From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Seawolf program
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

I agree with about 98% of what Geoff writes on Seawolf, with a coupla comments:
(Geoff Cashman) writes:

>Yes, the cold war is definetly over.  However, the lesson that was
>learned from WWI and WWII which can not be forgotten, despite the fact
>that it was part of the reason the cold war started.  That lesson is
>that we can not afford to let down our guard again.

Without straying too far into politics myself, I would argue that the lesson
was the "folly of isolationism" rather than the "let our guard down" problem.
We need to remain an active diplomatic and military player on the world stage.
We can downsize as long as we retain a valued cadre and continue the research
and refinement of military technology. We must not turn inward and let the
services deteriorate. It was the combination of these two attitudes (isolation
and military laxity) that has always caused the US problems. On the military
front, we need have at least some professional military as well trained as
the professional military of other countries, but recognize that Americans
will continue to be "citizen/soldiers" overall. 

>It is naive to assume that the current diplomatic and political situations
>that exist in the world today will continue indefinetly.

Absolutely. Even now, there are sales of XSoviet submarines and carriers to
nations that pose potential threats. If the Iranians get Russian subs, I
want their to be no question that we can neutralize them pronto. If China
can manage to do something worthwhile with that Russian flattop,I want them
to know that it will not be long for the bottom if they mess with the USN.

>Current U.S. military policy is apparently geared towards being able
>to deploy substantial power in a regional manner in a global environment.
>Ie, power projection anywhere in a region in any given area of U.S. interest
>in the world.  The strongest element of the maritime forces of modern day
>navies is the sub surface force (go ahead and debate this if you'd like).

>However, I argue (in addition <== note) that we are balking at the
>Seawolf program because most people are not aware of the role the
>subsurface forces play in the world today.  Subs, no matter how
>impressive they are, are shrouded in secrecy and are not intended
>as high visibility platforms of policy extension.  How often do you
>hear about an L.A. class in the news?  How often do you hear about
>a carrier or cruiser in the news?  

These two paragraphs contain inseparable ideas, IMO. Power projection is
usually equated to "high visibility platforms" that are obviously formitable.
Is it just a coincidence that the gravest threat to "high visibility"
platforms is the submarine? The Soviets cruised their bluewater navy world-
wide for political reasons, but it was the subs that were most numerous and
most dangerous. While a carrier group can probably bring the most raw firepower
to bear, it isn't gonna sneak up on anybody. Politically, this is not always
bad. In a more rational world, Saddam Hussein might have realized what those
carriers represented, and maybe tried to negotiate. He hasn't repeated his
mistake, has he?

There will be other cases, however, where we may be taking too big a risk
to sail the big stuff to the flashpoint. In these cases, a single sub can
slip into place, wait almost indefinately at minimal (comparative) risk,
and deliver a nasty surprise if needed.  It can get there faster than the
carrier group too (not necessarily speed, but numbers deployed). In bang-
for-buck and bang-per-sailor, submarines are the smart way to go. Cutting
Seawolf, and pulling the plug on this industry, is a very big mistake.

Matt