Opinion | Build a bigger or better navy

The January 5th editorial said, “A large navy is essential. A more lethal navy would be even better.” While they were right to call for a more lethal navy, they should not plan for additional ships. There was no need to make the sacrifice of abandonment. It’s not one or the other, it’s both.

The editorial argues that because it is “magical thinking” that will solve the Navy’s draft problems, declining shipyard capacity, and lack of skilled labor, the United States should simply face the music and do better with what it already has. You’re making a false assumption that you should do it.

This approach would cede naval superiority to China, but China’s shipbuilding capacity currently far exceeds ours, with China’s shipbuilding capacity 232 times greater on a tonnage basis. The Chinese navy’s incredible numerical superiority would negate any technological or “lethal” advantage of the United States.

To compete with China, we need to build better ships, but we also need more ships. We must also address the serious problems facing shipyards, which the editorial rightly pointed out. Thankfully, we have solutions, starting with accelerating and funding shipyard infrastructure optimization programs, focusing on job training, and increasing overall defense spending.

We can afford to solve these problems and build more ships. US defense spending remains at just 3.5% of gross domestic product, less than half of what it was at the height of the previous Cold War. To beat the next navy, we need a bigger and more powerful navy.

The author is a Republican who represents Nebraska in the Senate.

The Jan. 5 editorial on the Navy makes a great point. Due to budget and infrastructure constraints, the size of the navy cannot be expanded for the time being. thus making the current navy more deadly.

That’s good advice, with one big exception. Given the flaws in the National Defense Strategy (NDS), is increasing naval lethality sufficient or even achievable? The current NDS directs the Pentagon to compete with China, deter it, and win the “pacing challenge” in the event of war. Russia, ‘serious threat’. Iran; North Korea; and extremism.

But the current NDS is incapable of achieving anything other than preventing nuclear war, which no sane person would start, and that’s a different issue.

Where could Russia and China be deterred? Is it threatening Georgia, Ukraine, or Taiwan?

I can’t handle that strategy. Uncontrolled real annual cost growth is about 5-7% per year for everything from people to pencils to precision weapons. So, with inflation and continued resolutions, the Pentagon will need to add about 10 percent a year, or about $70 billion to $90 billion, just to balance. And we cannot staff the troops.

To implement the requirements of Title 10, which is mandated to ensure that the Department of Defense and the services are prepared to conduct rapid and sustained combat operations across the air, land, sea, cyber, and space domains, the Strategies for crew participation that are realistic, achievable, and affordable are critically needed. .

Otherwise, all services will be reduced and will not be able to compensate for lower numbers with greater lethality. But who is listening?

Harlan Ullman, Washington

The author is a senior advisor to the Atlantic Council and a former distinguished visiting professor and distinguished senior fellow at the Naval War College.

I am disappointed that the editorials supporting a more lethal navy say nothing about human survival, which depends on finding humane, non-lethal ways to achieve world peace and security. did.

harvey yoder, harrisonburg, virginia

Source link

Related Posts

Next Post

Follow Us



    Please install/update and activate JNews Instagram plugin.