What do you think of us using warships to supply aid?

Five warships will supply aid to Georgia. The first battle cruiser has already arrived. Why couldn't we use bulkhead container ships? Do you see this as a potential escalation to the conflict in Georgia?

We use warships all the time to bring relief to other nations. It is not uncommon to see US Naval vessels as the first ships in a disaster area, with US Marines being flown on helicopters to hand out aid. As far as any escalation goes it will be on the Russians to do so, as the Captains of those vessels ROE will be to only fire in self defense, avoid any confrontation etc.

The first ship was in fact a destroyer ! The message is clear, the US/Nato alliance is nearby, just in case Russia plans on continuing it's threats to neighboring countries, such as Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Azerbaijan, or Lithuania.

At some point the NATO alliance must step in to encourage Russia to back off. Naturally, our NATO alliance itself needs to be persuaded not to let Russia push it around, and naturally the US is forced to take the lead.

Using warships is practical because this is a humane mission to bring much needed supplies to Georgia. It should also be construed as a warning to the aggressor Russia, that it's continued invasion of sovereign country's will not be tolerated.

The warships were immediately available. Container ships would have to be leased, loaded and sent toward the port of Poti. After the disastrous cyclone in Mynmar (Burma) we sent USS Essex and four other warships there with supplies and help. They didn't offload their supplies. But, they also didn't invade Mynmar (Burma).
BTW, the first ship to arrive is the USS McFaul. She's a destroyer, not a "battle cruiser". One of the ships scheduled for this humanitarian mission is USCGC Dallas, a Coast Guard Cutter. Hardly a "war ship" by modern standards. Still another is USS Mount Whitney. She's the flagship of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and has minimal capabilities when it comes to Naval fighting potential. During the Cold War she was one of two ships designated to carry the President to safety, if need be, should a nuclear war with the Soviet Union occur.

Fairly common to use world wide so this is nothing new. They are faster then most commercial or government cargo ships and typically more at see and easier to get in and out of a port; commercial ships would have cargo on them and would have to be released by the company. During Katrina the support came off of military amphibious warfare ships, Indonesia was from the same plus aircraft carriers. Nothing new or different and non-warships will be used later as they become available and get loaded once the emergency side of it is done. The warships have a limited capacity but are used as a quick first response.

what's there to think about it? we are sending aid to a Ally. you want to send in a defenseless ship into a potential attack, because Russia is a loose cannon, and may fire on a non-belligerent nation.
it can only be a potential escalation of the situation if the Russian's escalate the situation, which is a possibility.

Historians study battles and tactics. Generals study logistics.
The fact is, the entire purpose of the military is to move a large body of soldiers from point A to point B in a short time, in good order, and in good shape. This means the ability to move large quantities of supplies quickly and efficiently.
During the Gulf War (1991), the US/Allied forces had FIFTY support personnel for each combat soldier.

An aircraft carrier has food, supplies, and water to keep 5,000 sailors alive. A nuclear submarine can survive 90 days or more completely cut off from the rest of the world. And the only limiting factor in that amazing fact is space for food for the sailors. The military is the best organized, best equipped means to disperse supplies in the world.

Lastly, a supply ship could be a very temping target. A military ship has the ability to protect itself. Also, an attack on a civilian ship would not create a huge backlash. An attack on a US Navy warship would lead directly to war.

Sending the supplies by military ship is the best way to guarantee the supplies get through.

They need a way to defend themselves in case they get attacked while delivering the supplies. That wouldn't be possible in a standard container ship. Considering that the Russians said they would leave Georgia a long time ago and they're still there it is a reasonable precaution.

russia must be reminded that we will keep our promises to our friends
and i can think of no better way, its a message they understand!
they constantly sail their military war ships in and out of gitmo bay in cuba right in our presence .ive seen that with my own eyes in 73
a bully ain't so tough on someone smaller when someone their size is around

Warships are capable of carrying the goods, can defend themselves and send a message. Would you carry a sack of goods worth millions into a gang infested neighborhood unarmed? Not if you have even a remote clue to human nature.

The government doesn't own a lot of bulkhead container ships, and the ones we do have were busy at the time. But we do have a lot of US Navy ships. We'll use the container ships as they become available.

Battlecruiser? The US Navy doesn't have any. There are only two ships in active service classified as battlecruisers by the west and they're both in the Russian Navy.

Bulkhead container ship? What's that?

Not a bad Idea to protect the cargo. You never know what the Russians might do to unprotected ships.

Obviously because if they were not defended the Russians would steal their cargo. You should know that. You're a hard core leftist.

u got a problem with that ?

russians need to understand the consecquence of their actions

they sucked at the olympics and their nothing but thugs

battleships send a better message I think

they have to make sure the aid gets where it is supposed to go.

Bad idea. Use clearly marked and un-escorted cargo ships.

Were our 'war' ships fired on or even stopped, it would not be good. If cargo ships are fired on, we would need to respond, but not immediately.

We do not need war ships at that location to do damage.

Well how else are they going to shoot hot dogs and t-Shirts into the country.