# U.S. Navy only has 273 boats... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347 "2015-09-08T16:49:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/61 "2015-09-10T04:25:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Taking islands by force seems like a strange definition of “keeping the peace”. Planting a flag and playing ‘King of the Hill’ until someone is willing to knock you off of it. If no one does, then it’s yours. No people live in most of these places, it is just sand bars and islands, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/62 "2015-09-10T05:02:55Z")
And Gibraltar is just a big bare rock. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/63 "2015-09-10T05:41:29Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > I’m curious about this–if it came time to push all the big red buttons and dish out as much damage as possible, how much destruction could an entire carrier group dish out? The carrier’s weaponry is mostly short-range defensive, and its air groups seem to be small strike aircraft. The heavy hitters are elsewhere, such as destroyers carrying Tomahawks. Actually, the heavy hitters are lurking, silently, under the polar ice cap, or other strategic areas of the world’s seas. Each is loaded with a missile bay full of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, or MIRV missiles. No one in their right mind wants to think about what would be left of a country if these SSBMs were ever called on to perform their mission. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/64 "2015-09-10T11:39:11Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > _nitpick_ millions. Millions of people were killed. _/nitpick_ > > On the other hand, and don’t think just because I make this point I’m about to make that I necessarily agree or disagree with it, how many millions of lives would have died in a non-cold war with no small proxies wars, but one large fiery war? yadda yadda yadda…deterrents stop wars from happening…blah blah blah…expenisive military=strong credible deterrent…and so forth and so on, as these debates generally tend to go… Who caused these “millions” of people killed that you discuss? The U.S. U.S. and NATO? Who? And I have no idea what you are saying in this post of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/65 "2015-09-10T13:19:58Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > And we all know how those adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out. Both are models of democracy and are far better off for the US having been there. If you’re saying we should not have invaded Iraq, I agree with you. If you’re saying neither country has turned out well, I agree with you, too. But if you’re saying this country never should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11, and never should have had the capability to do so, I strongly disagree. Pretending that things would be better now if we had simply left Al Qaeda alone is fantasy-land thinking. Besides, it was our involvement in those two wars that resulted in the “eye of Sauron” system you’re such a fan of – isn’t that worth something? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/66 "2015-09-10T14:36:09Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] Have the other countries determined which country these areas belong to? Or are they still squabbling as well over those areas? [/QUOTE] No, they are still disputed by several nations. At this time they are considered international waters, owned by no one, though obviously China is trying to change the status quo on this by fiat. > [@](#): > > So, those warships are stopping China from building at these locations? Not at all. No one is stopping China from building there. What we are doing is basically saying that China can build there all it wants, but that this does not convey sovereign ownership of the region just because they build some artificial islands. It would be like the US going into the Gulf of Mexico, building an artificial island then claiming the entire Gulf was US territorial waters because we built something there. That’s what China is trying to do. > [@](#): > > Why does the US get to deny this land to someone who wants to claim it? Why don’t they claim it and stop the squabbling? We aren’t denying anything…our position is that the waters are international and free to all. China doesn’t put forth a serious claim at this time because they know that they would lose…they have the weakest claim. They are hoping to bolster their claim by fiat, since having those artificial islands with people on them (and military and law enforcement/commerce checking installations and personnel) will, they think, put their claim above the others, especially if the US backs down and basically leaves it up to the other regional powers to work out. Since none of those powers can possibly stand up to the Chinese, China figures they win by fiat. The only thing blocking this plan is the US and Obama’s pivot to Asia. If you want to read up on some of this stuff, [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea) is the Wiki for the dispute. It’s got some maps as well, so you can see for yourself where the disputed area is in relation to China and the other countries in the dispute. I don’t know if the Wiki goes into it, but some additional facts…over $2 trillion in trade passes through that region. And there may be a large amount of natural gas and oil have been found in the region as well, though I don’t think it’s being exploited yet. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/67 "2015-09-10T16:32:52Z")
Here’s an article which starts with a nice “before and after” photo as an example of what China is doing to firm up it’s claim to the area: > **[National Post](https://nationalpost.com/category/news/)** > > Read the latest breaking news in Canada and the rest of the world. We bring all of today's top headlines and stories to your fingertips. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/68 "2015-09-10T21:43:32Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Who caused these “millions” of people killed that you discuss? The U.S. U.S. and NATO? Who? > > And I have no idea what you are saying in this post of yours. “Caused” is a loaded word here. These millions of deaths that I am talking about occured in, or as a result of, the various proxy wars that took place post WWII. And my other point was that even though these millions of deaths happened, there are some who argue that it is better than the 10’s or 100’s of millions that _might_ have happened if not for the strong/credible deterrence force we continue to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/69 "2015-09-10T23:07:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But if you’re saying this country never should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11, and never should have had the capability to do so, I strongly disagree. Pretending that things would be better now if we had simply left Al Qaeda alone is fantasy-land thinking. Well now that Al-Qaeda is destroyed…Oh, wait… What was accomplished could most likely have been done at the 40,000+’ level with little risk of life of anyone other than the poor bastards who supported the jihadis. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/70 "2015-09-10T23:25:45Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, they are still disputed by several nations. At this time they are considered international waters, owned by no one, though obviously China is trying to change the status quo on this by fiat. They are not ‘owned’ by anyone because it is under dispute. Lots would like to own them. > [@](#): > > We aren’t denying anything…our position is that the waters are international and free to all. A number of countries claim the area, but you say none of them should have them and are denying all. Have you taken your claim to some international court or tribunal to get this matter resolved? So, you’re stirring the waters, so to speak? > [@](#): > > Since none of those powers can possibly stand up to the Chinese, China figures they win by fiat. And thus the squabbling ends. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if the Wiki goes into it, but some additional facts…over $2 trillion in trade passes through that region. And there may be a large amount of natural gas and oil have been found in the region as well, though I don’t think it’s being exploited yet. Why would China stop the trade? From the US’s pov if China took this area over, would this stop trade with any of their partners in the area? It doesn’t stop trade with the Philippines, or Japan, or even China. China needs oil and gas as much as anyone. Other than playing ‘Team America: World Police’, what benefit is it to you to get involved in this very regional dispute? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/71 "2015-09-11T00:31:13Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] They are not ‘owned’ by anyone because it is under dispute. Lots would like to own them. [/QUOTE] Well, it’s not exactly a free for all. There are treaties that come into play after all, such as [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea) one. From the link: > [@](#): > > The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to sign the treaty.[1] As of January 2015, 166 countries and the European Union have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law. So, you have a 12 NM territorial waters plus 12 NM contiguous zone coupled with a 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone. China, being over a thousand NM from this area seems to have a pretty weak claim, while several of the other nations are relatively close (Philippines being the closest). So, when you say no one ‘owns’ them and they are under dispute, this is because there are several relatively valid overlapping claims to the region. China’s own claim seems to come from an [old stone map](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGXzUSYjVzg). > [@](#): > > A number of countries claim the area, but you say none of them should have them and are denying all. Have you taken your claim to some international court or tribunal to get this matter resolved? So, you’re stirring the waters, so to speak? That’s not what I said. I said the UNITED STATES position on this is that the waters are international with no clear claimant with a superior claim to the others, and thus the waters are free for passage and trade to all. As to an international court, it’s happening [now](http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/in-the-philippines-south-china-sea-case-is-international-law-on-trial/), at least the Philippines is putting forth one concerning Chinese encroachment. Not sure why you think I am stirring the waters, or have anything to do with this at all. I just wish I’d get a cut of the profits from oil, gas, fishing rights and potential tariffs or fees to transit the area. 😛 > [@](#): > > And thus the squabbling ends. Well, it would if everyone just caved in and simply gave the Chinese what they wanted anyway. Probably not going to happen though. > [@](#): > > Why would China stop the trade? From the US’s pov if China took this area over, would this stop trade with any of their partners in the area? It doesn’t stop trade with the Philippines, or Japan, or even China. > China needs oil and gas as much as anyone. Why would China hack US corporations and give their trade secrets to their own companies? No other nation state does that. Answer…because their corporations are tied to the CCP in most cases, and giving them an economic advantage is in what China perceives as it’s best interests. Here is one scenario on how China could affect trade in the region to their benefit. Once these waters (and the area is freaking HUGE if you look at a map) are declared Chinese sovereign territorial waters, China could basically send inspection naval craft (like the Coast Guard in the US) to inspect ‘random’ cargoes to ensure they aren’t smuggling forbidden things into China (such as information or porn or whatever). This could take a few hours or even days, and cargoes could be held while a full investigation is enacted. Nation states have the right to do this in their territorial waters after all. Or, if China is in a dispute with another nation they could forbid them the right to transit this region, forcing their flagged ships to travel 1000’s of NM out of their way. The point is that they could do whatever they liked if they got their way…it would be THEIR waters. And they are already building the stations for naval ships, for air craft with full military installations and support to dominate the region. And at that point, if the US (or anyone else) did overfly or send our military vessels into the area we’d be violating Chinese territorial waters, and they would be fully justified in doing whatever they liked at that point. This would force the US and others to have to go around the entire region with any military vessels. If you can’t see how that would be an issue I urge you to look at the map, and think in terms of the OTHER powers in the region and what it would mean for them, even if you don’t want to consider what it would mean for the US. > [@](#): > > Other than playing ‘Team America: World Police’, what benefit is it to you to get involved in this very regional dispute? I’ve already said what the benefits would be. It would prevent a shooting war in the region between China and the other powers, some of which would be very threatened by this action. It keeps the area open to the free passage of trade in the region, preventing China or anyone else from playing games with that trade. It keeps the region open for the free passage of air and naval craft. Basically, the ONLY country in the region that wants the US to keep their nose out of this ‘very regional dispute’ (that just so happens to be in a VERY vital trade and transit route for the area) is China…all the other powers are practically begging us to carry on, hell most want us to really do the pivot to Asia thing in spades. Even Vietnam wants the US involved in this, which is pretty ironic if you think about it. Let me ask you something…why do you think that the US should stay out of this and basically allow China to bully the others in the region to get their way? You don’t strike me as a might makes right type, yet if the US backs out that’s exactly what will happen. Leaving aside how that would directly affect the US in several different ways, why do you feel this is a good thing for us to do? Does it make a difference to your way of thinking that China is the only one who doesn’t want that…and that their reason is the same as any school yard bully who doesn’t like when the big brother of the guys they are bullying shows up? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/72 "2015-09-11T00:43:12Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Well now that Al-Qaeda is destroyed…Oh, wait… > > What was accomplished could most likely have been done at the 40,000+’ level with little risk of life of anyone other than the poor bastards who supported the jihadis. Compare bin Laden dead, Zawahiri in hiding with nearly nobody who listens to him, and the whole organization that carried out 9-11 being basically a pathetic she’ll of itself… Versus ISIL, who we are bombing from 25,000 feet. You’re thinking that our campaign against ISIL is the winning strategy we should have pursued to destroy Al Qaeda? I laugh at you. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/73 "2015-09-11T00:51:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, it’s not exactly a free for all. There are treaties that come into play after all, such as [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea) one. From the link: The US isn’t a signatory to that treaty, so why are they enforcing it? > [@](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said the UNITED STATES position on this is that the waters are international with no clear claimant with a superior claim to the others, and thus the waters are free for passage and trade to all. So, we’re back to ‘Team America’ again. > [@](#): > > Not sure why you think I am stirring the waters, or have anything to do with this at all. I just wish I’d get a cut of the profits from oil, gas, fishing rights and potential tariffs or fees to transit the area. 😛 The US. > [@](#): > > Why would China hack US corporations and give their trade secrets to their own companies? No other nation state does that. That you know of or has been caught. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you something…why do you think that the US should stay out of this and basically allow China to bully the others in the region to get their way? Because it really doesn’t matter who owns the islands. What makes the Philippines or Japan or whoever any better owner than any other country? If China owns them, then other countries have to negotiate with them. That goes to whoever owns them. > [@](#): > > You don’t strike me as a might makes right type, yet if the US backs out that’s exactly what will happen. Are their people on these islands? Then I really don’t care who owns them now. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/74 "2015-09-11T01:02:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Compare bin Laden dead, Zawahiri in hiding with nearly nobody who listens to him, and the whole organization that carried out 9-11 being basically a pathetic she’ll of itself… Versus ISIL, who we are bombing from 25,000 feet. > > You’re thinking that our campaign against ISIL is the winning strategy we should have pursued to destroy Al Qaeda? I laugh at you. How long for BinLaden who managed to escape in the fog of war? Better to have waited and confirmed his location and then dropped a bunker buster on his head. Same for everyone else involved. No need for ground troops at all or at least kept to the minimum for intelligence gathering. re. ISIL. If you fight iron age barbarians by any other method than the ones they understand you will probably lose. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/75 "2015-09-11T01:03:38Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] The US isn’t a signatory to that treaty, so why are they enforcing it? [/QUOTE] From the link: > [@](#): > > The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. Due to Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention. > > From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had removed much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI provisions. We aren’t enforcing it btw. Like I said, our claim is that the waters are international and free to transit for all. We do that because it’s in our best interests to do so of course. > [@](#): > > So, we’re back to ‘Team America’ again. You asked and I answered. I think the ‘Team America’ argument is stupid, but if you want to keep going with that, hope it works for you. > [@](#): > > The US. The US what? Do you think we get a cut or something? 😛 > [@](#): > > That you know of or has been caught. Well, I know China has been repeatedly. And for all I know, some other totalitarian countries do the same thing (I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia does something similar, but I know of no evidence that’s the case, but then the old Soviet Union died before hacking became a real thing). > [@](#): > > Because it really doesn’t matter who owns the islands. What makes the Philippines or Japan or whoever any better owner than any other country? If China owns them, then other countries have to negotiate with them. That goes to whoever owns them. So, you are a might makes right type. Well, learn something new every day. I guess it’s ok as long as the bully with the biggest stick in the area says so and all. Would this be a ‘Team China’ argument? > [@](#): > > Are their people on these islands? Then I really don’t care who owns them now. What islands? The Chinese created them out of sand! But, you seem to feel that might makes right. I wonder how you’d feel if the US decided to do the same thing. I mean, we COULD after all. We could easily build islands just about anywhere. How about off the coast of Cuba? We could build an island, claim it as ours, say it’s in our territorial waters (which is whatever we say it is, since we have a massive military and Cuba and the other powers in the region don’t) and then do what we like. Would be fine with you, right? Seriously…if that’s ok, feel free to say so. If it’s not, then I have to ask why it’s cool with you that China does this and but it wouldn’t be cool if the US (or any other major regional power) does it. Because here is the thing…if China gets away with this, is allowed to do this, it will set a precedent. Anyone who doesn’t think so is deluding themselves. It would allow any country with the power to do so the ability to simply extend their territorial waters wherever they liked, however they liked. If you can’t see that this would be a Bad Thing™ then I guess we are done here. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/76 "2015-09-11T01:06:46Z")
[grumpy old man] Ships Goddamn it. The Navy has 273 ships, not boats. [/gom] :::Wanders out of thread::: ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/77 "2015-09-11T01:09:49Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] How long for BinLaden who managed to escape in the fog of war? Better to have waited and confirmed his location and then dropped a bunker buster on his head. Same for everyone else involved. No need for ground troops at all or at least kept to the minimum for intelligence gathering. [/QUOTE] This is Ravenman’s argument, but you are simply wrong about much of this. We knew exactly where ObL was. We had him cornered. He didn’t slip out in the ‘fog of war’…he slipped out because we stupidly relied on local forces to attack him in Tora Bora and, basically, they decided suddenly and without warning to stop fighting and withdraw, giving ObL and AQ a route to escape into Pakistan. All we could do is watch while it happened. Of all the moronic things the Bush administration did in Afghanistan, this was by far the worst, yet it’s hardly ever brought up. I can’t even imagine all that this stupidity cost us. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/78 "2015-09-11T01:10:49Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > [grumpy old man] Ships Goddamn it. The Navy has 273 ships, not boats. [/gom] > :::Wanders out of thread::: Well, the subs are ‘boats’ anyway… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/79 "2015-09-11T01:31:50Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > How long for BinLaden who managed to escape in the fog of war? Because he was being bombed from 25,000 feet with insufficient ground troops to prevent his escape? Wow. You’ve just made my point for me. What an embarrassing argument. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/80 "2015-09-11T01:36:10Z")
I believe even the Navy calls them ships now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347.md?page=5)