Posted on 06/08/2013 4:34:43 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The United States is at a crossroads, and the American people must consider carefully an issue that has been creeping up on us for two decades. For most of the past 70 years, America enjoyed unquestioned naval global superiority, and we could be confident that the U.S. Navy could establish and sustain maritime dominance wherever and whenever needed.
However, since the early 1990s, America’s Navy has been in decline with our fleet shrinking from almost 600 ships to just 283 ships by the end of 2012. Now in 2013, President Obama has announced a new defense strategy for America that threatens to accelerate the continued decline of U.S. naval power, particularly relative to a burgeoning Chinese fleet. …
In the years after World War II, Great Britain’s military declined to a point where the British Army and the Royal Navy were (and remain) a shadow of what they used to be. Great Britain’s power and influence around the world waned in parallel, and the once-feared Royal Navy atrophied into what can perhaps best be described as a coastal defense force.
Is the United States headed down the same path today? Like Great Britain, America is under tremendous fiscal pressure and, as in Great Britain, powerful voices are pushing for drastic cuts in defense spending—some in order to avoid drastic reductions in social spending and others in order to stem further expansion of our national debt. …
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
America had the army it did in 1941 because the progressives had already fired up the military industrial complex during WWI. Prior to WWI, America’s military was virtually nonexistent outside of those remnants of the civil war and the Spanish American war in the late 1800s.
The military was mustered from militias handed to the federal government during wartime. It was the responsibility of the governors of each state to ensure every able bodies man was prepared in the event of a wind up to war. Otherwise, standing armies did not exist. The army and navy in the early years of this nation were relegated to the frontiers and borders and the patrolling of our waterways, respectively.
“Then may I ask, what should we do? ‘Nothing’ is NOT an alternative. “
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What would you have me say? We probably need a revolution like the one that started this country, but if I start saying anything more than that, the Secret Police (aka as homeland security) will have me hauled away and locked up forever without a trial as a terrorist. And no one here will know I am gone. I can do nothing as one man.
as Stalin once said.
No...
I was thinking more of a landslide that could not be changed by merely Chicago or Philadelphia or Ohio.
If you do a DILIGENT study of the available evidence concerning voter fraud in ‘12 I don’t know how you could believe that a landslide in the real vote would matter. The game is rigged.
I’d encourage you to read the Federalist Papers along with the writings of Jefferson and Madison. The idea behind the Second Amendment makes for much more than our right to self defense. Per the Militia Acts of 1792, the President has the right to call up the militias of the several states in order to put down a rebellion, insurrection, or invasion. The President may demand that the militia serve under him for a period of 2 years. This was first instituted to quell Shays’ Rebellion in 1792.
Later that year, the second Militia Act was written to conscript any and all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 into a militia company. The militias served at the specific command of the state unless otherwise called to service by the President.
The technical and tactical proficiency you speak of was part of the “well-regulated” portion of the Second Amendment which, at the time, meant “to be well-practiced and prepared.” As such, “A well-practiced and prepared militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...”
Remember, American men, many of whom were not professional soldiers, put down the sizable, professional British army, with their knowledge of the frontiers, their home lands, and their very deadly capabilities with a musket. It is in the nature of America’s founding that we all have the most favored and popular weapons of the time for an infantryman to maintain his practice and skill with a firearm.
Your personal and professional experience in the USMC (thank you greatly for your service, by the way) is certainly invaluable, and I personally believe that veterans such as you should make yourself available to teach men like me the skills you learned in the military. While I may never use them, the skills passing down to citizens means that we would be better prepared to suppress an invasion or, God-forbid, our own military if under the command of a despot such as Obama.
You are not incorrect to believe in today’s time we could not perform in the same manner as the modern military, but I contend that had the Second Amendment not been gutted over the last 100 years by progressives, we would all be permitted BARs, MP5s, select-fire AR15s and AR10s, etc. Instead, the government, in fear of her people, instituted laws to ensure that the “professional” armies have those weapons while Americans, who are to be well-regulated per the Second Amendment’s implied instruction, cannot or are otherwise prohibited due to cost.
In Switzerland, young men are required to have a select-fire AR15-platform rifle in their home with sufficient ammunition. They are also required to report once-a-month for drill and/or target practice. It has been this way for hundreds of years and is the reason why both Napoleon and Hitler would not invade them.
Likewise, in Norway, young men and women are required to serve at least a year in the military to become acculturated to the hardware in use in the event the Ruskies get itchy trigger fingers again.
It’s only in America, a country labeled as “gun fanatics” by the world, that we are prohibited from training with the best weapons available to the militaries of the world. It’s only in America, a country founded and based on the ideas of independence and self-reliance, that we are forced to jump through red tape and legal BS to even have the ability to purchase a select-fire weapon, if we could afford it. It’s only in America, a country once associated with the most powerful military in the world, that we cannot protect our own homeland or otherwise train in military tactics, because in many states it is actually illegal to provide paramilitary training to citizens.
I’m not saying that your service and your professional training isn’t invaluable Gunny. I’m saying that prior to the 1900s, it was expected that every man in America had the ability to show up for militia muster with his own weapons and was sufficiently trained to use them. It was actually AGAINST THE LAW to not show up if your company was mustered, and those who broke the law were subject to court martial by a military court.
My how far we have fallen.
-—— with their knowledge of the frontiers, their home lands, and their very deadly capabilities with a musket. -——
They were at war or had been with Indians. Those wars lasted for perhaps 200 years
Our first armies were militias, Gunny. Our first navy consisted of merchants firing cannons from their vessels. Everything we’ve done militarily is because of the militia.
I’m not saying that we completely gut the military, but having an enormous contingent of infantrymen, especially domestic, is not necessary provided the Second Amendment is fully-enforced. We’re talking about 200 million armed men and women in this nation. Yeah, you’re not going to get every one of them fighting like a devil dog, but a 200 million-strong theater would make any field marshal shit his britches.
Why shouldn’t every American have access to modern weapon systems? Why couldn’t we teach professional pilots how to fly a multi-million dollar aerial war platform? Why couldn’t we teach boaters, both recreational and professional, how to manage the floating fortresses currently in use by our Navy? Why couldn’t we teach Americans hunters and recreational shooters the same skills taught in SERE training? These are all skills that are taught to America’s elite, and America’s elite come from the same communities in which we live and work. To say that every American doesn’t have the ability in them is to dismiss the greatness of every man and woman.
The American military is the largest volunteer armed force in the world, and for that, we are strong, but to dismiss the capabilities of 200 million armed Americans when we could potentially face down a few hundred million Chinese infantrymen in a land invasion is foolhardy and arrogant of even the greatest of American armed servicemen like you.
The militia is not intended to be a professional army. That was never the intent, and I’m not advocating for a full draw-down of America’s fighting forces. For domestic security, America’s strength is in the Second Amendment and the militia. Just because the concept of militias has been regulated to moonbattery and middle eastern thug brigades doesn’t mean that they are not an integral part of America’s last line of defense in the event of an invasion.
Chris Lehman speaks in generalities but does not provide the information needed to make an informed decision. Moreover, he NEVER defines what he means by China’s “burgeoning” navy. In today’s world, the key ship for any Navy is the aircraft carrier. Let’s compare the US to China and Russia.
As of 2012 when this issue was raised in the Presidential debates, the US had 11 deployable Nuclear aircraft carriers which included 10 Nimitz class carriers and 1 Enterprise Class carrier. The Enterprise has since been retired. However, it will be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford, the first in a new class of carrier which began construction in 2009 and is to be christened in 2013. However, it will not be commissioned until 2016.
Please note that the Russians and Chinese have NO nuclear carriers. That’s correct! Not one. As of today, the Russians have exactly one operational carrier, the “Admiral Kuznetsov”. However, it would be a mistake to say that this ship is in anyway equivalent to any of our carriers. It has had constant repair issues and there are reports that because it has no catapults, it has trouble launching fully loaded fighters. In other words, it can’t really do “force projection”. The Chinese currently have no operational carriers. Their current carrier, the “Liaoning” was originally the Ukranian Varyag, a second ship of the Kuznetsov class. It has been refurbished and is finally doing jet landing and take-off training. However, it is still not operational.
Note: Here is a source that is a little dated but provides info on the problems of the Kuznetsov. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1143_5.htm.
I suspect that Chris Lehman already knows these numbers and purposely neglected to provide this information which is unfortunate given that he is the former special assistant for national security affairs to President Reagan from 1983 to 1985.
I have read “reports” that China is currently building 2 new carriers, but have yet to see any satellite photos that confirm this. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/29/uk-china-carrier-idUKBRE87R15Z20120829
“Note the quote that satellite analysis of Chinese shipyards show no evidence of construction activity.
Even if Russians and Chinese were to embark on a rapid carrier construction program, it would take at least 3-5 years to build a carrier and another few years for it to be deployable. Please note that neither country has our experience or the facilities (Newport News) to build carriers, so it might require even more time.
Additionally, the Chinese and Russians currently have fewer than 50 carrier capable planes each. These planes would also have to be built and pilots would have to be trained. In short, if we pick a 10 year window, the Russians and Chinese together would still not have even one-third as many carriers as we have. In 15 years, they would still probably not have even half as many. Also, the Chinese will be 2-3 classes behind us in Nuclear carrier construction, i.e., we will already be on our 2nd and 3 class of Nuclear carriers before they have any.
By the way if any of you have the opportunity I highly recommend that you take one of the harbor cruises in Norfolk, VA. It is awesome. You get a chance to see numerous Navy ships including Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers, Arleigh Burke class Missile Destroyers, Los Angeles Class attack submarines, and usually, in the last berth, a Nimitz Class carrier.
The United States has far and away the most powerful Navy in the world. Even if this were not the case, it would be difficult for us to increase our Navy to even 400 ships, much less the 500 that I have seen people suggest. Why is that? The costs are staggering. During our harbor cruise we saw somewhere between 7-9 Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke Destroyers. Our harbor guide threw out a cost of $1.2 billion for each of these ships. (see http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4 for the Navy’s estimate). Please note that we have 22 cruisers and 62 destroyers in our current fleet.
The build cost for a Nimitz class Carrier is $4.5 billion each. Note that is build or roll-off cost and not the operating cost over the life of the carrier.
I love our military and want us to win any engagement that we have with an enemy force. However, the costs to maintain our present “blue water” Navy is daunting which is why no other country in the world has one. Also, cruise missiles and similar technologies are cheap which means that there are significant issues around the vulnerability of a $6+ billion carrier task force. As voters we need to be educated to help our elected officials determine the best way to spend our tax dollars. Presenting overall numbers without context does not help.
Zumwalt!
According to whose intelligence? Hard for the gutted US intelligence to tell; and they’re too busy spying on US citizens and ignoring our enemies to know. The NIE that the libs got all heated up over concerning Iran’s status insofar as nuclear weapons was way off.
Please note that the Russians and Chinese have NO nuclear carriers
You stated:
What are you saying here? Are you saying that the current Chinese and/or Russian aircraft carriers are really nuclear and we don’t know it?
If this is what you are claiming than please note that the current Russian Carrier Kuznetsov was launched in 1985 and construction of the Varyag (now the Chinese Carrier Liaonig) began in 1985 as well. Ronald Reagan was President and I don’t believe that our intelligence had been “gutted” as you claim at that time. Are you saying that our intelligence services missed the fact that these carriers were secretly nuclear since 1985?
Or are you saying that either the Chinese or Russians secretly built Nuclear Aircraft Carriers and we did not know about it? An aircraft carrier is one of the largest and most complex weapon system ever built. These are not like the nuclear laboratories in Iran which can be more easily hidden in bunkers and moved. They require a large shipyard and thousands of workers which is pretty easy to see by satellite. By comparison we had photos of the so called “Chinese stealth fighter” pretty soon after it flew and that is just one little plane.
Also, an aircraft carrier is a weapon system. That means that you have to test the ship, its systems and all of the planes that are deployed to the carrier. Building the aircraft carrier and testing all of the systems requires many years. In fact the Kuznetsova required a full decade to become operational and it is not even nuclear. Are you saying that the intelligence services of the US and all of our allies missed the construction and testing of a “secret” nuclear carrier for ten years?
I’m saying that what we think we know, we certainly may not. A country with a gutted intelligence system can be fooled by anyone, even supposed allies.
Here is the bottom line.
You can’t simply look at numbers of ships, you have to look at their capabilities. The carrier task force is the premier weapon group of the modern Navy.
The US Navy outnumbers both the Russian and Chinese navies 10 carriers to 1. Actually, we outnumber China 10 carriers to 0 since their current carrier can sail but is not truly operational, i.e., it has not completed sea trials and may only be used as a test platform.
It takes at 3-5 years to build a carrier and at least 5 years to complete sea trials and make it operational so we are probably looking at a full decade before either China or Russia brings another carrier online.
Chris Lehman’s article is misleading because it does not provide any of this information. More importantly, he has not discussed the massive costs associated with a modern navy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.