Misplaced Pages

Talk:United States battleship retirement debate: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:58, 11 August 2008 editEurocopter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,393 edits A-class review passed← Previous edit Revision as of 20:23, 11 August 2008 edit undoBellhalla (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users80,427 editsm match class of WP:MILHIST by ]Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talkheader}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=A|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|A-Class=pass|Maritime=yes|Weaponry=yes|US=yes}} {{WPMILHIST|class=A|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|A-Class=pass|Maritime=yes|Weaponry=yes|US=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=B|importance=Low|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} {{WikiProject Ships|class=A|importance=Low|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{summary in|Iowa class battleship|Zumwalt class destroyer}} {{summary in|Iowa class battleship|Zumwalt class destroyer}}



Revision as of 20:23, 11 August 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States battleship retirement debate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States A‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary historyWikiProject icon
AThis article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Additional information:
Note icon
This article has passed an A-Class review.
WikiProject iconShips A‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
AThis article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Summaries of this article appear in Iowa class battleship and Zumwalt class destroyer.

I corrected a couple gramatical errors on this page on 8/7/08. Also, the last section "Recent Developments" suggests the possibility that the Iowa and Wisconsin may be returned to the naval register. While technically this is true in principle, have their been any inklings from congress or the navy that this is even a remote possibility? I feel like this is conjecture and false hope more than anything else. Clearly the author of this page loves battleships (as do I), but I honestly dont see it happening. -EO 8/7/08

The odds of this are astronomically slim, but if congress wants to uphold the law it passed it will demand the Navy either get a new program togather for NGS or put the defunt programs back in action asap if they want the battleships to remain of the NVR, otherwise, me thinks they would be legally obligated to demand the navy reinstated the battleships during the reassessment phase. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between them being put back on the register and the current plan to turn them into museum ships? Based on congress's request that nothing be permanently modified that would impede their reactivation, it seems like, if the navy ever wanted to recommission the BBs, getting rid of tour groups and exhibits would be the least of their worries. With the cost of all the other upgrades that would be required, it would seem to me there is virtually no difference between having them on or off the register. They're going to be preserved either way. I guess having them back on the register would give us a bit more hope of seeing them on the open seas again. -EO 8/8/8
If they are listed on the register it means the navy has to shell out the cash to keep the ships operational, where as turning the ships into museums means the group that gets the battleship will be paying for the mainteince and all that other stuff. Thats the key difference. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any difference in the standard they will be maintained to though? -EO 8/8/8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.170.234 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
On the NVR they would be maintained as Category B assessts, meaning they would recieve maintience and service on an as needed basis. Off the NVR they will not recieve any maintence and service, so the odds are that off the NVR their conditions will deteriate some. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:United States battleship retirement debate: Difference between revisions Add topic