Sea Power

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 05/20/2008 5:59:03 PM

    Comment: I am not so sure. One of the best arguments to be made for carrier platforms is that they are mobile,and negate the need for landbased air forces which are subject to attack and the whim of dictatorial regimes.[the attacks on the Air Forces Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and our very military presence there were cases in point]. Obviously ''special operations ''and smaller frigate-class ships may work with a Middle East,especially in the Gulf,but will have no outcome on any conflict with China,which seeks a Gorshkov [father of the post WWII Soviet Navy],solution by the injection of sheer numbers of craft into the east Asian mix. To confront this,we must have flexibility in one theater,and muscle in the other. Fleet transfer,as in WWII and the Cold War,is one answer. Look to China to conduct client-state conflicts in order to keep the US off-guard. They will begin,with Iran.

  • Posted By: Cavallino_Rapante @ 05/20/2008 4:07:23 PM

    Comment: The author suggests that China won't become the next USSR - it very-well could be. It has already annexed Tibet (through brute force), Hong Kong....will Taiwan be next? What will happen then, I wonder. Who is to say the USA would just turn its back on such actions simply because Wal-Mart fills its shelves with China's poisonous junk? Keep those Carriers and Boomers crusing the South China Sea.....Bin Ladin might not have a Navy, but the next SuperPower of the East sure has one.

  • Posted By: pochero @ 05/20/2008 2:40:52 AM

    Comment: Isn't "strategic" an adjective, not a noun?

Sponsored by
 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Luxury stadiums are on the rise. A top seat can cost $150,000. Beer costs extra.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
VIEWPOINT

The vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. So who are the 10 percent who think everything is A-OK?

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu