To: rwa265
Shouldn't this be something the Navy keeps out of the public eye?
2 posted on
01/15/2007 12:21:05 PM PST by
TheKidster
(you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
To: LonePalm; sionnsar; patton; Doohickey; SmithL; TheKidster
Not really.
Want I'm REALLY afraid of is that a "stand down" means thousands and thousands of EXTRA man-hours (or tens of thousands of extra man-days!!!!) of extra training and inspection - instead of a couple of hours of REST and THINKING of an overextended force with too few subs to do too many jobs that is actually what is needed.
You can micro-manage your people to death.
Literally.
3 posted on
01/15/2007 12:24:55 PM PST by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: TheKidster
How do you propose to do that?...When your entire submarine fleet stands down it becomes patently obvious. The stand down will not include three Missleboats on station.
The stand down will alleviate safety slack appearing in the fleet. Naval aviation has had such stand downs before when aviation accident rates increase due to maintenance or safety failures.
51 posted on
01/15/2007 3:27:37 PM PST by
tomcorn
To: TheKidster
On the contrary--this is entirely for public consumption.
71 posted on
01/15/2007 4:14:57 PM PST by
rottndog
(While reading this tag, remember Tens of Thousands of Americans are risking their lives for you.)
To: TheKidster
I'm sure the Navy was required to first inform Iran, N. Korea, you know, all of our allies.)
92 posted on
01/28/2007 9:54:00 AM PST by
Minutemen
("It's a Religion of Peace")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson