Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Aviation Sceptic's avatar

CDR Sal, have to consider you the "Paul Revere" of U.S. Pacific readiness. Was neck deep in such affairs in a prior life, and have yet to find a flaw or serious disagreement with your analysis. While no longer plugged in to such things, sadly have a very uneasy feeling that we may actually be in a worse situation from a readiness standpoint than we were...and it was bad before UKR kicked off. Defending such logistics points is a necessity. That involves resources we have seriously depleted. Alway come back to our choices / what "winning" looks like: 1) Don't fight, 2) win fast or lose ("winning means imposing "unacceptable cost" whatever that turns out to be), 3) go nuclear. Given the time it takes to mitigate our shortfalls (ship and aircraft production, munitions, logistics bases / platforms) and the "other sides" constant assessment of where we are in ability to defend versus where they are in ability to attack / invade, have to think we are in a very dangerous "window" the next 18 months. Please keep fighting the good fight!

Boat Guy's avatar

Older son recently texted from Bora Bora; "I'd love to see the history of the decision-making that led to the US abandoning the Naval Air Station here in 1946."

71 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?