<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>U.S.Category: Navy &#124; U.S. &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nation.time.com/category/navy-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nation.time.com</link>
	<description>News, Headlines, Stories, Video from Around the Nation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:01:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='nation.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://nation.time.com/osd.xml" title="U.S." />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://nation.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon Sequestysteria</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=108332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ever since the Cold War ended, the Pentagon has been pushing to become more “flexible” and “agile,” to use two words frequently heard at Defense Department briefings and found burrowed into innumerable Pentagon reports. So how come the building is so flummoxed by a looming budget cut of 10%? It&#8217;s a strange thing, this sequester – especially the Pentagon&#8217;s over-reaction. Sure, entitlement spending is driving the budget crisis. But that doesn&#8217;t mean military spending should be bullet-proof. Yet instead of smartly saluting and doing what it has been told, the U.S. military has been wailing for more than a year about how the impending cuts – amounting to more than $500 billion over the coming decade – will cripple U.S. national security. Looking like nothing so much as the Bolshoi Ballet, the choreographed screams about coming cuts has gone too far, even for hawks like conservative columnist George Will. In Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post, Will protested the Navy&#8217;s recent delay in dispatching the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf, purportedly due to the looming budget shortfall: The Navy is saying it cannot find cuts to programs or deployments less essential than the Truman deployment. The Navy’s participation in the political campaign to pressure Congress into unraveling the sequester is crude, obvious and shameful, and it should earn the Navy’s budget especially skeptical scrutiny by Congress. The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable. [Battleland modestly believes Will gleaned these facts from our post last month linking him to a Government Accountability Office report containing them -- Whatever Floats Your Bloat, By George! – but is pleased, nonetheless, to share such interesting tidbits far and wide.] Here&#8217;s something to keep in mind: the Department of Defense budget, strictly speaking, isn&#8217;t elastic. It doesn&#8217;t expand and shrink on a moment&#8217;s notice. According to the rulebook, wars and other major operations are not funded in its<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=108332&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/25/pentagon-sequestyria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-spending-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/56983735.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">56983735</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cato-chart.png?w=535" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">cato chart</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coming Up Empty-Handed from Davy Jones’ Locker</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/coming-up-empty-handed-from-davy-jones-locker/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/coming-up-empty-handed-from-davy-jones-locker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Snafus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=107736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month we noted the efforts of the Navy to come to the Air Force’s aid by diving 18,558 feet deep into the Pacific, off the Japanese coast, for bits of wreckage from a doomed F-16 (the pilot parachuted to safety). Alas, the $1.4 million hunt for the treasure the Air Force was seeking from the bottom of the sea has come up empty-handed. The official Air Force investigation into the accident, released Tuesday, figured out how the accident happened, but couldn’t figure out why: USAF The board president found, by clear and convincing evidence, the cause of the mishap was an uncommanded closure of the main fuel shutoff valve (MFSOV). The main fuel shutoffvalve in the closed position stops fuel from reaching the engine and thus the engine stopped producing thrust. By a preponderance of evidence, the board determined the MA experienced a partial closure of the MFSOV for over three minutes, which limited the thrust of the engine to sub-idle RPM of 70%, and then fully closed after three minutes at which time the engine rolled back to jet fuel starter assisted RPM of 20% until impact. The board could not determine with reasonable certainty the reason for the un-commanded closure of the MFSOV, due to the loss of several vital pieces of evidence. Specifically, the wreckage of the cockpit fuel control panel, fuel control wiring harness from the cockpit to the engine and other associated fuel system components were not recovered from the ocean floor, and the Crash Survivable Data Unit was crushed by extreme water pressure. It’s tough down there.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=107736&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/21/coming-up-empty-handed-from-davy-jones-locker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Air Force</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/air-force-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dscn1156-1.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dscn1156-1.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dscn1156-1.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dscn1156-1</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/110502-f-ms171-5981.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Falcons in Southwest Asia</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big Exercise, Low Profile, In Japan-China Dispute</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/11/08/big-exercise-low-profile-in-japan-china-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/11/08/big-exercise-low-profile-in-japan-china-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kirk Spitzer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South China Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East China Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senkaku Islands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=93086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TOKYO – One of the largest-ever joint training exercises between U.S. and Japanese troops is underway in and around the Japanese home islands – but you won’t hear a lot about it.  And for that you can credit tensions with China. More than 47,000 U.S. and Japanese troops, scores of warships and hundreds of combat aircraft are taking part in the exercise, which runs through November 16. The plan is to test the ability of U.S. and Japanese forces to respond to a variety of air, sea and land threats. The so-called Keen Sword exercise is held every two years, but comes this year at a particularly sensitive time.  Japanese and Chinese patrol ships are engaged in a dangerous game of cat and mouse around disputed islands in the East China Sea. Japan insists the islands, which it calls Senkaku, are Japanese territory, and has maintained a steady presence of Coast Guard vessels offshore. China also claims the islands, which it calls Diaoyu, and has been sending maritime surveillance vessels into or near territorial waters almost daily. There have been no direct clashes so far, but tensions remain high. The row was triggered when Japan’s national government in September agreed to buy the islands from private owners, and Tokyo has been struggling to lower the temperature ever since. Authorities last month quietly canceled what would have been a centerpiece of this year’s Keen Sword exercise &#8212; an amphibious landing with Marines and Japanese ground troops. They also are restricting news coverage of the exercise, which has been widely publicized in the past. Both moves were clearly designed to avoid further antagonizing the Chinese. Politically, that was smart, says Alessio Patalano, a lecturer at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, and a specialist in East Asian security and naval strategy. “With no amphibious exercise, no one in China can claim that the U.S. and Japan are showing an aggressive behavior and that prevents the more conservative voices in China from gaining points,” says Patalano. But militarily, maybe not so<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=93086&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/11/08/big-exercise-low-profile-in-japan-china-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Pacific</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/pacific/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ks1a1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ks1a1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ks1a1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ks1a1</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9aac2e8b4b7122f08aca8983e54eaa40?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">kirksp123</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Return Fire on the Navy&#8217;s Littoral Combat Ship</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rear Admiral John Kirby, USN</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=88837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week on Time’s Battleland blog there was a piece by Mr. John Sayen entitled The Navy’s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang. Obviously, Mr. Sayen is not a fan of the Littoral Combat Ship. And that’s OK. We welcome the debate and the discussion. <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=88837&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Procurement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/procurement/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0191.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">120502-n-zz999-019</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Love Boats</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/love-boats/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/love-boats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Personnel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=88454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A retired Navy captain is sounding an alarm over women serving on warships.

“We can’t have both chastity and mixed-sex complements,” Kevin Eyer argues in October’s Proceedings, the professional naval journal published by the independent U.S. Naval Institute. “So what’s the priority—a combat-ready Fleet or gender diversity?”<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=88454&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/love-boats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Women</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-women/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_us_navy_women_1010.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_us_navy_women_1010.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_us_navy_women_1010.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">600_us_navy_women_1010</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Subway</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/08/subway/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/08/subway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=87983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Navy is beginning to make the case more openly that the nation needs to get serious about replacing its fleet of Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines. &#8220;We have to have that submarine,” Rear Admiral Barry Bruner, the Navy’s director of undersea warfare, told the New London Day last week. That’s the hometown paper of General Dynamics’ Electric Boat, which along with Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding, in Newport News, Va., is one of two U.S. shipyard still building Navy subs [story changed to note that there are two shipyards building subs, not just EB as originally reported]. The $90 billion program will refurbish only one of the nuclear triad’s three legs (the other two, both operated by the Air Force, deliver their nukes via land-based missiles and bombers, both of which also need replacing). The nonprofit Ploughshares Fund released a study Monday estimating the cost of maintaining, operating and retooling the nuclear triad will cost close to $400 billion over the coming decade (graphic on same for those who disdain too much text). Yet we’re getting less bang for the buck, if you will. The Natural Resources Defense Council has noted the declining number of warheads per platform since the Cold War’s end: 1991: 7.5 warheads per delivery vehicle (9,300 warheads on 1,239 delivery vehicles) 2001: 5.8 warheads per delivery vehicle (6,196 warheads on 1,064 delivery vehicles) 2009: 2.6 warheads per delivery vehicle (2,200 warheads on 850 delivery vehicles) The military argues that the triad remains necessary to ensure that if an enemy wipes out two legs, the third leg will survive to retaliate (why this doesn’t argue for a quadad or a pentad – or, for that matter, a dyad &#8212; has never been made clear). The Pentagon’s fear of concentrating all of its nuclear eggs in one basket certainly doesn’t apply to its ammo production, according to a 2010 article in Army Sustainment, the in-house journal of Army guys who worry about such things: Over 99 percent of all small-arms bullets (5.56-millimeter [mm], 7.62-mm and .50-caliber) consumed by the Army<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=87983&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/08/subway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Nuclear Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/nuclear-weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/banner1.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/banner1.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/banner1.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Banner</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Navy’s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sayen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=87472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is not only staggeringly overpriced and chronically unreliable but -- even if it were to work perfectly -- cannot match the combat power of similar sized foreign warships costing only a fraction as much. Let’s take a deep dive and try to figure out why.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=87472&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-019.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-019.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-019.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">/Users/Photo2/Desktop/IPTC.IPT</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-002.jpeg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">/Users/Photo2/Desktop/IPTC.IPT</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120917-n-dh124-051.jpeg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">120917-N-DH124-051</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/120502-n-zz999-0092.jpeg?w=600" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">/Users/Photo2/Desktop/IPTC.IPT</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>There’s Johnny!</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/04/theres-johnny/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/04/theres-johnny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=87650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Clips from classic early episodes of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson – long feared lost – have turned up in a military storage unit.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=87650&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/04/theres-johnny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military History</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-history/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hrs_100112-n-su278-001.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hrs_100112-n-su278-001.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hrs_100112-n-su278-001.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">hrs_100112-N-SU278-001</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Navy Women Joining the Silent Service</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/03/more-navy-women-joining-the-silent-service/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/03/more-navy-women-joining-the-silent-service/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Darlene M Iskra</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[submarines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=84588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Navy has announced that women officers will start to be assigned to Virginia-class attack submarines as soon as next year. And that enlisted women would likely follow.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=84588&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/03/more-navy-women-joining-the-silent-service/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Submarines</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/submarines-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sn-84-01090.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sn-84-01090.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/dn-sn-84-01090.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">DN-SN-84-01090</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/92ec5ffe9857a3cdd53f5e0ab4f2d3ee?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">drdmi</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big U.S. Fleet Nears Disputed Islands, But What For?</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/30/big-u-s-fleet-nears-disputed-islands-but-what-for/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/30/big-u-s-fleet-nears-disputed-islands-but-what-for/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kirk Spitzer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aircraft carriers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South China Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East China Sea]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=87072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TOKYO – It’s probably just a coincidence; no need to worry yet. But the U.S. has quietly assembled a powerful air, land and sea armada not far from where Japan and China are squaring off over disputed islands in the East China Sea. Two Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and a Marine Corps air-ground task force have begun operating in the Western Pacific, within easy reach of the Senkaku Islands. That’s where Japanese and Chinese patrol boats are engaged in an increasingly tense standoff. Chinese vessels have repeatedly entered territorial waters around the small islands in recent weeks and Coast Guard vessels from Japan and Taiwan fired water cannons at each other last week. The islands are controlled and administered by Japan, but claimed by both China and Taiwan. No warships have been directly involved in the confrontations, so far. But China has vowed to continue sending patrol vessels into territorial waters and Japan has assembled scores of Coast Guard vessels to “defend” the islands. The U.S. hasn’t taken sides in the ownership dispute, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for “cooler heads” to prevail. Nonetheless, U.S. officials have stated clearly that the Senkakus fall under the U.S.-Japan security treaty, which would require the U.S. to come to Japan’s aid in case of attack. Navy officials confirmed Sunday that the USS George Washington carrier strike group has begun operating in the East China Sea, near the disputed islands. The USS John C. Stennis group is only slightly further away in the South China Sea. Each carrier is armed with more than 80 warplanes, and strike groups typically include guided-missile cruisers and destroyers, submarines and supply ships. In the nearby Philippine Sea, some 2,200 Marines are embarked aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard and two escorts. The Marines are equipped with amphibious assault vehicles, light armored vehicles, artillery, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets. Carrier groups and Marine task forces often operate alone, so the convergence of the three groups in a relatively small part of the Pacific represents an unusual<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=87072&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/30/big-u-s-fleet-nears-disputed-islands-but-what-for/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>South China Sea</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/south-china-sea/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/two-carriers.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/two-carriers.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/two-carriers.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">two-carriers</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9aac2e8b4b7122f08aca8983e54eaa40?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">kirksp123</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
