[Paul Ross]

Thought you guys would be interested in taking a gander at the revisionist anti-submarine spin of several "defense" think tanks. These MUST be who Rumsfeld and GWB are being influenced by:

The Independent.

G2Mil

Note the disparaging lingo in this one:

Shows no respect for the service whatsoever. Perhaps one of you, without breaking regs, could speak to the disparaging of the SSN intelligence mission value.

G2Mil Practically preaches that the SSN force should be zeroed out, and is oblivious to the Pearl Harbor problem of a premptive first strike by China when we are in a low alert posture, as we have been since Xlinton. Furthermore, G2Mil totally ignores the threatening political situation of U.S. isolation being orchestrated from China, Russia, and France....and Venezuela and Brazil. It ignores the Mutual Assistance Pact between China and Russia...and what that really portends. The Russian's Topol-M is never once mentioned as the first strike weapon it could be. Their retention and continued maintenance until 2017 of the SS-18s which are purely first strike weapons. The at-sea SSN force presumably would survive such a knock-out blow, and at least still leave us with anything resembling a navy. The in-port ships would be lost. Carriers and subs all. The at-sea surface vessels may be much more vulnerable than we know, especially if the Chinese catch us completely unawares, and go full nuclear at the get go with their lethal stash of cruise missiles...many of which could be launched in fire & forget fashion from unconventional platforms...COSCO container/Freight ships for instance.

We need to be thinking outside the Liberal Box of G2Mil. G2Mil is right about the other Navy requirements, however. Which to me just says we are not spending enough for overall naval force mainentance and rebuilding. Cheney's mistake with regard to F-14 tooling is now really being felt. We need to look beyond force projection studies...and keep our eye on the vulnerability situation to preemption. And using Herman Kahn's approach to viewing all situations through the lens of enemy capability to do such a premptive attack. A robust SSN force, rather than where we are headed, would give us an optimum deterrent, in my view.

Also recommended reading: Interview of Rear Admiral Malcolm Fages, USN

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for these posts. Truely a mind opener. Sadly the eyes open to see a quite griveous situation unfold. What you write, posts, take some time to attempt to absorb. It is almost like one must already be "onboard" to appreciate the full ramifications you set forth. One thing. As with any DoD , their wisdom is fashioned mostly by the wisdom of others. One must select who best represents the best set of goals to work toward. We can use so many fine examples from the past, say the mental cacoon the Admiralty found itself in prior to the NAM war. How they where sucked in mostly by the weapon developers into a false idea that one no longer would fight in a ACM enviroment but fight long distance intercept type engagments, and therefore relied on the F4 Phantom design to be the new generation air superiority fleet aircraft using no guns only sparrow and sidewinders.
The rest is history. Likewise, Rummy only can do his best within budget restraints, and what is handed down to him, to best decide what paths to walk. For every admiral that may suggest one course of future development, you will find another group of admirals suggesting another path to follow.
If the status quo of fleet officers hand down a set of weapon systems to be adequate (what the hell that means half the time withing the context of current/future technologies), then that is what Rummy goes to congress with. It seems like the blame rest on our military planners as much if not more then on the SoD. No response solicited, I am sure you are quite aware of this. Just adding a generic thought as pertaining to Rummy's judgement.
Thanks for the really great horrible news.......groan.