This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
For quite a while, I have watched and listened as military xperts both in and out of uniform have said, "We are not down- izing, we are rightsizing.” I strongly disagree.
As Americans, we have had a profound impact and influence m world history for more than 200 years. Our country has been iuilt with the sweat and blood of our people, and we keep what ve have because of our ability to call on our tremendous miltary resources. We are an industrious, intelligent people, but
Ire never seem to learn from our mistakes.
Anyone who has read Samuel Eliot Morison’s Two Ocean Var knows how the Navy was stripped after World War I, be- oming an ineffective fighting force incapable of power pro- bction in support of our national interests. We entered into reaties to limit ship sizes by tonnage, then we were outbuilt by apan. As a result, we found ourselves having to catch up in hipbuilding prior to and during Vorld War II. At one point early [l World War II, we had only one arrier in the Pacific! We were aved only by our ability to adapt uickly and by our mighty indus- rial base. Sadly, that industrial wse has been allowed to deterio- ate. Our decimated shipbuilding
ndustry today could not support the World War II pace of contraction should the need ever arise again.
Many of our statesmen and military leaders see the Soviet hreat as gone and the new Russia as a friend. I applaud Rus- ia’s attempts to convert to a more democratic society and even velcome Russia as an ally. I would not forget, however, that his ally has hungry people, an economy in shambles, and an incertain future. This ally also still has very big teeth that must le watched. The world situation changes too quickly now; no Dnger can we depend on intelligence estimates of the stability if countries and their leaders. So where are our threats?
Russia is still a threat, for reasons stated above and for its villingness to sell military hardware at bargain-basement prices. Tiina also is engaged in selling weapons to anyone who will luy them, and it is determined to hold on to communist values, ilorth Korea has been proceeding with nuclear-weapons de- 'elopment and is a major threat in Asia, and Japan is looking 'or a missile defense network to counter this threat.
*'V)ther threats are out there—some can be seen brewing, others
■ Fa[
Radical Muslim fundamentalists have stated many times that e are their enemy. Only a few Islamic countries are rich, but ost are capable of purchasing weapons and technology. The 'ersian Gulf is an area we will visit again. Iran has had time :o rebuild and refinance its military and, ultimately, desires to e the preeminent power in the Gulf. Aircraft confiscated Tom Iraq during the Persian Gulf War and recent purchases of ilo-class submarines and aircraft from Russia clearly graph ran’s intentions. Iraq also will rise again, as soon as the world ;rows tired of sending its sons to a faraway land to police it.
k pannot—and many will surface all too quickly.
Pi
roceedings / May 1994
When you are a participant, there is no such thing as a "low-intensity" conflict. We should never build weapon systems with a low-intensity conflict in mind.
1 To cash in on the peace dividend, it has been mandated that j [ne retire many still-capable ships. Here in Norfolk, I have seen
jPrn
naval training ships go into mothballs and have learned the decommissioning dates of nuclear-powered cruisers and attack submarines and guided-missile frigates. In the short term, we will save money doing this, but we must realize that the cost of maintaining our national security and way of life is high. It’s a pay- now-or-pay-later proposition. It will cost many times what we save when we need these ships later—and we will need them. History tells us that it’s only a question of time. If ships must go, let’s replace them with the very best, on a one-for-one basis.
Another term that disturbs me is “low-intensity conflict.” When you are a participant, there is no such thing as a “low- intensity” conflict. We should never build weapon systems with a low-intensity conflict in mind. Somehow, this sounds like a cost-saving measure, but keep in mind the very low cost of an Exocet missile—and the cost of a frigate and her crew. Build ships to fight in any environment, from militiamen shooting rocket-propelled grenades from Boston Whalers to multiple cruise missile salvos from an attacking force.
Antisubmarine warfare will remain important. Russian battery technology will come into play, and poorer nations no doubt will look to purchase or build diesel attack submarines. Retiring our Los Angeles (SSN-688)- class attack boats is not a good idea. The Russian Navy still has many more submarines, and many it’s willing to sell to interested nations.
Aircraft carriers always have been fuel for controversy. They are expensive, but they also are capable and flexible. A carrier is a full, self-sustaining military force, and she can devastate any target within her reach. We need more carriers—and capable escorts to support them. A carrier battle group can handle all jobs, big and small.
Amphibious warfare is critical, and we do not have enough of these ships to project power from the sea. These ships will have to be protected by multi-warfare-capable escorts, which also must provide naval gunfire support.
Why do we need these ships? Why should we rethink downsizing the military as a whole? We should not apologize for our status as a military power or world leader. As the only remaining superpower, it is our duty and responsibility to be strong and stay strong, economically and militarily. We are and should be the world’s peacekeeper and a stabilizing force, as long as the mission and objectives are clear. Allowing another nation to become a threat to regional or global peace in the midst of our downsizing and having insufficient assets to counter such a threat is a dangerous proposition.
History has clearly demonstrated the high cost of peace and the even higher costs of war. We must not allow the military history of the 1970s to be repeated; we must stay ready. Peace through deterrence is the only way. When we have to get troops and supplies to a trouble spot and have no sealift capability or ships to escort them, we will have to scramble to rebuild our military again, only this time we may not have the money or the time.
Master Chief Gas Turbine Technician (Surface Warfare) Caceres reported to Commander Destroyer Squadron Two in February. Previously, he was leading chief of the engineering department on board the USS Barry (DDG-52) and has served on board the Taylor (FFG-50), the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7), the Halybur- ton (FFG-40), the Antrim (FFG-20), and the Briscoe (DD-977).
13