![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm Busy Interviewing
Oct. 17th, 2012 09:54 amWe're interviewing to replace a guy who quit, so I'm a bit busy today, but I did want to comment on a military-related issue making the news.
Paul Ryan is running around saying that the US Navy is smaller than it's been since WWI. This may be true in terms of number of ships, but in any real measure of naval power it's stupid. As this article points out, the US Navy of 1916 was clearly the world's third largest, and given the need to defend two oceans, probably would have punched below its weight.
By contrast, today's USN is by far the largest, and the world's second-largest navy (China) would be wiped out by us in a matter of weeks. Not only that, but today's navy is vastly more powerful than any navy of 1916. The difference between today and 1916 is as radical as that between 1916 and 1805. Comparing militaries through history is difficult; focusing on number of units is the stupidest way to do so.
Paul Ryan is running around saying that the US Navy is smaller than it's been since WWI. This may be true in terms of number of ships, but in any real measure of naval power it's stupid. As this article points out, the US Navy of 1916 was clearly the world's third largest, and given the need to defend two oceans, probably would have punched below its weight.
By contrast, today's USN is by far the largest, and the world's second-largest navy (China) would be wiped out by us in a matter of weeks. Not only that, but today's navy is vastly more powerful than any navy of 1916. The difference between today and 1916 is as radical as that between 1916 and 1805. Comparing militaries through history is difficult; focusing on number of units is the stupidest way to do so.
