Twin Towers steel set for US warship
- Thread starter Christo
- Start date
- Status
IMO a very good idea.
I know that in some senses it will be to some a reminder of a tradgedy, however it is also a statement of determination to make some good out of a tradgedy.
What better way than to make something that is used to defend against other attacks?
I'm not always a great supporter of the USA, but I think this shows good sense both economically and from a position of national pride for them.
I know that in some senses it will be to some a reminder of a tradgedy, however it is also a statement of determination to make some good out of a tradgedy.
What better way than to make something that is used to defend against other attacks?
I'm not always a great supporter of the USA, but I think this shows good sense both economically and from a position of national pride for them.
Soldato
They only used that place to dump it cos it was the nearest site with enough space and logistics suitablility. Presumedly the plan was always to recycle the steel etc.
Does seem 'fitting' in one one way to ensure some of it is used in a warship bearing the name of the city of origin, but does seem kinda tacky in other ways.
Does seem 'fitting' in one one way to ensure some of it is used in a warship bearing the name of the city of origin, but does seem kinda tacky in other ways.
Associate
Like I said before - I don't think this is deliberate, the name of the ship was probably choosen as mark of respect/rememberance. The souce of the steel used in its construction is just a conincidence
A ship is usefull - the quantity and grade of steel involved make a ship about the only likely destination for the scrap.
I really think that people are reading way to much into this.
A ship is usefull - the quantity and grade of steel involved make a ship about the only likely destination for the scrap.
I really think that people are reading way to much into this.
Originally posted by FrgMstr21
EdnaGold
Why is a Warship not useful ??
America has a shedload of them already, they have easily one of the largest resourced armies in the world. And i think it was some symbolic sign to say they're gonna find the people who did it. The world would be a lot more peaceful if we banned all weapons of any kind so people had nothing to kill each other with.
Associate
Take your rose tinted glasses off, we (the world) have banned all sorts of weapons, but there are still mad men out there that will do whatever it takes to get them. Iraq / N Korea, In the news right now trying to get hold of and/or exporting weapons.
Soldato
Disagree totally.
Imagain we ban weapons in every country...
Terrorists will simply go further underground, build weapons, and attack us. As we would have no defence, we would be easy targets.
Associate
After the collapse of the world trade centers there was enough concrete to build a road from new york to washington 2 metres wide, and so much steel the market was flooded. Although I understand the emotions that amount of steel is an absolute gold mine...
Associate
they could use the steel to build the new towers if they wanted to be symbolic....
Annual military expenditure (in billions of dollars):
NOTE:
"Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea.
"Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Chart created by the Center for Defense Information
NOTE:
"Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea.
"Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Chart created by the Center for Defense Information
Last edited:
Soldato
I see no problem with using what was left of the Twin Towers in a way that would protect the US from further attacks.
Why is it typical of the US? The UK builds there warships out of steel too.
What do people want them to do with it? put it ALL into a muesum? Warships take many years of planning and funding to build, its only been one year. I find it very hard to believe that soon after 9/11 a plan for a warship was in the making and they planned to use the steel. They probably had a plan for a long time now and it just so happens they have a great supplie of steel in which it make it from. The name of the ship may be on purpose but its only a name.
We also have to remember that not ALL of the steel is being used on the ship, there is a LOT of steel in the twin towers. Also the metal is going to be melted down and shaped into different sturctures, so the metal isnt in the same form as the 9/11.
Last edited:
jezpgreat
J
jezpgreat
Originally posted by Dilbert
Annual military expenditure (in billions of dollars):
NOTE:
"Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea.
"Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Chart created by the Center for Defense Information
Theres nothing wrong with that, just means they invest in the armed forces more, I mean they get better equipment becuase they invest. Also they are a lot bigger than everybody else. The employment costs are higher in the USA compaired with Russia and china so they have to spend more to get the same job done. If you know about american and russian early atomic subs - the russians used very little shielding for the reactors, but the americans used lots to protect the men.
You may well be right, just seems a bit typical of the US if they did do it on purpose.
Soldato
We (The UK) have the largest defence budget in Europe.
jezpgreat
J
jezpgreat
Whats wrong if they did it on purpose ?, I think its a fitting tribute that out of the ashes rises a warship to help stop things like that happening again (in theory anyway).
- Status