Hacker News Reader

Comment by PuppyTailWags | Hacker News Reader

I wanted a bit of education outside this, so Wikipedia tells me the Jones act declares that cargo between US ports must be on US-flag, US-created, largely US-crew, US-owned ships. The Lexington Institute, a center-right thinktank focused on domestic security policy, has claimed(June 2016) it strengthens border security and reduces terrorism.

I guess my question is: how much is a stronger border security and terrorism reduction worth, economically?

View on HN

It’s not just those issues. The original Impetus for the jones act was to keep a strong merchant marine for war time, so we subsidise the us merchant fleet so that if we had need during war they would exist.

I find this difficult because my outlook for those kinds of conflicts indicates it’s not necessary to have such a fleet, but if you need it, it’s too late to decide. Those ships are a multi year build.

I would think some flexibility and also some accounting of exactly how many us merchant boats we’d need should inform changes to the Jones act.

That original "impetus" also changed dramatically due to technology shifts in the very next war after the Jones Act was enacted: naval combat shifted in World War II dramatically towards the favor of aircraft carriers and submarines. A merchant marine fleet doesn't need submarines (they don't have much cargo room, do they?) and maybe there's some crazy way that an aircraft carrier deck could double as a modern shipping container deck, but why go to all that expense?

The last war that merchant marines truly mattered to war was World War I and "iconic" moments like the merchant fleet at Dunkirk.

> so that if we had need during war they would exist.

How would we use a US merchant fleet during war? Maybe I just don't understand how that fleet would be useful in a war. Does the US merchant fleet really have military grade vessels and military grade weapons systems?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com