2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFactChecker: Romney’s claim that the Navy is as small as in 1916 (3 Pinocchios)
The historical records of the Navy show that in 1916, the Navy had 245 ships. This was also the year that President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Naval Act of 1916, which put the United States on a crash course to build a world-class Navy.
But take a look at the types of ships on the list. Yes, there are cruisers and destroyers but also: Gunboats, Steel Gunboats, Torpedo Boats and Monitors (thats kind of a small warship). These types of boats arent on the list anymore. Instead, the current list of Navy ships includes behemoths such as aircraft carriers, SSBN (nuclear-powered, ballistic-missile carrying submarines) and SSGN (cruise-missile submarines).
In other words, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Romneys line reminds us of a similar strained comparison he made last year regarding the workforce needs to make ships during World War II and today. But in this case he goes even deeper back into history. After all, 1916 is not only before computers, it is before television even before regular radio broadcasts.
-snip-
The Pinocchio Test
This is a nonsense fact. In his counting of ships, Romney equates gunboats with aircraft carriers and torpedo boats with nuclear-powered submarines. For such an important speech, one would think the candidate would resolve to use the most relevant facts possible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-claim-that-the-navy-is-as-small-as-in-1916/2012/10/08/6f47e6d6-1191-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Reagan liked gunboat diplomacy...Like all contemporary R's, Romney is communing with the corpse:
Artillery is a matter of probability...it's not precise so you've got to have the capacity to throw a lot of shells to destroy a target.
GPS guided cruise missles make all those barrels and turrets a terribly expensive waste.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)He demanded a 600 ship navy, even though the many in the actual Navy didn't think it was necessary. He met the goal, but almost as soon as he did, the Navy started to mothball old ships (including many that were re-activated to pump up the numbers). It was a colossal waste of resources.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)He had to have those battleships and their old technology guns.
Of course a few years down the road that had deadly consequences for 47 seamen on the Iowa
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The extended the life of the Iowa-Class ships LONG past when they should have been scrapped. And stuff like that happens.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)RE: the size of the current Navy:
LINK:
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1346
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)We have to certain that we have the resouces to go toe-to-toe with the Al Queda Navy.
And we don't know how many ships they have, so we should built a hundred or so, you know, just to be sure.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)Not only that, but since Obama came in to office, he's been dismantling warships and subs for scrap metal --that's how Obama's Navy is so much smaller the Shrub's was just a few years earlier!!!
bushisanidiot
(8,064 posts).