as just a cut-and-paste guy.
You rely on others to make your arguments. Only lazy and unintelligent people do that. You are both. You also assume facts not in evidence, then cut-and-paste to support your error. That’s why you have no credibility.
“You make zero case for Taiwan independence...”Why would I?
“...or a supposed right of Nancy Pelosi to make an official visit to that part of China without permission of the State Department...”She doesn’t need the permission of the State Department.
“...and the Chinese.”She doesn’t need that, either.
Insistently saying really dumb, ignorant stuff only reveals your abject ignorance about official travel representing the the U.S. government.
“Insistently saying really dumb, ignorant stuff only reveals your abject ignorance about official travel representing the the U.S. government.”
Nice try, Sparky.
If China had the authority to officially deny her going to Taiwan, it would have done so. Of course, it hasn’t. If the State Department had the authority to deny her going, it would have done so. Thus, either it has no such authority, or it is allowing her to go. Ditto with the White House.
Your move, Sparky.
Haven't been called Sparky in a while. Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah; ought-six eats it, rah, rah, rah. Dang. Still got it after all these years.
“Got it. Nancy Pelosi issues orders to the military and they say yes Ma’am and the plane, the flight, and the crew magically appear by order of the Speaker of the House. Nope, Nancy did not need authorization from anyone. Why, the President and the whole Executive Branch had nothing to do with it and bear no responsibility whatever. Joe can explain to China that he had nothing to do with it. Executive Branch diplomatic coordination for the trip also just happened spontaneously upon a press leak from the Speaker. Haven’t been called Sparky in a while. Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah; ought-six eats it, rah, rah, rah. Dang. Still got it after all these years.”
Your reasoning is somewhat shy of being coherent.
First off, SOTH does not issue orders to the military, as SOTH is not in the military chain of command. The military does make transportation available to the SOTH as appropriate.
You were clearly never in the US military.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and thus SOTH does not need “permission” from either of the other branches. The branches may coordinate, and share intel, but they do not have veto power over one another except as specified for legislation.
I worked with Morse when I was in the USAFSS (that was United States Air Force Security Service back in the day). I read Morse. So grow up.
As for Sparky. The name is not a reference to any ditty-bopper.
Let me tell you about Sparky.
Sparky was an annoying little ankle-biter; a real pissant.
Sparky was a Chihuahua; couldn’t have weighed more than three pounds.
I grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s. We were Baby Boomers. Every house in the neighborhood had kids. One of our neighbors had a Chihuahua named Sparky. Sparky would always sneak up behind us, snarling, and nip at our heels and ankles.
Sparky was usually let out in the front yard to take his little rat-sized craps.
One day Sparky met his fate. One of the kids in the neighborhood was riding his bike along the sidewalk in front of Sparky’s house. The kid had his bike all decked out with old playing cards attached to the frame by wooden clothes pins, such that they would be struck by the rotating spokes and make a high-pitched rumbling sound like a small engine. Well, Sparky went after the back tire of that bike and tried to nip it, but he caught his teeth in the spokes and in a flash he was smooshed between the wheel and the frame and the bicycle seat. Sic transit Sparky.
Anyway, about a month or two later, four of us kids (we were, I think, 12 at the time) got together behind the garage to smoke; one of the kids had copped a couple of his mom’s cigarettes. Well, we’re back there, sharing the smokes (there were two cigarettes and four of us, so we doubled up), and one of the kids’ little sister showed up. She must have been about 4 or 5 years old, a couple front teeth missing, and hair in dog-ear pigtails. She kind of whistle-hissed (missing front teeth, you know): “I’m gonna tell mom on you!” Well, one of us – not her brother – just looked at her and said, “Get lost, Sparky.”
And, it just evolved from there.
From that time on we called any whiny, bratty, sneaky, tattle-tale, Sparky. You know; any annoying little shit.
You were clearly never in the US military.
Twenty years active duty gets me a direct deposit every month. Do prattle on.
As for Sparky. The name is not a reference to any ditty-bopper.
It is a military reference. You obviously do not get it. I would not expect a weekend militia type to get it.
First off, SOTH does not issue orders to the military, as SOTH is not in the military chain of command. The military does make transportation available to the SOTH as appropriate.
Who gets to decide that "as appropriate" part? Hint #1: It isn't the Speaker. Hint #2: It is not the military.
“It is a military reference. You obviously do not get it. I would not expect a weekend militia type to get it.”
Actually, when I was in “Sparks” was the reference, not Sparky. But, maybe your unit was...different. I served my four years active duty, and two years inactive; I have never been a “weekend militia type,” which I assume you mean the active reserves or the National Guard. Sounds like you are disparaging them. Go down to Bardstown, KY and disparage the National Guard; we’ll probably read about your disappearance or the discovery of your body parts in the newspapers.
“Who gets to decide that “as appropriate” part? Hint #1: It isn’t the Speaker. Hint #2: It is not the military.”
It is the military chain of command that makes the decision.
That begins with the president, down through the DOD, and the various branches of the armed forces.
Actually, when I was in “Sparks” was the reference, not Sparky. But, maybe your unit was...different. I served my four years active duty, and two years inactive; I have never been a “weekend militia type,” which I assume you mean the active reserves or the National Guard. Sounds like you are disparaging them. Go down to Bardstown, KY and disparage the National Guard; we’ll probably read about your disappearance or the discovery of your body parts in the newspapers.
I was in 20 years active duty, and not in the Air Farce. I see you as one of those morons running around in the woods on weekends and coming back to your mother's basement to play keyboard commando and tell how all should go to war whenever because that's just how bad you are. This is the first time I have heard about how bad the reserves are. They are known as Weekend Warriors, not militia types.
“Who gets to decide that “as appropriate” part? Hint #1: It isn’t the Speaker. Hint #2: It is not the military.”It is the military chain of command that makes the decision.
It is a matter of public record that the military advised to not go to Taiwan. They can only advise on such matters. The decision is made by a civilian official and handed down to them. Try again.
US military believes it's not a good idea for Pelosi to travel to TaiwanPresident Joe Biden said the US military believes it is not a "good idea" for House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to travel to Taiwan as planned
Biden says military does not support Nancy Pelosi trip to TaiwanThe president stopped short of suggesting that the House speaker not make the reported visit to the self-ruling island, which Beijing has warned strongly against.
As the military voiced opposition to the trip to Taiwan, perhaps you would like to fabricate some different fairy tale.
“I was in 20 years active duty, and not in the Air Farce.”
Ah, you’re one of those guys. Childish.
“I see you as one of those morons running around in the woods on weekends and coming back to your mother’s basement to play keyboard commando and tell how all should go to war whenever because that’s just how bad you are.”
Have you ever heard of projection? Because that is just what you are doing.
“This is the first time I have heard about how bad the reserves are. They are known as Weekend Warriors, not militia types.”
You’re the one who used the qualifier “weekend.” And, yes, they were pejoratively known as weekend warriors. It’s not a leap to assume that your “weekend militia” was a reference to either the reserves or the National Guard, or both. You do know that your buddies on the left refer to the National Guard as the legitimate militia, right? I don’t think that; but, perhaps you do.
“It is a matter of public record that the military advised to not go to Taiwan. They can only advise on such matters.”
Yes! And, if possible, to make aircraft available if the trip is within the course and scope of national business or the pursuance of national interests, and that aircraft are not needed elsewhere for a mission that is superior. That is what is known as “as appropriate.” Nancy couldn’t order squat, because she is not in the military chain of command. She likely went through DOD (which, in case you are unaware, is part of the military chain of command under the Secretary of Defense).
Taiwan was not on the official itinerary. Thus, unless the crew of the aircraft was instructed by their superiors beforehand to just follow her wishes, the crew would have had to contact the proper CoC for instructions. If the CoC denied the request, the aircraft would simply have flown on to Japan, bypassing Taiwan.
“The decision is made by a civilian official and handed down to them.”
A civilian official within the military chain of command. If AOC (not within the military CoC) went to Andrews AFB and told the Operations Officer that she wanted to go to Puerto Rico to visit her peeps, and she wanted to go via Air Force jet, the first thing the Operations Officer is going to ask for is the written authorization for the trip (an unlikely event because the trip is not pursuant to the nation’s business or interests). If she has none, she is SOL. If she did have the requisite written authority (again, unlikely), the next thing the Operations Officer would do would be to check to see if there was an aircraft available for that purpose. And, if there was none...sorry, AOC, you ain’t going today. However, if the was an aircraft available, but some general showed up and said he needed the plane to go to Denver on government business...guess what? AOC gets bumped!
“As the military voiced opposition to the trip to Taiwan, perhaps you would like to fabricate some different fairy tale.”
Nice try, Sparky. I just explained to you how it works. The appropriate CoC could have denied her the use of military aircraft, but it could not deny her the right to travel by other means. Generally, the DOD or appropriate CoC would grant the request for military aircraft, if feasible. But it doesn’t have to!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.