Selling the Sub Force(Crossposted from Unconsidered Trifles) Bubblehead has an intriguing, thought-provoking posting about the Navy's new shipbuilding "vision". It includes a glimpse as to what might be the future of the surface navy as well as some grim news for the submarine force.
His post--as well as a conversation with another former submariner visiting for the USNA stampede over Army (LOL)--has got me thinking...
...thinking some pretty heretical thoughts for a submariner, that is.
Let me just put it out there as a question: What if the submarine force simply looked at the writing on the wall and raised it's hand and said: "You know what? We're not up to the job. Our ability to contribute to the War on Terror, though valuable in some ways, is extremely limited. At the end of the day we admit: you don't need fifty or even forty subs designed to be SEAL delivery vehicles."
The Sub Force would then say (in my hypothetical conversation): "So, we propose instead that you consider very carefully that terrorists are not our only enemies. And that it would be a dire mistake to be caught unguarded against, say, a Chinese naval/submarine threat or another Korean war, or Iran's reconstituted Russian diesel fleet."
Here, then, is my question for my fellow sub bloggers (& admittedly I am undecided how best to respond to this):
Wouldn't it be better if the Sub Force justified its existence based on some other--more traditional, blue-water ASW--threat than to try to be "sexy" for the war on terror?