Hurricane Maria death toll near 5,000

[Loren Pechtel]

It's about 1,000 miles from US mainland naval bases; That's maybe 48 hours for a warship. The Navy and Marine Corps are in the habit of providing a rapid response to unexpected events - they would be pretty useless as a defensive force otherwise - but a hurricane isn't unexpected; it was known at least a week in advance that it would likely cause severe damage. So the limiting factor in response time is just the time needed to move from holding positions outside the area of dangerous weather and sea conditions to the areas that needed help.

Any modern navy could do it. The US Navy are not that much less effective than the rest of the world, surely?

Bear in mind that the benchmark here is a one week response time. Most of which was, in the case of Louisiana, also due to needless prevarication by the man with the authority to say 'Go!'

The POTUS could easily, and at almost no marginal cost, have instituted a massive military recovery and assistance operation, which could have started within at most three or four days of his giving the order. He chose not to.

Warships don't normally sit around at naval bases when they're in shape to be deployed. Thus the distance to naval bases means very little.

 

[bilby]

It's about 1,000 miles from US mainland naval bases; That's maybe 48 hours for a warship. The Navy and Marine Corps are in the habit of providing a rapid response to unexpected events - they would be pretty useless as a defensive force otherwise - but a hurricane isn't unexpected; it was known at least a week in advance that it would likely cause severe damage. So the limiting factor in response time is just the time needed to move from holding positions outside the area of dangerous weather and sea conditions to the areas that needed help.

Any modern navy could do it. The US Navy are not that much less effective than the rest of the world, surely?

Bear in mind that the benchmark here is a one week response time. Most of which was, in the case of Louisiana, also due to needless prevarication by the man with the authority to say 'Go!'

The POTUS could easily, and at almost no marginal cost, have instituted a massive military recovery and assistance operation, which could have started within at most three or four days of his giving the order. He chose not to.

Warships don't normally sit around at naval bases when they're in shape to be deployed. Thus the distance to naval bases means very little.

Indeed. A sensible command would pre-position them outside the danger zone, but close enough to render immediate aid once the hurricane had passed. The distance to their bases is a worst case scenario, assuming no forethought whatsoever on the part of those in charge.

Seriously, using the military for disaster relief has almost no downside - the marginal cost is tiny (the sailors and airmen were going to be paid anyway; the ships were going to be burning fuel anyway); and the excercise is great training in many ways, not least because they face real and real time challenges, not just imaginary ones.

By making a tiny change from what they would have been doing anyway, you get assistance to those impacted by the hurricane quickly and effectively at low cost.

Why in earth would you choose NOT to do that??

 

[lpetrich]

Compare Puerto Rico with Florida or Texas. It seems to me that a big difference is how many Republican voters those territories are likely to have. It's like New Orleans vs. Florida during the George Bush II presidency. Or Hurricane Sandy vs. midwestern tornadoes.

It's as if Republicans are exempted from the strictures that those oh-so-righteous Republicans insist on for everybody else.

 

[WAB]

It's about 1,000 miles from US mainland naval bases; That's maybe 48 hours for a warship. The Navy and Marine Corps are in the habit of providing a rapid response to unexpected events - they would be pretty useless as a defensive force otherwise - but a hurricane isn't unexpected; it was known at least a week in advance that it would likely cause severe damage. So the limiting factor in response time is just the time needed to move from holding positions outside the area of dangerous weather and sea conditions to the areas that needed help.

Any modern navy could do it. The US Navy are not that much less effective than the rest of the world, surely?

Bear in mind that the benchmark here is a one week response time. Most of which was, in the case of Louisiana, also due to needless prevarication by the man with the authority to say 'Go!'

The POTUS could easily, and at almost no marginal cost, have instituted a massive military recovery and assistance operation, which could have started within at most three or four days of his giving the order. He chose not to.

Warships don't normally sit around at naval bases when they're in shape to be deployed. Thus the distance to naval bases means very little.

Indeed. A sensible command would pre-position them outside the danger zone, but close enough to render immediate aid once the hurricane had passed. The distance to their bases is a worst case scenario, assuming no forethought whatsoever on the part of those in charge.

Seriously, using the military for disaster relief has almost no downside - the marginal cost is tiny (the sailors and airmen were going to be paid anyway; the ships were going to be burning fuel anyway); and the excercise is great training in many ways, not least because they face real and real time challenges, not just imaginary ones.

By making a tiny change from what they would have been doing anyway, you get assistance to those impacted by the hurricane quickly and effectively at low cost.

Why in earth would you choose NOT to do that??

Easy: because the POTUS is an asshole. He has no military training, and no political acumen. He has absolutely no place in any gov't office, let alone the highest one (arguably) in the world.

The Orange Clown wanted to be President just to show that he could. In a few years, hopefully less, he will be back on television with a show called "I Was President, and You Can Be Too!" And there will be the book, naturally, ghost written since he's functionally illiterate, and a tour across the land over which he once...did what? Wore a nice blue suit and screwed up his face to make sure he looked like the happy bully he is.

/not sarcastic

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's about 1,000 miles from US mainland naval bases; That's maybe 48 hours for a warship. The Navy and Marine Corps are in the habit of providing a rapid response to unexpected events - they would be pretty useless as a defensive force otherwise - but a hurricane isn't unexpected; it was known at least a week in advance that it would likely cause severe damage. So the limiting factor in response time is just the time needed to move from holding positions outside the area of dangerous weather and sea conditions to the areas that needed help.

Any modern navy could do it. The US Navy are not that much less effective than the rest of the world, surely?

Bear in mind that the benchmark here is a one week response time. Most of which was, in the case of Louisiana, also due to needless prevarication by the man with the authority to say 'Go!'

The POTUS could easily, and at almost no marginal cost, have instituted a massive military recovery and assistance operation, which could have started within at most three or four days of his giving the order. He chose not to.

Warships don't normally sit around at naval bases when they're in shape to be deployed. Thus the distance to naval bases means very little.

Indeed. A sensible command would pre-position them outside the danger zone, but close enough to render immediate aid once the hurricane had passed. The distance to their bases is a worst case scenario, assuming no forethought whatsoever on the part of those in charge.

Seriously, using the military for disaster relief has almost no downside - the marginal cost is tiny (the sailors and airmen were going to be paid anyway; the ships were going to be burning fuel anyway); and the excercise is great training in many ways, not least because they face real and real time challenges, not just imaginary ones.

By making a tiny change from what they would have been doing anyway, you get assistance to those impacted by the hurricane quickly and effectively at low cost.

Why in earth would you choose NOT to do that??

1) It has the opportunity cost--the ships aren't doing whatever else they were supposed to do.

2) The bigger issue--hurricanes are very unpredictable. How were they supposed to know that Puerto Rico was going to be wrecked in time to send the ships there?

 

[RavenSky]

Indeed. A sensible command would pre-position them outside the danger zone, but close enough to render immediate aid once the hurricane had passed. The distance to their bases is a worst case scenario, assuming no forethought whatsoever on the part of those in charge.

Seriously, using the military for disaster relief has almost no downside - the marginal cost is tiny (the sailors and airmen were going to be paid anyway; the ships were going to be burning fuel anyway); and the excercise is great training in many ways, not least because they face real and real time challenges, not just imaginary ones.

By making a tiny change from what they would have been doing anyway, you get assistance to those impacted by the hurricane quickly and effectively at low cost.

Why in earth would you choose NOT to do that??

Easy: because the POTUS is an asshole. He has no military training, and no political acumen. He has absolutely no place in any gov't office, let alone the highest one (arguably) in the world.

The Orange Clown wanted to be President just to show that he could. In a few years, hopefully less, he will be back on television with a show called "I Was President, and You Can Be Too!" And there will be the book, naturally, ghost written since he's functionally illiterate, and a tour across the land over which he once...did what? Wore a nice blue suit and screwed up his face to make sure he looked like the happy bully he is.

/not sarcastic

I'd rather he be in prison for the rest of his miserable life

 

[bilby]

Indeed. A sensible command would pre-position them outside the danger zone, but close enough to render immediate aid once the hurricane had passed. The distance to their bases is a worst case scenario, assuming no forethought whatsoever on the part of those in charge.

Seriously, using the military for disaster relief has almost no downside - the marginal cost is tiny (the sailors and airmen were going to be paid anyway; the ships were going to be burning fuel anyway); and the excercise is great training in many ways, not least because they face real and real time challenges, not just imaginary ones.

By making a tiny change from what they would have been doing anyway, you get assistance to those impacted by the hurricane quickly and effectively at low cost.

Why in earth would you choose NOT to do that??

1) It has the opportunity cost--the ships aren't doing whatever else they were supposed to do.

The majority of the US Navy is on a peacetime footing, and disaster relief is likely better training than the typical excercises they would otherwise be doing.

2) The bigger issue--hurricanes are very unpredictable. How were they supposed to know that Puerto Rico was going to be wrecked in time to send the ships there?

They don't need to. The hurricane was going to make landfall somewhere, and we are discussing a response time of the order of a week - which they can easily beat even if they start out 3,000 miles away.

If the hurricane had left Puerto Rico alone, and hit, say, Jamaica, would you suggest that the Jamaicans shouldn't be helped because they are not Americans?

Would you stand by with your garden hose in your shed if your neighbour's house was on fire, on the basis that it's not your property, so not your problem?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The majority of the US Navy is on a peacetime footing, and disaster relief is likely better training than the typical excercises they would otherwise be doing.

2) The bigger issue--hurricanes are very unpredictable. How were they supposed to know that Puerto Rico was going to be wrecked in time to send the ships there?

They don't need to. The hurricane was going to make landfall somewhere, and we are discussing a response time of the order of a week - which they can easily beat even if they start out 3,000 miles away.

If the hurricane had left Puerto Rico alone, and hit, say, Jamaica, would you suggest that the Jamaicans shouldn't be helped because they are not Americans?

Would you stand by with your garden hose in your shed if your neighbour's house was on fire, on the basis that it's not your property, so not your problem?

There's no need if it hits the mainland and just because it makes landfall doesn't mean it's going to be devastating when it does.

 

[laughing dog]

Asked of LP on June 6

Can you explain why a retired military expert who led the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina disagrees with your assessment?

Response: *crickets*

 

[bilby]

The majority of the US Navy is on a peacetime footing, and disaster relief is likely better training than the typical excercises they would otherwise be doing.

2) The bigger issue--hurricanes are very unpredictable. How were they supposed to know that Puerto Rico was going to be wrecked in time to send the ships there?

They don't need to. The hurricane was going to make landfall somewhere, and we are discussing a response time of the order of a week - which they can easily beat even if they start out 3,000 miles away.

If the hurricane had left Puerto Rico alone, and hit, say, Jamaica, would you suggest that the Jamaicans shouldn't be helped because they are not Americans?

Would you stand by with your garden hose in your shed if your neighbour's house was on fire, on the basis that it's not your property, so not your problem?

There's no need if it hits the mainland and just because it makes landfall doesn't mean it's going to be devastating when it does.

So preparing for the possibility of a disaster is a waste of time, because sometimes you get lucky? That's an odd attitude.

Particularly in light of this thing they have now called 'weather forecasting', whereby you can get a pretty good idea about where a Hurricane is going a few days in advance.

And even MORE so in light of the fact that, as I have repeatedly said, even in a worst case, where the stupid person in charge is so stupid as a to stupidly only react AFTER the hurricane makes landfall, the US Navy would STILL be able to respond within less than a week.

The US Navy currently has (according to Wikipedia) 509 Seahawk and Rescue Hawk helicopters deployed worldwide. If you think they can't deliver a couple of dozen of these (less than 5% of the total), plus their crews and support, to any location on the planet with a week's notice, and without disrupting their other peacetime commitments, then you have a very poor opinion of the ability of your nation's armed forces.

 

[WAB]

There's no need if it hits the mainland and just because it makes landfall doesn't mean it's going to be devastating when it does.

So preparing for the possibility of a disaster is a waste of time, because sometimes you get lucky? That's an odd attitude.

Particularly in light of this thing they have now called 'weather forecasting', whereby you can get a pretty good idea about where a Hurricane is going a few days in advance.

And even MORE so in light of the fact that, as I have repeatedly said, even in a worst case, where the stupid person in charge is so stupid as a to stupidly only react AFTER the hurricane makes landfall, the US Navy would STILL be able to respond within less than a week.

The US Navy currently has (according to Wikipedia) 509 Seahawk and Rescue Hawk helicopters deployed worldwide. If you think they can't deliver a couple of dozen of these (less than 5% of the total), plus their crews and support, to any location on the planet with a week's notice, and without disrupting their other peacetime commitments, then you have a very poor opinion of the ability of your nation's armed forces.

Truth. I come from a military family. I was born at freakin' West Point. I was raised in and around the area. My best friend's father was a military history buff, with whom I had many talks, who also worked at West Point, where my father worked his entire career.

Hence, if I were to sit here and try to make excuses as to why there is and was no real effort to render maximum (or even adequate!) aid to Puerto Rico, I would have to lie through my teeth (which would be kinda easy, really, since there aren't many of them left - but I'd feel awful silly doing it.)

There is only one conceivable reason why (and I say this not a liberal, Loren, but as a moderate, leaning left or right only depending on each individual issue, which is how anyone should judge any issue: individually, one at a time. Parties are all about girls and good hootch, not rational thinking, in my book) adequate aid was and is not rendered to Puerto Rico: the non-military, non-political capitalist in the Oval office, who worries more about his ridiculous comb-over than he does about doing the job entrusted to him.

Loren, certainly you know I have nothing against you. I've spoken to you in private, and I am most certainly not among those here who condemn libertarians (I'll catch "stick" for that); but I honestly think it's beyond futile to hold to the argument that the US has done what it could and can for Puerto Rico. There are human beings suffering, and for the love of Pete, Puerto Rico is a territory of the US, making it even more incumbent on our nation to not only render aid, but to go out of our way as much as it costs and takes, to do so in such a crisis.

Not that that should really matter. We render aid all throughout the world, as any civilized nation should, or at least we used to.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The thing is the hurricane was more the straw that broke the camel's back. The maintenance wasn't being done because people wanted social spending. That's the real reason for the catastrophe.

First, the real reason for the catastrophe was the hurricane. Second, the OP is about the inadequacy of the response. But don't let either of those stop you from blaming those brown-skinned victims.

I don't care the color of their skin. I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

You mean like cabana parties?

 

[Playball40]

We FAILED to do something as the Federal Government has an OBLIGATION to provide for natural disaster assistance. Even to those states/provinces in DEBT. Most RED states ARE IN DEBT - should we cut them off from disaster relief??

Not doing something is not necessarily a failure to do something. There needs to be an obligation.

I did not pay my neighbors debts, but I did not FAIL to pay my neighbors debts--as there was no obligation for ME to pay my NEIGHBORS debt.

If I have an OBLIGATION to do something and don't do that something, THEN that's a failure.

Let me guess. If someone SAYS I have an obligation, then the mere SAYING that I have an obligation makes it so. Nay, I don't think so.

If I take out a loan and don't pay it as agreed, then not only is it so that I have not paid it as agreed, I have failed to pay it as agreed, but that's because there was an ACTUAL obligation. One that's not made up, contrived--or delivered from the depths of shady shades of shallowness.

 

[Playball40]

Unless you live in a blue state that is EXACTLY what you do when disaster relief is given.

The thing is the hurricane was more the straw that broke the camel's back. The maintenance wasn't being done because people wanted social spending. That's the real reason for the catastrophe.

First, the real reason for the catastrophe was the hurricane. Second, the OP is about the inadequacy of the response. But don't let either of those stop you from blaming those brown-skinned victims.

I don't care the color of their skin. I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unless you live in a blue state that is EXACTLY what you do when disaster relief is given.

I don't care the color of their skin. I'm fine with helping out after a hurricane. I'm not fine with being expected to pay for decades of infrastructure neglect while they used their money for social spending.

No kidding! Funny how red states have lower taxes, but use more federal dollars than blue states.