Archive

Fatal consequences: Navy rebuilding urgent | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Fatal consequences: Navy rebuilding urgent

SingaporeUSNavyShipCollision82715jpgc080e
The damaged port aft hull of USS John S. McCain is seen while docked at Singapore's Changi naval base on Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017, in Singapore. The focus of the search for 10 U.S. sailors missing after a collision between the USS John S. McCain and an oil tanker in Southeast Asian waters shifted Tuesday to the damaged destroyer's flooded compartments. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)

American warships’ mishaps at sea this year didn’t come out of nowhere. Entering 2017, Navy brass were well aware of problems stemming from the overall fleet’s shrinkage — problems that require rebuilding U.S. naval strength.

A guided missile cruiser ran aground in Tokyo Bay in January. Then there were collisions: a cruiser with a South Korean fishing boat in May, the USS Fitzgerald with a container ship outside Tokyo Bay in June, the USS John McCain with an oil tanker on Aug. 21 near Singapore. Those incidents cost 17 U.S. sailors’ lives, more than 2017’s 14 U.S. casualties to date in Afghanistan, The Washington Post reports.

That’s beyond regrettable. And as these incidents mainly involved the Japan-based 7th Fleet, which patrols much of the Pacific and Indian oceans including waters off China and North Korea, they underscore the situation’s urgency. The post-9/11 Navy has been putting more ships at sea simultaneously — shortchanging maintenance and training — as its fleet shrank by 20 percent to today’s 276 deployable vessels.

The Trump administration is considering expansion to 350 ships. With a thinned-out fleet’s consequences obvious to 17 sailors’ grieving families, and to allies and adversaries around the world, strengthening the Navy must be an immediate high priority. Too much is at stake to risk further deterioration.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.