The definition of the word "likely" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary...
The word likely is very dangerous when spoken by a noted military analyst. Mike over at New Wars has a post about the Navy's shipbuilding. The entire article is worth reading but this passage caught my attention.
Wartime attrition is likely?
That's a disturbing thought. We haven't lost an aircraft carrier since WW2. Either he's making some seriously irresponsible guesses in front of a Congressional Committee or we're not being told of some extremely serious vulnerabilities present in our current force structure. The idea that a carrier could be lost to enemy action is beyond stunning. Its down right spooky. If a ship with over 4,000 sailors can be lost that indicates that every other ship in the fleet is vulnerable. I hope to hear or read more on Thompson's thinking.
Main Entry: 1like·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈlī-klē\Function: adjectiveInflected Form(s): like·li·er; like·li·estEtymology: Middle English, from Old English gelīclic fitting (from gelīc like) and Old Norse glīkligr, līkligr, from glīkr like; akin to Old English gelīcDate: 14th century1 : having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable
2 : apparently qualified : suitable
The word likely is very dangerous when spoken by a noted military analyst. Mike over at New Wars has a post about the Navy's shipbuilding. The entire article is worth reading but this passage caught my attention.
…Many of you have no doubt heard the hottest shipbuilding rumor spawned by the QDR process — that the number of
aircraft carriers will be cut from eleven to ten, or even nine. It is true that we are headed down to ten in 2013 because of the time-gap between when Enterprise retires and the first Ford-class carrier joins the fleet, but that is a temporary situation.
Although the Navy could meet current warfighting requirements with one or two less carriers, a permanent cut wouldn’t be prudent for two reasons…
– First, warfighting needs are likely to change in the future.
– Second, wartime attrition is likely to occur in the future.
So it makes little sense to cut the number of carriers to the absolute minimum currently required, and the Navy’s 2011 shipbuilding plan will call for maintaining eleven flattops through 2040.
Wartime attrition is likely?
That's a disturbing thought. We haven't lost an aircraft carrier since WW2. Either he's making some seriously irresponsible guesses in front of a Congressional Committee or we're not being told of some extremely serious vulnerabilities present in our current force structure. The idea that a carrier could be lost to enemy action is beyond stunning. Its down right spooky. If a ship with over 4,000 sailors can be lost that indicates that every other ship in the fleet is vulnerable. I hope to hear or read more on Thompson's thinking.
