Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The naval expansion needed to fight WW-II was planned 10 years earlier. FDR, to give the former Navy Secretary some credit, was way ahead of the British in this respect. There former First Sea Lord Churchill was frozen out of power. FDR's motivation wasn't primarily strategic. Cutting steel to build a navy was a jobs program. If the Democrats in 2008-'09 had been serious about the Stimulus they would have proposed a similar rearmaments program. Planning and executing a major weapons program takes over twice as long as it did 70 years ago. That is legitimate, despite the benefits of computer aided design and construction, due to the quantum increase in complexity.
Will the Navy get the funding to build the new missile defense ships?
Did the administration please Russia only to accidentally displease
China? Or was it a calculated move?
Was the Obama decision to abandon the Eastern European systems
(assuming the ships are built) really a better defense choice?
To answer your 4 questions.
1. No (The Navy will I predict be tied up in thought control sessions,
like after Tailhook)
2. Yes (They only dream of dealing with 2 issues at a time,
as said by others, they can't play chess)
3. No (Only in the juvenile sense that some giggling idiots in that crew
think they are being clever)
4. No (For the threat from Iran and for the alliance with the
East Europeans the land based systems were best)