I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.
It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.
I think it also showed his ignorance of naval history.
What the great powers figured out after World War I was that battleships were in fact a waste of resources. Germany and the UK engaged in a very expensive arms race for dreadnaughts that ended rather anti-climatically when after the Battle of Jutland, they proved largely unimportant to the eventual outcome of the war.
The first order of business after World War I was signing the Washington Naval Treaty, where the powers on the winning side all agreed to limit the number of battleships they built so they wouldn't bankrupt themselves.
The fact is, Naval power is kind of unimportant We have 12 aircraft carriers, more than the rest of the world combined, and most of the rest of the world's nations that operate them are either allies or have a common interest with us.
The one thing we have learned, or should have learned in the last decade, is that even minor wars are economic back-breakers. No one could afford a major war in our interconnected, global economy.
Investing in schools instead of warships would do more to improve our international position.
