[smith288]

I think Obama’s a tool for that but his point is still valid. Romney is using a date that reflects a VERY different time of war strategy with our fleet. I agree, though, that Obama showed his own cluelessness but the lazy voter will see Obama’s point more than Romney’s in that sound bite. Remember, our culture is all about soundbites and Obama bit him on that one for the shallow voter.

[wiseprince]

To be fair to Romney he mentioned a specific number of aircraft that was requested and he compared it to the number we had. He was making a broader point that the military is weaker just as Obama was making a broader point that the military was more modern (they weren’t really addressing each others points)

[F.J. Mitchell]

The good news is that there are no shallow undecided voters to win or lose. The shallows are already committed to Obama.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The good news is that there are no shallow undecided voters to win or lose. The shallows are already committed to Obama.

[Goldsborough]

I wonder how many times we need to go through fleet drawdowns and fleet build ups to get to the point of understanding that a stable and capable naval force in peacetime ensures the very maritime peace we seek to keep.

Yes, the current wars are in navally insignificant Iraq and landlocked Afghanistan, but the maritime threat is the same as it has been since the end of the Cold War, the burgeoning naval power of China, and its threat to what used to generally be called Taiwan, before the cowards in DC began referring to it as Chinese Taipei.

Now, the Chinese Navy seeks to become THE hegemonic maritime power in the Western Pacific and has already rattled its sabers at the PI, Japan, Taiwan, and India. By backing NK, they have also indirectly threatened S, Korea.

Supporting naval power sufficient to the task is an essential guarantee to our allies in the region. 316 ships, at the operational tempo they are asked to operate at, especially with an oversized fraction of our naval power located rather foolishly on the Eastern Seaboard as some sort of welfare project, isn't getting the geopolitical task done.

The fallacy of government planners is always taking the current conflicts to be the future of conflict. With China practicing shooting down satellites and practicing submarine warfare against our carriers, the future of naval conflict, if anything, looks more dangerous and complex than it ever was. However, the CINC apparently thinks we need more Kerrys on Swiftboats, and more frogmen even if they can't make them very fast without lowering standards, and fewer advanced warships and submarines, which could actually keep China's territorial ambitions in check.

[NCC-1701]

Did anyone notice Zero called a submarine a ship? A sub is a boat and carriers, destroyers, etc are ships. Bet a lot of submariners caught that incorrect terminology.

[trebb]

I think Obama’s a tool for that but his point is still valid. Romney is using a date that reflects a VERY different time of war strategy with our fleet. I agree, though, that Obama showed his own cluelessness but the lazy voter will see Obama’s point more than Romney’s in that sound bite. Remember, our culture is all about soundbites and Obama bit him on that one for the shallow voter.

The shallow voter is already in Zero's camp; it's the not-so-shallow voter that will see the inanity of using a one-liner to try to make fun of a comment that started with, "the Navy says it needs 313 ships to accomplish its mission, we now have 280 and it may drop to 200 with sequestration". Zero's quip was both irrelevant and made light of a serious topic - the Navy says it is unable to fulfill its commitments with curent numbers and the numbers are fixing to head south in a big way. Obam's reply made as much sense as telling us we could save as much oil as he was stopping us from producing by airing up our tires and tuning our cars..