We are spending 431 billion in welfare this fiscal year for people to sit on their dead asses.

At least ACC are built in America by Americans, doing real jobs. Many of which are union members.

When the US spends absolutely nothing on welfare, the GOP will submit to defense spending cuts. Not before.

this technology is 60 fucking years old.

The exocet missile proved that relying on "tried and true" methods, only updated, is a trip into major league disaster.

Some of our experimental drones are invisible to radar, and pretty damn hard to see optically. Do we REALLY think that we are the only ones doing that? One well directed missile and BOOM, no more control of the 4.5 acre target. The Chinese were actually ahead of us in deploying super-super sonic cruise missiles. (you don't hear much about it because we really don't have a defense to it) The only good news is that its targetting system needs work. But, now that the Chinese are putting manned space craft into orbit and locking up with artificial moons, how can we dismiss their ability to fix their targetting issues?

Reagan loved big boats, too, and wasted billions putting fucking battleships back into service. Why? probably because of a movie he watched. But that kind of nonthinking is precisely what guides today's republicans, and therefore, a lot of our defense policy.

A carrier group is still the best power projection force out there. Submarines are near as good, but their lack of visibility offsets that to an certain degree.

As far as launching an attack at a carrier, remember they never go anywhere alone. A group of dedicated anti-aircraft/missile/submarine ships will be providing escort. Any missile must get through those ships, the carrier's aircraft and its own defense systems just to get a hit. A carrier is large enough to shake off many smaller missiles, the most likely to pass through the defenses, and still be operational.
As for supersonic cruise missiles, the SeaRAM system looks pretty effective. Guidance is a major issue, it is easy to match up with a moving target when you know where it is, how fast it is going and that it does not change course. totally different to hit something that is actively trying not to be hit.

Having said all of that, in a battle between one Nimitz-class battle group and the entire Chinese navy, I would strongly consider betting on the carrier. No other navy approaches the raw firepower such a group can put out. We have eleven, I believe. $42 billion would keep them floating and operational for a very long time. There is not much point in creating an entirely new class until some other country gets even one full-sized carrier operational or develops a weapon system that is a viable threat to the existing carriers, short of nuclear weapons.

Republicans want food stamps cut by $2 billion a year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002830093

This is nothing compared to their spending on the pentagon, is not about the money. They do this because they are sick sadistic selfish bastards.

any other spending. IOW it is a sinkhole that returns little, and that is short lived.

The economy benefits more from even direct payments to citizens than it does from military spending. Investing in infrastructure has the greatest returns. Our bloated military is driving us to bankruptcy.

Not to mention beneficial to humanity.