The Fleet of 1917

In the last Presidential debate, Mitt Romney was justifiably concerned that the U.S. Navy in the next few years will have the fewest number of ships in its fleet since 1917. This drew a snarky response from President Obama that Mitt hadn't kept up on things like planes landing on the deck of ships and vessels that go underwater. Snark all you want, but our attack carriers have been cut back already and if you don't have enough well-equipped destroyers to screen them, then the "vessels that can submerge" will sink the carriers at will. There are some other facts that people should know about why we need a sizeable and modern Navy.

Did you know that much of the world's internet traffic funnels through a couple of ocean choke points? Much of the world's oil and trade do likewise. Since these are all at sea, it takes a robust Navy to keep them open in the face of an unfriendly nation intent on doing the U.S. - or much of the rest of the world - harm. It's too bad Mitt didn't throw this right back in Obama's face and outline the strategic reasons a weak Navy endangers the U.S. I am quite sure that Obama would not have been prepared to participate in such a discussion. Somebody needs to, and soon.

townhall.com/columnists/austinbay/2012/10/24/barack_and_mitt_the_war_for_the_us_navy_has_just_begun