What makes these ships sooooo special?

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), December 22, 1999

Answers

This one's got me stumped. I'm guessing the JFK and Kitty Hawk carriers are either the newest (and fixed) or the oldest and least computer dependent. My vote is for the latter.

-- trafficjam (roadwork@ahead.soon), December 22, 1999.

It would seem that the nuke-powered ships are in port. Now why would they be there?

Interesting.

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), December 22, 1999.

This was covered extensively yesterday in a series of threads.

Those 2 carriers at sea are special supposedly because they are CONVENTIONALLY-powered, OLDER carriers, which means NOT nuclear, and FEWER computerized systems to go wacky. Means Navy has MANY fully-loaded tankers/oilers at sea scattered all over. VULNERABLE.

Again, I defer to those posters(e.g. SQUID) who are/were NAVY personnel, and even can tell you the carrier if you give them the CVN #.

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), December 22, 1999.

They're both diesel. The others are nuclear powered (or, as Homer Simpson would say, "nu-kuw-ler").

-- homer no think (good@beer.without), December 22, 1999.

My guess is that the ten in port are there because they're nuclear powered. Ideal to provide electricity if need be to our "port cities". The other two carriers are steam with lesser capability?

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

Folks, jokingly, I hope my answer is right! Time will tell. I would like to believe that somewhere, somehow, someone has his/her head screwed on right. Let's get everyone in and refueled, re-supply'd and such now when we can. This opportunity may not be available in the near future. Get it while "the gettin's good" so to speak.

I could very well be wrong, but "me thinks" this it would be a good idea to prepare now. I hope I've personally done enough. YOU?

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), December 22, 1999.

I guess I'm not much of a military strategist, but if all these carriers are in port at the same place, doesn't that make a sitting duck of all our nuclear aircraft carriers? One nuclear missile could wipe out our neclear carrier force easily. Isn't this a bit tempting to an enemy nation or a terrorist?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 22, 1999.

Look for mushroom clouds in the vicinity of these carriers. You're right - too tempting for some Russkie with his finger on the button to pass up for long.

-- We're Toast (itwasnicewhile@itlasted.com), December 22, 1999.

ACK!

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), December 22, 1999.

Of course, it could be like FDR (Roosevelt) did with Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. (1941 Dec 7.) Goad the Japanese into attacking. Keep the ships in port so they take a big hit. Babble about a "day of infamy", and use that as an excuse to enter WWII.

So what's Klinton's scenario? Keep the ships in port so suitcase nuke s will take out them as well as the port city they're tied up to? U.S. then helpless, allowing Russia and/or China to take over? Klinton then appointed "overseer" for life?

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 23, 1999.

Bill is trying to pull an FDR but he forgot to MOVE THE CARRIERS BEFORE THE STRIKE. Just a tiny oversight but hey the guy is too busy planning his big money lecture to the few remaining university's.

To beat the dead horse DOOOOOHHHHH.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 23, 1999.

cody is right. Having ten carriers in one place is way too tempting a target. It's so obvious it can't be an oversight.

I doubt that the admirals would pull such a stupid stunt all by themselves. It has to be coming from the top. Yep, in a lot of ways it looks like Pearl Harbor all over again, but with terribly higher stakes.

I would only add that Klinton has changed our retaliatory missile launch directive from "launch on warning" to "launch on IMPACT"!! That would ensure maximum destruction here at home and pose a minimal risk to our enemies. The Rosembergs were executed for divulging nuclear weapons secrets to the Russians. Now, Klinton has extended a guilded invitation to Boris to go ahead and use them---on us!! Call it a Christmas present.

-- Y2KPioneer (Pioneer@aol.org), December 23, 1999.

Well, I think this might be along the lines of 'see my hands are empty' in terms of the Russians and showing them we are not going to start bombing them, etc. An easy target if you want to prove that your intent is not hostile.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), December 23, 1999.