What’s Wrong Today
In the last debate, Mr. Romney claimed that the US Navy is the smallest it’s been since 1916, implying that it is regressing in terms of overall strength.
Here is Mr. Romney’s claim from the third presidential debate:
“Our Navy is old — excuse me — our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy.”
Navy Battle Group, Arabian Sea
Here is what Romney said in his VMI speech:
“The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines.”
In the last decade, the Navy budget rose 40% in real terms, but the size of the force continues to fall: ships, aircraft and sailors are down about 20% (but curiously, the number of admirals is rising.) The 313 number Mr. Romney quoted is correct. The Navy has gone through two major strategy reviews and has not deviated from that number, but its own shipbuilding plans do not approach that number and are unrealistic given the projected resources (see the CBO analysis of shipbuilding plans).
So What’s Wrong?
Was Mr. Romney’s claim accurate? The blog The Monkey Cage had a guest post by political scientists Brian Crisher and Mark Souva who recently created a measure of state naval strength for all countries from 1865 to 2011. Their paper indicates that in 1916, the US controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. The US ranked third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%) and just ahead of France (10%).
In 2011, they report that the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (next at 11%).
As Mr. Romney indicated, the US Navy has decreased in absolute size, US warships are much more powerful now than in the past, as President Obama implied. However, neither the number of warships nor the power of our ships is what is most important for understanding military and political influence. It is relative military power that matters most. In this respect, the U.S. Navy is far stronger now than in 1916.
And the 50% share of naval power may actually understate our position relative to our competition. The ships that really matter today are aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. The US currently has about 18 aircraft carriers. Our largest competitor navies (Russia, France, India, Italy, Spain and China) have only one carrier each in operation.
The nuclear submarine situation is a bit less lopsided. We have 50 nuclear subs in the fleet today and the rest of the world taken together have about the same number. China has nine nuclear subs, but they rarely put to sea. That is true for all other navies with the exception of UK and France.
Romney blows a Dog Whistle and Virginia listens
US Navy Shipyard, Portsmouth VA
It is possible that Mr. Romney’s concern about the number of ships has more to do with winning Virginia than it does with concern for US naval capabilities.
Virginia is home to major Navy shipyards. That may explain why Romney’s talking points emphasize number of ships (= more ship building) rather than their capabilities.
Mr. Obama engaged in a bit of rhetorical jujutsu at the debate, calculating that he could make Romney look ridiculous on national security by turning his own talking points against him with the horses & bayonets line.
It is doubtful that the Romney campaign seriously believes US naval capabilities are directly related to number of ships.
He was simply making a political calculation that may just win him Virginia.
