Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
On National Defense, Quantity Matters Too
Topic Started: Oct 24 2012, 09:00 AM (416 Views)
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
On National Defense, Quantity Matters Too


No doubt, President Obama had the line of the night in the third presidential debate when he tried to dismiss Mitt Romney’s concerns about our incredible shrinking armed forces by saying:


But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.


Like a lot of clever debate lines, however, it grows less and less persuasive the more it is examined. Jonathan has already raised some sound objections. My own view is that while Obama is technically right–no question naval vessels today are a lot more potent than they were in 1916–he is wrong in the larger sense, if he is suggesting that quality can endlessly substitute for quantity.

Yes, one Navy ship today can fire more munitions farther and more accurately than a whole fleet could have done at the Battle of Jutland. But the odds of such an encounter between great fleets at sea are exceedingly small. No other nation has a blue-water navy today. But that doesn’t mean that the threats faced by our navy have diminished.

Today the U.S. Navy must prepare for two major wars–one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, the other against China in the Western Pacific–while also combating piracy off the coast of Africa, dealing with unexpected wars such as the one in Libya last year, supporting ground operations in Afghanistan and other theaters, combating drug runners in the Caribbean, and showing the flag in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and other seas. The operational tempo dictated by these requirements is terrific, as I have seen for myself in the last few years in visits to the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the 7th Fleet in Japan.

The ships we have are, when not retrofitting in port, almost constantly at sea and they are struggling to keep up with threats ranging from Chinese “aircraft-killer” ballistic missiles and submarines to Iranian mines and cruise missiles–not to mention the ever-present threat of cyberattack and terrorism (of the kind which crippled the USS Cole). Yes, the capabilities of each naval ship are greater today–but so are its range of potential missions and so are the capabilities of our potential foes. China is expanding its maritime capabilities at a rapid clip; the U.S. Navy is struggling to keep up and the balance of power in the Western Pacific is shifting against us.

That is in large part why the bipartisan Hadley-Perry Commission concluded in 2010 that the Navy should have 346 ships. Yet today it has only 282 ships–and falling. As former Navy Secretary (and Romney adviser) John Lehman noted in April: “The latest budget the administration has advanced proposes buying just 41 ships over five years. It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”

That is a looming strategic disaster–and one that no amount of quips about horses and bayonets can wish away. If we don’t build more ships, our global maritime dominance–the basic underpinning of the world’s strategic and economic stability–is in real danger of slipping away.

LINK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User



Guess what? Romney is all wet on this one (pun intended)

The decline continued until the Navy hit a low of 278 ships under George W. Bush, then began to recover under Obama. ReFerence

As of 2012, there are 287 battle force ships in the U.S. Navy, the most powerful and capable fleet in the history of the world Reference

Once again you end up with egg on your face, Bertie. At this rate your head is going to turn into an omelet, LOL.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

he lies about everything
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Bertie is full of crap and evidently has no pride.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Not sure if he lies or just does not take the trouble to check it out. i suspect the latter.

This is why righties are so susceptible to propaganda. It is a weakness.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
telcoman
Oct 24 2012, 10:57 AM

Guess what? Romney is all wet on this one (pun intended)

The decline continued until the Navy hit a low of 278 ships under George W. Bush, then began to recover under Obama. ReFerence

As of 2012, there are 287 battle force ships in the U.S. Navy, the most powerful and capable fleet in the history of the world Reference

Once again you end up with egg on your face, Bertie. At this rate your head is going to turn into an omelet, LOL.


Child, you need to go home to mommy to learn how to read and think logically. How long does it take to build a ship? When did the number of ships have a up-tick? I think you will find it was in 2008 when it went up to 282. If Obama was president in 2008 then the bad economy is all on him. LOL

In 1916, the date Romney gave, the number of ships in the Navy was 245. The number of ships the Navy will have under Obbama's plan is around 235 so telcoman is wrong again. LINK

Not sure if he lies or just does not take the trouble to check it out. I suspect the latter.

Edited by Berton, Oct 24 2012, 09:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Well like Pat says, he just parrots what he hears...........so garbage in garbage out
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corky52
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
A sky full of UAV's and a sea full of robots, they sure do have a quality based on quantity and we are the people who will have both.



:smoker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
jcapps
Oct 24 2012, 10:24 PM
Well like Pat says, he just parrots what he hears...........so garbage in garbage out
You have no argument so you resort to insults. Typical of you.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
Corky52
Oct 24 2012, 10:28 PM
A sky full of UAV's and a sea full of robots, they sure do have a quality based on quantity and we are the people who will have both.



:smoker:
Quote:
 
The ships we have are, when not retrofitting in port, almost constantly at sea and they are struggling to keep up with threats ranging from Chinese “aircraft-killer” ballistic missiles and submarines to Iranian mines and cruise missiles–not to mention the ever-present threat of cyberattack and terrorism (of the kind which crippled the USS Cole). Yes, the capabilities of each naval ship are greater today–but so are its range of potential missions and so are the capabilities of our potential foes. China is expanding its maritime capabilities at a rapid clip; the U.S. Navy is struggling to keep up and the balance of power in the Western Pacific is shifting against us.

That is in large part why the bipartisan Hadley-Perry Commission concluded in 2010 that the Navy should have 346 ships. Yet today it has only 282 ships–and falling. As former Navy Secretary (and Romney adviser) John Lehman noted in April: “The latest budget the administration has advanced proposes buying just 41 ships over five years. It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis