In response to:

Obama's 'Battleship' Argument Has Holes in its Hull

rfriedman Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 1:09 PM
As Gen. LeMay said, If he had to send a single SAC bomber in combat, he would have failed his job. Do we need a fire department, if there are no fires in the neighborhood. Do we need a navy, if there is no navy in the world of any size. Or should the navy be sized to just equal the size of an immediate threat? Or should we just crawl into a shell, forget about business and external trade and trade routes. What other purpose is freedom of the seas for?

In the third and final debate, Barack Obama scored huge points with the media, college kids and die-hard liberals -- in other words, his base -- when he mocked Mitt Romney's concern about our historically small Navy.

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works," the president said. "You -- you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes...