The forgotten Navy

[taranaki]

Are British dockyards superior to those in America?If not,why tow derelict ships across the Atlantic for scrapping?

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/...ve/090903.html

Perhaps it is because the 'Ghost Ships' are in such hazardous condition.

The Clinton administration banned the export of these vessels.The Bush administration overturned the decision.Why can't America deal with its own pollution?

[YogsVR4]

I don't know what the problem is. The ban should have been lifted. If the ships are going to sit there and rot, why not sell them to whoever wants them. Clintons ban was just so the highest bidder would come from the states and not a foreign country. Its clear nobody here wants to bid on them, so let anyone else who wants them get them.

Every navy in the world has derelict ships. Most take them out to sea and scuttle them. If the issues is not sitting on the docks, I'm sure that can be arranged.

[replicant_008]

I'm happy for derelict ships to be scuttled at sea so long as it's environmental acceptable - I've dived a number of wrecks where the ships have been 'made safe' and sunk to create artificial reefs that encourage marine life and provide recreational divers with a place of interest.

But simply scuttling a boat to dump it especially with toxic waste makes no sense. Make them safe first before you go and sink them - the sea is not a big rubbish dump! It's the source of food, influences our weather and it's not an acceptable place to leave your refuse...

[bm2boats]

Your question is answered in the first paragragh. It's all about the $$$ and the jobs.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by bm2boats

Your question is answered in the first paragragh. It's all about the $$$ and the jobs.

"Although the fleet may look the part, according to a recent US government audit, more than 70 will never return to active duty no matter how pressing the emergency. They are without hope and, according to appalled environmentalists, they represent a disaster just waiting to happen."

Actually, the article's purpose is lost when it assumes the cause of "appalled environmentalists."

I think the ships should be sold to the highest bidder and should be taken care of with caution, but with a quick efficiency. They serve no purpose sitting there. If Bush overturned the ban to get them out of that river, good. If the English want them, more power to them. It doesn't appear as if they are turned over forcibly by the Americans.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Pick

Actually, the article's purpose is lost when it assumes the cause of "appalled environmentalists."

What leads you to this conclusion?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Pick

"Although the fleet may look the part, according to a recent US government audit, more than 70 will never return to active duty no matter how pressing the emergency. They are without hope and, according to appalled environmentalists, they represent a disaster just waiting to happen."

Actually, the article's purpose is lost when it assumes the cause of "appalled environmentalists."

I think the ships should be sold to the highest bidder and should be taken care of with caution, but with a quick efficiency. They serve no purpose sitting there. If Bush overturned the ban to get them out of that river, good. If the English want them, more power to them. It doesn't appear as if they are turned over forcibly by the Americans.

The whole thrust of the article is about environmental cocerns,so how can the purpose be lost?

Prior to the Clinton administration ban on such practices,this kind of scrap was disposed of exactly as you proposed.As a result,the ships often ended up being cut up in third world countries with no regard to the resulting polution or the health and safety of the workforce.It was ethical and responsible of the Clinton administration to embargo the practice.

Now that the U.S.is under the control of an unprincipled government,these ships are being swept under the mat.Two late model uncompleted tankers are being offered to an American private enterprise as a sweetener to rid the government of its problem.Other American companies who would rather see the jobs and the money generated by this exercise stay within the U.S. have been excluded from the process.

You are correct in asserting that they serve no purpose.I'd say that they are an ecological tragedy waiting to happen,but already,at least one of the vessels has caused serious pollution of the river.

They should be dealt with swiftly and ethically.If it costs a little extra to complete the task with less risk of sinking or further pollutrion,it is a price that the government should pay.However,given George Bush's track record on environmental issues,it seems highly unlikely that that would ever happen.

[Cbass]

Britain has much higher enviromental standards, so at least they'll be scrapped with some, if not much respect for the enviroment.

Pick, what is wrong with being an enviromentalist? What happens if in 50 years, global warming has caused the sea level to raise 20 feet, and massive floods force hundreds of millions to evacuate low level communities? It'd be an economic disaster, so it's actually in the economic interests of the world to pay attention to what we're doing. This is why just about every western nation agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, except the US of course.