Invulnerable?
I always shudder when that term comes up in military hardware discussions.
One can make the case the Phalanx system could protect the newer ships from anti-ship missles and therefore this negates the Iowa's heavy armor plating advantage...
It seems that we have technology to negate other technologies.
One wonders what Rummy gets to see in terms of future technologies that may make this whole discussion a moot point? Frankly, I'll let him make the call for us and sleep very soundly at night knowing he's there to do the right thing and think forward and not backwards.
If the battleship deserves to be a part of the firepower support mission, he'll do it.
Technology is advancing so rapidly that one can see 10 or so of these newer ships using computer controlled firepower combined with advanced technology precision-guided munitions making a tremendous impact. 75 155mm shells fired from multiple ships by computers that enable the shells to arrive like a freight train -- one right after another -- would be rather impressive effect whether they are AP or HE shells.
Perhaps the key is in the "Jointness" of the future military's missions. Who says we can't have multiple platforms attacking targets to achieve the desired effect?
2 or 3 hundred 155mm shells followed by a bunkerbuster. Hmmm... Sounds like a good show to me.
Think of a combined solution and perhaps this debate becomes a little less polarized.
Battleships have unique capabilities when you look backwards. However, while I love the notion of seeing them at sea again, I am reminded that we have a unique military that uses combined forces with speed and agility to win battles and wars.
Read Rummy's statements about where he sees our military in the future. Big hint -- smaller, smarter, lighter, more agile and able to project power far faster than ever before.
The lethality index of our armed forces seems to be at an all-time high while minimizing civilian casualties. Now that is one hell of a remarkable American acheivement.
"Read Rummy's statements about where he sees our military in the future. Big hint -- smaller, smarter, lighter, more agile and able to project power far faster than ever before"
Not the whole thing. Parts of it will be though. The tank has still proved its worth in the curent war. But don't always think that technology can always win a war. An opponent with inferior technology and more superior numbers can overwhelm and defeat a technologically superior foe. Witness the destruction of the Wehrmacht in WWII. Though technically superior they were overrun by the Russian,American and British hoardes. Also consider the Korean war when the Chinese entered into it. These are lessons which should not be lost on us.
Given everything from his half assed record ass a congressman, to his working against Governor Reagan in 1976 and 1980, through today with his enthusiasm for forcing down standards and putting gals into combat, I think most conservatives would think twice about accepting Don's judgement. Mark Kirk and Heather Wilson are happy with it though, I'm sure.