Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The Biggest WTF? Moment in Mitt's VMI Speech

Bette Noir has a good overview of Mitt Romney's VMI Speech, but I feel I have to mention one weird moment that had me scratching my bald pate in puzzlement:


The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.


The veracity of this statement can be determined with a little bit of research. In terms of the number of ships, the current U.S. Navy has forty more ships than its 1916 counterpart. Of course, this raw number doesn't address the fact that the firepower packed by today's navy is dramatically greater than that of 1916's navy. Today's navy includes eleven floating cities of doom that would have been inconceivable in 1916- each of these carriers forms the nucleus of a sophisticated mini-fleet. Modern military technology allows our current navy to project power at a much greater range than that of the early 20th century navy.

Mitt's claim, characterized by CNN as pointless, represents another unforced error- it was a stupid claim, easily fact-checked. The fact that Mitt included it in an allegedly "major" foreign policy speech reveals the depth of his ignorance and the breadth of his arrogance- did he not think that someone would research this issue?

Personally, I think Mitt came across his skewed view of the navy while researching pop culture in a hopeless attempt to seem hip.

10 comments:

Smut Clyde said...

At this point he's just trolling the battleship bloggers at LGM.

Helmut Monotreme said...

I'm sure that if you totaled up the tonnage of the 1916 navy, it would barely be a rounding error on the total tonnage of the current navy. The difference in firepower would be orders of magnitude greater. Trolling the battleship bloggers is good fun though, you should try it and see.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

the battleship bloggers at LGM.

Somehow, I can imagine this without even needing to go check it out.
~

mikey said...

And the most important factor, which he doesn't seem to be aware of, is that various threads of technology (real time satcomms, GPS, digital imaging, autonomous systems etc) are in the process of coming together to allow the creation of an effective anti-ship ballistic missile. Current anti-ship missiles are of limited effectiveness, because in order for them to hit a moving target in the ocean the have to act more like an airplane than a missile, and as such can be shot down with alacrity.

Once you can effectively guide a ballistic missile in re-entry and terminal phases, there will be virtually no defense, and surface combatants will not be able to survive in contested waters.

To embark on a costly buildup of the surface navy at this point in the technology arc would be wasteful, and leave American forces MORE vulnerable in the nest ten years, not less...

M. Bouffant said...

Fuck, he's not comparing apples & oranges, he's comparing groatcakes &
tuna salad. A colossally shallow jerk.

Another Kiwi said...

Nice catch Mr. Bastard. Mitt does know that they aren't wooden ships, doesn't he?

Smut Clyde said...

Mitt came across his skewed view of the navy while researching pop culture

I was expecting "Tied Down with Battleship Chains".

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

At this point he's just trolling the battleship bloggers at LGM.

I imagine LGM also has "Battleship Potemkin" bloggers.

I'm sure that if you totaled up the tonnage of the 1916 navy, it would barely be a rounding error on the total tonnage of the current navy. The difference in firepower would be orders of magnitude greater.

Ditto for personnel.

Somehow, I can imagine this without even needing to go check it out.

Yeah, there's a lot of "trainspotter" types hanging out on teh t00bz.

Once you can effectively guide a ballistic missile in re-entry and terminal phases, there will be virtually no defense, and surface combatants will not be able to survive in contested waters.

Yeah, already carrier strike groups are seen as on their way out.


To embark on a costly buildup of the surface navy at this point in the technology arc would be wasteful, and leave American forces MORE vulnerable in the nest ten years, not less...


Well, Mitt and his defense contractor buddies can make some serious bank, who cares about some poor swabbies being a bunch of sitting ducks?

Fuck, he's not comparing apples & oranges, he's comparing groatcakes &
tuna salad. A colossally shallow jerk.


He's comparing guppies to sharks.

Nice catch Mr. Bastard. Mitt does know that they aren't wooden ships, doesn't he?

I don't know if he does- he's not the brightest candle in the Tabernacle.

I was expecting "Tied Down with Battleship Chains".

Too current for Mitt, and not cheesy/campy enough.

Smut Clyde said...

Nothing wrong with wooden ships, AK.

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

I have been trying to figure out who's the bigger liar..Mittens or his running mate, Lyin Ryan.

Could it be a toss-up? ;-)