| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Update and fotos: US Navy Destroyer 'collision ' with container ship |
| 2017-06-17 |
| [American Thinker] Navy destroyer in Sea of Japan: A sideways collision or more fake news? By Brian C. Joondeph Yesterday’s news, aside from the usual Trump obstructing, colluding, and making money on his investments, included a ship collision. As described by ABC, a "Navy destroyer collides with container ship off coast of Japan." NBC had a similar headline, "Navy destroyer collides with ship off Japan." Fox News worded their headline a little differently, "US Navy involved in collision." As did CNN saying, "Navy destroyer collision off Japan." It was a terrible accident as US sailors are missing and potentially injured or worse, but my point is regarding the choice of words describing what happened. The dictionary definition of collide is "to hit something violently." Something hits something else. A verb. Seems straightforward. The word collision is a noun, an event that occurred. Not clear is what hit what. Two of the above mention stories uses the word "collision", which is clearly what happened yesterday. Two other stories used the word "collide", meaning one ship hit the other ship. The headlines, by saying the US Navy ship collided with the Japanese container ship, imply that the Navy ship hit the container ship. What do the pictures say? This first photo is of the US Navy destroyer. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 Negligence on both bridges, and clearly a command climate that harbored poor junior leadership. Early morning makes one wonder who might have been in eyeball defilade. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2017-06-17 20:54 |
| #8 The world should be a war zone when you skipper a destroyer. I'd suggest "past-tense" for many of those in charge |
| Posted by: Frank G 2017-06-17 20:41 |
| #7 Although we won't know a lot more until more of the investigation is done, according to the rules of the road, the ship on the left (the Fitzgerald) is responsible for keeping clear of the other ship. I'm not sure what would happen if the container ship suddenly decided to ram. According to Wikipedia, the Fitzgerald has two surface search radars so they should have seen the other ship coming. When I was on active duty 45 years ago, there was always a lot of tension the bridge when you were in a shipping lane with lots of traffic - especially at night. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2017-06-17 18:57 |
| #6 the container ship was on Iron Mike (auto-navigation). Which is why, though I have never enjoyed driving, I have no intention of giving up control of my car to an AI. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2017-06-17 17:49 |
| #5 Or am I missing something? High likelihood the container ship was on Iron Mike (auto-navigation). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2017-06-17 17:44 |
| #4 WTF? Just cruisin' down the channel, fat dumb and happy. The world should be a war zone when you skipper a destroyer. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2017-06-17 15:39 |
| #3 Looks to my untrained eye that the container ship aimed for the destroyer - even to the point of making a couple of u-turns. Or am I missing something? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2017-06-17 12:51 |
| #2 Busy shipping lane off the coast of Shimoda, Japan and neither ship had surface radar active? Strange. |
| Posted by: Anomalous Sources 2017-06-17 12:36 |
| #1 Brit article shows the path of the container ship; looks like the destroyer was targeted. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4612334/USS-Fitzgerald-involved-collision-merchant-vessel.html |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2017-06-17 11:21 |