From: San Antonio, TX
I don't agree with the logic in this thread.
By the same line, it was terrible that the French cleaned up all the debris after the First World War. They should have left the countryside a complete mess as a reminder of the dead...
By all means, keep something for a memorial, such as the ships bell, but put the rest to some use.
I think upon this more and more too. Many civilian cemeteries are 'turned over' every so often or repurposed. My mother's family plot has a lease which expires in 100 years. If it's 'kosher' for civilians worldwide to be reburied and the land repurposed, it's worth considering for military deaths on land or at sea.
Here's a thought: Back in 'the day', pretty much any shipwreck-even in shallow waters-was pretty much a goner. The US, even with a Herculean effort, was hard-pressed to refloat the Oklahoma from Pearl Harbor. Anything outside of a massive port facility was-for all intents and purposes-impossible to raise, salvage pieces or extract the dead.
But now we're not quite as limited. In all but the deepest waters, if we REALLY wanted to, we could likely bring up some parts of a shipwreck and / or the dead. The Russians / Norwegians did it with the Kursk in 2000-2002, also a shallow-water wreck. And they extricated the vast majority of the ship as well.
So, has technology now changed the way that we should look at shipwrecks and their dead? Now that we can do something about it, should all men that go down with the ship still be left on the seabed? And if it's not a grave site (assuming all bodies are extricated), why should the material -particularly if it's of salvage value-be left there?
Lastly, if there is clear evidence of illegal / immoral / unethical foreign salvage of our existing wrecks, shouldn't there be an effort to 'properly' reclaim those shipwrecks (and their dead) that are most at risk? I'd rather we reclaim what we can of the Houston, for example, then some salvage pirates.
< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 11/17/2016 2:22:02 PM >