# The final presidential debate: 10/22/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497 "2012-10-22T06:57:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/721 "2012-10-24T03:48:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant Really? Ignorant? To whom, exactly? Maybe you’re the one who is ignorant: > [@](#): > > What Romney didn’t mention is that in 2007 under President George W. Bush, the Navy’s ship tally hit a low not seen since the 19th century, according to U.S. Navy statistics. > > Generally, between 2003 and 2011, the number of ships has fluctuated between a high of 297 and a low of 278. And under President Barack Obama, the number of ships has risen slightly. > > Today, a single Navy ship can serve many roles. Because of this, the military branch does not need as many ships as it did in 1916, because technology has advanced to such a point one ship can be used in numerous battle scenarios. > > In short, Servello said you cannot compare the two generations: It’s like comparing apples to oranges. > > Barry Pavel, director of the Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, a Washington defense policy analysis group, adds that the total number of ships itself is not a valid measuring stick of the Navy’s strength. > > “Ship numbers are driven by two things – war fighting requirements and the need for a forward presence,” said Pavel. > > By that, he means that political and military officials work to make sure they have the right number and kind of ships to match their capabilities, and enough to allow them to rotate vessels in and out of regions. > > It is wrong to assume that fewer ships translates to a weaker military, Pavel said. Because of the technological supremacy of current Navy ships, the military can get more from each one than it did even 10 to 15 years ago. > > Pavel noted at the start of each presidential term, there is a review to assess how much military equipment exists and what will be needed in the future. And he doubts any president – be it Obama or Romney – would allow the number of ships to fall below minimum requirements. > > Lastly, there is the matter of whether the United States can actually produce 15 naval ships a year, as Romney said Monday is needed to “restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions.” > > According to Servello, it would be next to impossible to make that many vessels given the current industrial base of shipyards in the United States. > > [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-navy/index.html) Romney’s assertion was ridiculous because a) it meant nothing in context b) it was wrong since Obama has more ships than we had under Bush c) it meant nothing because number of ships is not a good indicator of Naval strength d) it’s unlikely that we can build as many ships as Romney asserts he will. Given as ridiculous assertion as Romney made, Obama’s response was perfectly cromulent. But by all means, show me the citations on how “ignorant” the response was… If it’s Hannity pointing out that the Marines still do use bayonets you will just open yourself up to getting rolleyes smilies in your direction. Because he missed the point. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/722 "2012-10-24T03:49:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant as well as condescending at a level so low that it showed Obama’s own ignorance. . . . > > Also, Obama called submarines “ships”. The navy calls them ‘Boats’, and the existence of them does absolutely nothing to reduce the need for other surface ships. . . . Congratulations; you just provided an example of exactly the sort of thing you were complaining about. (The existence of submarines does a hell of a lot to reduce the need for other ships. Attack submarines are one of the biggest reasons many other countries don’t have large surface navies any longer.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/723 "2012-10-24T03:53:15Z")
Yep, I see that **Sam Stone** continues to never learn to distrust his dumb sources, Obama said “we also have **fewer** ” horses and bayonets not that they are “long gone” ---
**Author:** ![humblebumble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@humblebumble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humblebumble)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/724 "2012-10-24T04:01:59Z")
**Sam Stone** must watch Fox News. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/725 "2012-10-24T04:15:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Leon Panetta has said that the U.S. is going to lose its ability to fight in two theaters at the same time under proposed cuts to the military - not just sequestration, but cuts proposed by Congress and the White House. > > The problem with this is that it creates a very unstable situation. The two-theater projection strategy was really to ensure that if the U.S. gets involved in one conflict it won’t trigger wars of opportunity in other parts of the world. > > For example, if the U.S. became involved in a conflict with Iran, North Korea might decide that it has a golden opportunity to attack South Korea. Or Russia might decide that this is a perfect time to flex its muscles in the old Soviet states. Or China might start saber-rattling with its neighbors - not with the intent of starting a war, but because it could negotiate from a position of greater strength if everyone knows the U.S. is out of the picture. And sometimes saber-rattling leads to conflict. We were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the better part of a decade. Under the two-theater doctrine, we were stretched to our limit, and yet none of those consequences occurred. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/726 "2012-10-24T04:29:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant as well as condescending at a level so low that it showed Obama’s own ignorance… Sam, I’ll just leave out the rest because, frankly, you sound like a partisan arguing over angels on the head of a pin. Here are the facts: 1. Romney’s statement about the Navy having fewer ships than it did in 1916 was absolutely fucking idiotic. 2. Obama’s response was justified. Yes, an aircraft carrier needs escort ships. The fact remains that the current US Navy is vasty more capable, even accounting for comparison with contemporary navies, than it was in 1916, and that comparing the number of ships is really, really stupid. Obama’s snark was completely merited. A carrier group has immediate command of an area of\*\* one and a half million square kilometres,\*\* the area that would have been commanded, at the extreme range of their gunfire, by 438 New York-class battleships in 1916. (And that’s without the necessary escorts.) Anyone who things a carrier group in 2012 is in any way stretegically equivalent to a 1916 battleship group is a complete nitwit. On this point Obama did not look stupid and he did not look ignorant. Romney did, full stop. > [@](#): > > Many of them are for protection of surface fleets, but there are also the big ‘boomer’ nuclear subs, attack submarines, hunter-killer subs for tracking and taking out other submarines, etc. Indeed, if I wanted to be picky, I would point out that here you have created a distinction where none exists. There is no class of submarines “for protection of surface fleets” distinct from “hunter-killer subs.” There are two kinds of active duty subs in the US Navy; ballistic (or guided, in some modified cases) missile submarines, all of which are of the Ohio class, and fast attack submarines, of which there are three general classes; Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia, in order of the recency of their introduction. Now, I’m not going to sit here and suggest you’re an ignoramous because you implied there are “protection” submarines and “hunter-killer” subs and “attack” subs as distinct submarines types. And yet your statement was more literally false than Obama’s. So you know what? I’m gonna look at the totality of what he said and admit he made Romney look like a jackass. > [@](#): > > Obama also mentioned that horses and bayonets are long gone No he did not. Get your facts straight. Jesus Christ, man. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Canada has to rely on U.S. transport to get her troops overseas en masse. France is a pale shadow of its former self. The U.K. probably can’t even defend the Falklands any more. The same goes for other U.S. allies, who have cut back whenever America has increased its strength, taking advantage of U.S. power to protect them while spending their own money at home. A strong president should go to these countries and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will have to start picking up the slack, and threaten the pullout of strategic assets and military bases unless they step up to the plate. [/QUOTE] This is ridiculous. Seriously, it’s utterly risible. Any President who did this would be too stupid to wash my car. Seriously, can you provide for me a scenario whereby Mitt Romney goes to Canada and demands they start picking up the slack? How does that conversation go? ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! STEPHEN HARPER: What bases? ROMNEY: All the ones we have protecting Canada! HARPER: You have no bases in Canada. ROMNEY: Well, you should pick up the slack anyway! HARPER: WE just got back from defending you in Afghanistan. (A plane trip to Paris later) ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! NICOLAS SARKOZY: Quelle bases? ROMNEY: You know, the ones we have in France? SARKOZY: Il n’ya en pas des bases Americain en France. Evetes-vous malade, monsieur President? (A Chunnel trip to London later…) ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! DAVID CAMERON: Eh, most unfortunate, old chap. ROMNEY: You’ll be invaded? CAMERON: Oh, but we’ve got these nuclear weapons lying around. MArvelous things. Should do the trick. Cheerio! Seriously, are you learning your diplomacy from episides of “Star Trek”? Holy moly. Do you actually think there is a universe we live in in which Romney could actually make US allies raise their defense budgets just because he threatened to cut the US defense budget? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/727 "2012-10-24T04:41:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant as well as condescending at a level so low that it showed Obama’s own ignorance. That’s utter partisan nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/728 "2012-10-24T04:48:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As to why America needs a much larger navy than other powers, the answer is simple: The U.S. has force projection requirements across oceans, and in multiple theaters. This requires not just lots of ships for patrol and combat, but oilers for providing fuel to those ships, missile cruisers and submarines to protect them, transport ships for material and personnel, etc. No other countries except France and the U.K retain the ability to project power across oceans, and both of them have capabilities that are a mere shadow of their former selves. So the U.S. has had to pick up the slack. :dubious: “Had to”? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/729 "2012-10-24T05:14:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Leon Panetta has said that the U.S. is going to lose its ability to fight in two theaters at the same time under proposed cuts to the military - not just sequestration, but cuts proposed by Congress and the White House. No, he didn’t. [There are no cuts mentioned](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-virginia-defense-secretary-panetta-warns-of-effects-of-sequestration/2012/10/19/d6a73252-1a09-11e2-ad4a-e5a958b60a1e_story.html) [in any speeches I could find other than sequestration](http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/panetta-sequestration-threatens-critical-programs-127788.html). Do you have a cite for your assertion? Or are you just repeating some of the [Top 12 Defense Sequestration Scare Tactics](http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/08/23/top-twelve-defense-sequestration-scare-tactics/)? ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/730 "2012-10-24T05:20:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Originally Posted by Sam Stone \*\* > The key takeaway for future snark is that if you’re going to give someone a condescending, smug response, you’d better be damned sure that you come across as someone who really knows what he’s talking about, lest you just look like an ass. Well, somebody looks like an ass. It’s not Obama. [Dunning-Kruger effect.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) One more thing: if you think Syria is Iran’s “only route to the sea,” I don’t want you doing the shipping labels in my warehouse, much less handling foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/731 "2012-10-24T06:10:52Z")
Sam has this “respected SDMB conservative” reputation, but makes constant hackery posts like those, I’ve never gotten the hype m’self. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/732 "2012-10-24T06:35:33Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > what metric would you suggest for evaluating necessity of spending? % of GDP? Two fronts? Never met any defense spending you didn’t like? If you had the President’s (or Congress’s) ear, how would you advise them to evaluate Defense expenditures? That’s a great questions, and I don’t have a hard and fast answer. I think the old doctrine of being prepared to fight two wars was a good one, and I thought it was a bad chocie to move away from it. Secretary of Defense Gates suggested a 4% of GDP “floor” for spending, and that “felt” about right to me. As for individual projects or expenditures, I understand that there are some incredibly wasteful ones, and some unneccessary ones, and even some that are directly opposed by the military. We could do a lot better job of making our military spending more efficient and effective. I don’t deny that there’s plenty of “waste, fraud, and abuse” throughout the government’s budgets, and that includes the DoD. One problem is that individual members of Congress think the DoD budget is a great place to stash pork for their district, or a jobs program / stimulus. Who could be against national security, right? It leads to a lot of wasteful and inefficient spending. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/733 "2012-10-24T10:24:44Z")
Clearly 10 steel gun ships can project more power than 1 aircraft carrier. I mean, there’s 10 of them, for pete’s sake. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/734 "2012-10-24T10:59:39Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Seriously, can you provide for me a scenario whereby Mitt Romney goes to Canada and demands they start picking up the slack? How does that conversation go? I’m guessing it’d give him a sense of deja vu for his last big foreign excursion. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/735 "2012-10-24T11:01:47Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > One more thing: if you think Syria is Iran’s “only route to the sea,” I don’t want you doing the shipping labels in my warehouse, much less handling foreign policy. The staffer who gave Mitt a copy of Apple Maps to brush up on his geography is _so_ fired. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/736 "2012-10-24T11:04:24Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For example, Obama seems to think that having an aircraft carrier means you need fewer ships. But deploying an aircraft carrier requires an entire carrier group consisting of roughly 7 ships and two submarines. Tell you what. We’ll settle this by combat. I get a 2012 carrier group of 7 ships and two submarines; you get any two dozen 1917 ships you like. Let’s dance! ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/737 "2012-10-24T11:11:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Seriously, can you provide for me a scenario whereby Mitt Romney goes to Canada and demands they start picking up the slack? How does that conversation go? > > ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! > STEPHEN HARPER: What bases? > ROMNEY: All the ones we have protecting Canada! > HARPER: You have no bases in Canada. > ROMNEY: Well, you should pick up the slack anyway! > HARPER: WE just got back from defending you in Afghanistan. > > (A plane trip to Paris later) > > ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! > NICOLAS SARKOZY: Quelle bases? > ROMNEY: You know, the ones we have in France? > SARKOZY: Il n’ya en pas des bases Americain en France. Evetes-vous malade, monsieur President? > > (A Chunnel trip to London later…) > > ROMNEY: You’d better start picking up the slack or we’ll pull out our bases and strategic assets! > DAVID CAMERON: Eh, most unfortunate, old chap. > ROMNEY: You’ll be invaded? > CAMERON: Oh, but we’ve got these nuclear weapons lying around. MArvelous things. Should do the trick. Cheerio! Dammit guys, it really frustrates me when I see the people I agree with making really bad arguments against the people I disagree with. You mockingly went through three scenarios in which Romney threatens to pull out of bases in France, England and Canada. But this is not what **Sam Stone** said. You asked **Sam Stone** for a scenario, but he basically already gave you one. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/738 "2012-10-24T11:17:21Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Tell you what. We’ll settle this by combat. I get a 2012 carrier group of 7 ships and two submarines; you get any two dozen 1917 ships you like. Let’s dance! Or as I said in post #581: “Did you say 1917? Well, it’s true that we had a few more vessels floating in the water in 1917, if you want to measure your navy by that standard, but if you took the entire 1917 navy and gave me my choice of five modern US warships, I have you surrendering to me like a little girl inside of ten minutes. Give me six warships, and I’d have you crying real tears. Governor, a navy’s strength is measured relatively to other nations’ navies, and by that standard we’re much, much, much stronger militarily than we’ve ever been, and that’s the only standard that matters. Of course, you don’t know much about this, never having commanded anything larger than the Massachusetts National Guard, but take it from me, I’m speaking the truth. Our navy is second to none, not to every other navy on the planet combined, and it’s going to stay that way as long as I’m President of the United States and commander-in-chief of our armed forces.” It would have been great fun for Obama to go completely sardonic on Romney’s ass. He really was quite gentle with him, by my standards. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/739 "2012-10-24T13:00:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > (The existence of submarines does a hell of a lot to reduce the need for other ships. Attack submarines are one of the biggest reasons many other countries don’t have large surface navies any longer.) I’m convinced that if a regular shooting naval war had ever broken out that submarines would be just about the only vessels still in operational condition after about a month. Imagine a battle between some expert snipers in ghillie suits and some soldiers who never watched Monty Python’s “How not to be seen” sketch-no contest. ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/740 "2012-10-24T13:07:54Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Dammit guys, it really frustrates me when I see the people I agree with making really bad arguments against the people I disagree with. > > You mockingly went through three scenarios in which Romney threatens to pull out of bases in France, England and Canada. But this is not what **Sam Stone** said. You asked **Sam Stone** for a scenario, but he basically already gave you one. Indeed. Also, [Francois Hollande](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France) is the current president of France. He replaced Nicolas Sarkozy back in May. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=38)