The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post - Barrett Tillman's NAVAL INSTITUTE article

Barrett · 25 June 2009, 11:31 AM

Buz, thank you. It's nice to hear from somebody who agrees with me for a change!

Feel free to contribute to "Comment & Discussion."

Here's the link for those who may be interested:

Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute

Contrary to what's been claimed (apparently by those who jump on the title rather than, like, yaknow, READ THE ARTICLE) I do not state we don't need a navy. I do wonder if we need the navy we actually have. Moreover, I note the undeniable trend since 1945 that navies no longer determine the course of history, and if we want to keep a viable fleet at all, the naval community dangwell should be asking the questions I raise. Considering that the current admin AND congress is talking DoD cuts up to 25%, the admirals and pentagonal suits should be discussing "F&L" in rawther detailed fashion.

I also note that the Royal Nivey is already where we may be headed: too small to matter beyond some local feuds, leading to establishment of "savethenavy.com" web sites.

It's a real dilemma: we are not repeat not gonna fight China because that would ruin both economies. And since even with 280 ships & subs we have about 2.5X the force of the chinese and russians combined, nobody's in a position to challenge us even if they wanted to commit economic suicide. So what sorta navy should we have for the XXI century?

I ended the article by saying "Let the discussion begin" but instead it's more of a knee-jerk, defensive response. In any case, at least I can say "I tried."

25 June 2009, 11:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
Barrett Forum Ace of Aces Join Date: Aug 1998 Location: The American West Posts: 4,613	Buz, thank you. It's nice to hear from somebody who agrees with me for a change! Feel free to contribute to "Comment & Discussion." Here's the link for those who may be interested: Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute Contrary to what's been claimed (apparently by those who jump on the title rather than, like, yaknow, READ THE ARTICLE) I do not state we don't need a navy. I do wonder if we need the navy we actually have. Moreover, I note the undeniable trend since 1945 that navies no longer determine the course of history, and if we want to keep a viable fleet at all, the naval community dangwell should be asking the questions I raise. Considering that the current admin AND congress is talking DoD cuts up to 25%, the admirals and pentagonal suits should be discussing "F&L" in rawther detailed fashion. I also note that the Royal Nivey is already where we may be headed: too small to matter beyond some local feuds, leading to establishment of "savethenavy.com" web sites. It's a real dilemma: we are not repeat not gonna fight China because that would ruin both economies. And since even with 280 ships & subs we have about 2.5X the force of the chinese and russians combined, nobody's in a position to challenge us even if they wanted to commit economic suicide. So what sorta navy should we have for the XXI century? I ended the article by saying "Let the discussion begin" but instead it's more of a knee-jerk, defensive response. In any case, at least I can say "I tried." __________________ You will not rise to the occasion: You will default to your level of training.