The United States Naval Gunfire Support debate (also known as the United States Naval Surface Fire Support debate) is an ongoing debate among the navy, Marine Corps, Congress, and independent groups like the United States Naval Gunfire Support Association on the issue of what role Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) / Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) should play within the navy and how such a role can best be provided. At the heart of the issue is the role that naval gunfire support—the use of naval artillery to provide fire support for amphibious assault and other troops operating within their range—should play in the U.S. Navy of the 21st century.
Although the debate at large traces its roots back to the end of World War II, the current debate began in 1992 with the retirement of the last active Iowa-class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), as a result of the reduced demand for naval artillery, the rise of ship and submarine-launched missiles and aircraft-launched precision guided munitions (such as laser-guided bombs, which can accurately strike and destroy an enemy target with a single strike). The most striking point of the debate in the United States centers on battleships: owing to the longtime maintenance and upkeep that the four completed Iowa-class battleships have undergone during their time in the navy's active and mothball fleets, many still view battleships as viable solutions for gunfire support, and these members have questioned if the navy can adequately replace the gunfire support provided by a battleship's main guns with the smaller guns on its current fleet of cruisers and destroyers.
The debate has played out across a wide spectrum of media, including newspapers, magazines, web blogs, and congressional research arms like the Government Accountability Office. Each side has presented different arguments on the best approach to the problem, but most of the participants favor the continuation of the DD(X) program or the reinstatement of the Iowa-class battleships to the Naval Vessel Register. The Iowa-class battleships, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and Zumwalt-class destroyers have entered the debate as options put forward for naval gunfire support, while others advocate the use of specifically designed close air support planes and newer missile systems that can loiter in an area as a replacement for naval gunfire.
Read more about United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate: Background, Replacing The Battleships, Striking The Iowa-class Battleships, Alternatives To Naval Gunfire, Recent Developments
Famous quotes containing the words united states, united, states, naval, support and/or debate:
“The boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what modern civilization could claim to have done to compensate for their loss. They said they would rather be outlaws a year in Sherwood Forest than President of the United States forever.”
—Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835–1910)
“Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“[Urging the national government] to eradicate local prejudices and mistaken rivalships to consolidate the affairs of the states into one harmonious interest.”
—James Madison (1751–1836)
“Yesterday, December 7, 1941Ma date that will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”
—Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)
“Have a sense of piety ever on your mind, and be ever mindful that this is subject to no change, but will last you as long as life and support you in death. Elevate your soul by prayer and by contemplation without mystical enthusiasm.”
—James Boswell (1740–1795)
“A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)