'Twin Towers' ship: Defiant symbol? Or poor taste?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
we're not going to eat off of it!

Why not? 5 second rule, remember?

fmf's mom would call us 'disgusting'.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
c'mon. it was at the top of google news today.

I use Yahoo! news and never saw it, but I may have just not been paying attention at the right time.

It's fitting; the Towers get to give payback!

It's an amphibious landing ship...not exactly an instrument of doom.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
fmf's mom would call us 'disgusting'.

Well, you probably haven't been fed the right grain.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I use Yahoo! news and never saw it, but I may have just not been paying attention at the right time.

It's fitting; the Towers get to give payback!

It's an amphibious landing ship...not exactly an instrument of doom.

'We all live on a metal ship of doom ... ' Catchy.

Originally posted by sh76
What's the big deal? It's just a little tribute.

Do you mean because it somehow symbolizes that there needs to be fighting or war to vindicate the victims of 9/11? If so, I don't look at it that way. Navy ships can be used for peaceful purposes. The ships that the government builds are generally "war" ships. Don't read too much into this. It's just a little symbolism.


Oh... and NOTHING gets unanimous support among Americans.

I don't think you can really argue that this boat is effective as a peaceful naval ship. Spending a billion dollars to build a ship which is purely designed to deliver 700 marines in an amphibious assault seems excessive to me for peaceful efforts. That's 1.42 million per marine. Since WWII, the U.S. has only staged one significant amphibious assault (in Kuait). And it wasn't for peaceful reasons.

Spending 1 billion on infrastructure in iraq or afghanistan seems like a better application of the money if your goal is really peace.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung


It's an amphibious landing ship...not exactly an instrument of doom.

maybe you could use them in your neighborhood.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_class_amphibious_transport_dock

General characteristics
Type: Amphibious transport dock
Displacement: 24,900 t
Length: 684 ft (208 m)
Beam: 105 ft (32 m)
Draft: 23 ft (7.0 m), full load
Propulsion: Four sequentially turbocharged marine Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, two shafts, 41,600 shp
Speed: In excess of 22 knots (41 km/h)
Boats and landing
craft carried: 2× LCACs (air cushion); or
1× LCU (conventional); and
14× Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV)
Complement: Crew: 28 officers, 333 enlisted
Landing force: 66 officers, 633 enlisted
Armament: 2× Bushmaster II 30 mm Close in Guns
2× Rolling Airframe Missile launchers
Several twin M2 Browning Machine Gun turrets
Aircraft carried: Launch or land up to four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters; or up to two MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft simultaneously with room to spot four MV-22s on deck and one in the hangar

Originally posted by joneschr
I don't think you can really argue that this boat is effective as a peaceful naval ship. Spending a billion dollars to build a ship which is purely designed to deliver 700 marines in an amphibious assault seems excessive to me for peaceful efforts. That's 1.42 million per marine. Since WWII, the U.S. has only staged one significant amphibious assault ...[text shortened]... raq or afghanistan seems like a better application of the money if your goal is really peace.

Then your issue is whether or not to build the ship; not whether or not to use WTC metal in its construction. That is an entirely separate issue.

Originally posted by sh76
Then your issue is whether or not to build the ship; not whether or not to use WTC metal in its construction. That is an entirely separate issue.

No, the issue you were raising is whether the use of the metal in the ship was a symbolic gesture - and you argued that if it was, then the message could be one of peace.

If they're trying to make a symbolic gesture - then what's the message they're sending? That they're going to wage a war of revenge, or that they're going to promote peace? I just have trouble picturing a billion dollar assault ship with a very specialized military purpose as delivering a message other than "people are going to die".

Not that I'm arguing that's a bad response, but lets not sugar coat it.

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

* George Washington, First Annual Address to both Houses of Congress (8 January 1790)

Originally posted by zeeblebot
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

* George Washington, First Annual Address to both Houses of Congress (8 January 1790)

Does that apply to Iran as well?