And this with the Republicans running both the legislative and executive branches.
I thought about this the other day. We don't fight in the seas like we used to, but we have to maintain a strong navy for blockades, transport, reconnaissance, to protect marine trade, etc.
Christopher Dodd and all his useful idiotical Connecticut liberals can eat this. Let them condemn New London for the Chinese who need cheap labor to repair their vast sub fleet.
Many other countries, like China, are adding submarines.
Down the road, we're going to find ourselves in a crisis. We're going to need more subs and ships, but the technologies and facilities to build them may be gone.
One report on Fox overnight said the BRAC commission was getting its report ready and that the defense department wouldn't necessarily agree with it as it would delete some from the DOD list and add others. Cries of distress no matter what they come up with.
"You are so wrong."
It's amazing you got anyone to respond to this post.
Why base them in Georgia and Virginia and not on the west coast instead? What about the potential for Chinese control of the Panama canal? Has the shift in strategic threat removed any geographic advantage to a base in New England? Maybe. Certainly the Connecticut land could be given to a pharmaceutical company or some private developers. :)
I am stunned by the idiocy of some of these "new" military thinkers. Almost all of these projections somehow don't include China in their thinking. Stupid, inside the Beltway delusion.
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
A sea based fleet is our future. We can control any threatening situation from off-shore with navy guided missles and air superiority. Putting outnumbered boots on the ground with Humvees is 'old warfare'. WW II was it's high-water mark.
pings