Bravo! Navy!

Background

THEN ...
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Coast Guard had escorted Sub Base submarines to and from sea. Coast Guard crews were armed and trained to protect the submarines against attacks by terrorists or saboteurs.

NOW ...
A Coastal Riverine Force  reserve squadron based in Newport, Rhode Island, now has a platoon based in Groton. Sailors using four boats will protect the submarines, said Lt. Cmdr. Charity Hardison, spokeswoman for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, which oversees CORIVGRU 2.


Points to Ponder

According to the official line reported here, the Coast Guard got the sub escort gig after Sept 11, 2001, by offering to do it because the Navy was busy preparing for combat in Afghanistan and later, in Iraq.

+  We know recent sequestration cutbacks are effecting both services, so it might make sense for the USCG to want to give the duty back to the Navy, right?

Well, Navy officials said they also are looking into using their forces to protect submarine transits in Norfolk, Virginia; Bremerton and Bangor, Washington; Mayport and Cape Canaveral, Florida; Kings Bay, Georgia; and San Diego.  

+ We know that the Naval Submarine facilities in Bangor, WA and Kings Bay, GA (underlined above) are support bases (homeports) for TRIDENT ballistic missile submarines. Is this really news? Have not all strategic weapons platforms been appropriately escorted?  Of course they have.

The services have not yet decided on the schedule, or on how the responsibilities for routine escort missions in each port will be divided. The Coast Guard would support the Navy during any contingency or heightened security environment, said  Lt. Cmdr. Brian Badura, spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command.  "This re-leveling of effort is part of that normal process, which is necessary, especially in this financially-constrained environment," he said. ... It costs about $2 million annually to escort the Groton submarines, Badura added. The Navy does not reimburse the Coast Guard.

?  Lt. Cmdr. Badura "told the newspaper [ibid] the threat to submarines from terrorists and saboteurs has not diminished." 

- The words "not diminished" certainly does not rule out an increased threat from terrorists and saboteurs, does it?

What might lead to an increased threat and how might someone know if the threat level actually has increases? Answers to both parts of that question are the same, someone has been eavesdropping and the usual culprits are the only ones not upset about it:

If Osama bin Laden were still alive he’d chalk up this surveillance gone wild as a coup for Al Qaeda. More than a decade after the 9/11 attack it still has the United States living in fear and trading away freedoms for security. This is beginning to look like a war the U.S. is determined to lose, one way or another.  Source: The Toronto Star.  

Submarines are always silent and strange.