Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The_Victor

great news for CT!


2 posted on 08/24/2005 8:21:33 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: camle

Yes, it is.

That proposed closure didn't make alot of sense to me.


3 posted on 08/24/2005 8:24:29 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: camle
great news for CT!

And RI as well. I think there are 3,000 Rhode Islander's employed there and around the area.

5 posted on 08/24/2005 8:30:27 AM PDT by JimWforBush (Alcohol - For the best times you'll never remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: camle

> great news for CT!

I'll say. They've been trying to close Groton for years...that place must have at least 9 lives.


7 posted on 08/24/2005 8:48:53 AM PDT by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: camle
C-span has the regional meeting presentations. The Connecticut New London presentation was very interesting and is worth watching on a repeat.

I concurr that the Sub Base should not be closed as there are too many synergies and too much knowhow that would be permanently lost.
12 posted on 08/24/2005 9:10:00 AM PDT by dickmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: camle




As a retired Chief of the Boat (COB) on a fast attack submarine operating out of Groton, CT, I disagree with the findings of the BRAC Commission. I believe that the decision to keep the Submarine Base open was made strictly on political and economic grounds.

My reason for dissent is operational. A submarine is most vulnerable when it is transiting on the surface. It has no defense against an aerial attack. To defend against a surface attack, it would have to expend a Mark 48 torpedo, which is designed to sink aircraft carriers or other submarines. Because of the way the bottom of the ocean slopes gradually up, we were required to do a 13 hour surface transit to reach the “Dive Point”. This same transit in San Diego would take about 1 hour. This is an awful long time to be a target.

The other primary reason that we would not want our submarines home ported there is the fact that the base is located up the Thames River past the bridges crossing the river for Interstate 95. All an enemy would have to do to bottle up a large portion of our east coast submarine force for the duration of a war would be to drop one or both of the large bridge spans into the river.

I don’t believe the BRAC Commission has served our country well with this decision.


16 posted on 08/24/2005 10:17:30 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: camle

So a BLUER than BLUE state (Connecticut) wants to keep a MILITARY installation that produces NUCLEAR weapons?? What hypocrites!!


23 posted on 08/24/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by enviros_kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson