Do you really believe that the concept of relocating a carrier to Florida isn't politically motivated? You must own a business or have stock in a business that expects to get high dollar contracts to do the work that will be necessary to get the Mayport harbor capable to receive a carrier.
With the current deficient do we really need to make it worse?

Wally, you and some of your readers have hit on the crux for moving a CVN to Mayport, jobs and $$$ for Florida. Simple as that, the port is not as safe as Norfolk by any stretch, being located in the mouth of the St. Johns River. A shipborne threat to a CVN at Mayport would be very easy while one in our huge harbor would be extremely difficult if not impossible. History has also taught us basing a CV at Mayport was difficult, example the Carriers KENNEDY, FORRESTALL, and SARATOGA. All had difficulties with maintenance there, I know I flew from them. Having spent many hours flying over Mayport and serving at NAS JAX for 7 years I know the area really well. Here in Norfolk I had ships under my command both at Little Creek Joint Expeditionary Base and at Norfolk Naval Station. Moving a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier to NavSta Mayport will cost over $2Billion and we clearly don't have it. The $59M expenditure to dredge out Mayport basin is a wise one so we can have a fully loaded CVN make port calls there but taking a carrier away from it's industrial base is not the prudent thing to do, monetarily or strategically. Steaming time to the Carribean is not a consideration for a Nuclear Aircraft carrier and neither is a hurricane threat. We simply sortie very early out of the storms reach. I know I was in charge of a similar sortie in 1997. Three months ago I warned of this impending disaster at the Bloggers conference in Newport. It's taken our Congressman this long to wake up and do something about it. My fear is, we are too late and Glenn's credentials don't lend credibility to the fight to save our Carriers from a needless move to non carrier port. All the best, r Kenny Golden

Sorry Ken, I believe the permutations of possible disasters are a bit more prevalent in our current threat environment then they were in the “cold war” scenario situation.

Tuesday, Fleet Forces Commander Adm. John C. Harvey, communicated that he envisions serious arguments for keeping all East Coast nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in Hampton Roads.

Harvey commented that the manifestation in Haiti showcases how an unanticipated predicament can have significant consequences.

"As a fleet commander, I am concerned when all your nuclear eggs, your carrier eggs, are in one basket. And is that where we want to be? No one predicted this earthquake in Haiti. . . . .it's what we don't know that we have to be thinking about", Harvey said.

Politicians and political hopefuls, both from Virginia and Florida, are solely concerned with the effectiveness of their political future as it relates to jobs and military dollars in their local economies. In the case of a carrier relocation, an estimated 11,000 jobs and $650 million per year are involved.

The strategic dispersal of nuclear carriers and multiple nuclear carrier facilities is a valid concern that needs to be addressed. The west coast has multiple ports that can accommodate nuclear carriers. Additionally, San Diego Naval Air Station provides nuclear carrier capable berths on the southwest side of North Island to allow unhampered egress in case of a catastrophic happening to the Coronado causeway-bridge complex.