The GOP's fantasy of a bigger Navy

Politico ^ | 8/24/15 | Bryan Bender and Austin Wright

[DoodleDawg]

The GOP presidential field may not agree on everything, but it’s quickly coalescing around one big idea: vastly increasing the size of the Navy.

But the Republican vow — to go from 273 ships today to as many as 350 — is likely to run aground due to the enormous price tag for a military buildup that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a series of other political obstacles.

Story Continued Below

.

.

The ambitious plan would put the GOP presidential wing on a potential collision course with its own congressional budget hawks, along with key constituencies who would likely see their prized programs slashed to reach the goal.

Yet that isn’t stopped a growing roster of Republican hopefuls from going full steam ahead, with John Kasich the latest to join Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and others in making the case for dozens of new warships.

[DoodleDawg]

I admit that I never served in the military and don't know a lot about it. But it seems to me that most of the people on the stage at the last debate don't know a whole lot more than I do. They all claim that we need a boatload of new ships, no pun intended, but don't say why. Sure, our navy is smaller than it's been in a long time. But the individual ships are a lot more capable than they were 30 years ago, too. The Cold War threats are gone and the U.S. Navy is still infinately stronger than the Chinese navy is. How big do the candidates say it needs to be, why does it need to be that size, and where are they going to get the hundreds of billions of dollars they need to get where they want to go?

[Pearls Before Swine]

If we can afford Obamacare, why can’t we afford a decent Navy or a border fence?

My point is, Democrats only raise affordability issues about programs they don’t approve of, because they know that some GOP and independent voters like fiscal prudence, even if they haven’t seen much of it from Obama... or GW Bush.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

All of the supporting documentation is located in White Papers written by neocons who hope to get positions in the next administration.

[TexasCajun]

Internal Revenue Service

Dept of Education

Environmental Protection Agency

That should free up a few billion.

[DoughtyOne]

The big story here is that we’re down to 270 ships.

When Reagan left office we had over 600.

Now talk of 350 ships is considered sufficient. Not buying it.

[oh8eleven]

... where are they going to get the hundreds of billions of dollars they need to get where they want to go?
Well, the American taxpayer comes to mind right away. Just add a new navy to the endless list of ... illegal alien care, foreign aid, auto industry bail outs, green jobs frauds, new sports stadiums, Planned Parenthood, ØbamaCare and on and on and ...

[central_va]

Pushing another liberal agenda item.....

[Mr. Blond]

I tend to agree. Fewer ships with upgraded capabilities would make more sense in this age. Start retrofitting those rail guns and design a drone carrier.

[Olog-hai]

---

The Cold War threats are gone …

---

Really? Putin is our ally all of a sudden? He didn’t threaten Poland and Ukraine with nukes?

---

… the U.S. Navy is still infinately (sic) stronger than the Chinese navy is …

---

They are expanding; we are not. How much time before they surpass us?

There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. …

George Washington said that in 1793. If it was of paramount importance two centuries ago, how much more important now?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Add Dept of Energy to your list.

[central_va]

DoodleDawgPoo is a south hating liberal bigot.

[Olog-hai]

Don’t forget the DEA, ATF, PBS, EPA, OSHA, DOL, BLM (i.e. Bureau of Land Management, although the other BLM probably has government backing too), and of course HHS.

[DoodleDawg]

That should free up a few billion.

It's going to take a whole lot more than a few billion. I read somewere that the aircraft carrier currently under construction is running $15 billion alone.

[DoodleDawg]

When Reagan left office we had over 600.

When Reagan left office we were still facing the Soviet Union and their huge navy. We don't face that threat anymore.

[DoodleDawg]

Really? Putin is our ally all of a sudden? He didn’t threaten Poland and Ukraine with nukes?

He didn't threaten them with a Navy. The current Russian navy is a shadow of its Soviet self. And it's growing smaller, not larger.

They are expanding; we are not. How much time before they surpass us?

How long will it take them to build 11 aircraft carriers, 76 guided missile destroyers, 75 nuclear submarines, and all the other ships we currently have?

If it was of paramount importance two centuries ago, how much more important now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not against a strong military. But I also don't want to spend money on ships for the sake of having ships, or advocating for a 350 ship navy when we can meet our commitments with 300. Carson was complaining our Navy was smaller than it was since World War I without considering that a couple of our destroyers could probably sink every single battleship we had in World War I. I'd like to think that there was thought involved, and not just politics.

[pabianice]

I don’t know. USS Nathan James — one ship — seems able to counter any threat in the world. /S

[Amagi]

Yo, Bryan Bender and Austin Wright, dudes !!! --- get real, having a military that can defend the nation one of the few Constitutional mandates.
Defund the Treasury breaking complete, laughable disaster known as ObamaCare and you have plenty of money to do that as well as deport the illegal alien invaders, and build the Sounthern Wall to keep them where they belong.
Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

[DoodleDawg]

Well I was hoping that people who knew the subject would contribute and I might learn something, then you came. But I’ll probably learn from the others.

[kabar]

When I served in the Navy during the Vietnam war, we had a six hundred ship navy. We have seen a decline of over 50% in the size of the navy.

Much of what is happening now is the product of a declining nation that must choose between guns and butter. The welfare state has a voracious and increasing appetite for resources. Butter usually wins in this battle because it has more constituents. It is far easier to cut the military and rationalize why you are doing it. Until the sh#t hits the fan, you see no impact from the cuts.

The Navy allows the US to project power around the globe and to keep sea lanes open. Alfred Mahan's great book, The Influence of Seapower upon History provides some context on why a great nation depends upon its navies. Many naval ships provide logistical support to keep the combatant ships fueld and at sea. And the centerpiece of our Navy is the carrier, which requires other ships to protect and support it. Thus the number of ships can be deceiving since many are not combatants.

You need a sizable fleet so that you have the flexibility of having a certain percentage undergoing rehabs and refitting. You also have ships back in the home ports to rest and train the crews. So a significant portion of the fleet is undergoing repair or not deployed.

And there is a strategic part of the Navy, namely missile submarines that are part of the part of the nuclear triad that defends this country. We have 14 SSBNs and around 75 total submarines in service. China has 67 submarines.

Finally, it takes a lot of time and money to build a ship. We have to replace the existing fleet as it ages. Once you decrease the size of the navy, it will take some time to increase it. The Chinese are increasing the size of its navy.

The Chinese navy consists of 255,000 personnel (2012)] 485 ships (excl. auxiliaries), and 690+ aircraft. It has one aircraft carrier.

The US Navy has 326,046 active duty personnel, 107,115 reserve personnel[3] 273 ships, 2,641 aircraft and 10 aircraft carriers.

The missions of both navies is very different. The US has treaty commitments with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia along with NATO. We are obligated to help defend those countries in case of attack. China, for now, is more of a regional power--like Japan prior to WWII.

It all boils down to what kind of role the US will play in the world in the 21st century and beyond. Do we retreat from that role in much the same way the UK did, mainly due to the lack of resources, or do we continue to be a global power capable of projecting its influence worldwide? And can we afford it? Right now, we have chosen the former due to a lack of resources. Butter versus guns.

[central_va]

BS. You have a left wing agenda. Every post you make points to that.