If Bases Aren't Needed, Some Fear Fleet Is Next

NY Times ^ | August 22, 2005 | WILLIAM YARDLEY

[Pharmboy]

C. M. Glover for The New York Times
The submarine base in Groton, Conn., is among 33 major bases the Pentagon is seeking to close.

GROTON, Conn., Aug. 19 - In a report to Congress in March 2004, the Navy projected that it would need a fleet of 55 nuclear-powered attack submarines in 2024. A year later, the Navy lowered the projection to 45. By May, Admiral Vern Clark, who was then the chief of naval operations, said he wanted 41. Others now talk of a fleet in the 30's.

It has been 16 years since the Berlin Wall fell, 14 since the Soviet Union dissolved and about a decade since the Navy began rapidly reducing its number of underwater weapons, which helped win the cold war by keeping Soviet submarines in check and the seas open.

Now, with terrorists the targets of the armed forces and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld talking of "transformation" in the military, the future is in doubt for the submarine port in Groton, which has been set among old oaks on the east bank of the Thames River for nearly 90 years.

In the coming week, an independent federal commission is expected to vote on whether President Bush should adopt a Pentagon plan to close Groton and move its 18 attack submarines to bases in Georgia and Virginia. The closing of Groton would save $1.6 billion over 20 years, and has been proposed as part of a larger plan to close 33 major bases in a nationwide realignment that would save $48.8 billion in the same time frame, according to the Pentagon.

[CBart95]

"You are so wrong."
It's amazing you got anyone to respond to this post.

[Coldwater Creek]

Look! I agree with you that managing our own accounts would have been more beneficial, but we were not duped.

[NonValueAdded]

Why base them in Georgia and Virginia and not on the west coast instead? What about the potential for Chinese control of the Panama canal? Has the shift in strategic threat removed any geographic advantage to a base in New England? Maybe. Certainly the Connecticut land could be given to a pharmaceutical company or some private developers. :)

[jpl]

I find it incredible that we are implementing a vastly wasteful drug "benefit" plan during a war, while shutting down critical military installations. And this with the Republicans running both the legislative and executive branches.

You and me both. I guess that's what they call "compassionate conservatism" or something.

[LexBaird]

The "duped" part is: Surprise! SS is unsustainable because it's basically run like a chain letter. Surprise! You'd have been better off stuffing 10% of your income (average income of $35K a year) under your mattress. You'd have about $175,000 right now. As it stands, you can draw about $12,000 a year when you turn 65. If you live to the average age of 75, you'll have received only $120,000. It's a rip off, but you were forced to participate.

Hardly a surprise. Recently, I found a Reader's Digest from October of 1967. It had an article on how SS really worked and what the structural problems were. The seniors who are "surprised" about this are the same one's who are "surprised" to find out that cigarettes cause cancer.

[Jaysun]

average life expectancy at age 65 is 17.9 years or more. Your age 75 is closer to expectancy at birth. It gets longer the older you get. But I still agree that Social Security was/is a rip off on all of us.

I don't follow you on the life expectancy numbers. People are currently moving on at the age of 75. Right? Are you saying that if one lives to be 65 they're likely to continue living to be 80, and that the average of 75 is somewhat distorted by younger deaths?

[Jaysun]

I agree with you. I was thinking more along the lines of WWII type naval battles.

[Jaysun]

Look! I agree with you that managing our own accounts would have been more beneficial, but we were not duped.

Okay, that wasn't the best word to use. His gripe is that the cost are way out of hand, that's a valid position and I agree with it. My point was that seniors shouldn't be blamed for that. It's not the retired people's fault that SS is a lousy plan.

[KC_Conspirator]

I am stunned by the idiocy of some of these "new" military thinkers. Almost all of these projections somehow don't include China in their thinking. Stupid, inside the Beltway delusion.

[Political Junkie Too]

How about for just the plain fact that 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is water, so a fleet is imperative if we are to project force around the world?

-PJ

[Jaysun]

Hardly a surprise. Recently, I found a Reader's Digest from October of 1967. It had an article on how SS really worked and what the structural problems were. The seniors who are "surprised" about this are the same one's who are "surprised" to find out that cigarettes cause cancer.

I'm shocked at how few people, of all ages, know the real skinny on SS. Test it for yourself. Ask someone that isn't into politics like we are and see what they say. Most of them think that their money is being put away for them until they retire. They've no idea that the money they pay is immediately used to pay retirees. That little detail is crucial to the problem. I don't understand why it isn't being used to bolster the idea of private accounts.

[Jaysun]

How about for just the plain fact that 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is water, so a fleet is imperative if we are to project force around the world?

Works for me.

[Coldwater Creek]

Yes it is a lousy plan, but it is the best that we have right now, and the people that put the fear into the older folks that they will loose their SS if they vote for a Republican is lower than whale poop. Most of those people that are so afraid are in the 80+ range. People that always thought that the dems were for the little people.

[Pharmboy]

Sorry...I do not follow what you're saying.

[Jaysun]

Yes it is a lousy plan, but it is the best that we have right now, and the people that put the fear into the older folks that they will loose their SS if they vote for a Republican is lower than whale poop. Most of those people that are so afraid are in the 80+ range. People that always thought that the dems were for the little people.

The Democrats are saboteurs. They're willing to place a bomb in the middle of America's economic future in exchange for a few misguided votes. It's a very serious matter. One doesn't have to be a mathematician to see the huge disaster that SS can cause if not reformed. Who knows? Maybe that's the goal of the Democrats. They're Communist.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The recent wars have been nation specific--Korea, Vietnam, and all the others since then. The Middle-East wars of 67 and 73 were different due to the geogrpahy of that region plus the fact the Arabs did not have a navy to speak of.

However, regional wars or nation specific wars of the future that have global ramifications (e.g. Taiwan) will see major uses of naval assets.

Also, in a strategic war, the land unites will be rendered usless by nukes and only the subs will be around to counter attack.

Of course, the movie "On the Beach" tells us how that will end.

Regardless, American politicians are anti-American for trashing our military and spending Billion$ on global welfare as the military threat and national security threat is increasing at Warp Drive speed.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The Democrats are saboteurs.

Then what are Republicans?

It is George Bush and the Republicans in Congreass who are signing off on the BILLION$ of global welfare while scaling back the F-22, DD(X) and other weapon platforms, while closing military bases.

The RATs are anti-American--we know that. So, what do we call Republicans? They are more passionate about giving away the national treasury for global welfare and having open access to any welfare groupie looking to walk across the border than they are about our own national security.

[Jaysun]

Then what are Republicans?

I don't defend them either. They've been given the lead and so far they've shafted us on a variety of issues.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The now retired class kept voting for those socialists who gave them lies, 500-1,000% inflation, higher taxes, expanded SS payments to those who didn't pay, problematic socialized medicine of Medicare, COLAs, and no real energy policy while this same class controls most of the wealth of this nation.

Overall, the selfishness of me first FDRers and foolishness have brought them into conflict with cold reality and the system's Boomer's fiscal drains on our treasury that cannot be sustained.

We shall be fighting this permanent war against Pan-Islam and ChiComs/Retro-Soviets regardless of whether retirees want to or not. We ought to be spending not less than 15% on Defense and force families to pay for their own elders or out of the elders' own pockets. Those refusing to save for their frail years are fools, poor fools.

Should we pay for drug benefits and bloated socialist vote-buying programs or defend our once sovereign, ratified Constitutional Republic and retaliate against Mo'ham's nuking city after city while ChiComs conquor Asia for oil and trade? Shall the several million killed, maimed, and displaced by islamo-nukes be paid millions like the WTC victims? Gran, forget your free meds and hospitalization...

[CBart95]

Why waste time replying then?