Even though he bragged about increasing military spending each year and preventing Americans from buying cheap tires, President Barack Obama had my favorite debate moment tonight when he let loose his rehearsed zinger to Mitt Romney's promise to add 15 new ships to the Navy each year and lament that we don't have as many ships as we used to.
“We also have fewer horses and bayonets.”
When I first heard this silly claim from Candidate Romney a week ago I came to a similar assumption. We're fighting small bands of warriors in deserts, not sprawling nations with traditional military structures. This weird position comes off as an attempt to bribe shipbuilding communities into voting GOP, not a legitimate desire to improve the American military.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Set sail for higher taxes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll just add that we have 11 aircraft carriers, by law. While they can be a tremendous cost saver, future military actions are likely to be better served by ships that can operate in the littoral, or coastal zone. The new DDG-1000 (Zumwalt class) destroyers, or the current DDG-100 (Arligh Burke class), are well suited to this kind of warfare at a much lower cost.
ReplyDeleteI also question the role of aircraft carriers as we go forward because so many aircraft leave from US soil, fly to Afghanistan or wherever, do their business, then return home to the US. That seems like a waste, but I know you'll immediately see the role of comparative advantage in that.
The Navy's work with rail-guns should also help to justify a larger, cheaper and more effective Navy.
"so many aircraft leave from US soil, fly to Afghanistan or wherever, do their business, then return home to the US."
DeleteI don't think so, but I might be misinformed. Which aircraft do you have in mind?