Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!schanck@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
From: schanck@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US sealift capability (was: Re: Are A/C Carriers Obsolete?)
Message-ID: <3457@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:24 GMT
References: <3335@cbnews.ATT.COM> <3418@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3418@cbnews.ATT.COM> ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu writes:
>The US Merchant fleet number ~5000 ships at the end of WWII.  That
>number has since dwindled to ~500 due to foreign competition and a lack
>of the US realization of the necessity for a merchant fleet that is
>US registered.
>
>The entire fleet now in existence would have to suffer very few losses
>in order to continue to support a war in europe.  However, history was
>shown that in WWII the greatest tonnage of ships sunk were merchant marine.
>
>The outlook of US support of a war in europe is dismal.

Wouldn't you also have to take take into account the larger number/
capabilities of aircraft in this day and age? I'm nothing of an expert,
but it seems to me there are morer and better aircraft for this purpose,
even if they were bastardized commercial machines. Sure, it isn't as 
effective as sea transport, but wouldn't it be a factor?



-=-
"My brain is NOT a deadlock-free environment!!!!"
--- Christopher Schanck, mammal at large.
schanck@flounder.cis.ohio-state.edu