USS Arizona - Still leaking oil! - Pearl Harbor Hawaii

There is still an estimated 500,000 gallons of oil still in the hull of the USS Arizona battleship. With ongoing erosion, more oil escapes the hull each year. In 2006, 9.5 quarts (9 liters) of oil was measured leaving the ship.

Eventually a serious hull breach will occur that could release thousands of gallons oil at a time.

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• uss
• arizona
• memorial
• pearl
• harbor
• harbour
• honolulu
• oahu
• hawaii
• island
• world
• war
• attack
• battleship
• navy
• shipwreck
• oil

[ACE56221]

@320bit

Really? Raise the Arizona for oil? Do you know how many people are resting in there?

Its their freaking tomb!

How bout 60 years when you die I'll raise you and use you as oil?

[gullreefclub]

That's not just oil but rather it the tears of Arizona a ship that still morns for the Sailors and Marines who died on December 7, 1941. As the number of service men and woman who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor fall victim's to the ravages of time we must ensure their legacy is not forgotten. We need to be vigilant to remember our history so were do not repeat the mistakes of our past to do so would be a disservice to all that served our country and to those who have died for her

[LittleFarmer14]

@ACE56221 Ikr what kind of sick person wants to raise a memorial because of oil. It hurts to know that some people don't care about the men in the navy who gave their lives that day.

[bucko60]

are people actually arguing about america entering WWII? holy shit people. it is done and over with. move on.

[pine829]

The Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, British and French empires were morally, militarily, ethically or strategically different than what Germany was up to. The Brits slaughtered whole towns in their conquest of India. Shit, it was still legal to hunt Aboriginal people in Australia in the 20th century. All of these engaged in massive slave trade.

The present day Americans are no better.

All empires behave the same.

[pine829]

In neither case was the US in any danger. Our entering these wars only changed which bad guy won, not whether it was a good guy or a bad guy.

Since you spell harbor as "harbour" I assume that you are either a Brit or suchlike. From my perspective, (and this is the perspective of the Founders of the US) there is nothing different about the reciprocities committed by the Brits in the conquest of their empire vs the atrocities committed by the Germans pursuing theirs.

[pine829]

You see, it was the ravaged economy of the Treaty of Versailles that produced the soil that grew Hitler. WW2 was just the second phase of WW1. Therefore, more people were killed ultimately because the US entered, not less.

In the second case, the US entering the war produced the climate that produced a strong Russia, the Stalin purges, the cold war and the 40 million dead by Mao Zedong as part of The Great Leap Forward. Again, more, not less people were killed.

[pine829]

@5115wb The problem with the US entering wars, including WW1 and WW2, was that it changed the balance of these wars.

In the first case, Europe had fought to a stalemate and without the US, WW1 would have gone down as just another European war. The US entering changed the balance and outcome. Thus, the onerous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles would likely not have happened. Without these back breaking provisions there likely would have been no WW2

[pine829]

@5115wb Yes, of course. The Tripartite Treaty is perfect example of the destructive effect of nation to nation entanglements

This meant that FDR did not have to bait Germany into a war separately which would have been politically more difficult. Rather, he needed only to set the trap at Pearl for the Japanese and he would kill two birds with one stone

Were it not so twisted and wrong and had so many Americans not lost their lives, one could admire FDR's treachery as brilliant.

[5115wb]

@pine829 The enemy of my enemy is my friend. You know after pearl harbour germany declared war on the USA? you are aware of that?

[pine829]

@pine829 The winners in this war were not pearly-toothed, white-hat good guys. Russia went on to kill tens of millions of its own citizens following the war and Mao Zedong went on to kill 40 million of his own citizens likewise.

So, American intervention in WW2 may have ultimately resulted in MORE people being killed worldwide, not less. This is called "unintended blowback".

What I do know is that America was not threatened militarily by anyone in the European war.

[pine829]

@5115wb I didn't say you were American. I said your views were "American-centric".

"...been the soviet union.". My argument is: so what? The US was not threatened.

As it was, the US entered the war on the side of the bigger bad guys if you use the metric of the number of people killed by their own government as a measure of "badness".