-
Meanwhile, in Israel…
March 28, 2011 | 21 comments
Special Report
A Great White Fleet for the 21st Century
Disaster relief — and America’s sense of itself — require nothing less.
(Page 2 of 2)
Just as importantly, because communications is one of the first things to fail in a natural disaster, and one of the most necessary to recovery, the super-ships could carry telephones and cell-phone towers, laptop computers, wireless Internet gear, satellite ground stations, thousands of civil and police walkie-talkies — everything needed to restore life-saving, efficient communications. Even the most devastated city would be relinked to the world even as the super-carrier neared port.
The non-nuclear USS Kitty Hawk and USS Constellation are presently floating at pier-side in Bremerton, WA, and the USS John F. Kennedy is on donation hold in Philadelphia awaiting conversion into a museum ship. Those carriers could be made available quickly for demilitarization and modification. Since they are oil-burning ships, their power-generation capabilities eventually would be limited by their bunker capacity, but the Navy has tankers for that. Surpassed only by the nearly endless electrical generating capacity of a nuclear carrier, they could handle the mission perfectly. And since they are already on the inactive list, their conversion would not diminish the Navy’s readiness.
Deploying The Great White Fleet
Where would we station them? We should follow the military practice of pre-positioning; fill them with the necessities and station them around the world so that they would be available where needed as soon as possible. I’d port one in Pearl Harbor to cover the Pacific Rim (including our own West Coast), another at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to cover East Africa, South Asia, and Australia, and a third in Mayport, FL, to cover the North Atlantic. A fourth, when available, could be located in Argentina or Brazil, allowing for a quick dash along the coast, around Cape Horn, or across the South Atlantic to West Africa.
Except for caretaker crews, just enough to get underway and man the flight deck, most personnel (largely civilian) could remain stateside until needed, and be flown to the ships en route aboard US Navy COD transports. Because the ships would usually be idle, staffing and maintenance cost would be low, just as with today’s forward-deployed supply ships.
Of course, one question is “Where will the money come from?” Among them America’s billionaires, most with some claim to philanthropy, could afford to convert and supply four disaster-relief super-carriers. After all, they would not be paying to build these ships from the keel up. Also remember that when the Persians were coming, Athenian merchants put up the money to build the triremes that defeated them. That’s a tradition worth reviving.
Barring that, make this an international program with every coastal nation contributing a fair share.
Meanwhile, imagine the USS Kitty Hawk, the JFK, the Constellation — or the iconic USS Enterprise with its eight nuclear reactors — gleaming, demilitarized, converted for disaster intervention, and painted a blinding white sailing into some shattered port to save lives, heal the injured, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clear the wreckage, and help restore both power and civilization.
I can’t imagine a better second career for any retired warrior; it would be in the highest tradition of American morality and the U.S. Navy. And not only would Roosevelt’s ghost approve, but the hundreds of thousands The Fleet could rescue would appreciate one of America’s greatest strengths, its idealism.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (189) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James B. Brinton
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/18/a-great-white-fleet-for-the-21
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kenny| 3.18.11 @ 6:27AM
Are you nuts?
Darin| 3.18.11 @ 6:53AM
And what, exactly, does your question have to do with the article? Are you asking if the author is nuts because of the ability of America's military to provide disaster relief across the globe? Are you asking if the author is nuts because you don't like the military or the Japanese people? Specifics, please.
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 4:27PM
"The United States can reaffirm its ideals in this century with a new Great White Fleet."
Then we need a defense tax. this is YOUR country, you have to pay for it.
You will fork over the dough and like it.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 6:59PM
No you won't. This would be funded philanthropically or by international donation. The US would actually save money and improve national readiness. Read the rest of the article.
Alan Brooks| 3.18.11 @ 8:23PM
"No you won't. This would be funded philanthropically or by international donation. The US would actually save money and improve national readiness. Read the rest of the article."
I skimmed over it, it is overly-optimistic at this time; if i didn't think so I'd be at an anarcho-syndicalist site right now.
Brauc Archer| 3.21.11 @ 8:13PM
You mean, like the international community has paid for everything else to date? Yeah, that'll work out just fine.
Dixie Pixie| 3.18.11 @ 8:18PM
Greetings Kenny
To answer your question, the military has known for decades that their philosophy, doctrine, equipment and the training of personal are unsuited for the humanitarian missions it is asked to perform.
Simply put, the US Military is highly efficient at blowing up a city but is hopeless at rebuilding a city.
Some thought has gone into building a corps level super Sea-bees or Army Engineer corps dedicated to rebuilding a city,region or state.
The idea has always dies for the reason Alan Brooks pointed out.
To setup and run such an Army Reconstruction Corps is a massive expense.
The cost is equivalent to outfitting a full armored corps.
Naturally the flag officers when given the choice of funding a Armored Corps or a Engineer Reconstruction Corps has always chosen the tanks.
The Army viewpoint is there can never be enough Armored Divisions and the Armored Divisions can be easily retrained for humanitarian missions.
After 10 years of the Iraq War and Afghan Wars it has been proven that current military units are hopeless at Rebuilding and Humanitarian Support activities.
Thus the "Crazy" talk about a new branch of DOD using revamped and rebuilt military equipment to do reconstruction and humanitarian missions.
ENOUGH ROPE| 3.18.11 @ 7:18AM
Officer Brinton, thank you for your years of service to our nation and your Christian recommendations for our inactive super-carriers to perform humanitarian missions.
I feel awful to disagree with your wonderful and altruistic suggestions. Until our nation restores its fiscal, monetary, and economic health, I oppose any significant diversion of our scarce financial resources to foreign aid. Our Armed Forces should have been expanded years ago to enable deployments to combat zones every four years instead of every seven or fifteen months. Our Navy should have at least 600 ships and more super-carrier groups. We should be able to fight, with a volunteer force if possible, a two ocean war. America's enemies and potential enemies should hesitate to even think about messing with us. Economic power is the basis for military power. Unless America is very strong economically and militarily, the world will become like Libya is now.
Given the excess of demands on the Navy, I wonder if it would be a good idea to return the inactive carriers to service to increase quickly America's power to hurt the bad guys. Yes, there are many good cost-benefit studies that make that a mediocre alternative. Would ability to project force now in the many dangerous parts of the world trump financial and optimal operational disadvantages?
I am sorry that the first response to your seminal and patriotic article was disrespectful.
Peace be with you Officer Brinton.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 9:06AM
Amen. Dittos.
Ted| 3.18.11 @ 9:21AM
Agreed, but... A lot of this work we are doing already, whether we want to or not. So if we are going to do it, we might as well do it right.
It is an interesting idea.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 7:00PM
As long as we're doing it we might as well increase effiiciency and reduce the cost. With philanthropic and/or international funding, we would lift a burden from our military and the defense budget both.
A. C. Santore| 3.18.11 @ 11:12AM
I understand your concerns, "Enough Rope," but we're already doing what Mr. Brinton suggests - except in not nearly so efficient and cost-effective a way.
I'd not hesitate an eye-blink at two "rescue carriers" - one in the Atlantic/Med, and one in the Pacific/Indian Ocean.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 7:02PM
I certainly agree, and we would actually save military funding by doing this; unburden the military too, and probably improve readiness at the same time.
GavInTucson| 3.18.11 @ 11:59PM
Sorry, but I fail to understand how recommissioning and operating an additional two carriers would save military funding. Could you explain?
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:00AM
Disregard. I accidentally skimmed over to important sentences in the article.
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:01AM
Aaarrggghh, I meant "two."
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 12:42PM
No doubt about this being an interesting idea, and several of the more serious contributors have treated it as such. Others, the usual suspects, have given their drive by swipes and scurried back to the darkness where no light shines. Asking more of them is futile since they do not possess the knowledge or integrity to engage in a civil colloquy….but we expect no less from the left. Now to some points.
The funding is a bit of a sticky wicket at the moment but the author does provide a viable avenue to explore. It can be summed up in an answer JFK gave to a reported when he was running for President. Asked that since he was already a war hero, author, Senator, and wealthy why he would want to be President JFK replied, “Because that’s where the power lies” The funding the author suggested was to come from the wealthy, the uber rich who just received a windfall of trillions from obama hussien. Well the rich also want very much to be on the Washington “A” list so a philanthropic donation would go a long way in them maintaining their place. Why would such a humanitarian such as obama hussien object to utilizing his position to ask for the development of international relief vessels? Just think of the good will.
We have the ships to do the job described and it would garner great huzzahs of world approval, perhaps even greater than saving populations from the iron grip of dictators. With the right leadership, questionable at the moment, we could get this done.
Additionally enough world pressure could be brought to bear on the Chinese and Soviets to have them contribute also. In the case of the Chinese this would slow their progress toward building a totally military blue water navy to gain hegemony over the western Pacific buy diverting the mission of one of their new carriers to a humanitarian role.
Further study is obviously required but the idea should have appeal to a broad bipartisan faction. I say go forward and put to sea our best effort in worldwide catastrophic relief.
Bob K.| 3.18.11 @ 2:24PM
I don't think we will want to hold our collective breath waiting for the likes of George Soros, the Rockefeller Family and others to distribute their largesse for this humanitarian task, otherwise it will never come about.
Perhaps there could be a special tax for the Wealthy to pay for this. Our President would probably approve; after all, his office is where the power lies. The problem would likely be the same as his last attempt to tax the wealthy. And that is where to draw the line?
Maybe it could be hidden in a cap and trade bill? Then we all would contribute.
These are just a couple of ideas that should appeal to a broad bipartisan faction. I'm sure there many more good ones and I encourage others to participate.
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 7:20AM
Mr. Brinton, good article. Definitely worth exploring the possibilities here. There will indeed be no shortage of next great natural disasters (even on our own coastlines) and places to do vital humanitarian aid.
Sure, super-carriers are good platforms. Perhaps other out-of-use naval vessels as well?
I know that it is a long shot, but here are two very commendable organizations that do humanitarian assistance year-round. Lots of experience between them. I post this so that (the long shot part) an aged vessel might find a home with one of these organizations or, more likely, former naval personnel with experience might consider these very worthy organizations for 1,2, or 3 years of service.
Mercy Ships: http://www.mercyships.org/content/home
OM Ships International: http://www.omships.org/index.p.....64&lang=en
I'm sure they'd be keen to learn of any ship that might suit their mission needs. And they'd be delighted to learn about qualified individuals who would like to go on a "cruise."
I am a fan of both these organizatons; they do great work in very needy places.
PJ| 3.18.11 @ 9:06AM
Pelligrino,
I'm with you. I think it's a great idea. I can't see all these beautiful ships becoming artificial reefs, museums, or metal scrap sold to China.
There are plenty of qualified people who would command or work on these ships for free. Think competent naval officers & non-officers who were forced into retirement (or couldn't bear to work for Obama.)
Or how about medical doctors. I know plenty of doctors who will be retiring early not because they can't deal with patients (They all love their work.) but because they can't deal w/Obamacare.
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 9:43AM
Thank you, PJ. This is the kind of good thinking we need.
In this economy there are a lot of more senior folk who would still like to work (and certainly can), but they are not hired. Age biases, etc.
They have skills, they have saved and are financially getting by. They would gladly "volunteer" to help out for a 1-2 year cruise.
On the other end of the scale, I see weekly young graduate students who have hit the no hiring brick walls. Offer them a bunk, three meals a day, and this opportunity for some adventure and real, meaningful life experience.
They'd rather do this service than sit and do 8 more resumes and cold calls from their parents converted attic.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 9:45AM
I share your concerns about funding the effort; that is why I suggested that it be funded, not out of the public purse, but privately. In addition, you concern for our own military readiness is well placed; that's why I suggest the use of vessels already on the inactive list, and though it may not be obvious, civilian crews -- hopefully retired Navy. I know of no shipmate who would not eagerly volunteer for such a mission. Thanks for your comment.
Bob Knutson| 3.20.11 @ 2:24AM
This is one of the best ideas to come along in years. Advanced age and diminished physical capacity would preclude my volunteering, but I don't think the attitudes and willingness of sailors have changed all that much from when I was on active duty. Today's sailors and even yesterday's would probably man such ships with the spirit and can-do our Navy personnel have always exhibited. It is certainly an idea to be explored.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:05PM
Your input appreciated. There is of course, under the idealism, a selfish aspect to this. We could use rescue carriers stationed on or near both coasts. California is always expecting The Big One, an the East Coast is prey to hurricanes and disasters like Katrina. One can only imagine how much more we could have done in New Orleans using a disaster relief super-carrier based in Mayport, FL, only about a day or so away.
MoeBlotz| 3.18.11 @ 7:29AM
In order for The American Spectator to show balance and avoid the right wing label,perhaps Mr.Tyrrell has decided to allow an article that belongs in Time Magazine to be printed here. It will not work. I am amused at Mr. Brinton's fantasies.
JimP| 3.18.11 @ 8:22AM
Say it ain't so, Moe. AS is going the 'Fair and Balanced' route? First I saw the 'America Sucks' article by Monsieur Francophile, then this. Maybe I'm having a bad dream and NOT sitting here drinking coffee.
Ether Bunny| 3.19.11 @ 12:06AM
You're NOT drinking your coffee. You're currently unconscious and I'm doing something very naughty to one of your orifices.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.11 @ 7:36AM
I'd like to buy the world a Coke.
JimP| 3.18.11 @ 8:18AM
ROTFL. Touche, Bill. Touche.
CharlieEcho| 3.18.11 @ 11:43AM
And; I would like to teach the world to sing.
We could though, withdraw our funding of the UN and put it toward such a ship/s. We need to balance our books first. We can't become a welfare world, whom will pay the bills?
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 7:07PM
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Koch... The list of potential philanthropists with huge amounts of money is endless. Beyond that, maybe every coastal nation could/should chip in.
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:08AM
Bill Gates is on record as wanting to gradually reduce the world population. Might want to scratch that guy off of your list.
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 7:54AM
Moe and Enough Rope, whoa! Let's not dismiss this idea out of hand.
Yes, we're all "thinking out loud" here as we consider what this article proposes.
I would say the following:
1. More disasters are coming; it is a given. These ships are not just for aiding others. Fundamentally, it might be what we'll need right here on our own coastlines.
2. Your understandable immediate concerns are funding and materiel support for these vessels. Well, who is to say that the taxpayer is to pay for this?
3. Perhaps these vessels as cooperatives but run/funded by an organization like Samaritan's Purse (They know how to do disaster relief) or the 2 organizations that I mention above.
4. We have the Peace Corps now, right? That is not cheap, all its operations. Maybe it moves part of its operation to something more versatile like a ship based platform.
Maybe I misunderstand, but simply turning these vessels and the USS Enterprise in 2013 into museum pieces is wasteful. We have lots of Navy museum ships already.
Goodness, (dare I say it?) FEMA ought to be interested in retired massive ships.
I am in agreement that we have to get our national fiscal house in order -- pronto. If we stopped dithering & had REAL LEADERSHIP in D.C., we could.
**Important: No ship with recall purposes for our Navy should be considered for these various rescue/aid options.
Folks, Mr. Brinton is sounding the right and prudent warning. The next big disaster is always only 7-10 months away.
Big Tony| 3.18.11 @ 9:05AM
FEMA? Are you serious? You think they did such a bang up job on the Gulf coast after Katrina they should be given more responsibilities? And what self respecting liberal is not going to want to turn this into something wholy funded or at least subsidized by the US taxpayer. Just like we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman we can no longer afford to be the world's sugar daddy either. On the one hand we discuss taking money away from the people that paid into Social Security and Medicare and making them work until they drop dead so that they can pay for the mess the pols have made of Social Security System and on the other we discuss saving the rest of the world? Disasters come and disasters go, the planet earth is a rough and tumble place and people that live on the edge of a dynamic enviroment need to accept the risk that comes with it. We have enough problems domestically without trying to figure how we can save the rest of world too, first let's figure out how to save this country and our economy from the coming monitary and socialist disaster our political class is in the process of bringing about!
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 10:00AM
B. Tony, whoa, partner. You saw how hesitatingly I typed that acronym FEMA above, right? I'm treading cautiously there, very cautiously (I am not their fan).
But you're missing something. FEMA is not responsible for international crisis relief. They are only to focus on us, this land, our people.
I don't like bloated, inefficient government either. But a water based HQ platform for shoreline disaster relief might come in real handy when the next Hurricane Katrina/Rita hits -- and it will.
Didn't we all just witness, what, $39 million in coastline damage in just California when the across-the-Pacific tsunami hit there and Oregon?
Goodness! That ocean wave travelled a couple thousand miles and still did some real havoc. What's it going to be like when we get a real one?
This is about preparedness.
And AGAIN, I stress, maybe one or two of these ships can be placed in competent PRIVATE philanthropic hands to do aid work. Why not? (if we have no other purpose for them)
**There can be a big caveat on them: "Ship reverts immediately to Dept. of Navy control in the event of a national crisis."
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 9:55AM
Excellent points. I hope you noticed that I suggest that two of the ships be home ported in the United States. One ready for The Big One off the West Coast, and other to cover the Gulf and Atlantic states. Imagine how different Katrina might have been if one of these ships could have sailed within helicopter range. Second, disasters will come whether we do this or not; today, our military must bear the burden, raise the money and draw down the manpower to intervene, and while no officer or enlisted man would draw back, we might make more efficient use of national resources if we allowed a project like this to move ahead, funded philanthropically. Doing so would not impact our military, or our budget, but it would give both the States and the rest of the world a much-enhanced ability to deal with events like the Japanese quake even, or perhaps especially, if they took place on US soil.
MacNic| 3.18.11 @ 11:30AM
Excellent article and "right on" idea. I've said this many times in the past and the Japan crisis emphasizes the need for this emergency response capability.
I would amend the deployment sites to put the greatest capability on the US West Coast since this area has the largest potential for a major disaster from Alaska to Southern Calif from 8+ earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and volcanoes.
As far as funding is concerned, there is ample funds in the Homeland Security Dept budget to support this. In fact it makes more sense to fund this capability that can be used to support any US state or city than to give those funds to individual states or cities where it may or may not ever be needed especially in the low population central and north east states.
I would go further and suggest that the support of these vessels be another official uniformed service perhaps incorporating the Peace Corps and encouraging retired Armed Services personnel to consider being paid volunteers to "man" these ships. I would also recommend that every public emergency agency be required to provide personnel for these ships for training and short duration (6 weeks) emergency service duty.
I agree that the priority should be US emergency support first and world wide support second. In fact diverting just a small percentage of our foreign aid budget to this effort would pay for the whole idea.
CapnMac| 3.18.11 @ 11:50PM
Slight technical issues with operations in the littoral, especially the US Gulf Coast. There, the ideal would be one of our soon-to-be-retired LPD, or an LHD. I'd much rather seen my Anchorage so used than as a reef or foriegn car parts.
Now, operationally, this would still be an excellent fit for the Coasties. USCG retains a lot of the "lean-ness' they picked up from being part of DoT for a grat long time. Further, there's no real legal issue in case of military need, the USCG reverts to USN control with already-extant regulation and law. The Coasties are also already good at civilian-governmental partnerships, too.
All-white hull with a dark blue band halfway up and the Stars-n-Stripes amidships would be striking, and distinctive.
JimP| 3.18.11 @ 8:12AM
This is a very noble idea. However, we don't have the money to spend on it for the forseeable future. We need to have our military concern itself with warfighting. If it can be used for humanitarian purposes on occasion, combat missions and funds permitting, that's fine. Also, what the author describes sounds to me like a permanent American taxpayer funded military version of the international Red Cross. There are already multiple agencies and organizations for humanitarian relief. Expanding our military with this as a primary purpose is a very bad idea, IMO.
Sheila| 3.18.11 @ 10:24AM
Yes. The military is not a social experiment or a charitable organization; it is for fighting wars (preferably of defense and in America's interests, NOT to export democracy).
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 2:41PM
Sheila,
We have no democracy to export. We are a Republic.
The word democracy shows up neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the US Constitution.
Madison explains it in the Federalist #10
Bob K.| 3.19.11 @ 12:13AM
Woodrow Wilson disagreed. After WW I he went about trying "Make the World safe for democracy." And since then that has been the lynch pin of American Foreign Policy. As we now see, the problem is the reverse: How to make democracy safe for the world.
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 1:58PM
Bob K
You do a fine, no excellent job of showing off the pitiful effects of our educational system.
Money says you've never read Federalist #10 by James Madison, but there's also money that says somewhere at sometime you recited the Pledge of Allegience......you knoe the part ...."and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands......"
Now be good and go refresh youself on what we have a democracy or a republic.....now I could simply agree with you but then we'd both look ignorant. Republic dude,Republic.......find the word democracy in the Constitution.....go ahead...find it..Alpha Hotel
Bob K.| 3.19.11 @ 3:11PM
Ah Habu!
You are no more educated in the realities of our world than any one else is.
Of course our country was and is a Republic. Spend a bit of time considering what I wrote. I was commenting about Woodrow Wilson (a highly educated man, by the way) and the results of his crusade and not about our democratic republic. The word democracy is not in our constitution as far as I know but that is not important. It did not come into common usage until after the publication of Toqueville's 2 volume essay on "Democracy in America." In a historical sense democracy is a very complex and much misunderstood subject. Too complicated to go into here; but if you have not brought your own education to halt I recommend to you this recent historical essay written by Professor John Lukacs and published in 2006 entitled "Democracy and Populism." He is not by any means uneducated in history and I confess that I took the idea about Wilson from his book. It can be found at page 4. He has a few more less than complimentary remarks about him and the the damage he did to American foreign policy further on in the book.
And by the way, your silly pejorative, Alpha Hotel, at the end of your post did nothing to move on the discussion of this issue but it did put your ego on display.
Pelligrino| 3.20.11 @ 5:43AM
Bob K. I am with you on your final sentence (above). Habu has earlier made in this thread some really good contributions.
However, that? Totally uncalled for. Immature doesn't describe it sufficiently.
I have no idea why adults would come here to engage in that nonsense. It can, in a very short time, defeat the whole idea of good, useful post-article comments/discussion.
Habu| 3.20.11 @ 8:06PM
Apolodies i mistook your intent...how? Temp insanity..
Best
H
Bob K.| 3.21.11 @ 12:16AM
Apology accepted. Have a nice vernal equinox!
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:11PM
Sheila, this would not be a military operation. The money would be raised either philanthropically or by international donations. The crews would be mostly civilian. The equipment would have a military history, but would be about to be scrapped anyway. Think of this as an effort which would enhance our profile without draining our purse, and you'll be just about on target.
Fairbanks99| 3.18.11 @ 10:51AM
Gates and Buffett could fund this very easily. I live in East Bremerton, and drive by these very ships a couple of times a week. They are just sitting there rusting.
I too served in the Navy, for 25 years, in the submarine force. I think this is a great idea - these carriers would be one of the best things we can do to project our image as a good power. It would do much to counter the endless anti-american propaganda. A white painted relief carrier saving lives and rebuilding shattered communities is pretty hard to deny or miss.
I agree with the posters that said this should not be taxpayer funded. Not a dollar. And it needs to be written into the contract that they revert to the Navy in times of need.
greghawk| 3.18.11 @ 9:02AM
Hey - maybe the Saudi's or the Chinese could pay for one of these 'white elephants'?
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:12PM
I would definitely approach the Saudis for funding. If nothing else, they could supply fuel for the non-nuclear super-carriers.
Pelligrino| 3.20.11 @ 5:56AM
Free fuel support. Yes, perhaps. (as we've saved the princes and their kingdom several times in just my lifetime) Nothing else. Saudi Arabia, the home it represents for a belief that is evil, and its weekly export of terrorism worldwide....No.
Mr. Brinton, the Saudi princes and top businessmen are funding your demise daily. Just look at your nearby US mosque and the not-s0-distant islam school for boys -- its benevolent teachings.
Yes, your base article states that this is to aid in humanitarian efforts (you refer mostly to natural disasters). I would posit that MANY man made disasters have their genesis in Saudi. At some point, these ships would be working to clean up "messes" the Saudis help create.
If this is to succeed, one needs to build it on reliable, upright, altruistically motivated individuals and entities. There is enough of that still in the world; one needn't go begging or asking of world-scale murderers, thieves, liars, and miscreants.
2Anglico| 3.18.11 @ 9:05AM
I hope this is not what passes for military doctrine. If so, we are toast. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, period. Oh, and the purpose of the Navy is to give the Marines a ride.
Ted| 3.18.11 @ 9:24AM
You missed the point brother....
His point is to free the military from this by providing a non-military civilian resource similar to what the USN is providing now.
Instead of being in the combatant fleet, you could put them into Military Sealift Command since they are mostly civilian anyhow.
JimP| 3.18.11 @ 9:54AM
Fine. But let Soros, Buffet, Gates et al fund it and not the American taxpayer. We taxpayers don't need to be on the hook for more stuff than we are now.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 9:57AM
Thanks Ted. And JimP, that's exactly what I propose. See paragraphs near the end of the story.
JimP| 3.18.11 @ 11:42AM
Thanks Jim. Sorry I was so asleep at the wheel this morning that I read it, but it didn't register. My apologies.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:15PM
No problem. I should have "kept the excitement building toward the finale." :-) My bad, JimP.
V8| 3.18.11 @ 2:55PM
HA, HA, Grunt.
Marine
Must
Always
Ride
In
Navy
Equipement. :)
Semper Fi.
2Anglico| 3.18.11 @ 3:07PM
Uncle
Sam's
Misguided
Children-USMC
V8| 3.18.11 @ 4:06PM
LOL. Spent the best 4 years of my Navy career with those misguided children.
maximumrandb| 3.18.11 @ 4:13PM
"Always ride in Navy Equipment." Not really true. I took you jarheads all over the Pacific in my C-130 during the 80's. Was glad to do it, too. You guys are first class.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:13PM
Nothing military about it, except for hardware our military doesn't want any longer.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 9:07AM
The USS Ronaldus Magnus!
Who Knows?| 3.18.11 @ 9:09AM
America is permeated by the “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” core axiom, if you will.
Flowing directly from this is the entrepreneurial spirit, as witness the growth of our standard of living.
It is also certainly a PHYSICAL given that the earth finds ways to rearrange molecules, on a large scale, from time to time—which provides destructive “entertainment”, such as the situation in Japan.
If we could have our druthers, a new Great White Fleet perpetually stationed around the world, as the author so precisely explains, would be fantastic.
How to pay for it, though, is a daunting problem.
Think of it as REAL insurance. In the USA there exist first responders for fire, as well as paramedics.
Why not create national “insurance”, via treaties?
Take the immediate demand for Japan, right after the earthquake struck and the tsunami settled down. A whole lot of first responders would have been great. Instead, relief attempts were overwhelmed by the scale of human loss and physical destruction.
Somehow, it seems to me that at least a rich country like Japan could pay the cost of the Great White Fleet, for whatever it could do to help her citizens.
Of course, from a larger perspective, each human does what they can, given the circumstances of their birth and life. Hence, people who choose to pop out as Haitians, given previous lifetime’s karma, not only want, but also deserve their living AND dying tests.
What do you expect, utopia on Earth?
The state of humanity, NOW, resembles a wild and unruly teenager, who is NOT even civilized enough to love his neighbor as himself.
Humans are WILDING away!
And Earth is perfectly willing and able to accommodate us!
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:16PM
"Who Knows," those are by and large excellent suggestions. Thanks.
DonBaltimore| 3.20.11 @ 2:42PM
Hey Who, I like the way you think, and have been aiming in that direction of thought for a long time. I agree with your comments and the way you set the perspective for it.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.18.11 @ 9:10AM
Better to be feared than respected. Just sayin'.
Ted| 3.18.11 @ 9:25AM
Phil,
Usually if one is feared, one is respected. I am thinking of most of the old school 1SGTs I have known....
JRGIERLACH| 3.18.11 @ 12:23PM
LOL- yes, the best ones I served with presented an attitude of implacable hatred for everything except the Company Cdr (and even them occaisionally) but who were also quite aware of problems the troops had and often suggested solutions to the Platoon Sgts that worked quite well- as long as the troops did not know that it came from the First Shirt.
GavInTucson| 3.19.11 @ 12:26AM
Ah, the 1st Sergeant. And the best one's are the crazily uptight ones, which is why I think the diamond is an appropriate symbol for their chevrons.
From Ferris Bueller?: "Cameron is so uptight that if you shoved a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond."
coal carrier| 3.18.11 @ 9:31AM
What are we going to be, the worlds rescue squad? This country has spent billions in the last 60 years on relief efforts and what has it done for us? The Muslims in the Middle East despise us. The Europeans hope our dollar collapses. The Chinese continuously scheme and connive with regard to fare trade and monetary policy between them and the US.
We are told that the world’s hatred for us is due to our policies. Do they mean the policies of us being there with food, water, supplies and money for the past 60 years, at a moment’s notice, when a natural disaster happens in their part of the world?
Sorry folks, we are in debt for 15 trillion. Do you know what 15 trillion in debt means? It means we have no money. Regardless of what Michael Moore says.
Big Tony| 3.18.11 @ 11:22AM
In debt $15,000,000,000,000.00 if you only count the Chinese, Japanese, and other US bond holders. It's closer to $86,000,000,000,000.00 if you count what the goverment owns the people that paid into Social Securtiy and Medicare and that's before you add in Obamacare. It kind of puts it into perspective when you look at all those zeros.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:19PM
We already are the world's rescue squad. If you read to the end, you'll see that I suggest either philanthropic funding or international contributions. If we can make something like this work, we remove burdens from our military personnel, their material, DoD'sbudget, our taxes, and at the same time get insurance both for ourselves and the rest of the world.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 10:03AM
Your point is valid, but that's why I propose that the funding come from the private sector, or by international donation. See the end of the article. We're already the world's fire department; this is just a more efficient way of tackling the job. Both doing it better, and more cheaply.
Too Many Tims| 3.18.11 @ 10:12AM
We're broke.
Ken in Tyler| 3.18.11 @ 10:36AM
Ah memories of the Great White Fleet. Of course the purpose of that exercise was to demonstrate to the world that if you mess with us we have the capacity to kickyerbutt. Even if the idea of a fleet of ships bobbing around just waiting for the next "big one" were a good idea, it is not- repeat not- an expenditure authorized in the Constitution. This is, in fact a topic for charity and the Church. In fact, there is an existing organization called "Mercy Ships" which already uses volunteers on large vessels fitted out with medical equipment. All funded by donations. Check 'em out. And finally, using aircraft carriers specifically is a tremendously inefficient application of assets. Use a retired amphib which was designed with overly large hospital facilities and storage space.
The large onboard hospital was necessary because sometimes our "taxi service" was brave enough to stick around after the landing to sew up the survivors. Semper Fi-
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 11:53AM
Ken, I am in agreement when it comes to viewing what Mercy Ships does. I posted their web site (or one can just google Mercy Ships) above at 7:20 a.m.
But I am not in full agreement. Why do we need fire stations or coast guard rescue capabilities if the church and charities can handle it all?
Yes, denominations and charities contributing for international use of these ships. But some taxpayer burden for our own US disaster relief, right?
Although the author emphasizes primarily the "Great White Ships" abroad scenarios, do we presently have US coastline disaster operations platforms (ships) for our next Hurricane Andrew, Rita, Katrina, a more massive oil spill or a 6 meters tsunami crushing into our west coast?
If I am a Gulf of Mexico coastline state governor, I am really interested in this kind of capability. The same for Georgia and the Carolinas.
It is good to examine ALL the available Navy ships no longer in use (and with no "activate in time of war" clauses on them) for suitability and perhaps offer them up to Mercy Ships, Samaritan's Purse, and others.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 12:56PM
Ken in Tyler
The POTUS in his role as CINC is authorized by the Constitution to do what he wants to do with the US Military.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent POTUS from engaging in this. When Teddy R sent the Great White Fleet around the world he was met with powerful opposition to doing so by Congress which of course appropriates the money. TR had only enough money to get the fleet half way around the world, but he sent them and then sat back and watched Congress debate whether they were willing to leave our Navy 12,000 miles away or appropriate the mony to bring them home...TR won.
In deploying the military POTUS is the man.
Bob K.| 3.18.11 @ 7:31PM
So, it is clear then that this is a military operation!
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 9:04PM
Bob K.
I hope you intentionally misinterpreted my point,otherwise, well ......I'll let it go but IF you read the thread you would know this isn't intended to be a military operation.
Bob K.| 3.19.11 @ 12:29AM
Habu,
I know that but I don't know how it can be possible otherwise. As posited it is neither fish nor fowl. These are ships of war and they cannot be disguised as anything else and they have to be operated by personnel with military experience. The good intentions behind it ignore the reality of the symbolism. The world got the message that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send with the Great White Fleet and it wasn't about humanitarianism.
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 2:07PM
Bob K.
Geez, the ships can be sold as scrap,sunk as offshore reefs or any number of other things. Because they were originally built as warships doesn't prevent them being recycled into a theme park or a mercy ship...is it beginning to focus?
The ships could be painted white, leased to a company (501c3) have a signature logo known worldwide and everyone would then know they are disarmed mercy vessels..coming to aid people......this venture is doable.
Bob K.| 3.19.11 @ 3:31PM
Habu,
Thom, below at 3/18/2011 and 5:28 PM, has put the problems into sharp focus.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:20PM
Since this would not be funded out of the public purse, the Constitution has little or nothing to say about it. See end of article.
Bob K.| 3.18.11 @ 7:32PM
Is the military going to be involved in this at all?
davelnaf| 3.18.11 @ 10:53AM
Appreciate the sentiment, but charity begins at home. For decades our government has spent enormous sums on behalf of other countries. In particular, we’ve subsidized the defense needs of even rich countries because we wanted to be in charge. During the Cold War this was largely a bipartisan, but shaded strongly to Republican, initiative that was exploited by Democrats to increase Entitlement spending each and every year. Even if Billionaires were willing to put up the kind of money required I would rather see them use it at home.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 1:03PM
davelnaf
In todays world Forbes talks about the trillionaires,not the billionaires. Think of a trillion as a thousand billion and now you're talking about money that can be harvested for philanthropic ventures.
It's not going to hurt the lifestyle of the super rich, who by the way got that money from the FED as a gift through back door dealings of the obmam hussein administration. It's fitting for a former community organizer mentored by a radical communist to be charitible.
RWinks| 3.18.11 @ 3:02PM
Habu--Re-read your Forbes. The world's richest have under 100 Billion. Money can be "harvested"? Interesting word for "stealing".
As for saying their assets were a gift from the Fed., I'm sure at least 85% of American millionaires would object since that percentage earned their money themselves.
And FYI, NO communist has ever been charitable.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 9:07PM
RWinks
That may be their personal wealth but not necessarily the wealth they control. If you are familiar with derivatives you would understand.
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 12:07AM
There are trillionaires out there. Factor in the fact that the Rothchilds are major stockholders in the FED and have been since it's inception and understand that the FED stockholders get 6% right of the top of every dollar printed and it doesn't take a math major to see that they are trillionaires. Additionally this tidbit:
This is a startling revelation: $300 trillion of wealth is secretly controlled by an unspecified cabal of the world's richest families.
The power of Rothschild family was evidenced on 24th September 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, - touted as the second richest man in the world - and Arnold Schwarzenegger, candidate for the Governorship of California. They'd come to rub shoulders with James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, Chairman of De Beers at a two day conference hosted by Jacob Rothschild. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. The fact that he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds' English country manor is more evidence of the international nature of the cartel and the location of its centre of gravity.
Bob K.| 3.18.11 @ 7:34PM
The word "harvest" is rich with meaning. For instance, we no longer "hunt" deer in many states, we "harvest" them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.18.11 @ 11:36AM
Mr. Brinton,
(I don't know your acquired rank).
Thank you for your service, Sir.
I may have missed something above, but isn't the USS Ronald Reagan totally loaded for bear, while at the same time ready to help?
That seems to me to be the best combination.
It won't happen under this administration I know, unless some Muslim or other enemy sets off a nuke here and we fire Obama, but I would love for our fleets to be loaded for bear again. That's one tax dollar I will gladly spend.
In the mean time "All hands...Well Done!"
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 12:17PM
Ken, I believe I follow what you are saying. But the 'combination' part is also problematic.
If we were having to pluck Japanese in large numbers off their coastline and, say, feed them, bunk them, keep 'em warm, and give them some clothes for two to three weeks, that would be very problematic on the USS Reagan or USS Washington.
Right? Precisely because they are loaded for bear and have all kinds of Marines, weaponry, (conventional and otherwise), fighters, and so many onboard no-go areas for non US personnel.
How do I launch military operations on day 11 with 1,950 non national civilians on board needing every bit of my deck space and maintenance areas for ops?
In this general proposal from Mr. Brinton I believe he's talking really massive disasters.
Think about needing to ferry 2,950 of those cruise ship passengers the next time a Princess or Norwegian liner goes powerless 1,000 nautical miles from land.
As a commander, I am happy to help. But I am not keen on non US personnel mingling about my combatant ship. And I don't need my crew distracted if I have to be ready for real military ops. You certainly cannot control all movement or actions of the "guests."
(frankly you don't have the space -- if simultaneously loaded for wartime contingencies/preparedness)
In short: This proposal's discussion has to focus on available ships with 90-100% capacity focusing squarely on relief (food, power, clean water, meals, sleeping capacity, clothing, and hospital/medical facilities)
RAMIII| 3.18.11 @ 11:42AM
Having served on the USS Kitty Hawk in the mid to late 80's I can see the potential for this kind of humanitarian use of these carriers.
The question that nags at me is the human condition problem. Kindness w/o accountability is often abused and for a private entity to be able to do this there will have to be some profit motive (which isn't bad) to provide incentive to continue this kind of gargantuan effort. Perhaps if we diverted a lot of the foreign aid "wasted" dollars -- it could be feasable.
Also where would the people do go do this come from. I do know that YWAM runs something called Mercy Ships, but I don't know how successful they have been with that.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 1:24PM
RAMIII,
You mentioned the need for a profit motive as the carrot for philanthropic action, however during the fifteen years I served in the CIA I learned a good deal of tradecraft. One of the first and most easily remembered items was MICE, an acronym for Money, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego. These were the keys to human frailty and a means of recruiting or turning a potential asset. Obviously two of the four are almost immediately nonstarters but the last one, EGO is the soft underbelly of those who fancy themselves above hoi polloi. Were the idea presented by the right people high on the food chain and the USS Kitty Hawk renamed the MR. BIGBUCKS then you could get the response you wanted and with every disaster MR BIGBUCKS could puff up and say….yeah I made that possible. They love that stuff.
RAMIII| 3.18.11 @ 3:51PM
That is an interesting take.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 4:43PM
We could even internatioalize it and accomplish at minimum two things.
First off Mexico takes a lot of hits during hurricane season, Cancun, etc. Well the world's richest man is Mexican Carlos Slim so we get his pesos and name a ship the MexAmerican Carlos Slim..it serves his ego and goes down well at cocktail parties at embassies.
Secondly we use it to establish a parrallel organization to displace the UN. Once the philanthropy of the rich kicks in their governments would be amenable to the establishment of an alternate to the lurid doings of the UN. Once it is birthed then we sub rosa direct mission creep to further undermine the UN and concurrently make it an organization for "free" countries ... that means no China or Soviets....and we write the charter.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:21PM
This ex-intel weenie agrees.
Pelligrino| 3.19.11 @ 12:09AM
Example: Bill and Melinda Gates love to tell us what they are doing for India.
And, if it is truly genuine and philanthropic, why not? Sure, I could use with a little less ego. But this is what we all define today as a win-win, right?
CharlieEcho| 3.18.11 @ 11:48AM
Oh, heck; just forget it. It was only a thought. We are over extended as it is. Bring back the draft.
R. Graham| 3.18.11 @ 11:55AM
As noble as this editorial is; we can't afford to undertake anything of this nature. We are broke!!!
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 4:28PM
Understood, Mr. Graham. You'll see at the end of the feature that I suggest that the effort be funded either by philanthropy or international contribution. Although rooted in idealism, The Fleet would relieve our Navy of costly, dangerous, expensive duties it performs willingly, but with some diminution of mission readiness. Since our military will always take the helm in disaster relief, why not encourage private investment in a capability that will not only save taxpayer money, but pay a dividend in international respect at the same time?
Pelligrino| 3.19.11 @ 12:21AM
Here I disagree. Doing what used to be called OOTWA (Operations Other than War) cripples your fighting capabilities.
It is not "some" diminishment.
The military is a strange place. Everyone spends countless months, years, equipment, sweat-equity, and treasure to prepare to do what you hope never to have to do.
And you can never take the focus off tip-top conflict/warfighting skills. They are immediately perishable. Everything erodes at light speed when units or individuals engage in aid relief, disaster relief, etc. -- no matter what branch or skill sets.
Any leader or commander should become terribly unsettled if a humanitarian mission goes over 5-6 weeks.
We divert from warfighting capabilities at our peril.
J Losie| 3.18.11 @ 11:58AM
Sorry, but I have to punch some holes in this article. I too served as U.S. Navy officer.
The Purpose of a "Super Carrier" - First and foremost, carriers are not just symbols but the actual mechanisms of true U.S. power projection throughout the world. Why? A carrier can put "Warheads on Foreheads" within days of any crisis, visibly and effectively. The humanitarian tasking assigned to these superior arsenals is an entirely secondary mission. Further, a carrier's primary weapon -- its airwing -- largely does not and cannot participate in humanitarian missions. Fighters and fighter-bombers cannot provide relief supplies. The amount of potable water produced by the ship stays almost exclusively inside the ship (and anyone who's served aboard one can tell you about water rationing). To feed refugees or disaster victims requires additional food and storage in space designed only for the crew of the carrier. And if a nuclear-powered carrier could provide electricity to a local grid, San Diego would never have experienced rolling blackouts in the mid-2000s.
Why Super Carriers are Decommissioned (i.e., put in "inactive" status) -- To date, all carriers decommissioned by the U.S. have had steam power plants fueled by fossil fuels. We all know that the price of gas ain't what it used to be. Couple the high price of oil with the expense of providing all of the Sailors the benefits mandated by Congress, keeping those conventionally-powered carriers afloat was one of the largest day-to-day expenses undertaken by the Defense Department. Recommissioning an old carrier means not only bringing the ship up-to-date with currently-used technology, but also means finding a crew to man her. Plus, where will the helicopters come from? If the Defense Department decided to make her fully-mission capable (launching fighters), then where do the fighters come from? Where does all the money come from to do this?
The Need for Another Great White Fleet - There's no need to remind every littoral country what they already know: the U.S. Navy dominates the world's oceans and will continue to do so for decades to come. The U.S. operates 11 carriers. Normally 1 carrier is undergoing a complex nuclear refueling, so that means 10 can ply the seas within days or weeks after a given crisis emerges. The U.K. operates less than 5 carriers (which only have limited-range "jump-jet" fighters). France operates -- or is about to operate -- 2 carriers. Russia and China -- despite all the media bluster -- operate exactly 0 carriers on the high seas. The sailing of a new Great White Fleet is a show of force, pure and simple. Politicians can say it's "peaceful", but tell that to a port that just received 10 carriers that have 5,000 sailors on each.
U.S. Navy Ships in Humanitarian Relief -- The Navy now touts in ads that it is "A Global Force for Good" and highlights the relief missions it undertook off Sumatra after the Indonesian tsunami and Haiti after the numerous humanitarian crises there. Carriers and amphibious ships were involved in both missions, but the USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort, America's 2 hospital ships, were designed for these missions. In Sumatra and Haiti, the Mercy and Comfort essentially relieved the carriers and "big-deck amphibs" of the humanitarian duties when they arrived on scene. Why not devote the resources earmarked in this article for recommissioning carriers toward construction of new hospital ships? They would provide all the capabilities outlined in the article and keep carrier sailors focused on their primary mission: launching aircraft to go into harm's way.
The fantasy of recommissioning carriers get tossed about within Navy circles often, but any passionate advocate cannot get around the cost of bringing them back to the fleet, where the crew will come from (do we enlist more Americans or eliminate billets for deployment-weary sailors after multiple sea tours?), and what will be sacrificed to make it happen. The same arguments apply to bringing back the battleships. I'd love to see old girls like the Constellation, the Ranger, the Independence, or the Saratoga breathe new life, but the endeavor to bring any of them back is an expensive folly at time when America needs them least.
John K| 3.18.11 @ 1:11PM
Britain has five carriers? I wish. Thanks to our present coalition government, we have no carriers and no Harriers. Nada, zero, zilch. We are not a serious country any more. France has one, not two carriers, Russia has one, China, for the moment, has none, but that will change.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 1:54PM
J Losie
You make several good points however you are taking on water and you points are getting a wee bit damp
Carrier power projection was recently put to the test in the ME and when it was divulged that Iran might be in possession of the Dong Feng 21D missile the carriers were withdrawn from their stations and placed out of what was considered the DF21D range. Thus the carrier wings efficacy to project power over a target was dramatically cut in time over target, so much so that the idea of a strike was canned.
Supercarriers have desalinization plants on board, do they not, so water isn’t a huge issue and unless I missed something no one is talking about using our newest front line assets as the primary facilitator of this idea.
The fossil fuel and crew issues are more of a head fake than a hard issue. Yes, carriers are big machines, complicated in their original form but we are not talking about the type and composition one has on a fighting carrier, we are talking about mercy vessels which would not require the level of training a fighting carrier requires of its crew.
As to you point that for decades to come the US Navy will command the seas is a bit stout. The Chinese are in overdrive building a blue water Navy while we are at idle. Our own Navy brass admit that China will be a challenge in the western Pacific within ONE decade and once that occurs we will be scrambling to aid Taiwan and Korea will most likely become more embolden.
Finally the fantasy of recommissioning a carrier has always been discussed in terms of placing the carrier back into the fighting fleet as an implement of war. That would not be the discussion anent the subject of additional mercy ships.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 4:46PM
I tend to agree. As to other issues raised: the crew compliment would be relatively small. Once the carriers are demilitarized the need for those who fight and support the fighters would disappear -- that's the vast majority of the crew right there.
Equipment: Helecopters and other gear are regularly either donated or sold cheaply to foreign governments. The fleet could acquire surplus equipment as it is taken off active duty, then spiff it up.
Ditto for construction equipment, etc., which might be contributed, and personnel -- which except for a skeleton crew, might mostly be volunteers.
As for using hospital ships, while they are magnificent ships, they are purpose built and lack the displacement to carry all the relief supplies needed in a major disaster. Also, even though there are few of them, their costs come out of the federal budget. We can't dispense with the Mercy or Comfort, but we could sidestep some of the cost of relief.
I think the point Brinton is trying to make is that our military always takes the lead in these matters, and that not only costs the taxpayers money, but diminishes readiness, and draws down personnel and material. The US is going to be on the spot anyway, so why not develop a privately or internationally funded capability, using similar equipment. It would be faster, more efficient, and more effective. And it needn't cost the taxpayer a dime, unlike our current approach.
Steve A| 3.18.11 @ 12:07PM
If the Navy is going to become meals on wheels, can' t we at least let them blow some Pirates out of the water along the way? I'm just sayin....
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 2:52PM
Steve A
How does one have "meals on wheels" on water?
Wouldn't it be better to have a la carte on carriers?
JRGIERLACH| 3.18.11 @ 12:17PM
Great idea, then we can free the CVNs for potential combat duty- as they were intended to be used. Along the way, maybe we can convince the current Navy leadership to lose the motto "a force for good" and adopt a new one- "f*ck with the US and die."
Stuart Koehl| 3.20.11 @ 8:37AM
The problem with this idea is doing what the Navy does on a regular basis--just sailing from place to place, replenishing at sea, flying planes and helos of the decks of ships, landing men and supplies over a beach--all these are in reality extremely difficult tasks, which the Navy makes look easy precisely because it practices them every day, and has become extraordinarily proficient.
In contrast, large natural or man-made disasters do not occur every day, and it costs a lot of money to operate ships, so in between humanitarian operations, I expect these ships will be laid up or maintained with minimal crews.
Once the call comes in, it's going to take time to bring the ships up to readiness, and when they arrive at the scene of the disaster, their crews will still be out of practice, which means they will be less effective and will probably suffer a higher accident rate.
In the meanwhile, an active carrier or amphibious battle group could be on the scene much more quickly and would be able to conduct rescue and recover operations as soon as it arrived.
A much better idea would be building up the Navy to a level commensurate to its role in our national strategy--twelve active carrier battle groups, six to eight amphibious warfare groups, and a dozen or so surface action groups--perhaps 400 major surface combatants, plus a number of small combatant squadrons for inshore and littoral operations. Then the Navy can do both combat and humanitarian relief operations without breaking a sweat.
When one considers that our only potential peer competitor, China, lives in a strategic cul de sac from which it can only emerge by sea, maintenance of a strong Navy is definitely in the U.S. national interest.
Stuart Koehl| 3.18.11 @ 1:02PM
See my 2007 article, "Naval Strategy for the 21st Century" at the Weekly Standard blog:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....3ckylb.asp
Floyd Looney| 3.18.11 @ 1:45PM
And James Brinton can pay for this himself I guess.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:24PM
Nope, but I know some guys who could. Don't worry, it won't cost you a cent.
Harry the Horrible| 3.18.11 @ 1:47PM
"The U.S. Navy has inactive super-carriers which could easily, even relatively inexpensively, be converted to disaster-relief ships. We should do this because we are America: Americans would rather save nations than destroy them, because The Fleet would demonstrate American compassion in the wake of disaster, and because America is the only nation that can."
Effin' brilliant. Only a Liberal Navy puke could think of this.
We're broke and he wants to make us the official first responder for the ENTIRE WORLD!
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 4:16PM
Harry the Horrible
As a former US Marine I can attest to the fact that not all Naval personel are pukes ......but your "can't do attitude is rude.
There was a time when man only dreamed of going to the moon and back in the day scientists stated uncatagorically that a person could not sustain his/her life in an automobile at a speed greater than 40 m.p.h.
Which is it? Do we displace ourselves voluntarily as a superpower or do we "git er done"?
Just remember this "The can'ts never could"
Are you in that catagory or can you hack the load of being s superpower which is more than simply making the rubble bounce higher than the next guy?
Harry the Horrible| 3.18.11 @ 5:40PM
I am certain most are not. But the author IS.
That said, this isn't a "can't do." Its pretty obvious we CAN do it. We just can't afford to do it. In case you haven't noticed, we're broke. These days I think I would define "superpower" as "able to pay their bills."
I have an ugly suspicion that it IS in the USN's interest to do this as it creates more command positions and entitles them to a bigger budget. But that still doesn't put this in the country's national interest, or within its budget.
But if someone wants to create and fund "International Rescue" they should feel free to do so - on someone else's dime. And we should be willing to sell 'em whatever decommissioned (and de-militarized) equipment they want.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:27PM
A. The Navy is a very conservative organization.
B. We are already the world's first responder and it costs us men, machine, and military muscle. This would do the same task, but save those things.
C. Real sailors don't get seasick, much less puke :-)
Harry the Horrible| 3.21.11 @ 9:30AM
A. I'm not as certain of the Navy's "conservatism" as you are. An awful lot of Admirals seem to show up on the liberal side, and a lot truly weird "PC" policies seem to get implemented there first. Personally, I blame the Navy's emasculation by Congress during the Tailhook hearings.
B. We may respond first, but we have the option NOT to do so. Which we should be considering in the future. Not in cases like Japan, which will make the most of any help we provide, but for nasty little ingrate "nations" like Haiti which will never make the best of anything.
Creating such a fleet would put an end that option. We'd pick a bunch of parasite nations that would be in eternal crisis.
C. Dramamine. Its a wonderful thing.
Bobo| 3.18.11 @ 2:17PM
I think that our carriers would be more effective if they would make a stop on the North Korean coast and bomb the trash out of the "Il" leadership. Next a stop a little ways south and do the same for the Chinese with the "Hu" leadership...because there is no doubt that that dual leadership has "Got to go" as our Dear Leader, Barack J. Obama, would say. It is the popular will of the people of both those nations that their particular dictatorships have long since lost their license to dictate.
Havoc29| 3.18.11 @ 2:31PM
Sure, let's just turn our Navy into a floating Meals on Wheels program. We have already neutered our Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are more concerned with ensuring the natives have running water and electricity and a ROE so restrictive that we allow our troops to die over fears of the backlash that civilians may, I repeat, may get caught in the crossfire.
So, by all means let's further weaken our military, good call.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 4:29PM
Havoc29
Your metaphor is totally underwater......Meals on wheels on water?
No sir ,it's a la carte Carriers.
Now a word on the geopolitical aspect of wars today. I have long advocated that we choose a few sites such as the tribal areas of Afghanistan and nuk'em...then walk the nuke over to Iran and hit Qum....but universally that has been a non starter so lets talk reality.
Power will not abide a void so it becomes necessary to work with the locals so at a minimum we stabilize a conflict and establish a base of operation. You can't do that when you kill everyone in a robe so yes the ROE's are restrictive but the hope, and it is only hope,is that enough of the locals see the benefits of working with us and the "stay behinds" after we leave so that we can be the controlling factor.
The only alternative, which in my mind is the best is to kill all the Islams....but I never get any support for that position. Wonder why?
Smirking Weasel| 3.18.11 @ 2:36PM
Great, another military-industrial hack yammering about pissing away more money
America doesn't have. At least Japan can afford
to pay fair compensation for our expense, however unjustified it might be; most of the hell holes pounded by nature are bereft of any way to repay America.
If you want to help in these cases give money to organizations that specialize in disaster relief and do it well and efficiently. The Salvation Army is a great example of such.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 7:28PM
But not your money or any taxpayer's. Did you read the whole article?
DANSHANTEAL| 3.18.11 @ 2:44PM
Bravo...swords into ploughshares. My kind of guy.
Chuck| 3.18.11 @ 4:01PM
A historical pattern continues, Korea in 1950 required a UN resolution to engage the North Korean invasion, of course the vast majority of resistance came from the US, no declaration of war and no clear plan to destroy N. Korea and win the war and now Libya. Again the UN has put the US in harm's way. US military personnel are going to die needlessly. No clear objective leads to a no win situation.
Kingofthenet| 3.18.11 @ 4:21PM
See, this is how a 'Grown Up' IS President handles things, make it look like France and Arab countries are in the Forefront, gets UN approval, than Kicks some Gadhafi Ass, Obama played this like a Virtuoso, so proud of THIS President.
Kingofthenet| 3.18.11 @ 4:39PM
1,000 precision Tomahawk Cruise Missiles= $100,000,000
1000's of Fighters & Bombers=$5,000,000,000
2 Nuclear Air Craft Carriers= $20,000,000,000
PAYBACK for Pan Am 103....
PRICELESS!
DaPicayune| 3.18.11 @ 4:41PM
Pelligrino: "If I am a Gulf of Mexico coastline state governor, I am really interested in this kind of capability."
Ok, I'll play. Mr. Brinton , thanks for your service. Although I have not served, Dad was a WWII USN Officer whose experience was captured in "Mr. Roberts", and Uncle Bob graduated from the Academy, drove subs in WWII and retired after a life long career Commander.
Nice thoughts you have, yet, for many generations my family, me included, have worked directly in hurricane relief in a direct hands-on manner. Dad received the Keys to NOLA after his relief work there after Betsy in 1965, but things have changed drastically since then.
Therefore, consider this possible scenario:
What if, after the next Cat 5 hurricane hits our Gulf Coast, your floating White Whale, Meals-on-Wheels shows up offshore and gets the local Gov on the horn, only to be told, "Naw, thanks, but I got to think it over, posse comitatus rules ya know, and I am not ready to allow my Nat Guard to be Federalized. I’ll get back to you, though!”
Don’t laugh, this happened to GWB two days after Katrina by Gov Blanco, who was taking her marching orders from the DNC, and aided by Mary Landrieu, to delay matters until her debacle began to stink bad enough so it could by hung around Bush’s political neck.
His approval polls were at 44% prior to Katrina, and after the DNC/MSM smear machine cranked up, he never recovered. And at what costs, how many died while she deliberately dithered, until General Honore‘ landed at MSY? Don’t believe it? Check her Congressionally subpoenaed emails after Katrina for the smoking guns.
What then? Do you drop anchor, while hundreds die due to the Gov’s negligence and victims suffer, waiting for the onboard relief supplies?
Point being, after you in fact develop and execute your plan, there are political contingences that can and will thwart your best intentions, all at great expense.
And, if your relief ships do steam for New Orleans, best to have a fully equipped/armed with live amo Marine contingent, including snipers, ready to deploy to dissuade the local “gimmie” culture that view natural disasters as God’s green light to loot, shoot, burn, rape, murder, and generally revert to savage animal status. I’ve seen it up close too many times, and its extremely ugly and dangerous. There are lots of Orleans Parishes around the world where the same applies.
In Houston, Mobile, NOLA, and elsewhere, I’ve seen patient, hot folks, waiting in line in 95% heat for the doors to open on the first 18 wheeler load of ice after the hurricane on numerous occasions, panic, break into a mad fight for ice, and the attendant sheriff deputies/Nat Guard weekend warriors freak-out and open fire into the air to regain a semblance of order.
Having been in Corp public relations for over 25 years - disaster relief is far more than a PR campaign. Therefore, I only suggest that your idea would benefit from a lot of due diligence based on actual experiences in devastated area relief work by the first responders to reach the scenes.
Best of luck, though, because my grandfather, and father taught me well through decades of relief work after the disasters, that will always visit us: we must rely on ourselves and our neighbors first to provide immediate help to on another, and not the Govt.
For three hundred years, and eight generations of my family, this is how the American people of the Gulf Coast have managed to survive and thrive amidst hurricanes, etc..
Pell: Not all Governors think as you would have them, and some should even be brought up on charges for negligent homicide! Even if we were not broke, and could pull this idea off - self reliance is still the best answer! Japan is quietly proving this even as we post our comments today. I wish them all, god speed and his mercy!
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:31PM
Posse comitatus would not apply as this would be run by an NGO, and funded privately. Nor would it multiply our military commitments as it would be staffed by volunteers -- ex-Navy among them, hopefully.
Jack| 3.18.11 @ 5:22PM
James.. I like the article. Sorry to see that it has degenerated into some rather useless comments. It would help if the bloggers would at least read the article and retain some of it. It would not be taxpayer supported but private! I agree though that police action would have to be taken up by someone and that typically is left to the Marines. This means if such a ship was dispersed an amphibious ship with a contingent of Marines would have to attend the function. On another note, it breaks my heart to watch these ships rust.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:34PM
You make good points, and I suppose Marines could be used if agreeable to all parties. However, in Haiti, the National Association of Chiefs of Police did yeoman service rounding up good old fashioned cops to help keep order. Something along those lines would work again.
And I too hate to see those magnificent ships idle.
Habu| 3.18.11 @ 9:14PM
Jack'
Amen brother
Thom| 3.18.11 @ 5:28PM
Since Mr. Brinton is a former Naval Officer I will assume he already knows the bulk of what I’m about to say and simply chooses to ignore economic reality.
The nominal up and running crew size of these carriers is between 5-6000 people, half of that being just for the embarked aircraft. Even in what Mr. Brinton thinks is a demilitarized environment each of these ships would require thousands of highly trained and available crew members to support the vessel and its aircraft. We are talking several hundred million in salary and benefit cost annually here for a single ship to sit alongside a pier most of its time. The going rate for nominal maintenance on commercial ships in general is 10% of their purchase cost. Add another half a billion to the annual cost for a single ship without spending a single day at sea or burning a drop of fuel.
The nominal fuel capacity of these ships would be in the 10,000 ton category. At that capacity these ships would require just to sail to Japan from our West Coast about 3,000,000 gallons of fuel if they ran at about 20 knots the entire trip. Pumping it up a bit to say the mid to upper 20s would require at sea refueling from Who? The US Navy Support ships? Do the math on say 9,000,000 gallons spent for a two way trip across the Pacific at today’s prices. Now add in the aircraft fuel cost.
The facilities and support logistics to support this would add hundreds of more millions per year to this equation and then you have to add in the Airborne component that would be embarked. Billions more in purchase cost since the types of air craft suitable for this type of mission are almost uniquely military types that have very little presence in the commercial world. Think CH53 and Chinooks for starters.
There is not a ghost chance in hell the nuclear Enterprise would be turned over to a civilian authority to operate and maintain. Not a chance and its maintenance cost dwarf what I’ve said above. It has spent almost every available moment not deployed undergoing some sort of maintenance alongside pier or in a shipyard dry dock the last decade. It will cost almost as much to decommission as it is to build a new one today. Apparently Mr. Brinton hasn’t heard what NNPI is and how that draws a very bright line between the Navy and any civilian authority or foreign interest.
When you add up the total annual operation cost of a single ship even before it leaves the pier it would cost more than some of the disasters we might send it to. Once it leaves the pier with whatever humanitarian aid it could carry you are going to have the bulk of the current operating cost they have now with navy crews which will be cut rate wage and labor cost compared to a civilian enterprise.
Put simply, there is no way even one of these ships could be maintained and operated by a civilian authority without billions of funds to back this up. The annual crew cost coupled with the training and relative inactivity of said crew would make the Post Office and Amtrak look like models of efficiency. What that leaves is another mission for the military to staff and fund that detracts from its primary mission even more than now. Apparently Mr. Brinton hasn’t noticed the trend within the Navy over the last couple of decades to take ships out of service early in order to save money to help offset the cost of fewer new ships. The JFK was one such ship and its maintenance cost was considerable part of that decision.
It is a nice fantasy if you ignore billions in economic cost associated with just having these ships sit at a pier waiting for a call somewhere in the world, perhaps a week’s sailing time at a very uneconomical speed. Given the scope of the distances required to cover the globe, it would take several such set ups pre-positioned around the world to even represent a token relief effort. Had such a ship left the West Coast of the US when the quake hit Japan it would still be on its way at 20 knots speed. To cross the distance between the mainland US and the Asian continent at maximum sustainable underway speed would require mid ocean refueling and it would still not be there even had it been prepared to leave on a moments notice.
Add in each ship has over 2500 compartments full of equipment to be maintained and the day to day cost of this suggestion goes off the chart. Contrary to Mr. Brinton beliefs, demilitarizing these types of ships would not be trivial and much of what would have to be removed would have to be replaced with commercial equipment to do pretty much the same functions. Tens of millions more expense.
I share Mr. Brinton’s desire that such platforms be put to good use but outside of a Nation State like support structure, these ships have no value for humanitarian use. For the same reasons the USS United States has rotted since leaving passenger service decades ago and never been returned to service despite several efforts to do so around the world, these ships are simply too specialized and costly for another use outside of what their original design was for.
I would love to see these ships returned to active use but short of massive overhauls, converting the conventional ones to nuclear power and finding a very well off funding source outside of more debt piled upon US tax payers this suggestion is truly a “White Elephant”.
All one has to do is look around the globe to see how many countries can field such ships to get an idea of the true nature of their cost. Mr. Brinton should already know this as a former Naval Officer.
Stuart Koehl| 3.20.11 @ 1:48PM
A fairly trenchant analysis that proves the adage, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".
DaPicayune| 3.18.11 @ 5:31PM
Pardon my off thread response James, but Chuck, perhaps far worse, BOgus has now just cornered a cobra, and he better cut its head off pronto, or here come possibly more mini 911s’.
Unless Hillary has a deal already in place for MG to retire to Geneva with about 20 Billion banked, along w/ his 5 sons, then it’s a death-match to the end. MG lost a big PR battle last night w/ the UN vote, just as he was about to rape up the rebels and live happily ever after, with BOgus’s face in the mud after idle threats.
Today he declares a ceasefire which is probably designed to buy time. Why, well to execute a plan to turn public opinion in the ME/EU/USA back in his direction.
How? Why the way he’s always done it. Remember his work in Berlin that Reagan responded to with bombs on his tents? And then, there’s his Pan Am 103 Lockerby mass-murder double down. And MG's attempts on the House of Saud, etc..
So, if this cobra’s head is not quickly dispatched, one should not be surprised to see terrorists’ bombs explode with great effect in, say, Paris, London, WDC, or Saudi Arabia to impact the world’s leftist MSM, and resulting public outcries for “No More War” and possibly a Spanish election response, as well! N’est pas?
Our Mr. “Double Down” CIC is now “All IN”, and it’s game on.
We’re waiting BOgus, what cha gonna do? You are now at war with a proven terrorist. Will you let him strike first, or have you bought him off? We voters are watching/waiting. Enjoy the beach in Rio. Oh, is that why your leaving WDC now, afraid of the cobra’s likely plans?
Yes China, we are living in interesting times…… all of us! I sure hope the Geneva plan is in play. We’ll soon see, Chuck.
Brian Mc| 3.18.11 @ 5:40PM
DP,
Just got home and read every thread to find yours, the last and best of the bunch. Very sobering considerations. Like insurance, might be that a country would need to "sign on" for the service before one of these 'boats' ever came close to dropping anchor.
The military part you hinted at has me in a quandary. You mention the looters/hedonists having their day in the sun and what would need to happen to contain it...ouch. Reality is a bitch.
Japan would have welcomed such a ship as this with open arms...I'm not so sure about certain countries bordering the Indian Ocean. Very sobering contribution from you and I for one, am appreciative for it. Insurance is the key to make all this work; signing over the reigns to make it work on the ground will require boots.
Stuart| 3.18.11 @ 6:05PM
ya gotta be kidding me! How about the 3rd World, 2nd World and 1st World that received all the billions of US foreign aid...START PAYING IT BACK!
Hey Europe, pay for your own defense!
Stuart Koehl| 3.20.11 @ 1:49PM
Cheaper for us to do it ourselves, thanks.
Stacey Shoemaker| 3.18.11 @ 6:47PM
"The size of the Japanese disaster makes relief efforts look woefully puny; humanity needs more powerful tools to deliver aid. More quakes will come, some larger, and most nations will need far more help than well-prepared Japan."
well isn't that just a grand excuse for ever more spending and ever bigger government?
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:36PM
Nope. It's a call for the private sector to man up. Read the whole article.
Renaissance Nerd | 3.18.11 @ 6:59PM
I love the theory, but as several have noted before, using demilitarized Supercarriers seems too expensive. It would also have the disadvantage of being a pirate's dream, so it would have to have defenses all the time. While it's certainly true that any pirates who took it would never be able to keep it long enough to get a ransom, that doesn't mean they won't be dumb enough to try. Can't depend on criminals to be smart, or they wouldn't be criminals.
I think purpose-built ships would be a better idea, on a smaller scale and intentionally designed for a small maintenance crew. Just park one at every naval base in the world and send them out when disaster strikes. It may not be the primary mission of the Navy, but they're doing it anyway and it would be useful to have ships that actually serve the specific need.
Thom| 3.18.11 @ 7:36PM
The Tarawa class LHAs as they leave service would be a better mix of cost vs. benefit and don’t have to be demiled to the extent an attack carrier would but you still have the end of service life maintenance cost problem and being able to staff them with people that are up to speed and available on a moment’s notice. That’s not going to be an easy obstacle to overcome. Despite this nation having several surplus carriers after WWII we never embraced the concept of a Reserve Carrier force because said ships have very high fixed cost to maintain them and part time Reserve crews can’t maintain their skills on a part time basis given the nature of the operating environment. Purpose built ships would have lower operating cost initially but their purchase cost is in the billions still. The really cost killer for this deal is the cost of aircraft and their maintenance. The Coast Guard has to essentially rebuild their over water aircraft (both fixed wind and rotor) every few years from the ground up to keep them flyable. If it operates off a ship and lives there for any length of time you incur significant maintenance cost or risk failure while in operations. Short of getting purpose built foreign designs and built outside this country and crewed by foreigners who are willing to work for a lot less this equation is going to keep coming up costing billions a years for no benefit in any given year or decade even where the US is concerned. The math has never supported this but I understand the “feel good” that comes from such thinking. If we couldn’t afford it back in the military expansion hay days of the 1950-60s I fail to see where the funds are going to come from given we are borrowing one dollar for each dollar of revenue and those with any discretionary funds (in the form of net worth in stocks) don’t want to throw more money down a rat hole that something like this would represent most of the time. I served on two different 30 year old military ships and they were nightmares to maintain. The only way this would work is to have the Navy maintain them full time and put crews on them. Lots of luck getting donations for doing that…..
James Knochel | 3.18.11 @ 7:22PM
You know your idea's time has come when you read it somewhere else:
http://www.SendTheEnterprise.org/ (domain purchased on August 20, 2010)
The amphibious assault ship USS Nassau is scheduled to be decommissioned on March 31st. My friend who works for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard said the Kitty Hawk is in somewhat poor shape. It'd probably be better to start with a smaller ship that's been in service recently.
http://www.sendtheenterprise.o.....missioned/
One of my future blog posts is going to cover a better way to pay for this project.
-James Knochel
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:41PM
I originally based this idea on LHA and LHD hulls, but there aren't any available now. Carriers we've got. If the necessary NGO could be gotten off the ground, I see no reason why it might not refit LHA/LHD hulls for the mission, but for sheer capability, you couldn't beat a super-carrier. Much less one funded by the private sector. It would be to disaster relief what The Powell Doctrine (I.e., Overwhelm) is to warfare.
Stuart Koehl| 3.20.11 @ 1:51PM
It just won't work, for the reasons I outlined above. No NGO could ever maintain proficiency in the wide range of tasks and mission profiles needed, while the Navy could, because the Navy performs these on a routine basis every day.
Stammon| 3.18.11 @ 7:22PM
I don't want to rain on your parade, because I do think these mercy ships would personify the highest American ideals. But what happens when someone lobs a missile at it. You know they will, and so does our military. These ships won't be able to go anywhere without a full military escort, and that escort will personify American Imperialism to the people of the world who need to hate us. The Palestinians slit babies throats and dance in the streets. A big white ex-military super ship will just be a target to the likes of those assholes.
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 7:44PM
That's a decent point, but in any crisis, the Navy tends to converge. Look at the more than a dozen ships near or approaching Japan now. I don't think it's too hard to imagine a relief ship sailing in company with a destroyer or two, or a cruiser. After all, they would probably be tied up at adjacent piers and given sailing orders as a matter of course.
jim Forbes | 3.18.11 @ 8:48PM
this idea has a lot of merit. Projecting the image of a benvolent America through the use of humantarian oriented sea power may be one of the most well-reasoned approaches to life in the 21at Century that I've ever read. Moreover, a "Great White Fleet" backed by charitable donations and philanthropy eases concerns about an increased tax burden.
I already donate to the (US) Marine Corps Heritage Foundation and this is something I'd happily help fund through donations.
Of all the essays I've read about "Seapower" this one makes the most sense,
Jim Forbes
Escpondido, CA
Plowjocky| 3.18.11 @ 8:55PM
Sir...while i commend your Military service?I have to ask,where the heck were you.Type of ship etc.Most officers only know pass the orders down and they will happen.Nope contrary to what yall thought it was the enlisted E-9 and below that made the rubber meet the road.Now to make a conventional ship(Oil fired) go is an interesting thing.And it aint cause yall said do it.I served on oil burners and nukes.You cant just get it cause you want it.It takes nunerous specialitys to keep that ship up and ready to go in a moments notice.Especially a oil burner.Nukes drop the rod and ready to go after numerous checks,not so oil burners......gotta check almost everything after the boiler heats up.Almost 3 days to get there.Great Idea if it would work.....but no way.Navy CPO Retired
James Brinton| 3.18.11 @ 11:12PM
Concur, CPO. I learned as a butter bar that the worst thing you can do is ignore the advice of your petty officers. There is more knowledge between a chief's ears than in the average encyclopedia. And even better, it's practical knowledge -- they make things happen. I could tell you so many sea stories...
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 11:36AM
wholesale
This is just a warning but I am contacting the powers that be at this site and recommend you be barred. This isn't a blog bizaar for people to hustle their tawdry items under the rubric of acomment plagerized from another contributor.
I will be relentless in halting your crass behavior.
Habu
John| 3.19.11 @ 5:37AM
A fleet of ships to the help the needy. A fantastic article. This is a superpower fit for the 21st century . This is definatley change you can believe in.
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 11:31AM
John,
If we could put together this with a coalition of say GB,FR, and a few others we would gain the good will of the entire world. I firmly believe that, becaue there will always be the need for aid like this and it's time has come.
James Brinton| 3.19.11 @ 7:38PM
...And there may come a point where we will need it ourselves. In such an event, having it ready would be a blessing.
Ned the Red| 3.19.11 @ 9:32AM
Oh, so we are thinking like a super-power, a beacon for others to follow, and not a third rate, myself first, socialist crap hole.
I like it, but would worry about the ships becoming targets for our world's wonderful terrorist population.
We might have to change the names of the carriers to gain support from the money folks. "The Microsoft", here's a better one, "The Halliburton."
Habu| 3.19.11 @ 11:26AM
Ned the Red
I too have that concern but great nation always have great concerns. If they face them they remain great, if they recoil from potential dangers that may or may not materialize then they fail.....faster than they would normally fail for no nation lasts forever buy 'ya gotta try.
Ned the Red| 3.19.11 @ 12:44PM
No balls, no glory.
James Brinton| 3.19.11 @ 7:44PM
I share your concern. This is one reason I suggested home porting the ships at US Naval bases. Since our response to natural disasters is usually to send as many ships are available and nearby, I suspect that a Fleet relief ship would probably be accompanied as a matter of course by one or more warships. A single AEGIS destroyer, for example, could protect the ship against any credible terrorist threat or -- come to that -- any threat from a third-world country harboring terrorists.
gunner| 3.19.11 @ 12:15PM
not only reuse the super carriers, enlarge the seebee's to their own force. stop sending out so much foreign aid, and we dig the wells, build the hospitals and roads. end the graft in so many countries, and get the stuff we promised to the people of these nations, what we promised.
Pelligrino| 3.20.11 @ 6:14AM
Gunner, agreed. There is much merit to what you say.
When you look at Ethiopia, as just one glaring example of graft over decades (and there are many such examples in ALL of Africa), why is it that the roads in so many parts date back to the days of the Italian occupation?
Just where exactly have billions in aid to Ethiopia gone?
imenevazno| 3.19.11 @ 4:36PM
In memory of someone I called my grandfather, who served the Navy during the Korean War and in memory of all victims of the Japanese tsunami:
Speaking of public finances, here is a cartoon with an interesting spin on the situation (of course, characters and circumstances are adapted to the current times):
http://www.youtube.com/user/im.....wqhd-b05Gg
Rear Admiral Sean Penn (ret)| 3.19.11 @ 4:37PM
As a retired vet of the Hurricane Katrina operation, I fully understand the needs of our navy. During my rescue operation in New Orleans, I was short of everything: boats, gasoline, rifles, beer, and weed. It was a disgrace.
James Brinton| 3.19.11 @ 7:47PM
Concur. Thus the Fleet relief ships, jammed with everything you DIDN'T have available in NOLA and more.
Dee See| 3.19.11 @ 10:45PM
STOP pitching nostalgia ops in this, the 11th hour
of doomed POST America.
First putting aside the mission of the original
White Fleet ---opening Japan to 'Free Trade'
cultural destruction and, of course, EUGENICS,
as the current Japanese catastrophe is covered
up as fallout sails over North America, wouldn't
it be more timely to explore the capabilities
of HAARP technology in 'creating' seismic'
events --a la the MAO'S Birthday 2005 tsunami?
We know our military technology has been
handed to the REDS by the Globalists that have
hijacked our government these past 4 decades.
NOW we MUST wonder if, in fact, HAARP
wasn't also handed over.
BTW---someone CHECK OUT where the likes
of Globalist-EUGENISTS Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller were at the time of the eruption.
MEANWHILE, keep inhaling those Barium/Cadmium HAARP enabling CHEM-trails!
Richard Baker| 3.20.11 @ 12:57PM
Have we become so cynical as Americans that an interesting idea such as this is hooted and ridiculed out of hand? For those of you doing the ridicule, shame on you as Americans. A peaceful, non-military, and humanitarian use of a National Asset such as these Fleet Carriers is a clever use of the tremendous capability which these ships possess. Maybe this concept won't be immediately practical but the idea reflects the humanitarian instinct of this country. This is a bad thing?
Smirking Weasel| 3.20.11 @ 3:26PM
No, shame on you for pimping a potemkin 'humanitarian' sham that will cost more money that we can't afford. The author's claim of private funding is actually a hope that somehow, some group of billionaires can be wheedled into paying for this, plus some vague muttering about 'Athenian merchants'. Of course, he gives himself an out by saying 'coastal nations' should pick up the tab. and , asa America has three big coats, you know which set of taxpayers will foot the(ever-increasing, for sure) bill. If our billionaires are to be harangued into supporting causes, better ones that help within the 50 United States and no where else. Except, not much pecuniary opportunity there for military-industrial retirees, eh.
Rick's American Cafe| 3.21.11 @ 11:36AM
I am shocked, SHOCKED that Smirking Weasel doesn't post under his own name. But then it's a lot safer that way. Right SW?
Smirking Weasel| 3.21.11 @ 5:30PM
Humphery, what the hell are you talking about?
Jeff| 3.20.11 @ 7:09PM
actually every sailor doesn't know about the Great White Fleet ...
I'm assuming you never actually stepped foot on a carrier at sea for more than a day or so or you would realize they would absolutely suck as a humanitarian supply ship ... yes for electricity, fresh water and air lift capabilities the nuke carrier is king ... pair it with a couple of decent supply ships and you've got your humanitarian Fleet ...
The Great White Fleet was all about power projection ...
Richard Baker| 3.20.11 @ 8:29PM
Weasel:
Regardless of your cynicism, as a platform these carriers could be put to this use. Do you also pee in punchbowls for fun?
Smirking Weasel| 3.21.11 @ 5:32PM
No, I use a urinal or toilet; a large tree if outside.
For fun, I point out nonsensical and wasteful ideas
thrown about the internets.
Negro X| 3.20.11 @ 11:46PM
At 12 knots a conventionally powered carrier burns 6000 gals of DFM an hour. It's waste of money. The military is already involved in way too much humanitarian and nation building non sense.
Dee See| 3.21.11 @ 3:19AM
---STEP BACK from this Globalist nostalgia op..
PAY ATTENTION to the Globalist precedent
setting, unsanctioned UN co-opting of American
military soveriegnty in the face of the recent
skilfully agitated Middle East mess.
TAKE HEED, according to reports in the Ottawa
Citizen UN secret agreements have been reached and signed providing for the use of foriegn troops
on US soil in the event of 'unrest', esp. with
regard to the 30 MILLION illegals and the
'Reconquista' of the southwest.
This will be used eventually to bring in heavy duty
'assistance' against the soon to be more than disgruntled US citizens realizing their currency,
government and pensions are history.
WE expect RED Chinese forces will one day,
certainly within the next decade or so, be used
to shield the illegal Globalist cartel running our
country.
WE forsee a time, not too distant, where they'll
be used to implement that MASSIVE relocation
agenda settled on down in Cancun. Grabbing
people from their homes and neighborhoods to
forcibly relocate them into FEMA camp silver towns.
----------------------------------------BETCHA!
cg| 3.21.11 @ 6:54AM
We are not the world's sheriff. We are not the world's EMS. Our military is intended to break things and kill people, if necessary, to defend American soil and American lives from attack. It should be used for nothing else.
jack anderson| 3.21.11 @ 11:21AM
I was caught by the irony of the article's title in that The Great White fleet was woefully obsolete. The Fleet was sent east rather than to Europe as Jackie Fisher and the Kaiser had turbine driven Dreadnoughts that were half again faster than the American Fleet and had a much greater weight of broadside than our ships as they were all big gunned with armament of 10 to 12 12 inch or greater guns. It would have been a short war had the Royal Navy fought the USN in that time. It is for this reason that the fleet was sent to Asia rather than being ridiculed in Europe, was this the point that the author was implying?
SS| 3.26.11 @ 2:24PM
An interesting suggestion, Mr. Brinton. You suggest that these superships be civilian-manned. A program like this, then, if the defense budget would allow it, would seem to make sense coming under the auspices of the Military Sealift Command, the USNS merchant fleet that serves the US Navy (and holds the forward deployed supply ships you mention). MSC ships are cheaper than navy ships, require roughly 1/3 crew, crews have much more cumulative experience than Navy crews (many crew members are ex-Navy), and MSC ships are often decommissioned USS's.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:40AM
Since most of the world's population lives near the shoreline, bringing the required level of aid to bear is properly a naval mission. Already two U.S. Navy landing ships and a command ship are on scene in Japan, and about a dozen more Navy ships are arrive day by day.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:46PM
is good