Comments on: Romney’s Claim of “Smallest Navy Since 1916″ is Both Incorrect, and Irrelevant

By: Brigham A. McCown

Brigham A. McCown — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:20:24 +0000

As a 25 year Navy Officer, the truth is that we are woefully unprepared to fight a major sea engagement, let alone be able to fight two major engagements simultaneously. The truth is that no matter how complex or sophisticated a ship (or carrier might be) that asset can only be in one place at one time. With the loss of the Soviet Union and the bi-polar status of the cold war, the world is a far more dangerous place today. So in fact, we actually need more, not less vessels to protect our interests around the globe. Let's not forget we are a maritime power.

By: David P Shea

David P Shea — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:28 +0000

Yep, I agree. Romney, Obama ..What sad choice's we have.In an election that is so important to this country.

By: Barry Weinreich

Barry Weinreich — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:59 +0000

When you are under water and over your head in dept. you should spend , spend , spend.. But only to win an election.. then raise , raise , raise taxes.. taxachousetts all over again.. Think for yourselves people.. do you buy your president like you buy your shoes.. by the best add on tv?

By: William Leach

William Leach — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:45:51 +0000

Mr. Romney is EXACTLY correct that the Obama administration is systematically stripping this nation of its ability to respond to threats. He is the ONLY president since Franklin Pierce – when records commenced – NOT to visit any naval vessel and is a disgrace to this nation!

By: Don McGrady

Don McGrady — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:04:05 +0000

Under Obama the yards would close, due to lack of orders. We will have no Navy with all of the budget cuts they promised to the nonworking class of freeloaders. And we will soon be broke because all of the jobs that make things are overseas. These jobs payed american workers that paid taxes. These same workers are on welfare now.

By: Arctic Fox

Arctic Fox — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:05:24 +0000

Yes indeed. Looking back, Pres. Obama spent $787 billion on “stimulus.” Too bad he didn’t lay down a couple of keels for icebreakers. It’s not like the need for new icebreakers was a state secret back in 2009. Heck, Obama could be cracking champagne bottles over the bows about now.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:56:06 +0000

We also have a smaller number of cavalry horses. How about building a few icebreakers instead

By: Arctic Fox

Arctic Fox — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:10 +0000

The headline here is both incorrect, and misleading. The headline does not describe the text of the article.

Here’s the key point. No president builds his own Navy — excepting only FDR in WWII. Generally, one builds a Navy for the next president, and for several presidents afterwards. Thus I don’t bedrudge Romney the rhetorical point of criticizing “the smallest U.S. Navy since World War I.” In the wake of the very un-navalist characters Clinton-Bush-Obama, Romney (not even a Navy guy) is inheriting a maritime mess.

So Romney makes an important strategic point — to which any operational Sailor can attest. Considering the scope of national commitments, the U.S. does not have enough Navy to go around. Either scale back the commitments, or scale up the Navy.

Oh, and the comments by Todd Harrison in the article, about how the U.S didn’t have “super-carriers” in 1916 are just silly. Really? Duh.

By: Sean Danvers

Sean Danvers — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:23:44 +0000

LCS’s are a debacle in and of themselves but that is not the fault of the current administration or really the previous one. If anything is the current administrations fault its that they have not halted the construction of those useless ships and put the money into worthwhile, proven patrol boat designs.

By: tyler

tyler — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:25:36 +0000

While the title of the article is technically correct, the article does little to support it’s own position. The fact is, under the current admin, we are headed to a 250 ship navy. LCSs have little combative power and I think you could argue that they shouldn’t be counted as combatants in the ship count which would mean more of a 200 ship navy in the future count.

Modern ships are more capable but in a war ships are lost and the only substitute is more ships with trained crew. A 200 ship navy could not effectively protect this country much less the commitments to our allies. Also, despite the authors poke, i’m betting there would be little gains in the Virginia shipyards. Most of the ships will be built elsewhere.