[RetiredArmy]

Don't fret. The pork congress will not cut too much. Too many federal tax payers on the payrolls at these large bases that cover the subs and carriers. They want to keep their voter base happy.

[kas2591]

Anybody ever read 'Debt of Honor' by Tom Clancy? There's a whole lot of potential in the Pacific and IO for future problems that are not LIC.

Carriers and amphibious capability (also something they're thinking about slowing the new development of) are force projection elements of a nation's strategic tool box, be it for diplomatic or military regions.

Attack subs give you a sea lane control capability that no other platform can. Downsizing this imprudently can limit your ability to both close down an adversary's maritime choke points in the event of a conflict or a crisis as well as limiting your ability to keep your own choke points free for your use.

The Chinese have figured this out. So has Japan.

[LSUfan]

I must say that this plan is just horrible. It shows me that the Bush admin is not of the caliber and vision of the Reagan admin.

[snowsislander]

This is a plan of "strong on defense" Republicans? I wonder what "weak on defense" Democrats would have come up with.

[JZelle]

Was I dreaming last November, or did Kerry win.

[Mulder]

As this nation's manufacturing and technology base continues to be shipped overseas, and the turd-worldization of America continues, I'd be surprised if we could even field 5 carriers in 30 years.