Posted by SteelJaw in NavyYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It’s time to return some sanity to the way ships are named. Why? Because the silliness is upon us once again:
111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 83 Expressing the sense of Congress that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Navy, either the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-79 or the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-80, should be named the U.S.S. Barry M. Goldwater.
Bill information and status here
Enough with the politicians – these ships are going to last to the middle of the century and outlive many of us reading these words.
It is time to reclaim our heritage and properly name our ships – and leave it to a Chief to put it succinctly:
“One man’s hero is another man’s goat. Carriers should be named for things we all have in common, not the party in power’s favorite politician. I vote we go back to the traditional carrier names as a reminder of the great ships and men who held the line when the chips were down and the odds were against us. Those names are a tribute to America’s greatness. Politicians? Not so much.”
So here’s your chance to make a difference, via petition:
Whereas the namesake ENTERPRISE has been proudly borne by two combat aircraft carriers of the United States Navy;
Whereas the first USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6) (seventh ship to bear this name) and her embarked airwing and crew gallantly fought in every major battle in the Pacific during World War Two, including the signatory battle at Midway when vastly outnumbered by the ships and planes of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Combined Fleet, ENTERPRISE, with YORKTOWN and HORNET struck a mortal blow, sinking four enemy aircraft carriers and turning the tide of the war in the Pacific;
Whereas the same ENTERPRISE concluded that war as the most decorated warship in the United States Navy with 20 battle stars, a Presidential Unit Citation, a British Admiralty Pennant, Navy Unit Commendation, Philippine Presidential Unit Citation, and Task Force 16 Citation among many other accolades;
Whereas the second United States Navy aircraft carrier to be named ENTERPRISE (CVAN/CVN-65) was the first such ship of her class in the world to be nuclear powered;
Whereas that ENTERPRISE, the eighth ship to bear that name in the United States Navy is concluding a half-century of service to this nation and has honorably served in every theater of operations from leading the naval quarantine off Cuba in 1962 to conducting the first strikes following the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11th, 2001;
Be It Resolved
That the next nuclear aircraft carrier to be constructed (CVN-79) should bear the name USS ENTERPRISE in recognition and honor of the fighting men and women of the United States Navy who have sailed in her namesakes through the centuries.
We The Undersigned:
Call upon the Congress of the United States to remand H. CON. RES. 83 and replace it with a resolution supporting the naming of CVN-79 or the next nuclear aircraft carrier to be constructed, the USS ENTERPRISE.
Call upon the Secretary of the Navy to support this petition of the tax-paying people of these United States and name the next nuclear aircraft carrier to be constructed the USS ENTERPRISE.
Again – here’s the link to the petition: http://ussntrprs.epetitions.net/
(This is a guest blogger driven initiative)
31 Responses to “A Petition to Name the Next United States Navy Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier the USS ENTERPRISE”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Interview with Naval Historian and Author Vincent P. O’Hara
- Telling an old Sub tale: History only helps if we let it!
- Repeal of DADT, Amplifying Instructions
- Interview with Thomas Hone, Co-author of Battle Line The United States Navy 1919-1939
- Man on the Street Interview with Kit Lavell, Author of Flying Black Ponies: The Navy’s Close Air Support Squadron in Vietnam
Subscribe
- Interview with Naval Historian and Author Vincent P. O’Hara February 8, 2010Readers of this blog know that I had previously “e-interviewed” Vincent O’ Hara about two of his three books: Struggle for the Middle Sea: The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean Theater, 1940-1945 and The U.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat 1941-1945. So it was a real honor to meet him in person [...] […]Jim Dolbow
- A Telling an old Sub tale: History only helps if we let it! February 8, 2010Back in a February 2008 issue of Naval History, a piece by Admiral Charles R. Larson (Retired), Captain Clinton Wright (Retired) and Paul Stilwell caught my eye. The article, “The Sculpin’s Lost Mission: A Nuclear Submarine in the Vietnam War”, details a forgotten patrol by the USS Sculpin (SSN-590). It is an article that deserves a second–if [...] […]Defense Springboard
- Repeal of DADT, Amplifying Instructions February 7, 2010RAAUZYUW RUEWMCS0000 0352024-UUUU–RUCRNAD ZNR UUUUU R 012124Z MAR 10 FM CJCS WASHINGTON DC//J1// TO JCS//COCOM INFO SECDEF WASHINGTON DC// BT UNCLAS//N01500// CJCSMSG 043/10 MSGID/GENADMIN/CJCS/WASHINGTON DC/J1/MAR// SUBJ/REPEAL OF DADT AMPLIFYING INSTRUCTIONS AND TRANSITION TO GAYS SERVING OPENLY IN ARMED FORCES REF/A/MSGID: DOC/MCM/2008// REF/B/MSGID: DOC/ […]UltimaRatioReg
- Interview with Thomas Hone, Co-author of Battle Line The United States Navy 1919-1939 February 7, 2010Dr. Thomas Hone pulled double duty at USNI AFCEA West 2010 as both a panelist and one of the authors at Wednesday’s book signing. Dr. Hone co-authored along with his son Trent of Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939. Thomas Hone and Trent Hone describe how a Navy desperately short of funds and men nevertheless [...] […]Jim Dolbow
- Man on the Street Interview with Kit Lavell, Author of Flying Black Ponies: The Navy’s Close Air Support Squadron in Vietnam February 6, 2010One of my favorite events at USNI conferences are the book signings. I had the opportunity to interview several Naval Institute Press authors this year at USNI AFCEA West 2010. Here’s my interview with Kit Lavell, author of Flying Black Ponies: The Navy’s Close Air Support Squadron in Vietnam. Talk about history with a purpose [...] […]Jim Dolbow
how did the nonsense of naming ships after politicians start in the first place??
July 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pmSJ, I saw your post on your home blog about USS JASON DUNHAM. Good deal. Forget the politicians and let’s get back to naming ships for heroes and battles and all the other great naming traditions we had.
I strongly suggest the Navy commission a ship SOON as the USS JOHN FINN. John was a Chief Petty Officer who earned the first MOH of World War II, was later commissioned a LT, celebrated his 100th birthday last week, and is the oldest surviving MOH recipient. He is a true American hero and deserves a ship named in his honor. Politicians can’t hold the door for men like John Finn.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pmPerhaps here?
July 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm“Of all the six frigates, Congress had the least notable career in comparison to her sister ships and was unceremoniously broken up in 1834.”
- SJS
Who was it that made the observation that “fish don’t vote”?
July 30th, 2009 at 7:26 pmRickover – when he made the call to name the next class of SSN’s after cities, picking the first 5 cities represented by key Congressmen in their support of the LA-class SSN.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm- SJS
I dunno if that bill’s sponsors have noticed, but Barry isn’t the most popular person with the current check-signers. Fish might not vote, but Democrats sure as hell aren’t going to vote the USS Goldwater into existence.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm[...] Petition to Name the Next United States Navy Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier the USS [...]
July 31st, 2009 at 4:45 amThey could name CVN 80, USS Barry ________. Those on the right can call it Barry Goldwater. Those on the left can call it Barry Obama.
July 31st, 2009 at 7:22 amPhil:
You mean “starboard” and “port” — right?
July 31st, 2009 at 8:26 am- SJS
@Steeljaw — Congress may have had the “least notable” career, but that’s probably preferable to the two events for which Chesapeake is “notable”!
Actually, I’d be all in favor of keeping names of the six original frigates (Constitution excepted, naturally) alive in the modern Navy. We’ve had a Constellation pretty recently, but President, Congress, United States, and Chesapeake are all due for renewal. (Well there’s an oiler Chesapeak, but the name should be put back on a warship). Add on an Eagle and a Saratoga, and we’re good on carriers for a while.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:33 amSteel Jaw, Love the quote about CONGRESS! Have to include the CHESAPEAKE in the “pass on it” list too!
Over at Sailor Bob there is an outstanding idea around the next ‘phib being named after MAJ Doug Zemiec, the Lion of Fallujah!
July 31st, 2009 at 8:43 am[...] A Petition to Name the Next United States Navy Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier the USS ENTERPRISE Some yahoo submitted a Congressional bill to name CVN 79 or CVN 80 the USS Barry Goldwater. [...]
July 31st, 2009 at 1:42 pmIf you wish to know who started and has primarily maintained the stupidity of naming ship after politicians. Just look to the party almost all were/are associated with.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:02 amGodanov, actually, that would be Hyman Rickover. Check the names out on the Polaris subs, and the cities of the LA class and the senators/representives. Rickover was very apolitical; he just wanted to make sure he had enough of them in his pocket at appropriations time.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:36 amWhen we going to name a carrier USS AMERICA again? Wow imagine that, naming a ship after something we all defend rather than a politician that most Sailors are not even old enough to know who he even was.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pmSo, now that we have six carriers named after Republican Presidents, and one named after a Democratic President, it’s time to “return to sanity.” Because the Herbert Hoover and the Richard Nixon don’t seem like good possibilities? I find this sudden outburst of principle somewhat unconvincing. And completely untimely. Let’s have, say, another FDR, another JFK, and maybe a Thomas Jefferson, and then we can all sign a grand bargain never to name another carrier after a politician, and especially not a living one.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm[...] feel wobbly about serving on the USS William Jefferson Clinton can go fuck themselves. And no, USS Enterprise is not an acceptable alternative, at least not for CV-79. I’m open to naming a future carrier [...]
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 pmCraig:
For the record and because you seem focused on party ID – though not a President, John C. Stennis is/was a Democrat. Carl Vinson was a Democrat.
I don’t give a fig about party — and this conversation (and I suppose, by extension the comment that follows your post, though the XXX-software blocks access) is exactly why we need to move past political gamesmanship in naming our vessels.
I’m talking about returning to the roots of naming our carriers and by extension, our other vessels in a traditional vein. Which, in case you missed it, had aircraft carriers named after famous battles and ships which previously distinguished themselves (e.g., Enterprise and Ranger).
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm- SJS
P.S. And if you’d read the full post you would have seen what brought the objection out was the House bill calling for naming the next CVN after a Republican senator.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pmI was very fond of Ronald Reagan…but I didn’t like the idea of naming a carrier after him, when there were so many names still available, like Essex, Wasp, Yorktown….
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pmSteelJaw–
Thanks for the response. I would just want to point out that there is no chance at all that a Democratic House, Senate and White House would care to name a carrier after Goldwater, so that particular question is a dead letter. And I count myself among the sliver of Americans who know who Stennis and Vinson were. It saddens me greatly to see the United States military, which has been for decades in the forefront of equality and integration, saddled with the names of two particularly loathsome segregationists on its carrier fleet.
My concern is that this call for a return to “tradition” comes at precisely the moment that the pendulum has been pushed so far to one side by one party, that it frankly rings hollow. After naming two carriers in a row after famously mediocre Republican presidents, the game is pretty much up–it would obviously be the “turn” of a Democrat or three, if we’re going to go by the principle that presiding over the evacuation of the embassy in Saigon is no disqualification for having a supercarrier named after you.
So I would offer a Grand Bargain again–let’s do every 20th Century post-war president who didn’t resign the office in disgrace, and then we’ll pick all future carrier names from an approved list of the glorious ships of the past: Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Chesapeake, Kearsarge, Constellation, and so on.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pmNope. Dont’ want ANY vote buyin’ scalawags and carpetbaggers. I want proud names again.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm“Famously mediocre Republican presidents?” You mean the one who is widely credited with ending the Cold War and the one who was the youngest naval aviator in history? These two presidents?
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pmFouled,
Perhaps he means CV-78, named after, as Archie Bunker reminded us, “Gerald A. Ford. Who did a hell of a job for a guy nobody voted for!”
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 pmFouled Anchor,
I fail to see what bearing being “the youngest naval aviator in history” has on the man’s performance as President of the United States. He had a distinguished and courageous record in the Second World War. The same can be said of many thousands of men who do not have their names on aircraft carriers.
And, as another commenter noted, the other President in question was Gerald Ford–and I’ll stand by that rating. Ford’s signal achievement in office was enshrining the principle that Presidents must not be accountable for lawbreaking. And a whole class of carriers must honor his name.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pmYoungest naval aviator, Director of the CIA, VP, POTUS…sounds like a pretty accomplished career by any standard.
Ford? Point taken. I had forgotten about that class of carriers. Ranks up there with the USS Jimmy Carter.
I’ll stand by my earlier comment…USS JOHN FINN…long overdue.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm“Ford’s signal achievement in office was enshrining the principle that Presidents must not be accountable for lawbreaking. And a whole class of carriers must honor his name.”
There would seem to be varying opinions on that. In fact, the fodder for political debate, which is likely best done elsewhere.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:28 amThere would seem to be varying opinions on that. In fact, the fodder for political debate, which is likely best done elsewhere.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:25 am+1
… and Exhibit A for a push to move away from naming ships after politicians…
- SJS
I find the arguments interesting and went back to review aircraft carrier names to see the kind of people we have named our carriers for.
August 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmLet’s go from earliest to the latest. The first carrier of course is the USS Langley, named after an aviator. We have the USS Randolph, named after Peyton Randolph, first President of the first Continental Congress. USS Cabot (CVL-28) named after John Cabot a Venetian navigator credited with discovering N. America. We of course have the USS FDR (CVB-42), and we also have the USS Wright (CVL-49) named after Orville Wright. USS Forrestal (CVA-59) former Secretary of the Navy, the USS JFK (CV-67) President and former Naval Officer. The USS Nimitz (CVN-68) former Naval Officer. USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) member of the Senate and advocate for the Navy. The USS T. Roosevelt (CVN-71) President and in the Department of the Navy and acting Secretary of the Navy. The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-71) President; USS George Washington (CVN-73) the First President; USS John Stennis, member of Congress, known as the father of the U.S. modern Navy. USS Harry Truman (CVN-75) President, former Army Officer, and supporter of single armed service. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) Presidentm, actor and I believe star in, “Hellcats of the Pacific” a submarine movie; the USS George HW Bush, President and former Naval Officer, and I think he was the youngest Naval Aviator commisioned in US Naval history. Of the list the only name I really had problems with was Harry Truman who took the Department of the Navy and reduced it down under the Secretary of Defense; this of course was part of the Army initiative to unify the armed forces into a single organization. I think I left out the Benjamin Franklin, Postmaster General and inventor.
I really don’t recall Goldwater as a friend to the Navy, but I do see where Vinson and Stennis were. As the arguments go I’m thinking the names of the Randolph, Cabot, Wright, Truman, and Franklin have very little to do with the US Navy. I would see Goldwater in that group, because the only thing I can see is the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 87, and I don’t think that helped the Navy stay strong and ready to meet future and projected threats.
So, although I don’t think I really need to see another Enterprise, I’m not against it. At least 6 carriers should be named after the first 6 ships of the Navy. I think I would even rather see a carrier named after President John Adams, who as the second President fought hard to secure a Navy, some might even argue that he is really the father of the United States Navy. It seems a lot better than naming a ship the Goldwater.
Chief Warrant, based on that argument, I could live with a USS John Adams
And I think the US Navy was really born in 1793…the child of John Adams and Joshua Humphries…
August 9th, 2009 at 4:46 pmEnterprise has become one of the most well known and sacred names for a US warship. Any ship given this name carries on a tradition of excellence and service to the nation. This becomes part of the consciousness of the crew and enters the soul of the ship. As a former Enterprise sailer, I have experienced this. It is my fervent hope that this name will be given to a forthcoming carrier upon the retirement of CVN65.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pm