Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:12 AM Oct 2012

FactChecker: 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 (that’s kind of a small warship). These types of boats aren’t 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. Romney’s 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

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FactChecker: Romney’s claim that the Navy is as small as in 1916 (3 Pinocchios) (Original Post) DonViejo Oct 2012 OP
I remember Reagan also doing a ship count and insisting on more HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #1
The magic number for Reagan was 600 Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2012 #2
Yes, but Reagan got to shell Lebanon's Bekaa Valley using the USS New Jersey. HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #4
That's exactly right Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2012 #5
Comments by SecDef Gates in 2009 JaneQPublic Oct 2012 #3
That's all well and good....but... Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2012 #6
LOL! JaneQPublic Oct 2012 #7
Lyin' "More War Mitt" loses again! bushisanidiot Oct 2012 #8

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
1. I remember Reagan also doing a ship count and insisting on more
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:25 AM
Oct 2012

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)
2. The magic number for Reagan was 600
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:48 AM
Oct 2012

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)
4. Yes, but Reagan got to shell Lebanon's Bekaa Valley using the USS New Jersey.
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:59 AM
Oct 2012

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)
5. That's exactly right
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:26 PM
Oct 2012

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)
3. Comments by SecDef Gates in 2009
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:59 AM
Oct 2012

RE: the size of the current Navy:

"...as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040."

LINK:
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1346

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
6. That's all well and good....but...
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:27 PM
Oct 2012

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)
7. LOL!
Tue Oct 9, 2012, 01:34 PM
Oct 2012

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!!!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»FactChecker: Romney’s cla...