funny ringtones

The author's comment, "What if a bunch of Europeans said 'you know we care more about nation building than old fashioned warfare' and we're going to completely restructure our militaries to reflect what we believe in. And not only that, we believe in alliances and burden sharing and are going to leave it to the United States and others to protect us if there is truly an external threat." is quite accurate, although unintentionally disengenuous. 60 years ago the western Europeans decided, deliberately and as a matter of policy, to abdicate their sovereign defense responsibilities to the US military, reserving to themselves the right only to criticize the US for the manner in which we defended their right to 7 weeks of vacation, job security equal to academic tenure and domestic and government funded social systems that would have been the envy of any Eastern Bloc European nation.

In point of fact, all the democratic blather about "Multilateralism" and "Coalitions of the Willing" were pointless in both of the two Gulf wars; the UK excepted, the NATO powers' militaries are so underfunded, undertrained and undermotivated that their actual contributions in terms of hardware and personnel to the West's goals in those conflicts were certainly a net hindrance in those conflicts for any support purpose other than PR spin.

The Europeans (again excepting the UK) have indeed structured their militaries to reflect what they believe in. And quite successfully. They believe that there is nothing at stake in their nations worth fighting for, and they will, with a certainty approaching unity, be ultimately proven correct.

"What if a bunch of Europeans said 'you know we care more about nation building than old fashioned warfare' and we're going to completely restructure our militaries to reflect what we believe in. And not only that, we believe in alliances and burden sharing and are going to leave it to the United States and others to protect us if there is truly an external threat."
You know, that's pretty much what Sweden is doing as we speak.

Welcome, Pat
I thought it wasn't a sea story unless it has a storm in it. Or is that just the surface fleet guys?

Speaking of storms, I have to acknowledge that one advantage of subs is their ability to slip under when it gets rough topside. Plus i would think that rain hitting the surface and crashing waves would tend to put noise on the sonar.

I've always wandered if subs can use a tropical storm/hurricane/typhoon to slip into toward shore while the surface swabbies are riding it out about 200 miles aways -- puking their guts out over the side. heh heh

The NGIA pilot charts indicate that North Atlantic gales ain't much fun in winter, either.

Plus the NGIA pilot charts indicate that icebergs floating down from Greenland in the spring thaw make things interesting for the surface guys as well. Especially at 30 knots.

While I may critique Pentagon procurement offices at times, I ,like many others, appreciate your service.

not enough time to read all the posts here, but i did scan a few. since everyone has an opinion and most believe their's to be right, i'll avoid that trap.

i will pass along three items of fact: when we were out punching holes in the ocean in places we weren't supposed to be , the only times we cut and ran was when a ruskie diesel boat came along and submerged and switched to battery ops. their nukes we could hear from across the ocean, but them pesky battery boats... they weren't much for long distance patrols (hat's off to the WWII guys!) but for coastal defense, they couldn't be beat. i imagine we could build at least one or two for the cost of a new nuke boat. sometimes sheer numbers do count for something.

second... yeah, we kept our mouths shut. (the places we went and things we did are fairly believable; the crap we inflicted on each other to break the boredom less so.) those that don't are contributors to books like "blind man's bluff," an excellent study of cold war sub funnies. major contributors usually had the abbreviation "Adm. (Ret.)" after their names. imagine my amazement to see one of my own boats listed - had to read it to see they got my name right!!

three... we got a new skipper one day and he decided he was going to "level" with us just after pulling out of the driveway for a SpecOp. he got out the map and pointed to our (general) playground, the GIUK gap, which is the natural bottleneck for the soviet northern fleet. our job was to hunt/kill their boats (subs) and he told us that the boys in the funny building had estimated the ratio would be 1 of ours for every 2.5 of theirs. made me long for the old days when i was a plankowner on the turtle...

anyway, that's the way we used to do it on the 'usetafish,' and if you don't believe me, i've got a no-shitter to tell you. one day we were at crush dep----------

1)For example, submariners' opinions may be based on the capabilities/limitations of sonar systems deployed in the past.

2) But suppose China's scientists used advances in photonics to develop and deploy highly sensitive seabed sonar arrays using fiber optics and lasers?
See,e.g, the section "Laser Driven" at the bottom of http://lfw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=206980&VERSION_NUM=1

3) Suppose this advanced sonar could pick up and target US attack subs up to 500 miles from China's coast. After all, you can put a lot more signal processing gear in a building on shore than you can stuff into a sub.

4) In that case, the submarine's major, inherent shortcomings become a big problem:
a) submarines are much slower than transport airplanes dropping torpedos -- say 40 mph versus 300 mph.
b) submarine "stealth" works both ways. Submarines rarely know what's in the air above them. A submarine targeted by the above seabed sonar would be a sitting duck-- receiving no warning until it heard the splash of torpedos landing overhead.
c) It will always be possible to build torpedos which run faster, dive deeper, and turn faster than submarines carrying lots of human beings and life support systems for the same. The Air Force has realized this re smart missiles vs jet fighters -- the Navy hasn't caught on yet.
d) The duel may not be one sub vs one torpedo -- it may be one sub vs a swarm of torpedos.

5) Bullshit is still bullshit, even when it has an admiral's signature on it.

In that regard, one of the articles submitted by reticulant -- the statement by Rear Admiral Paul Sullivan to the Senate Armed Services Committee -- was interesting. Not that I blame Admiral Sullivan --he was ,after all, addressing Congress.

But Admiral Sullivan's statement that submarines' have a "remarkably high tooth-to-tail ratio" is silly. Submarines are like high-performance Le Mans sports cars --they require enormous support to keep them running. Just look at their shipyards.

Like sports cars, submarines have a lot stuffed into a very small space --you have to dismantle half the engine to change a spark plug. Or in the case of subs, cut the hull open with torches if the hatch isn't big enough.

Like sports cars, subs require a big shop and lots of mechanics to keep them running.
That's why they're out of service for so long when bought in for maintenance. Like sports cars, sub systems are highly integrated --which makes it difficult to use "COTS" and to pop in new components to take advantage of technology advances.

6) At least the Army has the intelligence to disperse it's "tail" --its logistics and support units --on the nuclear battlefield. By contrast, the shipyards and bases which support our nuclear subs are lying there with their legs spread.

If an Oscar nuked Bath Iron Works, Norfolk Shipyard, and Kings Bay GA --plus two or three other sites -- how long would it take for our nuclear submarine fleet to turn into a lot of rusting, radioactive anchors?

Look at how quickly the Soviet submarine fleet shriveled up and died after shore support and the money spigot was turned off.

Well, Arkin asked the submariners to speak up -- and the submariners
weren't able to provide much.

I'm sceptical about the claimed need for secrecy. To say that you have
to be an accepted member of the priesthood to discuss a subject is a convenient
claim often made by auto mechanics who overcharge. Not even the most depraved
of car salesmen would tell me that I needed to shell out $billions for a
vehicle sight unseen and with purpose/basic capabilities undescribed.

There's obviously a need for secrecy re specific performance values --
how deep/fast you can dive, how fast you can go, specific performance of sonar,etc
-- as well as secrecy re the current operations you are currently doing.

But those things are largely irrelevent to issues of strategy ,long term
procurement, and tradeoffs between different weapons systems.

It's been my experience that secrecy in large, operational forces like the submarine fleet is not so severe and safeguarded as that in the intelligence world. There are few cases in which the EXISTENCE of a capability is classified --and even fewer in which that fact is successful kept secret for very long. Russian spy John Walker and his family weren't very close-mouthed about "the silent service".

There are even fewer cases in which the POSSIBILE EXISTENCE of a capability is unknown to uncleared scientists and engineers who bother to think about the subject.

Its also been my experience that people who are cogs in a very large machine often
do not seen beyond their narrow role and do not look at the wider context of what
they're doing. Hence the widespread surprise of so many military people tossed out on the street in the 1990s budget cuts who thought they were needed to fight the
" evil empire" described by Ronald Reagan.

Those people never thought to ask
why Reagan was spending 7.5% of our GDP on defense while Germany and Japan --located mere miles from the evil empire and possessing their own intelligence services-- were spending less than 3% and 1% respectively.

If such cogs look outside their guarded buildings and google the Internet, they are often surprised to discover that much of what they thought was secret is widely discussed -- and that there is much in the unclassified world relevent to their jobs which they don't know about -- especially in the area of developing technology.

In part this is because overclassifying material in the intelligence/defense world is encouraged whereas underclassifying material is punished.

In part, this is because managers/officers maneuvering for power, position, and money withhold information from their competitors --and hence from their subordinates -- under the guise of "need to know".

Plus, Managers/officers often need to
keep subordinates motivated to perform on current operations -- to keep them "focused" -- which includes keeping
young naive subordinates ignorant of the fact that the boat which they are rowing
like crazy is slated for scrapping in the near future.

I remember years ago receiving a security guidance manual which acknowledged that roughly 50% of the "classified facts" in the prior edition had been found to be in the public unclassified domain.

There's a huge, unseen cost to unjustified secrecy. Collaboration is difficult, expensive and takes 10 times longer to accomplish than is necessary. Plus people in the classifed world don't get out very much.

Hence the government's tendency to take 6-8 years to develop large expensive systems
which are technically obsolete the day they are deployed for use.

I remember years ago being astonished that a large system was being built based on an architecture that had been around since the 1960s. The engineers were using "new technology" in the sense that the components of the system were up to date computers.

But the basic concept was a disaster.
In the 1960s, it might have made sense to spend a lot of computer power to compress data before sending it out on communications lines with limited throughput. But that certainly
didn't make sense for a system being developed in the late 1990s for deployment in the 21st century --given the explosive growth in cheap communications bandwidth provided by fiber optics.

Plus a computer compression function went against some basic tenets in modern high performance computer systems. One such tenet is to use lots of parallelism
with cheap, simple components and to avoid single pipelines that rapidly become
chokepoints and which prevent the later expansion/growth of the system.

I also remember a community conference in which one organization laid out its plan to develop a capability which would allow multiple organizations in the community to commuicate and exchange data. A two-year development plan for the software was laid out.

Later in the day, another group demonstrated the new Netscape browser -- and the first group was deeply embarrassed to have it pointed out to the community that the huge expensive package they proposed to develop over 2 years was already available commercially for $50.

The first group's angry response was to say that if they didn't have to spend so much time attending government conferences/meetings and developing slides to justify their budget , they would have time to go out and research new technology.

What was truly hilarious was that the conference missed the larger point. They immediately saw the value of Netscape to exchange operational information. But they didn't look at themselves -- didn't realize that Netscape's browser real promise laid in scraping their conference--in changing the way the government development process worked.

Every month or so people from around the country flew to that meeting. A meeting which had to be scheduled based on conflicts with other activities of those 40+ attendees. A meeting at which one person was talking at any one time while 40+ others were either dozing or quarreling with the presenter. A meeting at which action plans were shown to be trainwrecks -- requiring deferral of further action until --you guessed it -- another review meeting could be scheduled.

People at that conference didn't realize that they could have sped up their development cycle by a factor of 10+ if they simply had people develop drafts, dissiminate drafts online for review, and
resolve problems rapidly by online discussions.

Given that our federal debt is approaching $10 Trillion, maybe we need Arkin's Early Warning blog to wring some of the bullshit out of the Department of Defense.

I don't know just what Mr. Arkin's credentials are, but he doesn't know much about submarine warfare - old or new.

He has all of the insight that Gehring had. He told Hitler that airplanes were the way to make the Third Reich the conquering world power. Instead of listening to Admiral Doneitz's warning that it would be better to build more submarines to control the sea lanes, Hitler went with Gehring. Bad choice. Listening to Arkin would have the same results.

Like many, he focuses on the GWOT & forgets about some of the other big players on the world scene. All one has to do for research is go to the Google Alerts for Submarines. Strange that he should mention Germany, Turkey & India.

Germany is developing some of the best diesel submarines going. They are also selling them. India is buying submarines. Indonesia is buying submarines. China is building submarines. China is building new missiles to put on those submarines. Those missiles will be able to reach the USA.

I spent the better part of my Naval Career in the Submarine Surveillance Equipment Program. Granted things have changed some, but knowing where the other countries subs are, how they operate, etc. is not something that can be accomplished as effectively as by submarines.

It isn't hard to find articles that tell of the intense operating schedules faced by the submarine sailors. Believe it or not, that is the limiting factor & always has been. You can only stay closed up in a long pipe for so many days. In order to meet the requirements of the SOP's folks, the demand is actually going to increase.

I shouldn't take a shot at an NQP - Non-qualified Puke, but there is a saying in submarines, "Either you're qualified or you're not. End of story." Mr. Arkin is an NQP. End of story.

/"Mr. Arkin, if you really want answers to your questions, there are places you can go to get them. As you might expect, the subjects of "how many submarines does the United States need?" and "what do we need them for?" have been discussed at length for over a decade. Two good places to start: RAND and the Congressional Research Service."/

Arkin also misses the forest for the trees in failing to note, for example, other, more questionable outlays in recent USN budgets, including cruiser modernization and/or new surface combatants that may prove more costly over time, despite projected operational savings, based on marginal strategic value, faster depreciation, limited returns. Consider the DDX, at an estimated $2.4bn ea. w/projected qty of 24, which -- once parsed of all touted capabilities and manpower savings -- is still and essentially a floating target with limited access, limited flexibility, limited use requiring enormous self-defense resources, internal or external, at sea, inshore ("littoral") or offshore.

As a result, painting the entire UW fleet with suspicion due to the cost of Virginia-class subs (projected acquisition rate of no more than 1 per yr. until 2008) is not only misleading and inappropriate, it disserves other forward-thinking transformations occuring within UW, including SSBN to SSGN conversions (nuclear ballistic to conventional strike) that usefully, pragmatically anticipate 21st century needs, i.e., "GWOT."

cf.

Statement of Rear Admiral Paul F. Sullivan, USN Submarine Warfare Division, before the Armed Services Committee re: FY 2003 Major Non-Shipbuilding Submarine Acquisition Programs, April 9, 2002 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2002_hr/sullivan.pdf ].

Statement of Gordon R. England, SSECNAV, before the Armed Services Committee re: USN Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization Budget Request; February 12, 2004, [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040212-england.htm ].

Statement of Ronald O'Rourke, CRS, before the Armed Services Committee re: Navy Capabilities and Force Structure; April 12, 2005 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/050412-orourke.pdf ].

Statement of Ronald O'Rourke, CRS, before the Armed Services Committee re: DDX; July 19, 2005 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/050720-orourke.pdf ].

Budget Option 050-08 | Discretionary: Cancel the DDX Destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship and Build New Frigates Instead; CBO; February, 2005.

Posted by: reticulant | Feb 4, 2006 9:02:30 PM |

And then, of course, there's always Arkin's paper - "Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key To Pentagon Plan | Conventional Tactics De-Emphasized" by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, Saturday, February 4, 2006; A01 [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020301853_pf.html ]:

/ Begin excerpt /

The Pentagon, readying for what it calls a "long war," yesterday laid out a new 20-year defense strategy that envisions U.S. troops deployed, often clandestinely, in dozens of countries at once to fight terrorism and other nontraditional threats... The latest top-level reassessment of strategy, or Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), is the first to fully take stock of the starkly expanded missions of the U.S. military -- both in fighting wars abroad and defending the homeland -- since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks... The new strategy marks a clear shift away from the Pentagon's long-standing emphasis on conventional wars of tanks, fighter jets and destroyers against nation-states. Instead, it concentrates on four new goals: defeating terrorist networks; countering nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; dissuading major powers such as China, India and Russia from becoming adversaries; and creating a more robust homeland defense. Central to the first two goals is a substantial 15 percent increase in U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), now with 52,000 personnel, including secret Delta Force operatives skilled in counterterrorism.

"SOF will increase their capacity to perform more demanding and specialized tasks, ESPECIALLY LONG-DURATION, INDIRECT AND CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS IN POLITICALLY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND DENIED AREAS," the report says. By 2007, SOF WILL HAVE NEWLY MODIFIED NAVY SUBMARINES, each armed with 150 Tomahawk missiles, FOR REACHING "DENIED AREAS" AND STRIKING INDIVIDUALS OR OTHER TARGETS. "SOF will have the capacity TO OPERATE IN DOZENS OF COUNTRIES SIMULTANEOUSLY" and will DEPLOY FOR LONGER PERIODS to build relationships with "foreign military and security forces," it says. [capitalization added]

/ End excerpt /

Posted by: reticulant | Feb 4, 2006 9:44:47 PM | Permalink

WE NEED TO REVOKE THOSE FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED .....

listen closely:

war posuer powers.....

of the United States of America....

your affluent are asking you to let them use your children as a police force to make sure that they can continue to rape you unimpeded......

ask little george to reup in the National Guard and actually serve in a combat position instead of sitting it out....

and ask him why he needed the National Guard to be in Iraq, when it's not what they signed up for....

I'm not against taking it in the but from anyone....not even King George and his band of "let's make some money while they're not looking" friends, Delay, Cunning Ham, Cheyney and other money market launderers.....

let's stop the private meetings with our nation's oil's leaders and put them under oath when they testify....

how about a war against fraudulent terrorism and tyranny-at-home.....

let's use those new Halliburton, detention facilities to lock up some government officials...beginning with his georgieness...

And then, of course, there's always Arkin's paper - "Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key To Pentagon Plan | Conventional Tactics De-Emphasized" by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, Saturday, February 4, 2006; A01 [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020301853_pf.html ]:

/ Begin excerpt /

The Pentagon, readying for what it calls a "long war," yesterday laid out a new 20-year defense strategy that envisions U.S. troops deployed, often clandestinely, in dozens of countries at once to fight terrorism and other nontraditional threats... The latest top-level reassessment of strategy, or Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), is the first to fully take stock of the starkly expanded missions of the U.S. military -- both in fighting wars abroad and defending the homeland -- since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks... The new strategy marks a clear shift away from the Pentagon's long-standing emphasis on conventional wars of tanks, fighter jets and destroyers against nation-states. Instead, it concentrates on four new goals: defeating terrorist networks; countering nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; dissuading major powers such as China, India and Russia from becoming adversaries; and creating a more robust homeland defense. Central to the first two goals is a substantial 15 percent increase in U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), now with 52,000 personnel, including secret Delta Force operatives skilled in counterterrorism.

"SOF will increase their capacity to perform more demanding and specialized tasks, ESPECIALLY LONG-DURATION, INDIRECT AND CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS IN POLITICALLY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND DENIED AREAS," the report says. By 2007, SOF WILL HAVE NEWLY MODIFIED NAVY SUBMARINES, each armed with 150 Tomahawk missiles, FOR REACHING "DENIED AREAS" AND STRIKING INDIVIDUALS OR OTHER TARGETS. "SOF will have the capacity TO OPERATE IN DOZENS OF COUNTRIES SIMULTANEOUSLY" and will DEPLOY FOR LONGER PERIODS to build relationships with "foreign military and security forces," it says. [capitalization added]

/ End excerpt /

/"Mr. Arkin, if you really want answers to your questions, there are places you can go to get them. As you might expect, the subjects of "how many submarines does the United States need?" and "what do we need them for?" have been discussed at length for over a decade. Two good places to start: RAND and the Congressional Research Service."/

Arkin also misses the forest for the trees in failing to note, for example, other, more questionable outlays in recent USN budgets, including cruiser modernization and/or new surface combatants that may prove more costly over time, despite projected operational savings, based on marginal strategic value, faster depreciation, limited returns. Consider the DDX, at an estimated $2.4bn ea. w/projected qty of 24, which -- once parsed of all touted capabilities and manpower savings -- is still and essentially a floating target with limited access, limited flexibility, limited use requiring enormous self-defense resources, internal or external, at sea, inshore ("littoral") or offshore.

As a result, painting the entire UW fleet with suspicion due to the cost of Virginia-class subs (projected acquisition rate of no more than 1 per yr. until 2008) is not only misleading and inappropriate, it disserves other forward-thinking transformations occuring within UW, including SSBN to SSGN conversions (nuclear ballistic to conventional strike) that usefully, pragmatically anticipate 21st century needs, i.e., "GWOT."

cf.

Statement of Rear Admiral Paul F. Sullivan, USN Submarine Warfare Division, before the Armed Services Committee re: FY 2003 Major Non-Shipbuilding Submarine Acquisition Programs, April 9, 2002 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2002_hr/sullivan.pdf ].

Statement of Gordon R. England, SSECNAV, before the Armed Services Committee re: USN Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization Budget Request; February 12, 2004, [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040212-england.htm ].

Statement of Ronald O'Rourke, CRS, before the Armed Services Committee re: Navy Capabilities and Force Structure; April 12, 2005 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/050412-orourke.pdf ].

Statement of Ronald O'Rourke, CRS, before the Armed Services Committee re: DDX; July 19, 2005 [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/050720-orourke.pdf ].

Budget Option 050-08 | Discretionary: Cancel the DDX Destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship and Build New Frigates Instead; CBO; February, 2005.

Mr. Arkin, if you really want answers to your questions, there are places you can go to get them. As you might expect, the subjects of "how many submarines does the United States need?" and "what do we need them for?" have been discussed at length for over a decade.

Two good places to start: RAND and the Congressional Research Service. RAND has done several studies on the subject and they are publicly available. You can call the RAND office and ask for them, and speak to one of their experts. CRS has an excellent naval issues expert, Ron O'Rourke, who has been quoted in the Post numerous times, occasionally on exactly this subject.

See, for instance:

January 4, 2000, Tuesday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A03
HEADLINE: Pentagon Warns Against Cutting Attack Sub Fleet; Study Presents Administration With Additional Budget Challenge
BYLINE: Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer

Although it is certainly a detailed subject, the basic facts are that the United States currently has two submarine shipyards and builds one submarine a year--they each build half a boat. Nobody in the Pentagon or US government is going to advocate stopping building submarines entirely, so the questions then become what is the minimum number that the Navy can build and still maintain a healthy industrial base? And, what is the minimum number that the Navy needs? Certainly you can see the dangers of reducing to only a single shipyard--monopoly for starters, no competition, skills atrophy, and there is no surge capability if the United States finds itself in the position of needing more submarines.

In fact, the issue you raised has already been addressed by the Navy. In the 1990s the Navy was building the very expensive Seawolf class submarine. They decided that it was simply unaffordable. But they also believed that they needed to maintain submarine construction capability and as a result they produced the Virginia class, which you reported on.

In summary, I will simply repeat that if you want answers to these questions, then you can get them. Call up RAND or CRS, or even the US Navy, and talk to them. They can explain the issues and then you can base your opinions on a firmer grasp of the issues.

I checked your comment after Omar tootled about sexism as a way of defeating logic...

Most who appeal to emotion do so in order to foster the illusion that they know what they are talking about....

that's why bush has it as his response of choice and the lambs are being chased by the dawg of "it's patriotic"....

"Pearl of Great Price" would be the burn in your rectal cavity after letting bush have his "way" with you all.....

enjoy...

Mr. Arkin:
Thanks for taking the time to address some of my previous comments. I responded at length over at my submarine blog: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2006/02/wapo-writer-responds-to-my-criticisms.html

Part of my response is as follows:

"Seriously, though, many of our Western European allies are already in the process of restructuring their militaries. We're all part of an alliance, and one of the things that helps hold alliances together is that one partner doesn't start reneging on earlier commitments they've made. His suggestion would have the effect of requiring the U.S. to shoulder more of the conventional war burden from our NATO allies; not a very progressive suggestion. If, as he suggests, an India were to choose to get rid of their submarines, the result would be that, in the event of another Indo-Pakistani war, the Indian Navy, currently much stronger than their Pakistani rivals, would be stuck in port for fear of Pakistani submarines, while the Pakistani Navy would be free to range about as long as they stayed outside of the range of Indian air power. No Admiral with any sense will want to take on submarines without submarines of his own; frequent exercises continue to show that submarines are the best ASW platform out there, by a wide margin. An India that decided to get rid of their submarines would be one that decided to throw away their naval superiority for no good reason."

This may be a good way to avoid wars (having one side become so weak that they'll avoid war at all costs) but history shows that this strategy hasn't worked in the past.

Corrections to Feb 3, 2006 4:05:47 PM:

"SSGN: A Transformational Force for the U.S. Navy"; Undersea Warfare, [Fall 2001 Vol. 4, No. 1].

"Ships, Sensors, and Weapons"; Undersea Warfare, [Spring 2001 Vol. 3, No. 3].

Re: submarine warfare and GWOT in general, we recommend any issue of UW, including Fall 2005, Vol. 7, No. 5, on Experimental UAVs.

Mr. Arkin,
I read your article and it was interesting and thought provoking. My name is Ray Britt and I am an officer serving on board a submarine. You may be familiar with you my family, who are local car dealers in the Washington Area. If you are really interested in learning about a submarine's contribution to the GWOT I would be happy to tell you. I've been contributing for the past few years. I will even meet you in Norfolk and give you a tour of the boat, with my CO's permission of course. But I will attempt to explain to you now, why we need submarines and I've chosen to serve in the submarine force.
I joined the Navy December 12, 2001. I walked into a recruiter's office September 13, 2001. I think the dates here show you that I joined the Navy to participate in the GWOT. I was there you see, I'm not going to watch something like that and go on good will missions to South America. You probably have no idea how someone becomes a submarine officer. A Four Star Admiral interviews every one of us (I realize that this is a redundant phrase but I wanted to convey the seniority of ADM Bowman). I was barely qualified for the job and I had to beg ADM Bowman to give me a chance. I am grateful for it and I hope I haven't disappointed him. After that I had to beg the detailers, the officers who assign officers to ships, to assign me to a boat that was deploying right away and deploying to CENTCOM. Bottom line is that I joined up to contribute and I have. I felt your articles minimized my contribution and contribution of the sailors I serve with to the GWOT. I don't think this out of malice; rather I think we submariners sometimes don't explain what we do with your billions of dollars. You are absolutely owed that explanation. The problem is that there must be a balance between operational security and public relations. I will not speak of the specific contributions in an open forum. I will make the following points:
1. Intelligence gathering. Yes airplanes and surface ships can do this. But the airplanes just don't provide the on station time that the submarine does. An airplane can monitor an area for a couple of hours, a submarine a couple of months. As for surface ships consider this analogy: Do you drive the same way you normally drive with a black Crown Victoria behind you? Extend this train of thought to country X. How are they going to react with a Littoral Combat Ship driving up and down the coast? This ability to monitor an activity for an extended period of time covertly provides the intelligence community with invaluable insight.
2. Lets talk about China, Iran, North Korea and the Falklands war. I don't think you fully appreciate how difficult the ASW problem really is. I think you should look at the total number of ships sunk by platform in World War II. Submarines sank the vast majority. Naval Officers know this, and their concern with this was demonstrated by the considerable number of assets the British devoted to Argentine Submarines in the Falkland War. If the submarine were truly irrelevant why were the British so scared of them? Also consider what the British submarines were able to do in the same conflict. Two of their S Boats kept the entire Argentine Navy from challenging the British. Those two submarines could have sunk far more ships than just than one cruiser they sank, but Margaret Thatcher was concerned about the loss of life. The Argentine Navy didn't even realize their cruiser was sunk because the surprise was so complete. Bottom line the Argentine Navy was so intimidated by two submarines they would not enter the exclusion area around the Falkland Islands after the loss of their cruiser. What do you think a Chinese Admiral thinks about when they contemplate crossing the straits of Taiwan? The prudent mariner would recognize that he would have warning of an incoming surface action group or aircraft and could plan accordingly. The Falkland War shows that even when under attack from modern aircraft, French made Mirages with Exocet missiles, the amphibious group can sustain an invasion force. What it also shows is that unless you sight a submarine on the surface, the first warning of submarine in the area is the explosion of a torpedo.
3. There are actually more submarines now, and more countries have them, than ever before. I think China builds 9 a year. North Korea has more than enough to make a SWO nervous, more than the PAC Fleet. Lastly Iran has three modern Russian built submarines with competent crews. India has an excellent and capable submarine force, so does Pakistan. They even caught drug dealers trying to buy submarines. Countries don't buy submarines because other countries have them. They buy them because they understand the basic concepts of Naval Warfare. Nothing deters a surface group like a submarine. You can shoot down an incoming missile or plane, but once you sight a torpedo's wake, all you can do is run.
If you are really interested in learning more on the submarines and the GWOT email me at raybritt@mac.com. I am sure that after you really see what we do and the submarines specific and unique contribution to the GWOT you'll write another article asking congress why we don't have more submarines.
Very Respectfully,
LTJG R. T. Britt, USN

I am proud to be the father of an ex submariner who served his nation and did his job protecting us from the Russian threat from 1985 to 1991. He served without any whining, bad mouthing, ill feeling or criticism of our government, national policy or our military objectives. He and the crew did what had to be done and kept their mouths shut about what they had done and where they went.
Your article about submarines and those who man them is the type of journalism I would expect from a person who have taken our freedoms for granted and has done nothing to protect those freedoms and our American way of life. While you sit there and write your personal statements and excersise you First Amendment rights, you seem to have forgotten all those who died under arms in the American Revolution that made the Bill of Rights possible.
It is very plain to see by the tone and content of your article that you have never served our country in any branch of the military. Pal, if you ain't live it, you can't really know about it.
Charles

Nice try, Mr. Arkin, but the Silent Service never divulges its secret deeds, nor do all SS veterans even have knowledge of attempted and successful deeds they so crucially supported. Making sacrifices most would be incapable of duplicating, submariners risk their lives for their country. Be glad men will serve in circumstances like that -it allows me to sleep well every night.

All know the value of FBM boats. We could have no navy at all without our "other" subs, and without them FBMs could not leave port or return safely. You are correct that "this traditional tool has become a combined intelligence platform, special operations base and missile shooter", but absurdly wrong thinking these tasks "could probably be done better by others in the future." Most of the world, sir, is ocean.

William

I like to explain things to myself in the simplist of terms so please bare with me.

Along time ago, two tribes lived on opposite sides of a river. The river was small enough that arrows and spears could reach the village of the other tribe. Neither tribe wanted to start a war because war ment that the spears and arrows of one tribe would be seen in the air and the non-agressive tribe would fire before the enemy arrows reached their own village. These attacks would kill off enough women and children that neither tribe would survive.

"I don't care about these tribes of old." you say. That's great because these tribes are named Russia and The United States of America in the erra known as the cold war, with the spears and arrows being nuclear weapons.

Russia may have "dispanded" to a sleeker Russia and several smaller states, their spears and arrows remain ready to take out the American village.

Submarines keep these weapons in check. No smaller state that was prior a part of Russia has attacked the United States for the same reason Russia has not, The "Mexican Stand-off" of nuclear weapons remains.

With other countries trying to enter the "Nuclear Circle" (countries with nuclear weapons), our nuclear weapons will present the same Mexican Stand-off the Russians faced and are still facing.

Remove the American arsonal of nuclear weapons and advantage every other nuclear power.

What about the submarines?

Well, there are two types of submarines in the Navy's compliment.

The missle submarine is the Navy's answer to the mobile missle bunker. With no idea of where they are (except when in port), the missle submarines hide in the world's oceans ready to survive a nuclear attack on the United States and retalliate. Those submarines are suppose to be ghosts.

The attack submarine is the Navy's general purpose submarine. It can carry linguists and electronic eaves dropping equipment to gain valuable intellegence. It can carry mines to create a minefeild at a harbor's entrance. It can carry conventional missles to strike targets in landlocked countries. It can carry torpedo's to prevent the ocean shipping of troops or economic goods. It can deliver small groups of specially trained troops for what-ever mission they may embark upon. All of these missions are done clandestinly by submarines.

Looking at just the small group troops, well let me use a movie and History Channel show to highlight how important theses guys can be. "Bravo Two Zero" the name of the movie and call sign assigned to 8 British SAS soldiers during the first Iraq war showed that these men killed nearly 300 (280) Iraq soldiers loosing only 3 men, five returned home.

The submarines ability to dissappear at the end of the peir and re-appear in some other country's back yard, makes it the closest thing to the Star Trek's transporter that the military has.

As long as we want to treat our military just like the police, complaining about how much it costs and trying to reduce their size and budget, until we need them. Then suddenly there is never enough of either and they cannot do their job fast enough. The big difference between the police and the submarine service is the policeman's ability to go home every night. Submarines can dissappear for months at a time and the men that ride them must go with them.

In order to have a submarine off the coast of any country that might present the United States with a problem, right now, today, we must have them off the coast of that country, right now, today.

As we lower the number of submarines, we ask our current submarines to stay out longer, to be there, just in case. The men that go with them are also asked to stay out longer, away from their families for longer.

So, before we demand fewer submarines, let's answer the question, "Who will replace these men and stay away from their families, in effective solitude for more than the current 6 months at a time, are you that man?"

they are inarguably sexy, but who in current times is any thing close to what we have as military hardware....

everyone in the military knows that what is visible is only a portion of what we actually use....

is it all necessary?

shouldn't we be making peace at home by emptying our prisons by making intervention a part of life before the "criminal" becomes an adult?

is it so odd that people that grow up in hellish environments are not people that socialize well?

shouldn't we be doing some serious engineering work to reduce our workload at home by not breeding criminals?

I've worked in schools which served the marginalized....these kids are smart, and because of their mores, and opportunities they are tomorrow's criminals...

they thought I was foreign because I used business english with them....they'd never heard it....thought I was weird and cool..

just a thought, people are either resources or a threat depending upon their environments....and I don't mean throwing money at them....you just get a more wealthy, socially challenged individual...

I mean intervention....at several levels...in grade school and being implemented as a phased in program....following the child into middle school and high school....with minor implementations going in place in parallel...eventually eradicating mostof the problem within 2.5 generations....

try walking around portland oregon at night....it's errily safe...

It's pretty terrifying in this day and age to (1) read an article espousing a reduction in US commitment to submarines (and thereby attendant submarine knowledge and research) and (2) people actually agreeing with it. The historical importance of submarines at ALL times since their original invention is hardly debatable - we attacked the British with one during the Revolutionary War, the Confederates successfully used one on a Union blockade fleet, and Germany almost won World War II through effective use of a submarine force. The only reason we survived is because the US could rivet together Liberty ships slightly faster than the Germans could torpedo them, a dubious strategy pulled off only by America's vast manufacturing base. During the Cold War, US submarines did everything from tap underwater communication cables to form a floating nuclear deterrent force - a role they reprise today. The survivability of an effectively driven submarine is non pareil, and their modern ability to stick and move against targets even on dry land through both conventional and nuclear missiles is awesome. The entire point of having "enough" of them is that in an extensive sea conflict you might lose some, and you still need an effective force AFTER the engagement. For example, the German surface fleet effectively and intentionally hamstrung the British Grand Fleet not by equalling them in power or gross tonnage, but by building just enough ships to be dangerous enough that if the two fleets engaged, the British would still win but lose enough ships that they could no longer defend themselves against other nations. Thus the US must not only match the individual fleet of any given rival, but the collective fleet of ALL rivals so that any given conflict will not result in such a weakening of the US force so as to invite other nations to pile on. These facts are not lost on rival nations, only on our own liberal base.

Indeed, at a time when nations like China and North Korea are seeking to increase their submarine fleets precisely because of their strategic significance, and Iran can close the Suez with its Kilo class boats, you're advocating cutting ours? Why? So the funds could be "better" spent on shoring up the welfare system? If you want to talk gross inefficiency and needless waste, how about we shut down 80% of all Starbucks outlets and force the sociology graduate students hiding inside to contribute to society? The "logic" behind the whittling-of-America's-armed forces blogs (a Post classic) is perhaps best satirized by the sarcastically-crafted and randomly spouted phrase of Mrs. Lovejoy: "Won't someone think of the children?!"

These big ticket military items aren't going anywhere.

The PBS show "NOW", formerly with Bill Moyers, had an episode this weekend about our spending that was shocking. Chuck Spinney, 30 year Pentagon analyst and occasional whistleblower, said that 95% of our current budget is building weaponry that does not address the "War on Terror".

We're building missles, subs, destroyers, etc. while programs to deal with the small deadly cell, lying in wait is largely unaddressed. Also, while our troops are enforcing law in Iraq with inadequate armor.

We're building a missle defense system that does not work! Five of 11 tests failed and by all reports every test was gamed for success. And for what? The nuclear bomb was created and proliferated because it was the "ultimate deterrent". LET IT DETER. No country with a handful of bombs is going to attack a nation with thousands. They might destroy a city or two but that nation would cease to exist, in no uncertain terms.

Worrying so much about N. Korea that we're going to spend tens of billions to build something that doesn't work is....well actually..., par for this administration. The interceptor missles for the missle defense shield are being put in place as we speak.

Our military spending is bankrupting us the way it bankrupted the USSR. If you wish to call me out as not being concerned with our nation's security, you had better bring some facts.

http://www.bernards.blogspot.com

/"The world is changing and I think we should look at reducing the number of nuclear subs in favor of quieter cheaper diesal boats."/

Context is everything. Yes, the world is changing. Yes, "anti-submarine" exercises conducted in the 90's 'against' foreign diesel boats were problematic, thus suggesting ASW detection issues in any "regional" conflict involving diesel boats. Yes, diesel boats are quieter -- including mini-subs like the ASDS -- and do, as such, "have their place." Yes, range matters and to a degree, determines responsiveness & opportunity. Yes, diesel limits range.

Is it just me or did Arkin say that we should review the role of submarines in the modern world and how many of what types would be st fill that role.

I can't find in the article where he said we don't need any subs. Though he did call into question the number of subs. The world is changing and I think we should look at reducing the number of nuclear subs in favor of quieter cheaper diesal boats. These would be perfect for use against China/Korea/Straights of Hormuz where the conflict is going to be focused for the next couple of decades.

Times are changing and the probability of a world war is receding, if not vanished, another war like WWII would probably require the use of nukes, and while it is only sensible to retain that capability as a deterence, we need ot look at the structure and purpose of the military in the contemprary and near fututre and structure it to be effective in that environment.

And whatever that new force structure is I don't think it will use the same mix of forces that we had during the cold war or WWII and I think it will look more like British Force structures during the 19th century.

"... for clandestine insertion & retrieval"; or, more 'vernacularly,' "for clandestine insertion & [extraction]"

Is it just me or did Arkin say that we should review the role of submarines in the modern world and how many of what types would be st fill that role.

I can't find in the article where he said we don't need any subs. Though he did call into question the number of subs. The world is changing and I think we should look at reducing the number of nuclear subs in favor of quieter cheaper diesal boats. These would be perfect for use against China/Korea/Straights of Hormuz where the conflict is going to be focused for the next couple of decades.

Times are changing and the probability of a world war is receding, if not vanished, another war like WWII would probably require the use of nukes, and while it is only sensible to retain that capability as a deterence, we need ot look at the structure and purpose of the military in the contemprary and near fututre and structure it to be effective in that environment.

And whatever that new force structure is I don't think it will use the same mix of forces that we had during the cold war or WWII and I think it will look more like British Force structures during the 19th century.

/Arkin, concluding - "If someone would like to educate me on what submarines specifically doing to fight the GWOT or support current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm all ears."/

/Arkin, earlier from the same post - "... but that ignores land-locked Afghanistan, where subs played a role, shooting cruise missiles and snooping on Pakistan and others in the region."/

Funny guy. Arkin to Arkin: "Please educate Arkin. Note to myself: Up B-12 intake."

Otherwise, yes we already know SLCMs successfully targeted Al Qaeda/Taliban bases in Afghanistan [ http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2001/t10112001_t1011asd.html ]. We also know subs have been equipped with TACTOMs & advanced TTWCS -- Tactical Tomahawks, publicly announced here http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09292004_2004092907.html; and Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control Systems, generically described here http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/09/0409Urioste.html; -- since 2004, which [should] significantly improve targeting flexibility and capabilities (e.g., submarines would provide a superior strike/stealth platform for prolonged or extended mission control over TACTOMs capable of "hovering" over an area waiting for high-value or pop-up targets). As always, effectiveness, accuracy, efficiency and reliability may be difficult to determine given obvious needs for mission secrecy. Still, new generation SSGNs & ASDS (Advanced SEAL Delivery System, e.g., mini-subs) specifically include special ops support for clandestine insertion & retrieval. The point being, subs can and will continue to function as important strike/base platforms in future asymmetric strategies/responses against "terror."

cf.

"SSGN: A Transformational Force for the U.S. Navy"; Undersea Warfare, Fall 2001 (no. 87, issue 13).
"Ships, Sensors, and Weapons"; Undersea Warfare, Spring 2001 (no. 87, issue 11).

Don,

If you are so liberal, why would you come off as a sexist pig in your comments? Yeah, it is really easy to get off on Ann Coulter (I love the Seabiscuit comment), but you seemed to be attacking all women.

Don't do that, please.

O in D

I totally agree with Arkin's article. I was on boats for 10 years of the cold war through downsizing and the first gulf war. Even after it was totally obvious that the Russians weren't going to come out and "play" anymore the commanders just couldn't seem to change their focus from chasing soviet nukes. They were desperate to prove their relevance in the post cold war world. We just don't need so many boats anymore. That being said David is exactly right in that we are still building boats in order to keep the expertise. It ain't easy to build a nuclear submarine. Besides the ability to insert covert forces and launch cruise missiles, we need boats to protect our carriers when China invades Taiwan.

Mr. Arkin:

Interesting article. Submariners are part of a very technical branch with a very small margin of error. I am surprised you didn't hear more. With regard to the various services and their seemingly duplicate equipment and missions, you might want to research the Revolt of the Admirals after World War Two. And think about how the Air Force might have been able to project force in Afganistan and provide a search and rescue platform for the victims of the tsunami in southeast Asia from their closest base at the time. Each branch has their own responsibilities and skills.

And thank you for your service to your country.

If everyone agrees to get rid of their submarines then the oceans will be owned by whoever cheats on the agreement. A submarine is more valulable if it is the ONLY submarine around. A single boat can blockade the straits of Hormuz and ONLY another submarine can go in and get rid of it. And if nuclear weapons are anachronistic why haven't we taken care of the North Korean problem?

learn more about submarines:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591146852/qid=1138995476/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-4988834-5523005?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Note to Karen: Beat up on Arkin all you want. But try to provide some facts, instead of personal attacks. At least he served.

A couple of comments:

First, one thing that I found especially annoying about the earlier article on submarines was that it was impossible for me to find the original article in the New London Day. Arkin's piece only linked to their mainpage, not to an article about the USS Virginia. I even tried a Lexis search. If you're going to link to another media source, then LINK TO THE ARTICLE.

Second, Arkin calls into question whether we need "so many" submarines. The US now builds one submarine a year, divided between two shipyards. That is essentially a minimum and should not be reduced.

If you want to see the dangers of reducing beyond this, then look at the United Kingdom. They STOPPED building nuclear submarines for over a decade. When they started again, they experienced serious problems. Cost overruns, schedule slippages, accidents. They used to be equal to the United States in submarine design. They lost that capability and now they have asked the United States for help in regaining it.

If the United States loses its impressive submarine development and construction capability, who will we get help from a decade from now when we need it back?

And finally, take a look at Taiwan. It's surrounded by a lot of water. Submarines might be useful in defending it.

Re Karen's comment "That means he [Arkin] was one of the 4% of captains who could not be promoted to major"
---------
Actually, it may mean he was one of the 4% smart enough not to make a career in Rumsfeld's army. There's probably a few thousand guys in VA hospitals around the country who envy Arkin his astuteness.

Why do I suspect that military expert Karen --like Ann Coulter -- has never been within 1000 miles of a battlefield? And if we're talking about career paths, what's Karen's? To find some smuck who will give her a lifetime meal ticket in exchange for the "Pearl of Great Price"?

That life strategy didn't work for Ann Coulter -- for obvious reasons. Stick a bridle in her teeth and Ann looks like Seabisquit. So Ann fell back on her core competence --shooting off her mouth about things of which she knows little.

"Lonely liberal Don"

Hmmm. Very superficial, Arkin. And I defended you in the earlier submarine article.

Obviously, any $450 Billion enterprise is subject to review.

But that review should be serious.

As Sun Tzu said circa 400 BC:
" War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or run. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."

As with anything, the issue with the US military is : what do you want to do and how much money do you have to do it?

Want to conquer the world? Buy a lots of nukes, buy Star Wars, and tell the other powers you will turn them into a pile of radioactive ashes if they don't do as you order. But prior to that, disarm them by telling them you only want to promote freedom and democracy.

Want to conquer the world and make a profit -- at at least don't spend so much?
Use huge conventional expeditionary forces to seize the main oil reservoirs --in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Caspian Sea area -- and install puppet governments. Then smirk at the EU, Japan, and China and suggest they "go along to get along".

Want to transform the US military so that you can field lots of "agile" light infantry in order to pursue the global war on terror?

Why? Most "terrorists" hide out in worthless, shithole countries that have little or no economic value. Africa, southwest asia, etc. Why waste money occupying such places? Do what the Romans did -- if someone's a problem then send in an expedition, knock heads, and nail a few zealots up on crosses as examples.

Hmmm. Except that didn't work out for the Romans long term , did it?

At this point, an Air Force General will whisper in your ear that he can just bomb the piss out of the terrorists' stronghold.
But Tora Bora show that Air Force Generals are sometimes full of shit.

How about if we just fall back and defend the continental USA? But then realize that we are separated from the rest of the world by two huge oceans and that that means we will always need a powerful navy. To protect shipping lanes as well as defend from invasion and to deliver/support expeditionary forces sent abroad. Especially if we need to supply those forces sent abroad for a very long time to guard strategic positions --e.g, Army forces stationed in Asia to guard semiconductor factories on which our computer industry depends.

If you want a Navy, then do you go surface or subsurface? Well, any surface ship is in the middle of a large ocean area free of electronic noise. Which means she really stands out as soon as she emits a signal -- turns on a radar, sends a communication, etc. Google "triangulation" Also, most surface ships show up on radar beamed from overhead, unless you want to really spend a lot.

So what if she's a big bad carrier? Well, ICBMs with nuclear warheads can be aimed at shipping as well as fixed land targets.
Russia and probably China could probably sink all our carriers without breaking a sweat, if they wanted to take the gloves off. Plus there's all those bombers as you get close to an enemy coast , unless you take out enemy airfields.

Well, then a SPACECOM general will whisper in your ear that we need to fight a war in Space -- destroy the enemies space recon assets and protect our own. He will note that you only need two or three observations of the enemy asset to determine the six orbital elements and track it henceforth.

Except that there's one thing more unprofitable than sending an Army unit to Somalia --and that's spending $billions to launch a few pounds of metal into orbit.

Especially since it takes a shitload of fuel to change the orbital plane of a Spacecom attack vehicle once it is in orbit. Which means that intercepts are a lot more problematical than is explained to the budget committees.

Besides, an enemy doesn't need space reconnaissance assets. The dirty secret of space is that the speed of low earth orbit is such that you are only be over a spot for a minute or two. When you come back around 90 minutes later, the Earth has rotated 1000 miles to the east. Although the Appropriations Committees doesn't seem bothered by this, no matter how much Jay Rockefellar complains.

By contrast, airborne platforms can hover and watch. They're limited by line of sight, of course. Specifically, they can roughly see (in miles) a distance equal to the square root of their altitude (in feet) times 1.2. Roughly 100 miles at 10,000 feet; roughly 200 miles at 40,000 feet. Plus they have to look back at their control station so you're taking about coverage out to --what? -- roughly 350 miles? But that's not bad.

Ah , but we just shoot down the enemy UAV? But what if we can't find it?

One little outcome of Bill Clinton's great adventure in Bosnia is that he lost a stealth fighter. I mean REALLY lost -- the debris was hauled away before Wesley Clark got his thumb out and bombed it. Ask any high school chemistry teacher how hard it would be to examined that debris under a microscope/spectroscope and reconstitute it. Something the New York Times doesn't like to talk about.

Of course, we had vital national interests at stake in Bosnia, didn't we? Like building that AMBO pipeline south of Kosovo to carry Caspian Sea oil from the Black Sea. New York Times doesn't like to talk about that either. Just as the Times doesn't like to discuss whether Putin's invasion of Chechny might have been triggered by Chechnyan attempts to blackmail Moscow into paying the Chechnyans to not blow up the Russian pipeline carrying oil from Azerbaijan.

Hey, maybe there's something more effective we could do besides "reforming the military". Maybe we could "reform" our politicans and our journalists?

Arkin proves he lacks knowledge in every area, instead of just a few. Fact, but almost accurate, sorta, kinda, maybe. The demise of the MSM media and its lonely liberal is symbolized in the whining of Bill Arkin. He claims to have contacts in the Pentagon. You don't want to know the name people have for the dweeb. He does get a good laugh, but let's face it he has absolutely no idea what he writes or talks about. He was a stinking captain. That means he was one of the 4% of captains who could not be promoted to major.

The final Quadrennial Defense Review, and lots more news, here:

http://insidedefense.com/secure/insider.asp?issue=212006

Great questions on a subject long overdue. You asked what if some significant European or Asian power said 'we're not going to have submarines.' Well, though not a significant country by military standards, my native country Denmark actually recently made that very decision: scrap the submarine force. Boy did the traditionalists whine! But, while nice to have, subs were just too expensive and not essential for the type of military capabilities the country now needs. And importantly, most of the missions the submarines had can be done by other means.

Is it just me, or did this piece get cut off in the middle of a sentence?