Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.
... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone
They're not
gone, just mothballed...at least, last I'd heard.
Heh, pulling those things out would be... A very difficult and costly task, and I can't see us doing it, barring WW3. It's just like saying that the planes sitting in the boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB aren't gone - because they could be reactivated in a time of extreme desperation.
Actually, the Wisconsin and Iowa could be back in the fleet in less than 2 years.
They've been in Category B reserve for quite awhile now, which is supposed to mean they could be reactivated in 6 months.
Unfortunately, just recently the President signed an order that would strike both from the naval register and put them up for adoption as museum ships.
Pretty dumb, since we won't have anything to come close to replacing them until 2013.
Personally, I wish they were still active. I think it was a huge mistake to deactivate any of the Iowas, even though they are costly to operate.
There is just no sight on the water as impressive as a battleship, not even carriers.
They are just as impressive to potential enemies, too.
One of the main things that the Vietcong demanded happen before they would return to the negotiations was that the New Jersey be removed from off Vietnam's coast....they were scared to death of her. Not the carriers...the New Jersey. Plus, something like 75% of the targets in North Korea are in range of 16" guns, and that's if we don't even update them with new shells to fire farther.