Underestimating the value of the battleship

There was a time when the battleship was the grand warrior of Navies. Their big guns could accurately rain down fire upon targets, and naval strategy was dependent upon them. Then in 1941, the Japanese destroyed much of the United States' battleship capability in the Pacific. Out of necessity, the aircraft carrier became the most important ship in the United States Navy, and it acquitted itself quite nicely. And with the success of the aircraft carrier came the United States' obsession with air power.

With that information as background, I recommend Bob Novak's column on the battleship. Battleships are a relic in today's Navy. The USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin are the only two battleships available to us today, and they sit in reserve. In fact, there is a movement afoot to have them both turned into museums. I'm more than a little disappointed at this. While the hay day of the battleship has long passed, there is still a role for the battleship in today's Navy. I'll let Novak take over on that note:

On the modernized battleships, 18 big (16-inch) guns could fire 460 projectiles in nine minutes and take out hardened targets in North Korea. In contrast, the DD(X) will fire only 70 long-range attack projectiles at $1 million a minute. Therefore, the new destroyer will rely on conventional 155-millimeter rounds that Marines say cannot reach the shore. Former longtime National Security Council staffer William L. Stearman, now executive director of the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association, told me, "In short, this enormously expensive ship cannot fulfill its primary mission: provide naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps."

The Navy's anti-battleship bias began Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese surprise attack destroyed the U.S. Pacific Fleet's battleships. Although admirals in 1946 vowed never to bring back battleships, they served effectively in the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. Congressional pressure brought the USS New Jersey to Vietnam for six months, leading the Marine commandant, Gen. Leonard Chapman, to conclude, "Thousands of American lives were saved." The Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.

While air power offers longer range and missiles more precision, there is something to be said for being able to put a lot of firepower down on an area quickly, and battleships have the advantage in this. But we have a military today that is obsessed with high tech solutions to any problem, and that is fine as long as we have a sizeable gap over our nearest military competitor. One day, though, somebody-maybe China-will achieve military parity with us. With our expensive, high tech weapons systems, all out war could become a debilitatingly expensive venture. Artillery, both in the Army and the Navy, would be a less expensive way for us to put down a lot of firepower while preserving our expensive machinery for battles it could win without high levels of attrition. I have a fear that the U.S. military is being short sited in its eschewing of low tech weaponry for high tech weaponry. There is a place for both in today's military, and in certain cases, the low tech solutions may even have the advantage.