If you are going to be totally realistic, if there is a war involving requirement for convoys of supply ships it probably wouldn’t last long.
If there is a war between major powers it is not going to be a replica of WWII. It is more likely to escalate into an all out nuclear war, which none of us will survive.
Well, didn’t this get depressing quickly…
So two problems are the death rate would be high due to improvements in anti-ship technology. Those that did volunteer would only have the right to return to their old jobs (if they survived) if they had shore based jobs to return to.
How to mitigate these issues?
First, change the law to protect any job - not just shore-based jobs. Tugs, ferries, oil patch, anything.
Second, there must be benefits to support the families of the mariners who volunteer. That means things like health insurance for spouse and dependents should start the day a mariner signs aboard lasting until a short time after the mariner pays off. If someone is leaving their job there should be no lapse in insurance.
Third, in the (likely) event of death there should be death benefits for the family that roughly match what a deceased serviceman’s family would get minus the pomp. That means a cash payout, annuity, survivor health insurance, education benefits for the kids and access to mental and emotional support for the families.
Without these kinds of things who in their right mind would accept a callout to man a MARAD ship in times of hostilities? Quit a safe job, put the family at health and financial risk and, upon your death, your family gets nothing. A patriot would do better to volunteer for active duty Navy. A family man or woman would just stay home.
Bingo, and they need to start doing that now. FDR promised benefits to WWII mariners and they are still fighting for full recognition.
Making a promise after the bullets start flying will be too little too late. Nobody’s going to trust there will be any follow-through this time.
Perhaps a patriot would not participate in the oligarchs war(s) to begin with…*
*WWIII excluded.
Thanks for citing the mariner re-employment system. I had no idea that existed! Could come in handy one day.
Like Deckape said though, the fact that limited tonnage and inland mariner work is not explicitly covered makes for an enormous gap in effectiveness.
Unless I’m reading it wrong… it ONLY covers mariners “permanently employed in a shore-side position” and doesn’t cover you if you are leaving any sailing position to go to serve on a sealift ship with MARAD.
This program does not NOT provide re-employment rights or benefits for:
- current merchant mariners who simply want to find work after completing service in the USMM
- commercially employed mariners or workers who might serve in a sea-based capacity
I disagree. If we have a so called peer-to-peer war I’m fairly confident we can takeout the enemy satellites. The torpedoes will still kill us quick when they find us but one thing that hasn’t changed in centuries is the sheer size of the Pacific Ocean… no way any submarine force can patrol it all.
No Naval war has every lasted long. Land wars take years to “win” but history tells us that the victor at sea is usually determined in days or even hours.
The Pacific in WWII took a little longer due to the sheer size of that ocean but, even then, a case can be made that the allies had one it in just a few hours during the battle of Midway.
But regardless of if the US Navy wins or looses we will still be sending merchant ships out to run for their lives in the next war just like it’s been done for every war in history.
But will there be any need for convoys in any likely wars involving USA?
Any lengthy insurgent war, or the never ending “war on terror” is not involving the need for convoys across oceans as the likely enemies does not have a blue water navy.
Any war involving major powers that does have such capabilities also have atomic weapon, which we may hope will not be used, but don’t bet the farm on it.
Some nuclear armed countries have declared a “No First Use” (NFU) policy:
China and India. (Russia stepped away from a NFU pledge in 1982)
But how credible is such a pledge if the Sh*t hit the fan? Here is a lengthy article about NFU:
Will a war between major power last long enough even form convoys before balistic nuclear weapons get into play?
I don’t know and I don’t think anybody else does either.
I had an REO in the mid 2000’s during a MARAD breakout, who was a state civil servant in New York who used this during O.I.F. and said, while it took the agency he worked for by surprise, it was a slam dunk.
Good to know. Something to keep in mind, I didn’t remember the provision covering activation exercises.
You’re doing the same thing the Pentagon always does… they build a military capable of fighting the last war.
The next war will not be what we are expecting.
IDK if a convoy system will be needed but neither does anyone else but if you don’t train for it then that option will not be available to you in the future.
And yes, I can think of a few scenarios where a convoy system is used. Let’s say China does win the Naval battle then we will still need to get supplies to allies like Australia. If that’s lost then the middle east or Africa. You have to stage somewhere. China might not want to pull its primary forces from protecting the mainland but it could send less valuable warships that far to take out unprotected merchant vessels.
Yes, nuclear is a threat but you have to remember that China isn’t playing a “quick game” like we did in the cold war. They are planning a 50-100 year strategy. Any sensible strategy of that length will obviate the need for nukes.
No I don’t do the same as Pentagon
Both Russia and China (your enemies of choice) possess shore-to-ship rockets that can hit ship up to 2-3000 n.miles away, whether in a convoy or sailing individually. They don’t need torpedoes, bombs or guns to sink ships. They can do that from the relative safety of their homeland.
Whether they will waste such valuable weapons on lowly merchant ships, when they can be better deployed to hit aircraft carriers and other naval vessels is of course a question for the experts.
It is hard to hide a large convoy, or battle group, even if the ocean is large. I would think that Russia and China would know the position of any large convoy, or naval fleet on the move.
Take out their satellites you say?? Who knows if they are able to hack into feed from US and allied surveillance satellites, or other top secret sources of information?
I agree fully that China is not playing a short game. In fact I have stated that several times on this forum.
I also think that no rational national or military leader would actually use nuclear weapons when they are assured to be hit back with the same.
But are we guaranteed that all leaders, present and in the future, will be acting rationally, especially if provoked?
That wins the rhetorical question of the year award.
Given the mental and emotional state of our current leadership it may take nothing more than a tweet or some late night TV comedian’s joke to provide the provocation needed to further unhinge our child in chief.
1914 - Franz Ferdinand’s assassination
2020 - Jimmy Kimmel and a failed attempt at a cheap laugh
Yeah, I can totally see that.
Because Iran shooting down a US military drone didn’t provoke us into a war, which he has numerous times said he isn’t interested in starting, but surely mean words on the internets or some late night clown will!!
RRRRReeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee! Orange man baaaaaaaaad!!!
Of course the best way of getting out of the problem of reactivating old ships that should have be scrapped years ago, or to keep them in layup in the first place, is to not get into any more wars.
How to do that? By not provoking or attacking any foreign countries.
US has more weapons, warships and planes and spend more money on their military and intelligence services than the 10-12 next countries in the world.combined.
No major power is dumb enough to attack US mainland, or any US bases, unless they are attacked first, or severely provoked, because that is inviting their own demise.
Ok, that is a very rational position but history has shown that a rational western mindset is not terribly common in certain cultures.
Good feelings and intentions are, unfortunately, not the way to ensure safety on either a national or international scope. Hoping for the best in a dangerous world is naive.