One of the more ridiculous debates underway at the moment is about how big the US Navy should be. If you read any articles or listen to any speeches from political candidates, you quickly understand that the number of ships is now lower than it has been since the years prior to World War II. We have fewer than half the number of navy ships we had during the Reagan years when the navy topped out at just under 600 ships. Listen a little longer and you will hear that the only way to increase the size of the navy is to cut entitlement programs. You see the debate, don't you: we can either have national safety or social security.
The problem is that all of this is yet another of those false choices presented by the politicians. For some reason, every time there is a debate about adding ships, we only hear about the enormous cost of aircraft carriers. Should we spend 13 billion dollars on another of these floating cities? In many ways, it reminds me of one of president Obama's numerous straw men. For those who do not know what I mean, consider how Obama presents the Iran deal as a choice between the agreement he negotiated with the mullahs on the one hand and WAR on the other hand. The ideas that maybe we could get a better deal or employ harsher sanctions without war don't exist in Obama's world. Similarly, the idea that maybe the composition of the US Navy could change by building smaller, less expensive, but just as lethal ships seems to get short shrift in the ongoing debate.
Right now, when it comes to naval power, China is focused on building more ships but also on deploying anti-ship missiles that have a range of 900 miles. I do not know how effective these Chinese missiles will be, but I assume that they are relatively effective weapons. What happens to one of our $13 billion aircraft carriers if it tries to operate in the waters near China? Could one of these ships survive a barrage of ten of these missiles? If the Chinese fired 20 such missiles, could 2 of them get through the anti-missile defenses? If an aircraft carrier were hit by 2 of these missiles could it survive to continue fighting?
At this point, wouldn't it be better for America's naval power to be projected by smaller, stealth vessels that are invisible to radar and easier to defend against missile barrages? Shouldn't we focus on exactly what missions our navy needs to accomplish and on what ships are needed to carry our those missions? Instead of having debates where fools repeat slogans and talking points at each other, how about looking at the real needs of our defense.
The problem is that all of this is yet another of those false choices presented by the politicians. For some reason, every time there is a debate about adding ships, we only hear about the enormous cost of aircraft carriers. Should we spend 13 billion dollars on another of these floating cities? In many ways, it reminds me of one of president Obama's numerous straw men. For those who do not know what I mean, consider how Obama presents the Iran deal as a choice between the agreement he negotiated with the mullahs on the one hand and WAR on the other hand. The ideas that maybe we could get a better deal or employ harsher sanctions without war don't exist in Obama's world. Similarly, the idea that maybe the composition of the US Navy could change by building smaller, less expensive, but just as lethal ships seems to get short shrift in the ongoing debate.
Right now, when it comes to naval power, China is focused on building more ships but also on deploying anti-ship missiles that have a range of 900 miles. I do not know how effective these Chinese missiles will be, but I assume that they are relatively effective weapons. What happens to one of our $13 billion aircraft carriers if it tries to operate in the waters near China? Could one of these ships survive a barrage of ten of these missiles? If the Chinese fired 20 such missiles, could 2 of them get through the anti-missile defenses? If an aircraft carrier were hit by 2 of these missiles could it survive to continue fighting?
At this point, wouldn't it be better for America's naval power to be projected by smaller, stealth vessels that are invisible to radar and easier to defend against missile barrages? Shouldn't we focus on exactly what missions our navy needs to accomplish and on what ships are needed to carry our those missions? Instead of having debates where fools repeat slogans and talking points at each other, how about looking at the real needs of our defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment