I am GSL of THS. I am not posting this so that others may copy it. I am the original author of this piece and reserve all of my rights to it. I am posting it with the SOLE purpose of getting advice on it. DO NOT STEAL MY WORK!!!
Assignment: Pose an original question and answer it. (500 words)
My main concern is that my question isn't clearly understandable, I hope someone can help.
In this post cold war era, a burning question to be answered is whether our Navy should continue to allocate exorbitant sums of money for new warship development, especially when our brave armed forces are primarily engaging in desert and urban ground combat. Prior to the collapse of the USSR, the United States invested tremendous resources into becoming the world's most advanced military super power, with the most powerful Navy in the world, composed of 283 warships. This build up was in anticipation of a war with the USSR. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, it is clear that such a war will never happen.
The US Navy was established in 1789, with a budget of $1,000. In a press release, the Navy estimated its budget for 2009 would be in excess of $149 billion, with $14.1 billion dedicated to new warship procurement. Considering that in November the Pentagon's Defense Business Board told President-Elect Obama that defense budget cuts are essential to our government, one must question whether such grandiose expenses are necessary. In order to determine if spending should be reduced, the role of warships in the global war on terror must be examined.
According to a 2008 Congressional report, the Navy plays an important role in the global war on terror (GWOT), namely through the use of our 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which provide air support to our ground troops. The Navy also provides transportation for troops and supplies while the Marine Corps, a part of the Navy, is deployed to fight terrorism throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the navy has a sizeable fleet of warships, including 68 nuclear subs and hundreds of destroyers, frigates and other ships, which are designed only to combat sophisticated targets, like enemy warships and submarines. This abundant fleet is usually relegated to providing support for ground forces or policing piracy, while the Marine Corps actually engages in some of the most intense combat.
The proposed 2009 naval budget only dedicates $1.5 billion to the USMC, while $14.1 billion is slated for new warships like the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. Considering the current type of combat the US Military is engaged in, this appears to be an exorbitant waste of vital funds. The US Navy tonnage, or the combined weight of our warships, is greater than the next seventeen largest navies combined. Although there are potential threats to our nation on the open water, such as the USS Cole terrorist attack, the risk is relatively minimal. The Department of the Navy should be diverting money away from new warships and investing it in the USMC and new aircraft programs like the F-35 fighter jet. Additionally, considering our current deficit, the federal government should reduce the size of our fleet and diverting those funds towards economic recovery. The effects of freeing up even a third of the Navy's budget intended for new warships would put a measure of relief on our debt stricken government.