Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Veterans

Showing Original Post only (View all)

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:11 AM Aug 2013

Analysts: Cutting aircraft carriers a real possibility [View all]

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/analysts-cutting-aircraft-carriers-real-possibility



Four aircraft carriers, from back to front, the Abraham Lincoln (72), the Enterprise (65), the George H.W. Bush (77) and the Dwight D. Eisenhower (69), tied up at Norfolk Naval Station on Thursday, February 14, 2013.

Analysts: Cutting aircraft carriers a real possibility
By Mike Hixenbaugh
The Virginian-Pilot
© August 9, 2013

Really? Mothballing aircraft carriers?

The idea floated last week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed particularly shocking in this Navy town - home to half the nation's fleet of nuclear flattops, where carrier deployments and homecomings routinely lead evening newscasts.

It's tempting to dismiss the notion of retiring two or three of the world's most recognizable warships as political brinkmanship - a veiled attempt to push Congress into reversing big national security cuts.

But defense analysts say people shouldn't roll their eyes at Hagel's warning or other drastic changes described last week in the Pentagon's first formal attempt to detail the long-term effects of sequestration.



unhappycamper comment: Sequestration appears to be finally working at the DoD - they're actually talking about it
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»Analysts: Cutting aircraf...»Reply #0