Should the Navy invade California?

Okay this is a little old – from August of last year – but it’s still well worth reading and still relevant.

These are remarks made by Stephen M. Carmel, Senior VP of Maersk Line, Limited at the Commander Second Fleet Intelligence Symposium where he explains why piracy (especially Somalian piracy) isn’t quite as bad as it’s made out and why the shipping industries worry far more about what Congress is up to than pirate attacks.

He goes into detail on the economics of shipping (shorter distance is not always cheaper) and provides some insight on how shipping companies view piracy and why they haven’t done all the ‘obvious’ things that people call for.

via Ace of Spades HQ.

He’s not that worried about pirates. Go read what really scares him.

7 thoughts on “Should the Navy invade California?”

  1. Utter brilliance.

    Thing that always confused me about running the military like a business is that the people that were trying to do this hadn’t ever actually BEEN in business. Give this guy a chance to run the Navy. Betcha things turn out better than they did back in the 90’s …

    Also, I wish someone (other than the current invaders) would come in and invade the “quasi-failed-state of California.”

  2. Invade California.
    Every time there is a new environmental standard we have to comply with, it’s always to the “California standard” which is always more draconian and arbitrary junk science based.
    We’re building hybrid tugs because of California. Work about as well as you would expect.
    Now we know what happens when you let hippies run a government.

    1. I’m a little surprised Oregon and Washington aren’t trying to pick up merchant traffic from LA/Long Beach. If California is determined to cut its own throat, why shouldn’t they profit from it?

    2. They are. Oregon has the depth of the Columbia as a limiting factor. Seattle and Tacoma are actively seeking the traffic, the I5 mess, especially in Seattle limits to an extent moving the freight once here. No one wants to spend the money on the infrastructure.
      Canada will get it. They built a new container terminal in Prince Rupert in the last couple years.

    3. Apparently there’s a kerfuffle also about the height of a new bridge across the Columbia. The CG says the proposed design is too low for all traffic, and the other folks don’t want to have to redesign the bridge for a small percentage of traffic. Plus, they’d have the concerns of it being right next to PDX.

    4. I read that story too. Amazing how “surprised” the planning commision was, even though they new early on that 95′ was not high enough.

    5. Yeah Portland wouldn’t be too bad, but it’s the only real port in Oregon. You also have the mouth of the Columbia which is one of the most dangerous places in the maritime world. Washington has a couple places other than the sound they could build a port, but the rest of the transportation infrastructure doesn’t exist. San Diego, The LA area, and San Fran Bay are the only places on the west coast with the ports and shore side infrastructure the big ships can go.

      Maersk is right about Congress. I’d include both Congress, when in joint session, and California as invasion targets. The stupidity in both places is strangling the country.

Comments are closed.