Hacker News Reader

Comment by notamy | Hacker News Reader

Meta: What is it about this post that attracted so many flippant comments?

Non-meta: Why does the US have so few of these ships? Were more just not produced? I didn’t see an answer in the article but it’s possible I missed it.

View on HN

>> Why does the US have so few of these ships? Were more just not produced? I didn’t see an answer in the article but it’s possible I missed it.

Article mentions that as the polar ice melts there is MORE activity up there which increases the need for these ships. And the US is about to have just one left, which for some reason in down for maintenance in... the winter?

Non-meta Answer from user @bruce511: "Russia doesn't have much in the way of non-polar coast (well, not today European end) so they've been breaking ice since forever. The US by comparison has very little polar coast and so less need for icebreakers."

Not a huge need, really just Alaska and the Great Lakes. For geostrategic purposes, our friends to the north have something like 20 including a couple heavies.

Interesting. I would have thought that the Great Lakes would be important to keep cleared and necessitate more than 1-2.

Weather on the great lakes in winter is generally bad enough that shipping shuts down first. There have been a lot of shipwrecks on the great lakes - much more than the oceans, even though a lot more ships cross the ocean.

1-2 active. that also means 1-2 in repair, reserve, training, mothballed, etc.

and the Great Lakes are Great -- bigger than you'd think, and highly traversed.

> Why does the US have so few of these ships

No need to ship goods from China to the West Coast through the Arctic.

Icebreakers? No need, as simple as that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com