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.
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.)
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”
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.
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:
Romney’s statement about the Navy having fewer ships than it did in 1916 was absolutely fucking idiotic.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.