|
|
| Re: With the higher minimum wage, we should try again to eliminate the penny... (1180059) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: With the higher minimum wage, we should try again to eliminate the penny... |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat May 3 20:41:52 2014, in response to Re: With the higher minimum wage, we should try again to eliminate the penny..., posted by RockParkMan on Sat May 3 08:36:15 2014. Of course you know more than our admirals, who disagree with you. Smooth move, Exlax.But let's assume we chose to retire 5 carriers. Carriers have a significant disposal cost. The eight-reactor Enterprise, now in the early stages of a multiyear disposal process, will likely cost more than $1.1 billion to ultimately dispose of. Nimitz-class carriers have only two reactors and could cost less to dispose of, but the bill still will be significant and, with inflation, would likely exceed the Big E’s cost. Even laying up the carriers in mothballs will entail major costs. Reactors, once shut down for a significant time, cannot be restarted due to changes in their metallurgy, so the ships cannot be completely shut down and maintained in reserve. Rather, the reactors would be set to a minimum level and the ships kept at a secure facility, like an active naval base. The Navy already has a significant backlog of seven decommissioned conventional carriers to get rid of, and the nukes would likely sit for some years before actually going away. Meanwhile, China's Navy wants a flotilla of four carriers by 2020. IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about but keep flappin' yer guns because it's what you do best. |
|
|
|