Study war. You don’t plan for what you think the enemy might do, you plan for what they are capable of. China doesn’t need subs? Why don’t you go tell them that. Pack a lunch.
Including their subs? Enlighten us, please, as to how you are going to do this.
Bet me. There’s not a sailor on the seas that wants to serve under an officer that is totally unqualified for their command. Find me one Air Force officer of flag rank who has experience commanding a naval task force. I’ll wait.
I think the confusion is coming (at least for me…can’t speak for the others) in that you have been vague about your actual proposal. First, your OP title is ‘De we still need the Navy’…which seems to lean toward total elimination. Then you say words to the effect that, no, you want to keep the Navy but for some mysterious reason fold it into the Air Force…because you think the Air Force is better at spending money wisely. Or something. Neither of these make any sense…together though they certainly don’t make any sense.
So, are we talking about completley eliminating the Navy (and what of the Coast Guard?), are we talking about a radical downsizing of the Navy, or are we talking about essentially having a Navy, but calling it the US Air Force (Navy), with Air Force oversight and control? Can you be more specific as to which one of these (or maybe some other plan I’m completely missing of your own), and then some further details…how many ships would we still need (if any), what would their role be, how much of the existing structure would remain intact but pass to the Air Force…whatever.
It might make the debate go a bit smoother.
As for costing billions…yeah, I’d say that a transfer to the Air Force would conservatively be put in the ‘billions’ ball park. It would not be as easy as you seem to think. But ignore that for now…just focus on defining exactly what you are getting at and then we could re-address that later if needs be.
-XT
Interesting. So, because you evaluate the threat from China as non-existant, the US should not make any provision in case things go south? Say, if there is a violent change in direction wrt internal Chinese politics? If there was a coup by Chinese high ranking military figures? Or other elements in the mysterious world of Chinese politics? Or a popular uprising? Or an economic downturn that places a lot of strain on China? How about a decision to press their claim on Taiwan for gods know what reason? Or myriad other problems I can’t predict here?
China may not NEED submarines (in your opinion), but they HAVE them…and not exactly bad ones either. Surface ships too, though why they would need them (and be building up this capability quite a bit over the last decade, despite your own wisdom that navies are pretty worthless :)). They ALSO don’t really need a big army (who would attack them)…but guess what? They have that too. They also don’t need a sophisticated air force (Peoples Liberation Army (Air Force)…sound familiar? 
), but they have that too. Hell, they don’t really NEED nuclear weapons…but, yeah, they have those as well.
Thing is, you don’t base your plans for your military on wishful thinking, or what a potential foe SHOULD have, or SHOULD need or not need…but on what they actually DO have, or are in the process of aquiring. China in fact IS building up its military across the board…including its navy (Peoples Liberation Army (Navy) ). Why? They don’t NEED too…there is no one who could possibly threaten them. So, why are they doing this? Should we just ignore it?
This isn’t scare mongering…its reality. And its prudent to at least pay attention and make some plans…just in case. Its also prudent to actually have something on hand to implement those plans…again, just in case.
-XT
There HAS To be some way to tie this in with the rationality of markets here…for the life of me I can’t put my finger on it. 
BTW, there are actually some US Air Force pilots assigned to US Navy aircraft carrier squadrons. So, it seems to me the Air Force is quite pleased to have the Navy do the sailing and most of the carrier-based flying.
Perhaps we should replace the navy with some giant flying anthropomorphic robots.
You can’t be serious about doing away with the Navy. Just how would you replace the Army-Navy football game?
The good arguments have already been taken- we need to protect shipping from pirates. We need to be able to enforce a blockade when we have to. Those submarines with nuclear missiles are in my opinion a major factor in the US and USSR never going to war. I’m all for as much standardization of equipment as possible, the Air Force and Army and Navy should have interchangeable planes and guns and such, but if you were to fold the Navy in with the Army then you’re going to have people in command of forces that they have no expertise in. I think the Army, Navy, and Air Force have distinct enough missions that they should be kept separate.
I’m sorry, I feel a need to address this particular bit of ignorance here. Our national leaders don’t “decide to export jobs”. Individual business leaders do.
Well, we could just watch the Air Force kick the tar out of Army every year, but that’s hardly sporting
As for standardizing equipment, this makes sense up to a point. While there’s no particular reason Sailors and Airmen can’t wear the same boots (well, I’m assuming there’s not), they tend to have fairly different needs for aircraft. An F-16 is an excellent aircraft, but it wouldn’t be terribly useful on an aircraft carrier without being heavily structurally reinforced (from what I hear, the F-18 has lots of the F-16’s advantages, and is slower in exchange for being more rugged and having the twin-engine reliability the Navy is fond of).
This, of course, is where the F-35 comes in. The Navy version is very similar to the Air Force version, but is also different in many ways, from what I understand. I also understand the new F-18E/Fs have a fair number of interchangeable parts with the F-22s. It’s not so important that both forces use the same equipment, as long as there’s as much interchangability in field-servicable parts and supplies as possible. The services just have different needs in aircraft.
Reclaiming Taiwan is probably the greatest threat from China. There isn’t much of a chance of China directly attacking the US, but China’s offical policy is that it will declare war on Taiwan if Taiwan attempts to become an “independent” country. Since it’s already made moves in that direction, it wouldn’t take much for the Chinese to jump over the Straits, except for the US [del]Air Force[/del] Navyand its Seventh Fleet.
Once the Red Army has facts on the ground established, then it would be a tad bit more difficult to get rid of them, in constrast to preventing the jump.
So, if the aircraft carriers were transferred to the Air Force, what would we be getting rid of here?
Nothing, TokyoPlayer, nothing at all. China has their navy as part of the their army; however, it’s still a navy with all the attendant stuff you mention.
So, China’s state-sponsered hatred of Japan doesn’t strike you as potential war propaganda, TokyoPlayer? :dubious:
The fact that the Chinese People (& possibly their leaders, too) have neither forgotten nor forgiven the Rape of Nanking, nor Japan’s use of Biological & Chemical Weapons against civilians during WW2–this doesn’t suggest a possible–I dunno, target, to you? :dubious:
And that Japan is China’s principal rival for geopolitical influence in Asia…you don’t think Japan might be a teeny bit at risk? :rolleyes: :smack:
Well, surely Japan doesn’t need the mighty US Navy to protect them from little old China! I mean, they have their Self Defense Forces, and Godzilla!
But yeah, in case anyone tries to say a fight between China and Japan would strictly be a regional affair we’d stay out of, it’s worth mentioning that there are sizable US military forces stationed in Japan. Any attack on Japan would result in the immediate involvement of the US military. And while the US Air Force would already be “on the scene” as it were, they would be operating from bases of a relatively immobile nature close to China, and could concievably be overwhelmed early on. The US Navy, meanwhile, would have the ability to roam around in the Pacific, striking the Chinese in any number of other places and forcing them to spread their forces out to respond. Also, supply ships, guarded by naval escorts when necessary, are the most efficient way to move large amounts of materials overseas (even the biggest airplanes are tiny compared to what an ocean-going freighter can haul, and the ships are far less limited in the weight of individual items they can carry). If we are fighting a war against China in Japan or Taiwan, being able to move large quanitites of supplies WILL be an issue.
As for any dependence on cheap Chinese labor, that labor could easily be found in other parts of the world (ie: Mexico and Central America, where much of the labor currently is found), and Japan produces a large variety of sophisticated electronics that Americans are more or less dependant on, all this aside from the various cultural ties the US has with Japan (I mean, we fought a war with them. This is generally how the US makes it’s best friends, for example, see Canada and England)
I can’t speak for TokyoPlayer, but certainly none of that stuff suggests impending war between China and Japan to me.
Do individual business leaders set trade policy? Do individual business leaders decide who gets MFN status? Do individual business leaders establish and abolish tariffs? Do individual business leaders conduct trade negotiations?
Obviously the answer to all those questions is yes. But we do still require that they go through the formality of bribing Congresscritters and having said critters create the actual laws.
I’m not sure what connected you see between this debate and the irrationality of markets. This is a demonstration of the irrationality of government. Then again, considering the current fad for privatization, we may soon have aircraft carriers operating on a for-profit basis.
See my previous about intentions vs capabilities.
There isn’t. But that doesn’t mean there never will be, either. You don’t seem to get that. China and Japan have a history between them…and not a friendly one. They are also rivals in the region for economic and even political influence. So, the seeds are there for a POTENTIAL confrontation…be it economic, political or military.
Unless you have a magic time machine, prudence says that its in the US’s interest to be able to at least have the option of doing something if that occurs. And guess what is our main instrument for being able to do something that far from home? Go ahead…guess. 
BTW, maybe you don’t see a Japan/China confrontation as a major probable event…what about Taiwan with no US Navy? You feel the same?
-XT