[Wombat101]

What planet are you living on? Naval warfare obsolete?

Right now, as we speak, 26 nations have submarines, capable of interdicting trade and supply lines and attacking shore bases with standoff weapons.

Right now, as we speak, 6 nations have aircraft carriers capable of bringing airpower right to your front doorstep in varying capacities.

Right now, 3/4 of the world's crude oil is moved by ships that need to be defended. 40% of the world's raw materials are moved by ship.

Right now, five (and possibly as many as seven) nations have nuclear warheads on missiles sitting aboard submarines.

As long as we use the sea as a highway it will need to be defended by a navy. As long as other nations also have navies, we will need one. Naval combat is not obsolete, it has just changed it's character.

[XJarhead]

As long as we use the sea as a highway it will need to be defended by a navy. As long as other nations also have navies, we will need one. Naval combat is not obsolete, it has just changed it's character.

Excellent point. If you want to project significant ground forces anywhere and keep them supplied for an extended period, you have to use ships. And if you don't have a Navy to protect those ships, you cannot project that power.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Within the next few years years we will deploy weapons systems with the ability to destroy any surface ship, anywhere in the world, any time of day or night, from space. Naval surface vessels are rapidly becoming nothing more than big, fat, easy-to-kill targets. The submarine fleet will remain viable for a lot longer, and will still be a key part of our defenses.

The Admirals who opposed Billy Mitchell had all sorts of reasonable-sounding arguments, too. Rumsfeld is at least trying to get the military ready to fight the wars of the future.