Invincible against every foe except the enemy within
By Thoreau
The US Navy has built an amphibious assault ship made with steel from the WTC. Some might say that this is rather morbid and jingoistic, but I think it’s brilliant: As we all know, there’s no way that any fire could ever melt that steel. The only possible way that this ship could ever be damaged is if an insider were to plant explosives.
I hope this ship is sent to Iraq to fight the insurgents. There’s no possible way that they’ll be able to damage it. If it does suffer any damage, we’ll know exactly who is behind it, won’t we?
Comment by Avram —
March 1, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
It takes five years to build a ship?
Comment by von Laue —
March 1, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
That’s why that MFer is an admiral, and you’re not.
Comment by von Laue —
March 1, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
So-called “scientists” tow the government line here. Steel “creeps” at high temperature. Whatever, Dr. McSellout!
And why wouldn’t we lie? We make mad bank on the DoC gravy train. Shit, I could pay off a townhouse in Gaithersburg after, like, forty or fifty short years.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
March 1, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Ship built with WTC steel christened
…
The USS New York, an amphibious assault ship built with scrap steel from the ruins of the World Trad…
Comment by TGGP —
March 2, 2008 @ 12:29 am
I prefer that to building a memorial. The best revenge is living well, and on the site of the WTC should have been one twice as high, with blackjack and hookers.
Comment by Gary Farber —
March 2, 2008 @ 1:38 am
“The US Navy has built an amphibious assault ship made with steel from the WTC.”
Okay, this is about as far in advance as I’ve blogged an event, as in five years ago.
(In retrospect, I sure wish I hadn’t been so self-congratulatory, though.)
Comment by Gary Farber —
March 2, 2008 @ 1:42 am
Ah, I missed that Avram already did the dance.
You kids! In our day, we had to carve our letters by hand before coding them into HTML, and then send the packets off by carrier pigeon, and we liked it.
Comment by Gary Farber —
March 2, 2008 @ 1:44 am
“It could be used as part of peaceful missions”
Um, well, yeah.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 2, 2008 @ 5:22 am
It helps reinforce the idea, in the sailor’s mind, that US foreign policy is about revenge for 9/11. That helps give them the courage to be heroes.
Comment by Gary Farber —
March 2, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Avram asked: “It takes five years to build a ship?”
And, of course, yes, it does in our modern military procurement system.
In WWII, we managed to turn out ships every twenty minutes, or so, and start to finish would take a few monhts.
But now we have modern and efficient procurement systems!
Comment by joe —
March 2, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
That’s a fine name for a ship. Nice gesture.
Comment by Dave Allan —
March 3, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
A historical aside: even during WW2 the big ships took more than two years to finish. The USS New York is also pretty big and probably at least as complicated as anything built 65 years ago. In context five years isn’t unreasonable.
Comment by Mrs Offering —
March 3, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
The inimitable David Allen is correct. Bear in mind that modern warships are simply floating platforms for super-duper integrated electronics systems of all sorts, and sometimes these systems have to be re-engineered post-install, pre-launch. So no, 5 yrs is not unreasonable. Ridiculous but not unreasonable. Will the US ever again enter into a war ala WWII, a blasting-shooting-divebombing-type of war where we actually need materiel on a more immediate basis? Discuss.