mitchgrunes
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2020
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 100
- Location
- Maryland
I assume a major issue for such ships is the cost of fuel. With less Russian petroleum in the market, fuel costs are high. My assumption is that the U.S. intends the Ukraine conflict to last for decades, so Russia concentrates its efforts there instead of on our NATO allies. And many of the current powers that be want to have reasons to push for "renewable energy". In the very long run, petroleum costs could go up anyway, as we run out of economically attractive sources. So fuel costs will likely stay high for decades, maybe forever.
Maybe it was the right ship for the wrong era.
I think they would refuse it because it was not built to mil spec!
BTW, the U.S. Navy often uses old battleships for target practice. Perhaps they could use at it that way. But in shallow water, it would constitute a hazard to navigation. If it isn't complete, it might not be safe to take to deep water.
In the Ukraine, major population centers keep getting hit. The ship would be an obvious attractive target, and when it was hit, a lot of people would die. Besides, how would you get it there? Would it have to steam past the Russian controlled Crimean bases? It's not designed to withstand military attack.
As refuge housing outside the Ukraine? But ships require a lot of maintenance. There are much cheaper ways to run a refuge camp. Besides, it might be too luxurious. The U.S. and it's allies need to emphasize how awful the refuge situation is, to hold together it's anti-Russian alliance. And the number of refuges it could hold would be a relatively small drop in a very large bucket. And again, it would be an attractive terrorism target. The conflict in the Ukraine has created motivation for terrorism on both sides.
Big cruise ships that use a lot of fuel in general may fall victim to current superpower conflicts, along with the hesitation for crowded travel that Covid created.
Maybe it was the right ship for the wrong era.
I still think giving it to US Navy would be best.
I think they would refuse it because it was not built to mil spec!
BTW, the U.S. Navy often uses old battleships for target practice. Perhaps they could use at it that way. But in shallow water, it would constitute a hazard to navigation. If it isn't complete, it might not be safe to take to deep water.
In the Ukraine, major population centers keep getting hit. The ship would be an obvious attractive target, and when it was hit, a lot of people would die. Besides, how would you get it there? Would it have to steam past the Russian controlled Crimean bases? It's not designed to withstand military attack.
As refuge housing outside the Ukraine? But ships require a lot of maintenance. There are much cheaper ways to run a refuge camp. Besides, it might be too luxurious. The U.S. and it's allies need to emphasize how awful the refuge situation is, to hold together it's anti-Russian alliance. And the number of refuges it could hold would be a relatively small drop in a very large bucket. And again, it would be an attractive terrorism target. The conflict in the Ukraine has created motivation for terrorism on both sides.
Big cruise ships that use a lot of fuel in general may fall victim to current superpower conflicts, along with the hesitation for crowded travel that Covid created.