[robalfonso]

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.

[WorldMaker]

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.

[darkarmani]

> 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?