More destroyers to defend America?

 

 

Bath Iron Works here in Maine presently is working on six new destroyers at the shipyard. They have put a call out for even more workers. In their call they say, "Shipfitters and Pipefitters! Pipefitters are responsible for installing the 30 miles of pipe it takes to build an Arleigh Burke [Aegis] destroyer. If you have plumbing knowledge, experience reading a tape measure and basic math skills, join our team as a Pipefitter and help us build the ships that defend America!"

That's quite interesting - the defend America bit. Once these warships are sent to sea they are no where near American shores.  Right now two of them are harassing Russia in the Black Sea and they've lately been repeatedly bumping up against the Chinese coastline 'defending the right of passage in international waters'.  Yeah right...

Can't we just admit the truth here?  It is about profit$ for General Dynamics (which owns BIW) and also about a forward deployed aggressive US naval strategy.  These destroyers carry first-strike attack nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles onboard.  They also have SM-3 interceptor missiles that are the shield to pick-off Chinese or Russian nuclear retaliatory responses after a Pentagon first-strike attack. (Something that is annually war-gamed at the Space Command in Colorado.)

These warships are about offense not defense!

 

 

Just last week the Maine and Mississippi congressional delegations sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks on Navy shipbuilding. (The two naval shipyards that build large surface warships are in Maine and Mississippi.)

In the letter the two congressional delegations said, "We write to express our strong support for a robust Navy shipbuilding budget, including funding for the continued procurement of Large Surface Combatants, and urge you to endorse unambiguously the long-standing and congressionally mandated requirement for a larger Navy fleet... China, which each of you identified during your recent Senate nomination hearings as the foremost national security challenge facing our nation, currently has the largest Navy in the world, including approximately 350 ships...  In the era of great-power competition, a stronger U.S. Navy capable of projecting power around the world [my emphasis] is necessary to ensure America’s national and economic security during peacetime as well as to defeat our adversaries should deterrence fail."

(At least they admit that the purpose of these warships is projecting power around the world and not the tired old excuse of 'defending America' as the young potential workers are misleadingly told by BIW.)

Among the signers of the letter was Maine's 'most liberal' representative in Washington, Rep. Chellie Pingree (Democrat from Maine's southern first district). Pingree claims to care about the poor and unemployed, climate crisis, and all the other hot-button issues that liberals usually demand more money to deal with.  But she always votes for more Pentagon spending and of course more warships for BIW.

Rep. Pingree is the classic liberal who talks a good game about the need for social spending but then turns around and ensures that there won't be enough money to deal with human, environmental and infrastructure needs because the Pentagon is sitting on the buried national treasure chest.  Typical pirate behavior.

Where do the Aegis go?

As the Pentagon accelerates deployment of US warships around the globe, they must have more ports to dock at for fuel and resupply.  So in places like the Philippines (where the US was kicked out of in 1992, but now back), South Korea (where a new Navy base was forced on Jeju Island that has ripped apart a 500-year old fishing and farming community), Japan, Guam, Australia, and Okinawa local residents oppose these increased deployments.  Why? Two basic reasons, first it makes them a prime target if a war starts and secondly, in every case, these toxic military bases destroy the local environment.

 

Do you think the 'good liberal' Rep. Pingree cares about the environmental damage that accompanies these destroyers as they port in these various nations? Obviously not. During the Obama administration his ambassador to Japan was Carolyn Kennedy (daughter of JFK). For years the people of Okinawa begged that 'good liberal' to meet and hear their pleas about expanding US bases on their island. Her answer? No meeting. 

That's just in the Pacific.  The warships that are sent to poke Russia with the nuclear-stick are similarly ported at US bases throughout the Mediterranean region and in the Nordic region where they are making aggressive maneuvers in the Barents Sea. As I noted above, right now these destroyers are in the Black Sea.

 

If we are honest about this situation, it is quite apparent just who the aggressor really is.  If China or Russia had military bases in Mexico, Canada or Cuba then Washington would be going ballistic! But when Washington does it in reverse, it is always sold to the public as 'defending democracy' and other claptrap like that.

It's no wonder much of the world hates the USA today.  Our blind arrogance rankles the people in these nations that see how the US is provoking WW III which will reduce their homelands to radioactive dust.

Isn't it time for the American people to wake up and stop swallowing the 'liberal' line about 'projecting power to defend the freedom of navigation'?

Bruce