Avenger and Devastator
Random fact: The United States Avenger Class features the most badass and simple ship names of any current ship class, including the Devastator, Warrior, Gladiator, and so on . . . though they also have the Dextrous, which is kinda lame by comparison. But that's about as lame as most other current Naval ship names.
In short, that class gets all the good names that are taken up in other classes by excessively verbose hails to various people in modern Naval naming conventions. I mean, really, is USS Ronald Reagan or USS Dwight D. Eisenhower better in any way than USS Reagan or USS Eisenhower would've been?
But in any case, it's nice to see the Avenger and Devastator together.
In short, that class gets all the good names that are taken up in other classes by excessively verbose hails to various people in modern Naval naming conventions. I mean, really, is USS Ronald Reagan or USS Dwight D. Eisenhower better in any way than USS Reagan or USS Eisenhower would've been?
But in any case, it's nice to see the Avenger and Devastator together.
posted by G2k at 1:17:00 PM
8 Comments:
If you're looking for decent names for wet-navy warships, the US Navy isn't the place the source them. No, you need to look to Britannia, who still rule the waves in terms of naming their ships.
For instance, compare Britian's best (and only) aircraft carriers to America's best aircraft carriers...
The best American ones are those of the Nimitz class, not a bad name in and of itself (though it was still named for a person), but the remaining nine Nimizes all follow this pattern...
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
USS Carl Vinson
USS George H. W. Bush
Need I go on?
The best (and only) British aircraft carrier meanwhile? The Invincible class, with three ships...
HMS Invincible
HMS Illustrious
HMS Ark Royal
As you can see, there's really no contest...
Naturally, the British also name alot of their ships after stuff that's important to them, but for my money, Iorn Duke, Montrose and Northumberland make vastly better names for frigates than Oliver Hazard Perry, Samuel Eliot Morison and Lewis B. Puller do...
As long as we still have an Enterpise in the US Navy, I'm good with whatever they name over ships. Although...I really do wish we wouldn't name ships after people. No matter who they are..
Well CVN-65 is sadly scheduled for decommission in 2013... The British have an Enterprise though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Enterprise_(H88)
The name means shit against a missile. If anything, they perfectly summarize the USA's aggressive posture towards the rest of the world that's been going on for more than a century.
Just a little bit of patience and we shall see the USS Executor, USS Terminator and USS Despoiler.
The USA's *what*?
Oh puh-leeze.
You claim an *anti-mine ship name* summarizes your baseless belief in an imperialist US. Did you even check the ship class before you posted? It's an anti-mine ship. That's like the warship at the bottom of the bag of warships. Like, the next ship down is a mail-carrying transport or something, but one badass ship name and off you go villifying the United States and claiming support for your twisted worldview.
The US isn't perfect and doesn't claim to be, but of all the primary nation-states of the world that have made as much history, and of all her contemporaries that vied for dominance with her, she was the most sublime.
Get the hell off my blog.
It is quite fantastic how Americans manage to convince themselves that what their country sells best is love, democracy and better values, when for anyone who has checked the true history of the country, it's been destabilizing pretty much the whole world (with a strong effort against Europe), and that started soon in the country's history.
Who's convincing themselves of what?
What country or countries do you think should have led the world against communism, hmm? What country or countries should have supported Cuban independence (or, the way it played out, semi-independence, but it was at least a bit better)? What country or countries should've saved Europe's collective ass?
Matter of fact, if you're a European bitchin' about evil ole' America always trying to keep Europe down, you can kiss my ass right now because you're so full of it you don't even know which end is up.
The history of the United States is replete with instances of generosity coinciding with self-interest (final entry into WW2 after supporting free Europe via materiel sales being a fine example). Perhaps you argue against some unknown party that sells America as pure generosity, but even though that's not entirely true it's more readily arguable than most other powerful nations could even pretend to achieve.
No one but an America-hating leftist would dare suggest that America's tried to sell itself as some hippie utopia of love and understanding. We were capitalists and assholes and that rocks. Now we're more socialist and wimpier in attitude. Frankly, you have the whole situation completely backwards if you think our problem is too much wang-waving . . . if anything, we haven't been waving it *enough*. Like I said and like you ignored, we only wave our wangs in little ways, like giving badass names to frickin' anti-mine ships, where they do absolutely no good. What are we trying to do with those names, be aggressive imperialist bastards against mines? Who's that scaring, hmm?
Case in point . . . Afghanistan 2001/2 was a grand way to strike fear into enemies ("Dude, they toppled our country in like 2 hours, wtf"), and the Iraq War was nice, too . . . but then the American Left and its media joined with the insurgency in an America-hating Festival (still calling it the Iraq War for some odd reason), rejoicing at the death of American soldiers and blaming them for all manner of false crimes, and the United States no longer had one voice. The parallels with Vietnam are striking, just not in the ways you guys want to believe.
(But hell, the media side of the story's the same even for events like the Falklands War, where the BBC went into detail about unexploded Argentine bombs much to the consternation of servicemen who would later die when the Argentinians supposedly fixed them based on the BBC tip.)
With the Phillipines, we got hardcore on insurgents and kicked their asses, electing an ass-kicker from that war president. With Iraq, we elected the first surrender-monkey we could find . . . he's bowing to our enemies, pissing off our friends, and by damn if he hasn't surrendered to the USSR 20 years after the end of the Cold War. It's retarded.
But, digressing, compare what America and the West did with its vanquished and conquests (Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, or the Phillipines) versus what the Soviets did with East Germany and all their conquered or subject lands . . or even the not-so-conquered like Afghanistan.
Compare the United States and its so-called imperialism to that of the British Empire. Compare the suffering of innocents in Iraq to the suffering of innocents in India.
There's no comparison, you can't pretend there is, and furthermore you can kiss my ass if you want to pretend otherwise.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home