SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As if the onslaught of hurricanes Irma and Maria were not enough, the National Weather Service in San Juan is reporting that a major dam is failing in Puerto Rico and that 70,000 people are being evacuated by bus. From CBS:
The National Weather Service in San Juan said Friday that the northwestern municipalities of Isabela and Quebradillas, home to some 70,000 people, were being evacuated with buses because the nearby Guajataca Dam was failing after Hurricane Maria hit the U.S. territory.
Maria poured more than 15 inches of rain on the mountains surrounding the dam, swelling the reservoir behind it.
Details remained slim about the evacuation with communications hampered after the storm, but operators of the dam reported that the failure was causing flash-flooding downstream. The 345-yard dam holds back a man-made lake covering about 2 square miles and was built decades ago, U.S. government records show.
"Move to higher ground now," the weather service said in a statement. "This is an extremely dangerous and life-threatening situation. Do not attempt to travel unless you are fleeing an area subject to flooding or under an evacuation order."
"Act quickly to protect your life," it added. "Buses will be evacuating people from these areas."
Wikipedia has a page about Guajataca Dam
NWS report on Twitter; also at Al Jazeera and BBC.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 23 2017, @03:31AM (15 children)
And had they begun that plan when the storm was predicted to hit they likely would still be steaming to a port to load up. Navies aren't fast, there are hard limits to how fast one can push a ship through water. An American carrier, with almost unlimited capacity for propulsion, can go somewhat (exact top speed is classified) faster if willing to leave the escorting fleet behind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @03:50AM (14 children)
Irma was moving at 14 knots.
USA.gov's ships can't beat that?
...and a ship can launch helicopters when it's still over 100 miles away.
It all depends on your priorities.
Clearly, people who aren't rich don't count to USA.gov.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 23 2017, @04:17AM (4 children)
Just how many carrier battle groups do you think the US Navy keeps stationed in the Caribbean? The Spanish Main has not been a hot spot in a very long time. Blackbeard ain't coming back. Several are currently in the Korea area, several more in the Middle East. A couple will be in port at any particular time but probably can't be instantly put back into service. In case you haven't bothered to look, the world is NOT at peace right now. If we had a couple of spare carriers they would be deployed already.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @05:47AM
So, to be clear, "Defense" Department is complete hogwash.
USA.gov militarism is all about aggression on the other side of the planet.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday September 23 2017, @05:56AM (2 children)
> If we had a couple of spare carriers they would be deployed already.
How much good are they sailing the Gulf, the Med, or the China Sea, when there are Americans in danger at home?
Is it ten or eleven Navy carriers? How many Marine and helicopter ones?
The French have their biggest active ship (their lone carrier is in dry dock) stationed by St Martin, to help less than 100k people. How many .mil ship helped in TX, FL, PR, where millions needed/need assistance?
Quite a few, for sure. But nowhere near as massive a response as the most powerful country on the planet should muster for its own people, because they're too busy getting into someone else's business 100 degrees of longitude away.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday September 23 2017, @06:14AM
We don't station carriers near the U.S. because you don't need a carrier anywhere near U.S. waters for any mission. We have land bases. When there is working infrastructure to support it we can fly craploads of cargo directly from the mainland to PR, it will just be a lot more expensive than trucks. Get a clue. Carriers project air power to places where we have few or no airfields.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday September 23 2017, @08:03AM
Trust me, I'm not sending an armada. Getting ready to destroy #NoKo & #OCare! 🇺🇸
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 23 2017, @10:38AM (8 children)
Of course not. It would take weeks to months before a carrier group on the far side of the world could make it to Puerto Rico. If the US could teleport ships around, while not just teleport more supplies instead and skip the ships?
I also see from googling around that there were ships in the area (such as this story [stripes.com]).
Finally, let us note that this has been a bad season for hurricanes with two major ones before. It's dishonest to ignore the strain on logistics and other disaster relief resources this causes.
Let's actually have evidence of negligence and malice first before we make accusations, ok?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @08:41PM (7 children)
Note, in addition, that that is the country which USA, in its effort to cripple every place that doesn't knuckle under to USA's push for global hegemony,[1] [counterpunch.org] has blockaded.
[1] Not an especially short read, but it does make it clear just what USA.gov's major political goal has been since at least WWII.
I bookmarked it as Vietnam Was Not A Victory For USA But It Was A Crushing Blow To Anti-Imperialism Movements Globally.[2]
The article gets -really- good when he (author Paul Street) starts talking about Noam Chomsky, a towering intellect [google.com] whom you will never see on USAian Lamestream Media [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [counterpunch.org] ...as is the case with other informed voices you should be hearing. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
[2] You might compare that to USA's efforts WRT Bolivarian Venezuela today.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 23 2017, @10:46PM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @11:10PM (5 children)
That obvious whoosing sound is the sound of an entire missed point whoosing over your head. Again.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:03AM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:18AM (3 children)
So if a state capitalism can do that well, then what does that say about the handling of Puerto Rico by the United States?
I'm not finding gewg_ difficult to follow at all. She also brought up Florida. She's clearly looking at the forest you're missing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:57AM (1 child)
Wrong gender, but everything else you said is to my liking.
khallow won't admit that he knows that it can look a lot like one is moving up, when, in fact, what he is doing is keeping someone else down.
...if you look at it through Reactionary eyes.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:00PM
There's never been a reason here to "admit" that. Sure, I agree that your statement is correct (so now, I've admitted it, we can move on to relevant stuff, right?). But conversely that statement works against you as well. Moving up can look a lot like keeping someone else down, particularly, if you peer at the behavior through a warped, envious ideological lens with beliefs which don't accept that such things can happen.
What's particularly bizarre about your previous post is that you brought up three countries without a reason for bringing them up. We were speaking of Puerto Rico and the US's response there. Now suddenly, it's about Cuba, Vietnam, and Venezuela, only one of which has been affected by hurricanes this year. What's going on? Should the US be sending disaster relief to Vietnam or Venezuela for hurricanes that they didn't experience?
There's a single trait common to these three countries, anti-democratic "state capitalism". I already stated what I think is going on here. You have ideological blinders on. And one wonders just how much of your claims to advocate socialism are lip service as a result. If you can gloss over the rampant failure of these three countries so readily, then are you really for socialism (as you define socialism, with democracy, etc) or are you really for state capitalism (again as you define the term)?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 24 2017, @12:37PM
"If". We already have established that it can't. No point to continuing the chain of logic, when it breaks right there.