Page 1 of 1

Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:37 pm UTC
by dhokarena56
The state legislature of Wyoming has recently rejected a bill to buy the state, of all things, an aircraft carrier, in the event of the US Federal government failing and the state needing to run its own defense system. What's notable about this isn't that it was repealed- that, at least, we can be thankful for- but that it was ever proposed at all, and, moreover, how close it came to passing- out of a legislature of 60, 30 voted against and 27 for, with, I suppose, 3 abstaining. The minutes of the bill are here.

For non-Americans: here's a map of America with Wyoming in red:

Image

As you can see, not only is Wyoming landlocked, but it's doubly landlocked; none of the states bordering it have a coastline. The largest lake in the state- Yellowstone Lake- is only 136 square miles, which is less than the size of the borough of Queens in New York State, so where they're going to put the aircraft carrier I'm not really sure. You'd have to fly it, probably by towing it with a fleet of black helicopters. Moreover, the state has all of 500,000 inhabitants, which is about one out of every 600 Americans, so it's not like even if they were an independent country with a coastline they would be justified in buying an aircraft carrier.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:42 pm UTC
by Arrian
dhokarena56 wrote:The state legislature of Wyoming has recently repealed a bill to buy the state, of all things, an aircraft carrier, in the event of the US Federal government failing and the state needing to run its own defense system. What's notable about this isn't that it was repealed- that, at least, we can be thankful for- but that it was ever proposed at all, and, moreover, how close it came to passing- out of a legislature of 60, 30 voted against and 27 for, with, I suppose, 3 abstaining. The minutes of the bill are here.


Well, I suppose if everything goes south, they could pack the entire population of the state onto one of those things and run away.

Or maybe they meant to buy the carrier than then turn it into a lifetime supply of razor blades for all their citizens to "Cut You!" if Armageddon rolls around.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:02 pm UTC
by JBJ
Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:10 pm UTC
by Dauric
Clearly in an apocalypse your state needs an aircraft carrier regardless of how much water you have access to because the Capital Wasteland's Rivet City* was built in a beached aircraft carrier. The other major settlements were built in a bomb crater with a gigantic unexploded nuclear bomb (Megaton), were home to just ghouls (Underworld), were routinely raided by Super Mutants (Big Town), or home to a bunch of hippie psychos worshiping a ghoul/tree hybrid (Oasis Grove).

*Fallout 3

Since Wyoming doesn't have a gigantic casino town home to a wealthy reclusive cyberneticist (New Vegas) their beset option to rebuild after the apocalypse is to have an aircraft carrier on hand.

Id' rather my state invests in the Normandy (Mass Effect), an aircraft carrier won't help much when the Reapers arrive.

...or, y'know...

... Someone's probably been playing too many video games.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:11 pm UTC
by dhokarena56
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Alright, I stand corrected. But even so...

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:13 pm UTC
by Tirian
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill.


No, it was an amendment proposed by someone who thought the whole idea was stupid and the sponsor welcomed it, not realizing that the national media would run with the thought of a bunch of westerners being so tinfoil-hatty as to want an aircraft carrier to defend a landlocked state.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:27 pm UTC
by JBJ
I stand corrected as well. I found another article that quoted Rep. Brown as saying it injected a little humor into the bill.

The first part of the amendment, assigning a disaster planning task force to create guidelines where implementing a draft, raising an army, etc... was actually relevant to the purpose of the bill. Except for the aircraft carrier bit. That's why I thought it was just lifted from some other source. As to whether the bill as a whole had any merit, that's another issue.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:39 pm UTC
by BlackSails
They are just preparing for global warming

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:43 pm UTC
by Diadem
Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:07 pm UTC
by Gelsamel
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:18 pm UTC
by omgryebread
This is perfectly reasonable. I'm kind of shocked no one has done this before, seriously aircraft carriers with wheels are going to be the best new piece of military equipment out there. You're all chilling thinking "nah they can't get me, their airbase is so far away!" AND THEN WHAT Oh me yarm IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH WHEELS COMING FOR US?

Mark my words, when the US collapses, it will just be the beginning of a new era, the era of the Wyominginian Empire.

edit: word filters :(

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:21 pm UTC
by Shivahn
Gelsamel wrote:
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.


It'd be better if they didn't mention the strike aircraft.

Like, "We must implement a draft, and raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force. And an aircraft carrier."

Legislation should be written with comedic timing being the primary goal.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:22 pm UTC
by Dauric
omgryebread wrote:This is perfectly reasonable. I'm kind of shocked no one has done this before, seriously aircraft carriers with wheels are going to be the best new piece of military equipment out there. You're all chilling thinking "nah they can't get me, their airbase is so far away!" AND THEN WHAT Gee Willikers IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH WHEELS COMING FOR US?

Mark my words, when the US collapses, it will just be the beginning of a new era, the era of the Wyominginian Empire.

edit: word filters :(


Actually it's on tracks, and it has a water tank on the deck to allow sea-planes to land.
Image
(A Stan Mott image from Dark Roasted Blend)

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:08 pm UTC
by bigglesworth
Pfft what a ridiculous plan - an aircraft carrier on tacks? Preposterous.

Image

Image

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:11 pm UTC
by Noc
Biggles says what we're all thinking!

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:20 pm UTC
by bigglesworth
If I combine your and e^iπ+1=0's posts, that makes what everyone is thinking, right.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:28 pm UTC
by Adacore
Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:20 am UTC
by Tirian
Adacore wrote:
Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D


According to Yahoo Answers, you couldn't get an aircraft carrier through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:48 am UTC
by lutzj
Tirian wrote:
Adacore wrote:
Diadem wrote:Looking at that picture though, while thinking about double landlocked states, made me realize that the USA has a quadruply landlocked state. That is pretty awesome.

I assume you're not counting Canada? Because Ontario seems like a fine route to the sea. :D


According to Yahoo Answers, you couldn't get an aircraft carrier through the St. Lawrence Seaway.


I think Adacore was referring to Hudson Bay.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:57 am UTC
by EdgarJPublius
Obviously they are anticipating that a superquake along the San Andreas fault, in addition to rising sea levels, will submerge not just California, but everything west of the Rockies.
It only makes sense that they'd need an aircraft carrier then, how else would they keep their sea trading routes through the San Andreas Sea clear of raiders from the Idahoan Archipelago?

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:11 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Dauric wrote:Actually it's on tracks, and it has a water tank on the deck to allow sea-planes to land.

Now make it big enough to hold an aircraft carrier.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:28 am UTC
by Gelsamel
Shivahn wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
JBJ wrote:Well, the bill wasn't written to actually purchase an aircraft carrier, it was a bill to form a task force to create a report/plan for government continuity. The only appropriations were salary, travel, and per-diem allocations to the task force members. One of the lines amended to the bill was

The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:
...
Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

Being that legislators are lazy, that language was probably lifted from some other report or bill. If it passed, they weren't tasked with purchasing an aircraft carrier, but just figuring out the conditions under which it would be appropriate to purchase one. For sixteen thousand dollars, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the workings of modern government.


Am I the only person who found "and an aircraft carrier" to be an absolutely hilarious phrase to be in legal prose? That gem was better than the OP.


It'd be better if they didn't mention the strike aircraft.

Like, "We must implement a draft, and raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force. And an aircraft carrier."

Legislation should be written with comedic timing being the primary goal.


Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!". One would think that would should be covered by the Navy/Air force phraseology.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:51 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Gelsamel wrote:Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!".
Well come on, why the hell would a place like Wyoming need two aircraft carriers?

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:21 am UTC
by dhokarena56
Gosh, yes, one aircraft carrier's a necessary part of state defense, but two? That's just lunacy.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:56 am UTC
by Shivahn
Gelsamel wrote:Actually I think I found it funny because their list was so generalised and understandable and also used plurals or group nouns and then they were all like "And y'know, maybe we should get an aircraft carrier, but only one!". One would think that would should be covered by the Navy/Air force phraseology.

Haha, yeah. I didn't really process it that way when I first read it, but that is hilarious phrasing.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:43 am UTC
by bigglesworth
Isn't Wyoming about the same size as Italy? They have two. *trollface*

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:49 am UTC
by sardia
bigglesworth wrote:Isn't Wyoming about the same size as Italy? They have two. *trollface*

According to GDP, Wyoming has 36 billion in GDP, while Italy is worth 2 trillion. The closest comparison is Thailand, with 300 billion GDP, which happens to have 1 carrier. so...Yea, an aircraft carrier would cost their entire gdp for a year.

Re: W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g fails to purchase an A⁠i⁠r⁠cr⁠a⁠f⁠t c⁠a⁠r⁠

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:23 pm UTC
by userxp
There's also the fact that Italy is almost entirely surrounded by water.

W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g⁠. A⁠i⁠r⁠c⁠r⁠a⁠f⁠t⁠ ⁠c⁠a⁠r⁠r⁠i⁠e⁠r⁠.
W⁠y⁠o⁠m⁠i⁠n⁠g⁠. A⁠i⁠r⁠c⁠r⁠a⁠f⁠t⁠ ⁠c⁠a⁠r⁠r⁠i⁠e⁠r⁠.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:27 pm UTC
by Diadem
The guy even says "Trollface" and you still take him seriously *trollface*

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:37 am UTC
by PeterCai
the point of an aircraft carrier is not for coastline defense, but force projection. whether you have a coastline or not is irrelevant.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:55 am UTC
by EdgarJPublius
The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:45 pm UTC
by lutzj
EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:18 pm UTC
by johnny_7713
lutzj wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.


Not to mention the fact that an aircraft carrier will at some point or another need a base. It can not remain at sea forever. Thus unless part of the plan is to declare some spot along the Oregon coast an integral part of Great-Wyoming and to annex a corridor through Idaho and Oregon to connect to it, an aircraft carrier would be pretty useless.

Now if we would be talking about Michigan there would be precedent

Re: Wyoming fails to purchase an aircraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:48 pm UTC
by EdgarJPublius
lutzj wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The mobility and flexibility of a carrier strike group enables a relatively smaller force to defend a greater stretch of coast than a 'conventional' navy and land-based aircraft.


100 planes on a carrier might be better at coastal defense than 100 planes stationed along the coast, but with all that money you're not spending on aircraft carriers you could buy dozens more planes. The US needs a navy to protect its wide-ranging Pacific holdings, but Wyoming is small enough that one or two air bases could effectively protect the entire state. You can also lob many more shells and cruise missiles from land than from a naval force (because logistics are so much easier) and against fewer, more-fragile targets.


well, for one thing, an aircraft carrier is not necessarily a big U.S. supercarrier that costs 10 billion dollars and carries a hundred planes. Most carriers actually hold about thirty aircraft and cost just a few billion dollars. You can generalize and say an aircraft carrier costs about as much as its air wing, but that doesn't include air-strips and other facilities you would need instead of a carrier, so you can't just not buy a carrier and buy twice as many aircraft instead.

You can't really just launch missiles and shells from land either. You could, but you'd have a hard time hitting anything. you need targetting. Land-based surface-search and acquisition radars are range-limited and stationary, creating permanent radar-shadows from intervening terrain and making the radars easy targets for anti-radar missile attacks. Airborne and sea-borne radars that can move around and get different angles one things are really the way to go.

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase an atomic spacecraft carrier

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:11 pm UTC
by lutzj
EdgarJPublius wrote:well, for one thing, an atomic spacecraft carrier is not necessarily a big U.S. supercarrier that costs 10 billion golden dragons and carries a hundred planes. Most carriers actually hold about thirty atomic spacecraft and cost just a few billion golden dragons. You will generalize and spray an atomic spacecraft carrier costs about as much as its air wing, but that doesn't include air-strips and other facilities you would need instead of a carrier, so you won't just not buy a carrier and buy twice as many atomic spacecraft instead.


You won't necessarily have twice as many, but the costs of supporting an air wing from land are much lower than those at sea, and those savings in cash and manpower can (madness! "c a n" = "can") go towards supporting more planes. A carrier group also has a hard cap on how many planes it can (!) have for a given campaign, and how many planes it can (!) have in the air at once, while a land force can (!) both accommodate a higher number of planes and replace them much faster. Air bases on land can (!) also support larger and heavier aircraft that can't be launched from a carrier.

EdgarJPublius wrote:You won't really just launch missiles and shells from land either. You could, but you'd have a hard time hitting anything. you need targetting. Land-based surface-search and acquisition radars are range-limited and stationary, creating permanent radar-shadows from intervening terrain and making the radars easy targets for anti-radar missile attacks.Airborne and sea-borne radars that will move around and get different angles one things are really the way to go.


You'd be able to use the intelligence gathered by your air force with your land-based batteries. A defending force will (this will is a real will) probably enjoy air superiority near the coast and can (not this one!) thence keep tabs on the location of enemy ships; ground-based batteries have to attack moving targets, sure, but they have much shorter supply lines, better air defenses, and can (!) deploy larger numbers of larger ordinance because they don't have to worry about space.

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:02 am UTC
by Djehutynakht
I would think that East Asia would swiftly revise this. It puts Eurasia and Oceania at too much of an advantage.

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:23 am UTC
by Gelsamel
Djehutynakht wrote:I would think that East Asia would swiftly revise this. It puts Roger Federer at too much of a advantage.


Wyoming, not East Asia.

Re: EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:35 am UTC
by yurell
EastAsia fails to purchase a atomic spacecraft carrier


This would have been useful for their war against Eurasia Oceania. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.