Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the but-will-the-next-one-have-phasers? dept.

The aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) , was decommissioned during a ceremony held in the ship's hangar bay, Feb. 3. The ceremony not only marked the end the ship's nearly 55-year career, it also served as the very first decommissioning of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Capt. Todd Beltz, commanding officer of the Enterprise, addressed the ship's company, former commanding officers and distinguished visitors and spoke of where the true spirit of "The Big E" comes from. "For all that Enterprise represents to this nation, it's the people that bring this ship to life," said Beltz. "So as I stand in this ship that we all care so much about, I feel it's appropriate to underscore the contributions of the thousands of Sailors and individuals that kept this ship alive and made its reputation. We are 'The Big E.'"

Enterprise was the eighth naval vessel to carry the name. It was built by the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. and was christened Sep. 24, 1960, by Mrs. Bertha Irene Franke, wife of former Secretary of the Navy William B. Franke. The ship was put to sea in 1961 and safely steamed more than 1 million nautical miles on nuclear power over its entire career of more than 50 years.

CVN-80, a Gerald R Ford class aircraft carrier, is scheduled to begin construction in 2018, be delivered by 2025, and be in operation by 2027. She is tentatively slated to be named the USS Enterprise and will replace the USS Nimitz, currently the oldest US aircraft carrier still in service.

-- submitted from IRC

Related Video:
http://www.navy.mil/viewVideoDVIDS.asp?id=49&story_id=98707


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:50PM (#463107)

    This is a problem, because I think that American government is capable of rational, capitalistic, self-serving thoughts. The treaties were not and could not have been forced on America by anybody, least of all the "small European countries", as You masterfully summarized circa 500 million people living in the EU right now (yes, EU has more people living in it than USofA). The American government did it of its own free will, and for valid reasons. The treaty allows it to have American missiles, early defence, reconnaissance forces and military bases in Europe, without actually having to conquer these lands. Works well for both parties -- Europeans get to limit their military, and USofA gets military control on foreign land, worldwide military dominance and a bargaining chip for future trade deals. Let's not forget, this also allows USA to protect its own political interests in the Europe. Politics is always quid pro quo.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @02:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @02:28PM (#463112)

    ' The treaties were not and could not have been forced on America by anybody'
    'The American government did it of its own free will'

    I disagree.

    Yes, rebuilding Europe and NATO was very much in the US interest. Given the lessons of not doing this after WWI, we didn't want to have to fight WWIII.

    When a bad situation is going to bite you in the ass if you don't do X, then to say you have the free will not to do X, kind of misses the point of who created the bad situation in the first place.

    Europe ran the world until WWII. Given the state of things in 1945, does Europe deserve applause for how things ended?
    The US has been running things since WWII. It's getting old for all involved. But, it's still probably unfortunately a case of the worst possible choice except for all the other options.
    Given history and the likely outcomes, what other choice looks better for everybody as opposed to just whoever would be in charge? UN, EU, China, Russia, Skynet? I don't think so.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:42PM (#463129)

      Europe ran the world until WWII? WWI, maybe, but II? What on Earth are You smoking? Read about the roaring twenties, and how America back then was a powerhouse of wealth and opulence after WWI, until the US markets crashed -- which in turn led to worldwide depression. And before WWI? England was a powerful empire, and so was France, but Italy? Greece? Belgium? Even the Austro-Hungarian "empire" was large, but internally very fragile.

      Of course You have free will. Your choice of rebuilding/not rebuilding NATO&Europe is a false dichotomy. There are always more options than two. Installing friendly dictators, creating puppet states, forcing market dependence, indirect or even direct control. All valid possibilities, all with different outcomes. Heard about Franco? Read about how he came to power, and his relations to US. Read about CIA funded insurgencies against the Soviet Union. Funding rebuilding and defending or leaving to own devices are never the only options.

      An in the last paragraph You are arguing exactly the thing that I said in the previous post -- defending "shitty European states" is in the best interest of the United States of America, and entirely Your decision to do so. Stupidity and directly engaging in actions to Your own detriment, is a valid option too -- as shown in Your last elections. Don't get me wrong -- Hilary would not have been a better choice. Both choices (or rather, including third party candidates: all choices) were equally bad.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 06 2017, @04:30AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday February 06 2017, @04:30AM (#463299)

        And before WWI? England was a powerful empire, and so was France, but Italy? Greece? Belgium?

        They don't matter. UK and France and Germany were the big powers in Europe then, just like now.

        It's no different in the US. California and New York and Texas are powerful, while Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, and Oklahoma don't matter. No one outside the US ever thinks of the US and then thinks about Alabama or West Virginia as representing it.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @02:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @02:43PM (#463115)

    Let's not forget, this also allows USA to protect its own political interests in the Europe.

    That is key. Pax Americana has been invaluable for American interests. We give up that military presence in the name of saving dollars and we'll soon discover that we've lost much more in reduced soft power.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:09PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:09PM (#463200) Homepage

      Fuck 'em. Any nation which allows Islamic Savages to conquer its people doesn't deserve to exist.