Destructing it is just destruction for the sake of it.
Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?
I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.
It's a real shame to destroy so much investment - especially since, as noted in the article, its speed is still competitive.
It's also an extremely old ship, maintaining it can't be cheap.
> Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?
A carrier is a force projection tool, it's for attacking stuff (or make clear that you can attack stuff), to defend a country an airbase is cheaper, simpler and more versatile.
> I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.
And fuel supply and crew and maintenance? For a unique ship? No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class), I'm really not sure they'd have any use for it. Not to mention a carrier on its own is basically dead (or a floating museum), you need a carrier group around it which costs the same as the carrier itself.
Also Japan is definitely out, they are not allowed to get weaponry for any other purpose than defense (Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution), and as noted above an aircraft carriers is anything but a defensive platform.
> It's a real shame to destroy so much investment
You do realize the Enterprise has been in active use for more than 50 years right? It's the very first nuclear-powered carrier in human history, and the one and only ship of its class (so replacement parts have to be custom-built, where there are 10 bigger, better, more modern Nimitz-class carriers)
Basically there were three things that stood out, first was that there was a lot of 'toxic waste' in the form of stuff we know now to be carcinogenic used in the construction of these things, and re-fitting them, or restoring them, often involved complex programs of setting up barriers to prevent material from escaping during refit, and then disposing of it. That is slow and expensive work. The Hornet is like 1/3 the displacement of the Enterprise (30,000 tons vs 90,000 tons) so there is a lot more space.
I was reminded of how sad it was to see perfectly functional 2U servers being broken down for scrap, they can't justify the power it costs to keep them running.
That said, I also thought "Ok, here is something the sea steaders could start with. Make this the 'core' of their first floating island and build around it. It solves two very real bootstrap problems, one it has a power plant that generates useful electricity and comes with a helicopter 'airport' built in for rapid transportation. Of course the chance of the US Navy handing over a carrier to civilian hands with an intact nuclear power source is about the same as a me winning the PowerBall lottery.
That's a great idea - it would be put to a good use, and be an interesting experiment in creating a community on an artifical island!
Hell, anything would be better than just destroying it.
And the Enterprise's got the even bigger issue of the nuclear plant inside it, there are very few non-military refit for which a nuke would be of any interest, and taking out the plant essentially destroys the ship either way.
What about France? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles...
Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admira...) is a bit closer, although it's a slightly different kind of ship (and until refitting it's a barely floating rust bucket).
Hopefully, the US will get off this kick of naming ships for politicians and move back to the classic names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Admiral...