AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (8 comments)

  1. All you need to know is this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile

    and this:

    ” The first layer of antimissile defense by a modern, fully equipped aircraft carrier task force is always the long-range missile-carrying fighter planes of the aircraft carrier itself. Several fighters are kept on combat air patrol (CAP) 24 hours a day, seven days a week when at sea, and many more are put aloft when the situation warrants, such as during wartime or when a threat to the task force is detected.”

    ships without aircraft carrier air support are basically large targets for anti-ship missiles.

    the thing about this is that what Obama said is entirely true – and backed up by the Navy itself that KNOWS FULL WELL that defending against anti-ship missiles is more and more something that cannot be done unless you detect and kill the platform carrying such missiles and that platform can be a 20 foot boat.

    Romney by making his assertion basically proved how little he really knows about modern technology and strategy.

    He’s stuck in the 80′s as is his 17 neo-con advisers that came from the Bush administration.

    And Obama did not say none – he said “fewer” and if you look around at how many battles are fought with horses and bayonets.. it’s damn few… the majority are fought with modern weapons and strategy based on modern weaponry.

    1. LarryG, ships project power. Ships carry soldiers places. Ships serve as floating hospitals (As in Japan after the earthquake). The Navy says it needs a certain number, that’s a baseline, it should be met.

      1. ” The Navy says it needs a certain number, that’s a baseline, it should be met.”

        generally agree but having seen the inside of DOD for a number of years know just how bloated and expensive it can be.

        The bigger point is that the number of ships does not mean what it used to mean in terms of projecting force.

        yes..ships are needed for transport and other duties but combat – they are giant targets for anti-ship missiles and so number of ships is not the relevant metric it once was.

        Romney was using the number is an old way that showed he did not understand how technology and warfighting have changed since the 1980s.

        For instance, there is no more geo-political Soviet Union but there are asymmetric forces all over the place – capable of acquiring anti-ship missiles and easily taking out an Aegis Cruiser in tight quarters of the Persian Gulf or similar.

        To me it’s scary to think about Romney making decisions along these lines and being “helped” by 17 Neocons from the Bush administration.

        I think the man is smarter than that but I wonder.

    2. MacDaddyWatch

      Rear Admiral, Larry G, graduate of The Wikipedia School of Naval Warfare.

      That’s all YOU have to know…BBWWAAAAAAAAAAA!

      1. Here’s what Romney has no clue of and his Neo Con advisers don’t care about:

        ” The key threat in modern naval combat is the airborne missile, which can be delivered from surface, subsurface or airborne platforms. With missile speeds ranging up to Mach 4, engagement time may be only seconds. The key to successful defence is thus to destroy the launch platform before it fires, thus removing a number of missile threats at once. This is not always possible …”

        ships are not the same weapon they used to be and more of them just means more targets.

        Ships have become the water-borne version of the HumVee … and the NeoCons are just fine with sending our young to be sliced and diced to assert US power.

        ROmney and the NeoCons are grotesquely ignorant of the vulnerabilities of ships in the modern tactical battlespace.

        1. MacDaddyWatch

          Where were all the modern weapons available to Obama when the cries and screams for help were denied prior to the terrorist attack?

          Libs like you can’t defend out country by driving and looking out the rear view mirror and then suddenly going AWOL when the heat is on.

          Your messiah is a feckless and incompetent coward, unfit to command the war against terrorism.

          1. re: ” Where were all the modern weapons available to Obama when the cries and screams for help were denied prior to the terrorist attack?”

            they were in the same place they were when Bush had a dozen terrorist attacks plus 9-11 occur under his leadership and he was lying about renditions and torture in Iraq prisons.

            they were in the same place they were when 241 Marines died in Beirut while Ronald Reagan was telling everyone he was “out of the loop” on Iran-Contra.

  2. MacDaddyWatch

    What good are the aircraft carriers, submarines, fighter planes, bombs, tanks and all the military might on the planet if there are…

    …SCREAMS FOR HELP AND YOU FAIL TO USE THEM?

    If you have an incompetent, flaccid, limp coward in the Oval Office, all those weapons may as well be spears and stones. Its not what you have, its how you use it.

    But the story doesn’t end there…the coverup is always worse than the crime.

    Ohio: 48-48.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content