www.ditl.org

Funny - in another thread, you talk about what an idiot Bob McNamara was. Even though I agree, he's got far more experience and seniority than you do at being the Secretary of Defense, so by your reasoning you shouldn't question any of his decisions. Now do you see how ridiculous your "logic" sounds?

Mikey wrote:Funny - in another thread, you talk about what an idiot Bob McNamara was. Even though I agree, he's got far more experience and seniority than you do at being the Secretary of Defense, so by your reasoning you shouldn't question any of his decisions. Now do you see how ridiculous your "logic" sounds?

McNamara was a professional politician and businessman, not a senior military officer.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:Funny - in another thread, you talk about what an idiot Bob McNamara was. Even though I agree, he's got far more experience and seniority than you do at being the Secretary of Defense, so by your reasoning you shouldn't question any of his decisions. Now do you see how ridiculous your "logic" sounds?

McNamara was a professional politician and businessman, not a senior military officer.

He was the Secretary of Defense - you weren't. Either accept your own reasoning or don't, but please be consistent.

Mikey wrote:He was the Secretary of Defense - you weren't. Either accept your own reasoning or don't, but please be consistent.

His area of expertise was completely outside that required to be considered an experience professional in the field of strategic bombing in the early-mid nuclear age. I'd no more take his views as reasoned professional opinion than I'd consider the view of a biologist relevant to quantum physics.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:He was the Secretary of Defense - you weren't. Either accept your own reasoning or don't, but please be consistent.

His area of expertise was completely outside that required to be considered an experience professional in the field of strategic bombing in the early-mid nuclear age. I'd no more take his views as reasoned professional opinion than I'd consider the view of a biologist relevant to quantum physics.

Leach's area of expertise was administration and strategic oversight of fleet wide operations, not scrapping or scuttling ships, unless his original experience was operating scrap tugs or some such. You're making arbitrary distinctions to try and force the facts to support your position. Whatever gets you through the night.

Mikey wrote:Leach's area of expertise was administration and strategic oversight of fleet wide operations

I'm glad you agree, therefore, with my point that he was entirely qualified to comment on naval procurement matters, including the disposal of worn-out ships.

Really? Scrapping old ships falls under "fleet-wide operations?" Or are we just saying that in an attempt to be pithy in order to cover the fact that you are only reading part of the post and ignoring the part that disagrees with you?

Mikey wrote:Scrapping old ships falls under "fleet-wide operations?"

It falls under admin. Procuring new ships, training and maintaining their personnel, through-life maintenance, logistics, disposal, everything.

Captain Seafort wrote:It falls under admin. Procuring new ships, training and maintaining their personnel, through-life maintenance, logistics, disposal, everything.

While it does fall under administration, each of those sections are separate. So this fool of yours no matter how much you fall for him is still only going to have experience in a single field. Judging by his lack of simple naval understanding towards respect of ship, I wouldn't be surprised if the only blue water experience he has is a cruise liner.

Procuring ships is a national budget issue, not one that an Officer has much say in.
Training new personnel isn't a part of buying a ship.
Maintaining a ship is separate from the purchase of such ship as its a Logistical issue and not national.
Life maintenance of a ship is separate from that of standard crew and or scraping crew, or supply crews or procurement, or disposal...
Logistics are separate from all the above as they have their service is tied to needs, not to ships by proxy.
Disposal is a cross political/budget concern that again revolves little with the military service.

So to try and say "everything" is ignorance below even your norms. No one in any service does 'everything'. Even your fancy of wiki should have been able to tell you that much by now. While England's navy really isn't important anymore at sea, I'd like to think that there would be some among its numbers that would at least pretend to show pride in their service and the ships that protect them.

Captain Seafort wrote:

What makes one ex-military members opinion any more valid than another?

Experience and seniority. It's the equivalent of some random NCO or junior officer saying one thing about counterinsurgency and Templer or Petraeus saying something else.

Is it now? I don't disagree that someone who has advanced to the rank of First Sea Lord (or CNO) doubtlessly knows more about operations in the Navy than the average Able Seaman I fail to see how that applies to the discussion at hand. The discussion is not "What is the proper way to operate a Navy," it is "What is the general opinion on the proper way of disposing warships." If we were discussing how to run a business, certainly I would yield to the opinion of someone in a senior management position. However when it came to a discussion of how to dispose of the building the business operated in, I fail to see what makes his opinion more valid than mine.

And that is what we're discussing. Not how to run a Navy, but how to dispose of the things used by a Navy once we're finished with them.

Sonic Glitch wrote:And that is what we're discussing. Not how to run a Navy, but how to dispose of the things used by a Navy once we're finished with them.

Disposal of ships at the end of their lives is part of running a navy. As the saying goes "amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics". Logistics isn't just about supply, but about procurement, through-life maintenance, and disposal.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:And that is what we're discussing. Not how to run a Navy, but how to dispose of the things used by a Navy once we're finished with them.

Disposal of ships at the end of their lives is part of running a navy. As the saying goes "amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics". Logistics isn't just about supply, but about procurement, through-life maintenance, and disposal.

Scrapping is the best way to get rid of a ship years ago. Now scrapping a ship and even getitng a ship ready for a sinkex or as a coral reef are almost the same thing. All the Hazmat has to be taken off of the ship and disposed of, inspected and so forth. It costs the Navy more money to scrap a ship then to sink it and it costs the Navy the least amount of money making it into a museum if found a place for it quick enough.