Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Good News and Bad News

First; sorry for missing yesterday's post. My refrigerator broke and I had to work on fixing it. I was just putting it back together when the wife and I received a call we have been expecting: Grandson #3 was here, so we bailed to the hospital. Afterward I sat on the back porch with a cold beer and a cigar, enjoying the weather.

So, I had my very good reasons.

And now; last night's debate.

I'll be honest; after about a half hour I turned off the TV and just listened on the radio. After another 20 minutes I was asleep.

Who do I think won? Hell; I don't care who won. Romney whupped butt in the first debate, and won the second as well. Let Obama win this one; he'll need a consolation prize.

But I saw this quote a few minutes ago:

OBAMA: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. ”

How much less could Obama understand Naval Operations?

Admittedly, my understanding of Nav Ops is from reading Tom Clancy and playing Civilization, so I am not an expert by any means.


Has anybody ever heard of a carrier Task Force? We may talk about sending a Carrier into the Persian Gulf, but we don't send just one ship, we send a couple of dozen. Some are for the defense of the carrier, and some are for the supplies the ships will need; fuel, armaments, food- anything that will be need to keep the group afloat and on the move.

Right now we have 11 Carrier Task Groups. Lets just assume 10 ships to each group; 110 ships all told. almost half of Obama's current Navy. Sure the Carriers are the most important ships in the Navy, but we also need troop and tank carriers, tankers and freighters and a dozen other styles of ships I know nothing about, plus the subs and their tenders.

How can some redneck in Kentucky have a better grasp of naval operations than the President?

Part of the issue with numbers of ships is we can't have just one of something. Ships are tools. Assume I have one 3/4 inch wrench in my tool box. It is a popular size, and almost constantly in use. When I lose that wrench I have nothing to replace it with, and all of the jobs I needed a 3/4 wrench for I am now unable to do.

What happens to our ability to perform when we have one guided missile cruiser, and we need that cruiser in both the China Sea and the Persian Gulf? or we need it in the China Sea, but it was sunk in the Persian Gulf?

I have said many times that the sole legitimate purpose of the Federal Government is the protection of our borders, and the United States Military is the sole tool we have for that purpose.

The weaker Obama makes our protection, the more threats we have to face, and the fewer resources we will have to address those threats.

I'm not saying we don't need to prepare for the changing threats we will face in the future.

But by the same token, don't ignore current threats while you do.

By the way, I love Romney's face in that image; he looks like Law Professor, letting a student who has no idea what he is talking about run off at the mouth while the rest of the class is gradually realizing that the student they thought was a genius has just exposed himself as an ass.

No comments: