Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
Obama had several cracking good quips tonight  Love the one about the 1980s are calling, they want their foriegn policy back, and of course, the bayonettes and horses. I reallt don't understand the claim that our navy has fewer ships now than anytime since 1917... what, did the US have 200 battle rowboats in 1922 and they counted toward the whole? One thing is for sure, as Obama pointed out, you cannot compare ships based on numeric totals. One ship in today's navy, say the USS Texas, could easily wipe out all the US ships in 1917. 
I will say this, both of these fellows are really intelligent. And Bob Schieffer did a much better job keeping these guys in line. |
That's true, and I think in hindsight Romney would acknowledge that. My problem is that it seems as though he's moving to the right of the center on this, even though his actions suggest otherwise. Indeed, our ships are insanely more powerful - but they are also insanely more expensive, and require a ridiculously intense amount of expertise to fight.
What that means is that each ship is far more invaluable and irreplaceable. Relying on these ships and our intelligence assurances that no other navy can compete is inherently flawed - if the intel ever turns out to be flawed (imagine that), so much of our power is concentrated in so few platforms.
The capability of one aircraft carrier is amazing, for instance. But how much of that capability we lose should that carrier be destroyed would be devastating.