Should the US Navy move the fleet out of harm's way?

fatty · 10-26-07, 10:30 PM

No (modern) precident exists for terrorist attacks in domestic ports on naval assets in Western states AFAIK. Really if you ask me the terrorist "threat" is really overblown and if they haven't launched another strike by now then I don't think they ever will. If the Mexicans can get in undetected, where are the terrorists?

With the amount of security in naval ports these days I would say the potential for an event there would be practically nil anyway. If there were some glaring fundamental flaws pointed out in port security in San Diego, Pearl, or Norfolk, then maybe it might be an option to relocate the fleets. But I feel evidence of a terror threat in the U.S. is really not there, and ergo it seems to me that the U.S. Navy is not in "harms way" to begin with.

Chock · 10-27-07, 01:06 AM

Quote:

U.S. Navy is not in "harms way" to begin with.

I imagine that's exactly what a terrorist would like the US Navy to think, and I daresay the sailors on the USS Cole thought that five minutes before they were attacked.

Quote:

No (modern) precident exists for terrorist attacks in domestic ports on naval assets in Western states AFAIK.

Well that's true, but it didn't stop the IRA blowing up Lord Louis Mountbatten's boat slap bang in the middle of when the UK was on high alert to specific threats from that organisation, killing him and Baroness Brabourne among others, and on the same day also killing eighteen soldiers from the Parachute Regiment at Warrenpoint. This, in the same year that the INLA also blew up MP Airey Neave's car on the ramp coming out of Parliament, killing him too. All these being just a small selection of the bombings which took place that year in the UK, despite security measures and awareness of threats.

When the US Air Force can forget about some nuclear weapons slung under an aircraft and leave it sitting unguarded on the apron at a base for hours before anyone thought something was amiss, it's not a stretch to imagine that the security at Naval bases might have a few gaps in it. Complacency concerning enemies and potential enemies is just asking for it.

Chock

fatty · 10-27-07, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chock

Quote:

U.S. Navy is not in "harms way" to begin with.

I imagine that's exactly what a terrorist would like the US Navy to think, and I daresay the sailors on the USS Cole thought that five minutes before they were attacked.

Quote:

No (modern) precident exists for terrorist attacks in domestic ports on naval assets in Western states AFAIK.

Well that's true, but it didn't stop the IRA blowing up Lord Louis Mountbatten's boat slap bang in the middle of when the UK was on high alert to specific threats from that organisation, killing him and Baroness Brabourne among others, and on the same day also killing eighteen soldiers from the Parachute Regiment at Warrenpoint. This, in the same year that the INLA also blew up MP Airey Neave's car on the ramp coming out of Parliament, killing him too. All these being just a small selection of the bombings which took place that year in the UK, despite security measures and awareness of threats.

When the US Air Force can forget about some nuclear weapons slung under an aircraft and leave it sitting unguarded on the apron at a base for hours before anyone thought something was amiss, it's not a stretch to imagine that the security at Naval bases might have a few gaps in it. Complacency concerning enemies and potential enemies is just asking for it.

Chock

That is fair, but what is the equivelant to the IRA in the United States? The situation is not that volatile in the U.S. that you can draw a comparison. We had a couple of guys fly planes into buildings and a handful of botched plots, nothing else. A simple risk assessment makes me believe that relocated the fleets or keeping more ships at sea is not worth the cost; there is low probability of a successful terror attack (in the 15 or so years that OBL and al Qaeda have been active, they have committed only one successful terror attack on U.S. soil) and low impact (we could lose a destroyer a la Cole to conventional explosives, and a nuclear, chemical, or biological device might ruin a lot of people's day, but aren't all sailors and soldiers trained to survive NBC attacks? And what are the odds of those occuring?). I just can't see it being worth shifting personnel and infrastructure and dredging a new port in the middle of nowhere.

Chock · 10-27-07, 01:29 PM

Of course another problem is that even if it were tactically sound to pile all your ships in one place (Battleship Row anyone? and just across the water from the reborn Russian Air Force and Navy?), then the cost would be prohibitive to the US.

The United States is entering an economic downturn, owing to the continued outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia, and the continued importing of goods from China et al, which are flooding the country and devastating its indigenous industrial base. Couple that with the economic growth of China and Russia, and you have a Navy that cannot afford to keep pace and spend money on ambitious and vastly expensive undertakings such as a huge new Naval base.

The US military planners are already struggling to afford replacement equipment for all the Cold War stuff that is wearing out, and they are being told they must make do with far less numbers than they had previously had, in both men and materiel. And all this whilst being asked to fight two wars, plus maintain other commitments around the globe, all of which wears stuff out even quicker as less ships and aeroplanes do more work. Technological solutions cannot provide all the answers to these problems either. Granted, a shiny new F-35 may be able to conduct multi-role operations, but the five aircraft it replaces could be in five different places around the world, and as good as the F-35 may be, it can only be in one place at a time. Where, as noted, its airframe will be wearing out at five times the rate an older aircraft would have, because it will be doing a lot more work! Which means it will then cost even more money - money that the US simply does not have.

I'm sure the US Navy would love the kind of budget that would allow it to contemplate such possibilities as a massive shiny new Naval base, but it hasn't, so the question becomes academic really.

Chock

10-27-07, 01:29 PM	#4
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Of course another problem is that even if it were tactically sound to pile all your ships in one place (Battleship Row anyone? and just across the water from the reborn Russian Air Force and Navy?), then the cost would be prohibitive to the US. The United States is entering an economic downturn, owing to the continued outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia, and the continued importing of goods from China et al, which are flooding the country and devastating its indigenous industrial base. Couple that with the economic growth of China and Russia, and you have a Navy that cannot afford to keep pace and spend money on ambitious and vastly expensive undertakings such as a huge new Naval base. The US military planners are already struggling to afford replacement equipment for all the Cold War stuff that is wearing out, and they are being told they must make do with far less numbers than they had previously had, in both men and materiel. And all this whilst being asked to fight two wars, plus maintain other commitments around the globe, all of which wears stuff out even quicker as less ships and aeroplanes do more work. Technological solutions cannot provide all the answers to these problems either. Granted, a shiny new F-35 may be able to conduct multi-role operations, but the five aircraft it replaces could be in five different places around the world, and as good as the F-35 may be, it can only be in one place at a time. Where, as noted, its airframe will be wearing out at five times the rate an older aircraft would have, because it will be doing a lot more work! Which means it will then cost even more money - money that the US simply does not have. I'm sure the US Navy would love the kind of budget that would allow it to contemplate such possibilities as a massive shiny new Naval base, but it hasn't, so the question becomes academic really. Chock __________________

10-26-07, 10:30 PM	#1
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	No (modern) precident exists for terrorist attacks in domestic ports on naval assets in Western states AFAIK. Really if you ask me the terrorist "threat" is really overblown and if they haven't launched another strike by now then I don't think they ever will. If the Mexicans can get in undetected, where are the terrorists? With the amount of security in naval ports these days I would say the potential for an event there would be practically nil anyway. If there were some glaring fundamental flaws pointed out in port security in San Diego, Pearl, or Norfolk, then maybe it might be an option to relocate the fleets. But I feel evidence of a terror threat in the U.S. is really not there, and ergo it seems to me that the U.S. Navy is not in "harms way" to begin with.