PDA

**See This Page With Full Graphics, Pictures and Color!** CLICK HERE --> : Pentagon wants to close military bases


SOS
05-14-2005, 12:04 AM
story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/nyregion/14york.html?)

I dont see how this can help the military.


Pentagon's Plan Brings Relief and Dismay

By KIRK SEMPLE
Published: May 14, 2005

No state in the New York metropolitan region escaped unscathed from the Pentagon's list of recommended base closings yesterday, but if measured against expectations, New York came out ahead, New Jersey broke even and Connecticut lost badly.

The list called for shutting the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Conn., the state's single major military installation and one of its prime economic pillars. By the Pentagon's calculations, closing the naval base would eliminate nearly 8,500 military and civilian jobs.

The Pentagon also recommended closing three of Connecticut's Army Reserve stations and scaling back the Air Guard Station at Bradley International Airport. In all, the recommended measures would cost the state 8,586 jobs, a tally exceeded, according to Pentagon calculations, in only one other state: Maryland, with 9,293.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said the Pentagon's decision to close the naval base was "cruel and unusual punishment that Connecticut does not deserve."

For decades, the naval base and the nearby Electric Boat shipyard have been mainstays of the Connecticut economy, and by the early 1990's, the cluster of defense industries in southeastern Connecticut was perhaps the single largest employer in the region, said John Markowicz, chairman of the Subase Realignment Coalition, which is made up of business and government officials who have been campaigning to keep the base open.

Since then, the defense work force there has been slashed and surpassed in numbers by the casino industry's. But a study released this month by Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that the naval base, a related submarine school and a shipyard still contribute about $3.3 billion to the state's economy and support 31,500 jobs.

The list is not final. It goes to the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC, which can add or subtract bases before submitting a final roster by Sept. 8. President Bush and Congress must accept or reject that list by Nov. 7. In the meantime, many of the targeted bases and the communities that rely on them will lobby fiercely for a reprieve.

In New Jersey, the Pentagon's biggest target was Fort Monmouth, a major military base whose proposed closing would end 5,272 jobs.

The list also urged closing or realigning several small bases in New Jersey, but adding more than 1,800 positions to the work force at four bases, including Picatinny Arsenal and Fort Dix. In total, the state would have a net loss of 3,760 jobs, the Pentagon said.

"It's a mixed bag," said Alex Formuzis, a spokesman for Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey.

The prevailing sentiment yesterday in the Jersey Shore communities surrounding Fort Monmouth was less calm. "Obviously it's not a good day," said Mayor Maria Gatta of Oceanport, N.J., where many businesses draw clients from the base. "We're not going to sit back and say, 'Thank you very much.' We're going to work hard to get off this list."

The heaviest blow in New York was the recommended closing of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, which is Niagara County's second-largest employer and home to the 914th Air Lift Wing and the 107th Air Refueling Wing. Personnel would be sent to bases in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine and Texas. According to the Pentagon, the move would cost 642 jobs, although a local advocacy group created to promote the base says it employs more than 3,000 people.

Merrell A. Lane, chairman of the group, estimated that the base generates $150 million a year for the state's economy. "The way things are in western New York," he said, "it would be a real struggle to absorb the loss of another employer."

The Pentagon also recommended closing or shrinking 11 other small bases or military offices around New York, including the dissolution of a finance and accounting unit at Griffiss Business and Technology Park, in Rome, and trimming 137 jobs in a neighboring high-tech military research laboratory.

Still, the feeling among many public officials was that the state had dodged a bullet.

"We are all relieved," Senator Charles E. Schumer said. "The glass is 3/4 full, which is a lot better than we thought it would be at the beginning of the week."

Jason George contributed reporting from Oceanport, N.J., for this article, and David Stabafrom Niagara Falls, N.Y.

Smoke
05-14-2005, 12:58 AM
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said the Pentagon's decision to close the naval base was "cruel and unusual punishment that Connecticut does not deserve."
They deserve to lose it just for that cliche.

I'm worried that long term we're only going to have a handful of major bases that could be taken out with a few nukes against us.

Hudson
05-14-2005, 01:34 AM
there was a huge protest today at Earl and fort Monmouth

Jay Douglas
05-14-2005, 02:42 AM
The local news stations here in eastern North Carolina were actually concerned that Cherry Point would be closed. Those tools. Cherry Point will only be closed down if the US suddenly decided to give up all military power. Yet these media morons tried to make it seem possible. These same news stations were making a big deal about a factory explosion in Kinston. It was such big hype, you could have sworn they were talking about the World Trade Center attack! The worst part? I'm not kidding. That's how they acted.

mascan42
05-14-2005, 10:25 AM
Just out of curiosity . . . in today's world, what purpose does a nuclear submarine fleet serve? It made sense during the cold war, when the Soviets had a large navy that could pose a threat, but now the days of battles at sea are over. Surface ships obviously still serve a purpose, but I don't see the need for a large submarine fleet anymore.

P.S. This comes from someone with a cousin on a nuclear submarine.

SOS
05-14-2005, 12:29 PM
Just out of curiosity . . . in today's world, what purpose does a nuclear submarine fleet serve? It made sense during the cold war, when the Soviets had a large navy that could pose a threat, but now the days of battles at sea are over. Surface ships obviously still serve a purpose, but I don't see the need for a large submarine fleet anymore.

P.S. This comes from someone with a cousin on a nuclear submarine.
so we can create parking lots of those countries that try to hurt the us.

Arc Lite
05-14-2005, 12:41 PM
I don't know about all those scheduled to be closed but some of them have not been practical since WW2. At least that's what the TV told me this morning.

abudabit
05-14-2005, 01:16 PM
Any country that might nuke us can be taken out with only a few of ours. We don't need 1000's. 100's will be enough.

And someone asked how could base closures help the military: Because the money saved goes elsewhere inside the military. Our military has been designed around the cold war and I'm glad to see it go.

Also consider this: 70% of our military expenditure goes towards transporation costs. That will be significantly reduced with a less spread out military.

Smoke
05-14-2005, 01:22 PM
Just out of curiosity . . . in today's world, what purpose does a nuclear submarine fleet serve?

So they can go anywhere without needing to rise up for air...

We still have subs that can fire nuke missiles right? That way we can nuke 'em all even if they blow up everything we got.

SOS
05-14-2005, 02:26 PM
Any country that might nuke us can be taken out with only a few of ours. We don't need 1000's. 100's will be enough.
But what if they take out some of those 100 before we can launch?

And someone asked how could base closures help the military: Because the money saved goes elsewhere inside the military. Our military has been designed around the cold war and I'm glad to see it go.
Every time the military has decommisioned bases, ships, planes, tanks, equipment, etc has be quickly followed by another, more dangerous war/conflict.

Also consider this: 70% of our military expenditure goes towards transporation costs. That will be significantly reduced with a less spread out military.
Besides being incongruous, the transportation costs would increase since there would be fewer bases to send personel/materials from increasing shipping distances and costs.
Also it is easier to take out a few bases then lots of bases.

fhore twentee
05-14-2005, 03:44 PM
"I've got a bad feeling about this" - Luke Skywalker, Leia Sywalker, Anakin Skywalker

abudabit
05-14-2005, 03:53 PM
If they take out some of those 100s of nukes we will still have 100s of nukes.

And Spaz, we are ALREADY in wars and conflicts. And none of them use these bases!

And no, the shipping costs would decrease. It is cheaper to ship items in bulk. With tons of extra bases, we were sending half empty cargo ships.

Hudson
05-14-2005, 03:59 PM
well Ft Monmouth does take all the high tech electronics that is developed for the army and re-engineers it to be practical. My friend has to go all over the world and retool night vision optics, repackage and update computers, and shit. Everytime he comes home his wife has a baby nine months later, they have 5 kids.
Earle is a restocking area it has a shitload of land that noone knows what it is used for, have their own railroad and really nervous guards. I turned down the wrong street while jogging pre 911 and was stopped and held at the business end of a m-16 for about 5 min. I never pissed myself before then.

Smoke
05-14-2005, 04:21 PM
I like the militia concept, a gun in every home, every man a soldier when need be.

abudabit
05-14-2005, 11:22 PM
I turned down the wrong street while jogging pre 911 and was stopped and held at the business end of a m-16 for about 5 min. I never pissed myself before then.


LOL, I had the same thing happen to me. My old work place was by a California National Guard HQ, and I decided to go down the same abandoned street I always went for lunch in solitude. Bad idea. The place went from being a business park to a mini-fortress overnight. Wasn't 5 minutes though, they let me go after 30 seconds.

And to Smoke, it works in Switzerland (and reduces crime), but I know too many dumb asses here who I don't want to have guns. Like my friends. If those drunk and stoned dumbasses had guns thier house walls would be painted red.