I have been interested in naval history and ship design since I was a teen. I have a particular interest in Dreadnought battleship design, especially those built form 1906 to 1922. In passing, I realize this is an interest about equivalent to fascination with sponge coral physiology, but onward. In the course of this interest, I wondered why the US suddenly came on the naval scene in 1917. The story has applicability to our current budget and economic problems.
The US had a very small navy during the revolutionary war, mainly of private vessels converted to privateers, ships that raided opposing commercial ships. After our formation as a republic in 1787, our Federal government formed a navy by constructing a couple of groups of frigates and brigs. These fought in the Barbary Pirates War and the War of 1812. The most famous of these is the Constitution, still preserved in Boston. The Federal army developed a large number of gunboats and monitors during the Civil War, but had almost no 'blue navy' vessels. Gunboats remained a large part of US naval strategy until 1890.
As the US developed international trade and possessions, a process greatly accelerated by the Spanish American War, there was greater interest in an ocean going navy. These ships were armored cruisers at first, such as the Olympia, which fought at Manila Bay under Dewey. With our industrial and trade development, however, we needed a larger presence at sea. The US began building battleships in 1890. Our first efforts had numerous problems, but also many design innovations. Dreadnought battleships are named after the HMS Dreadnought, which was the first all big gun battleship. Such ships prior to had had a mixed caliber of guns.
The US was very nearly first in creating an all big gun battleship, in which case the type would have been called Carolinas, but in any event we became prolific producers of the type. By 1917 we had 16 such battleships, and 5 more building. From 1912 to the end of the dreadnought era, our battleships were the most heavily armed and armored (although not the fastest) in the world.
The US was not involved in any war with a foreign power from 1815 until 1898, and we did not fight in Europe from 1775 until 1917. We did not become involved in the Austro-Prussian War, the war of 1870, the Crimean War, the Boer war or the Russo-Japanese War. We had simply had no interest or business with the various European wars; indeed, US politicians made a point of boasting that our country did not dirty itself with such squabbles. Our values and our nation were above that.
We did enter WW 1 when ships containing US citizens were attacked, and with the provocation of the Zimmerman telegram. By the end of WW 1, with European losses in material and people, the US was the largest industrial country in the world, whereas we had been an agrarian, non-exporting economy 80 years prior. The shift in the US' position in the world economy was well reflected in the power and size of our navy.
The US had once had no reason to have a navy. We were not exporters of any note, nor were we importers. The US wore its clothes, cut its own wood (England began importing wood in large amounts for ship building from Scandinavia in the 1700s), mined its own iron and coal. The US industrial development was interrupted by the Civil War, but it resumed with a passion in the 1870s. In this time we hosted an impressive international exposition in 1876. We became significant exporters of finished goods and raw materials during this time.
By the end of WW 1, we were completely energy independent, having (and still having) the world's largest reserves of coal by a wide margin, being a net exporter of oil and having the largest industrial economy in the world. this was the economic base from which we fought WW 2. During this war, US oil fueled most of the allies' tanks and ships. We built 96,000 aircraft in 1944 alone, 30,000 Sherman tanks, 120 aircraft carriers of all sizes, 12 battleships, 80 cruisers and 150 or so destroyers. All in less than 5 years.
By the end of WW 2, with the wholesale destruction of world industrial capacity, we controlled 85% of the WORLD'S goods and services. Our military and navy reflected this. We had by a wide margin the largest and most powerful navy in the world, and also the largest army. We had bases spread across the world.
When producing 85% of the world's product, it is impossible NOT to have a trade surplus, and our productivity made it easy to fund a government. Since then, our share of world markets has of course substantially shrunk. The two leading export economies are China and Germany. We abandoned balanced budgets during the Vietnam years, and deficits have steadily worsened, with minor turnarounds under Clinton and Nixon. We are a grossly net importer country, importing not just oil, but a very large proportion of finished electronic goods, precision machinery and raw materials (our dependence on China for rare earth metals is potentially catastrophic). Our export of military goods, aircraft and computers obscures the reality that we import many goods while also running a budget deficit.
Our debt is funded in large part by China. They buy our bonds using money they earn by exporting to us. The situation is so ludicrous it is hard to understand exactly how we got ourselves here, but we are here. We do not make our own products, and we can not pay for the services we want from our government. This is so obviously an unsustainable economic path that I am disappointed our politicians have not addressed the problem more directly.
We simply can not project military power while buying from the people we would intimidate. No debtor has leadership power in a community. It is financially unsustainable to spend 700 billion yearly on our military establishment when running budget deficits financed by our rivals, who obtain their cash selling to us.
This is all to say that I believe we will have to end our military adventurism, and sharply pare back our federal spending. We can not live in a fantasy world where our government gives us whatever we want while spending money we do not have. We have not only compromised our future, we have compromised our present.
The US is in no position to be building billion dollar sips, planes and tanks. We will lose our position of power unless we get our spending in control. Naval presence follows economic needs and abilities, and we don't have those right now.
Ted
The US had a very small navy during the revolutionary war, mainly of private vessels converted to privateers, ships that raided opposing commercial ships. After our formation as a republic in 1787, our Federal government formed a navy by constructing a couple of groups of frigates and brigs. These fought in the Barbary Pirates War and the War of 1812. The most famous of these is the Constitution, still preserved in Boston. The Federal army developed a large number of gunboats and monitors during the Civil War, but had almost no 'blue navy' vessels. Gunboats remained a large part of US naval strategy until 1890.
As the US developed international trade and possessions, a process greatly accelerated by the Spanish American War, there was greater interest in an ocean going navy. These ships were armored cruisers at first, such as the Olympia, which fought at Manila Bay under Dewey. With our industrial and trade development, however, we needed a larger presence at sea. The US began building battleships in 1890. Our first efforts had numerous problems, but also many design innovations. Dreadnought battleships are named after the HMS Dreadnought, which was the first all big gun battleship. Such ships prior to had had a mixed caliber of guns.
The US was very nearly first in creating an all big gun battleship, in which case the type would have been called Carolinas, but in any event we became prolific producers of the type. By 1917 we had 16 such battleships, and 5 more building. From 1912 to the end of the dreadnought era, our battleships were the most heavily armed and armored (although not the fastest) in the world.
The US was not involved in any war with a foreign power from 1815 until 1898, and we did not fight in Europe from 1775 until 1917. We did not become involved in the Austro-Prussian War, the war of 1870, the Crimean War, the Boer war or the Russo-Japanese War. We had simply had no interest or business with the various European wars; indeed, US politicians made a point of boasting that our country did not dirty itself with such squabbles. Our values and our nation were above that.
We did enter WW 1 when ships containing US citizens were attacked, and with the provocation of the Zimmerman telegram. By the end of WW 1, with European losses in material and people, the US was the largest industrial country in the world, whereas we had been an agrarian, non-exporting economy 80 years prior. The shift in the US' position in the world economy was well reflected in the power and size of our navy.
The US had once had no reason to have a navy. We were not exporters of any note, nor were we importers. The US wore its clothes, cut its own wood (England began importing wood in large amounts for ship building from Scandinavia in the 1700s), mined its own iron and coal. The US industrial development was interrupted by the Civil War, but it resumed with a passion in the 1870s. In this time we hosted an impressive international exposition in 1876. We became significant exporters of finished goods and raw materials during this time.
By the end of WW 1, we were completely energy independent, having (and still having) the world's largest reserves of coal by a wide margin, being a net exporter of oil and having the largest industrial economy in the world. this was the economic base from which we fought WW 2. During this war, US oil fueled most of the allies' tanks and ships. We built 96,000 aircraft in 1944 alone, 30,000 Sherman tanks, 120 aircraft carriers of all sizes, 12 battleships, 80 cruisers and 150 or so destroyers. All in less than 5 years.
By the end of WW 2, with the wholesale destruction of world industrial capacity, we controlled 85% of the WORLD'S goods and services. Our military and navy reflected this. We had by a wide margin the largest and most powerful navy in the world, and also the largest army. We had bases spread across the world.
When producing 85% of the world's product, it is impossible NOT to have a trade surplus, and our productivity made it easy to fund a government. Since then, our share of world markets has of course substantially shrunk. The two leading export economies are China and Germany. We abandoned balanced budgets during the Vietnam years, and deficits have steadily worsened, with minor turnarounds under Clinton and Nixon. We are a grossly net importer country, importing not just oil, but a very large proportion of finished electronic goods, precision machinery and raw materials (our dependence on China for rare earth metals is potentially catastrophic). Our export of military goods, aircraft and computers obscures the reality that we import many goods while also running a budget deficit.
Our debt is funded in large part by China. They buy our bonds using money they earn by exporting to us. The situation is so ludicrous it is hard to understand exactly how we got ourselves here, but we are here. We do not make our own products, and we can not pay for the services we want from our government. This is so obviously an unsustainable economic path that I am disappointed our politicians have not addressed the problem more directly.
We simply can not project military power while buying from the people we would intimidate. No debtor has leadership power in a community. It is financially unsustainable to spend 700 billion yearly on our military establishment when running budget deficits financed by our rivals, who obtain their cash selling to us.
This is all to say that I believe we will have to end our military adventurism, and sharply pare back our federal spending. We can not live in a fantasy world where our government gives us whatever we want while spending money we do not have. We have not only compromised our future, we have compromised our present.
The US is in no position to be building billion dollar sips, planes and tanks. We will lose our position of power unless we get our spending in control. Naval presence follows economic needs and abilities, and we don't have those right now.
Ted
Have you considered putting some of the content of this blog into a letter to send to your congressman? Now that we have a new congress, I'm sure for the moment the congressmen will "be all ears" and receptive to such issues.
ReplyDeleteDavid