Can anyone break this down?

I want to see this broken down into cost units. From which industrial angles is the production of this or such an object approached, in order to arrive at a comprehensive integrative production process. Of every angle, the stages in development of the product (from design to manufacture and/or integration to placement to operational (cost-)requirements)

What kind of technology-acquisition strategies are required, from the programmers and chemists and their education to the diplomacy and industrial spying to understand what is required and possible - the simple tons of steel, the precision chemistry, precious elements,
the machine-making-machines, their engineers to the jobs at the docks, the holiday benefits of soldiers...

Breaking down the economic structure provided by such an aircraft carrier, I believe we may actually have a stab at a pretty solid opening to a single-context summary of the worlds central economical hub.

Like I always said, we have to embrace the military industrial complex as our own ethics in order to overcome its 'vices' 'sin' - how it is 'made to work' against us --- saying: how our deliberate because convenient ignorance of it allows us to have it destroy our self-control.

Hmm.. so would China, Russia, Iran, and quite a few others.


I think that I would recommend something a bit smaller to begin with.
Maybe something that would fit in the bathtub?

James S Saint wrote:

Hmm.. so would China, Russia, Iran, and quite a few others.


I think that I would recommend something a bit smaller to begin with.
Maybe something that would fit in the bathtub?

True, significant military powers can almost by definition muster a couple of these ships. They do represent a currency of power, but it is not the most enlightened example. Still, I am curious how much economy is connected to the end of creating this object, including its smaller flying toys on deck.

It is this sort of / scale of capital, specifically this, in which I could see projects of non-military technological aggression and domination. I have been struck since the formulation of value ontology in the realization that a lot of problem-solving lies in coupling the general to the specific. Heideggers Bridge concept, his building, dwelling, thinking concept is the only philosophical tool I have. I want to couple this to the compulsive technological expansion complex, but like a Shaman channels a demon to perform a healing - in which the demon itself is also healed.

This carrier is a symbolic chunk of human investment. Don't mock it too easily, these objects have been among the most significant pieces throughout the chess-game of the 20th century, and they are very nicely crafted.

Properly answer your "box on an island" scenario and you will have the answer to this one. 64 cubic feet is about the size of a good size bathtub.

Quote: [Fixed Cross] "...in which I could see projects of non-military technological aggression and domination."

That got me wondering - when have there been projects that are not military related that show a form of aggression and domination on the technological side? Cold War first came into mind...but I assume that that was military-related, since if you can launch a man to the Moon, you can colonize the Moon, or launch a nuke.

The problem is, technology for technology's sake nowadays is either shared, or held in secrecy. I will say now before being misinterpreted: I only say what I see as how I see it. The way I see it, the problem is, although you use an aircraft carrier as an example of a nation's expression of pride and power and wealth, who will follow a non-military project that shows technological aggression? Remember that the military has always driven technology forward faster than if in peace, at the cost of being selective about which technology is driven forward. In World War 2, Hitler made much emphasis on superweapons. The Paris Gun, for instance, or the V-1 and V-2 rockets; the rumoured design for the first stealth bomber, the use of genetics to create supersoldiers (Can anyone verify that he pursued this, or that it is a myth).

Aircraft carriers are a good example of how a nation shows its power and wealth. Do not forget the onboard systems it contains are constantly developed, as essential to remain relevance to the military world. France's standard infantry weapon in World War 1 was in service since the Franco-Prussian, if I remember correctly - 40 years obsolete. The use of cavalry to charge - obsolete tactic. Vast investment is given to today's military forces to stay relevant, from long-range detection systems to weapon systems. But these carriers, they represent a nation. An entity that represents a population. In a way, they are like the one-ship version of an arms-race --- except the race is on trying to make everyone else technologically obsolete. You presented your problem, as I understand, as the attempt to represent an economic system through an object's creation and upkeeping. But this seems too complicated to tackle head-on straightaway with something such as an aircraft carrier - or rather, an aircraft carrier is too complicated to use. As James S Saint have said, try something smaller. I could think of a non-military technological advancement - the undertaking may or may not have been aggressive or dominating, but its prestige is certainly beneficial: the Bullet Train. Why not try that?

Sorry if this answer was not what you were looking for, but I agree that if you want to have a go at representing an economical hub through an object, an aircraft carrier just seems...too big, too many aspects. Plus, I don't see how it earns money by itself.

The risk of taking a smaller thing is that not all discrepancies can be anticipated. The nature of complexity is accident. Genius occurs by isolating and 'saving' instinctively certain accidents. It is premonition, an aesthetics rooted so deeply in the principle of latent potentiality that it does not require the conscious mind to attain to its discernment, and would have no use for it even, except in translating it into methodical knowledge. Complexity increases with each step ahead into the application of a power principle, and as greater control of force is acquired, perspective of the future is lost.

But to start with something smaller might at least be more possible. I was simply hoping that there would be an expert here who might make a rough estimate.