As Western culture? Sure, that's what makes it so repulsive to them apparently.

Or all four Iowa-class battleships parked off the coast of Somalia. I'd love to see an RPG-7 or an AKM try to punch through 21 inches of armor. I'd also love to see if a speedboat can withstand a salvo of 9 16-inch 2,000 pound shells, not to mention Harpoon and/or Tomahawk missiles.

On a less awesome but more realistic note, why couldn't the US Congress issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal and commission privateers? (see Article I Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution) It worked reasonably well during the Age of Sail.

Sigh....

What? It would be worth it just for the raging overkill boner to see an Iowa-class have a go against a speedboat.

Some incident would occur where some innocent fisherman (or a clever pirate who dumped his arsenal prior) gets shot, the international community gets mad at the USA, and everyone will go off on how the US shouldn't go sticking their nose in everybody's business, etc, etc, etc.
Same thing would happen if we used drones or something.

"Or all four Iowa-class battleships parked off the coast of Somalia."

Surely you know all the battleships have been decommissioned? We might as well send dreadnaughts with airship cover.


I wonder if it's really the choice of music or the volume level that keeps the pirates off. Probably the latter.

@ Invictus

Yeah, I know they're decommissioned/struck :(

But they're SO fucking badass! And probably still seaworthy with some time/money. As an interesting side note, Congress told the Navy that they had to maintain at least two Iowas in seaworthy/battle-worthy condition despite the fact that they are museum ships. When the Navy retired them, they didn't exactly come up with another class of ship that can lob 2,000 pound shells 20 miles at will.

That's a perfect example of DOD waste. Why do we need to keep obsolete ships seaworthy? "Being badass" isn't an acceptable reason to spend tens of millions of dollars.

But being flightless is a perfectly good reason to spend half a trillion on warplanes.

610 million dollars for the ability to deploy sustained, accurate 2,000 pound shells at 20 miles (as well as the sheer psychological factor of having a battleship parked offshore) is not a bad deal. Especially compared to the Air Force's disastrous follies with the F-22 and the JSF in recent years.

The Iowas should be reactivated at least long enough to buy some time for railgun development and deployment.

For psychological factors, an aircraft carrier works just as well if not better. With regards to shooting a shell, who cares anymore? We can launch more accurate missiles from other kinds of ships or planes.

My grandfather was on a battleship, so I get the sentimental aspect. But the fact is they're obsolete and keeping them in the navy is a waste of money. The navy's already too small, we shouldn't piss away money on ships that aren't relevant to the wars of today and tomorrow.

If true, that's hilarious

Seriously, though. Put a man with a gun, some sort of long range sniper rifle, when in a danger area. The average pirate will turn right around if he starts getting shot at

My Great-Uncle once decided to travel the world unconventionally, and was the only passenger on a freighter that was very nearly attacked by pirates off Somalia. He asked the captain why they didn't have guns onboard, and was told that it was first because the insurance used by the shipping companies didn't allow it, but also because the company was too afraid of the crewmen either hijacking the ship themselves for their own profit or because they were in league with the pirates.

How many missiles weigh 2,000 pounds? How many airplanes can carry 1,200 shells?

Who cares? The point is the damage done and the accuracy of hitting the target, not dick-waving over how heavy the shell is.

Also, 16-inch shells are pretty fucking accurate, even at 23 miles. The battleships can fire one shell and have their own drone spot it and call adjustments.

Furthermore, don't underestimate the power of dick-waving. How do you think we won the Gulf War so fast? By dick-waving with a wall of Abrams tank. The biggest aspect of shock-and-awe is psychological. Nobody likes getting rained on by 16-inch shells coming in at 18 per minute.

Or getting pummeled by spitballs. That's how medieval you sound.

If it's that obsolete, how come we used them as recently as Beiruit and the First Gulf War? That's right, kids. USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin fired in anger as recently as ~20 years ago. Look it up.

Based on the advancement of war tactics since the beginning of World War I, that's medieval.

You can't discount a certain weapon or weapon system just because of its age. You could run into a modern firefight with an M1897 (Trench variant), an M1911, or an M1918 BAR and you would be just as combat effective as someone with a Remington 870, a S&W M&P, or an HK21.

Yeah sure, whatever you say.

Some people were still using typewriters as recently as ~20 years ago. Doesn't make them any less obsolete now.

Making the assertion that an M1897 to a modern Remington 870 is comparable to a typewriter to a computer is hardly doing justice to the M1897. Let's give credit where credit is due and acknowledge combat effectiveness regardless of age.

Effective against the moles in my backyard.

bo_sox48

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. The M1897 has comparable combat performance to a Remington 870. Hell, there are numerous situations where I'd take an M1897 over a Remington 870.

You *do* realize that the M2 Browning heavy machine gun is WWI vintage? But it's still the most popular heavy machine gun in the world.

My point is that who cares how old the Iowas are? They still work, and work well.

I'd take a Glock over the M1897.

/\ Has never touched either, is talking out his ass, and GF keeps taking the bait.

"My point is that who cares how old the Iowas are? They still work, and work well."

They don't though. They've been decommissioned. That happened because the battleship itself is an obsolete warship. This isn't something really up for debate. Every country besides the United States got rid of their decades before we did. It's just a fact that this kind of ship, cool as it is, isn't relevant for the wars of the future. Or present. Or recent past.

You can't run a military like an 11 year old would.

"You can't run a military like an 11 year old would."

Sure you can and out countries demonstrates that. You shouldn't, but you most certainly can.