Talk:USS City of Corpus Christi

Untitled

A note - In 1980 when the boat was in new construction in Groton, Connecticut, its name was not yet decided. The first choice for the un-named hull was USS Chicago. In early 1980, Mayor Jane Byrne of Chicago proclaimed her support for Edward Kennedy's presidential bid. Her decision was roughly coincident with the formal naming decision of the boat. Prior to her announcement, the leading candidate for the name was USS Chicago. President Jimmy Carter, a former submariner and incumbent Democtratic Party presidential canidate in 1980, put pressure on the ship naming committee within the Navy Department to change the name. The city selected was Corpus Christi, the hometown of Senator John Tower of Texas. At the time, Senator Tower was ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a staunch Navy advocate. As stated in the description page, the name eventually ended up as the City of...to placate pacifist and religious groups.

Dave Corley Captain, USNR-Ret Navigator/Ops Officer, USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705), 1984-1986

It may be worth noting some other previous commanders of this boat. Two that I know of were Frank L. Bowman from 1983-85 who later became director of Naval Nuclear Proplusion. The other was Stephen I. Johnson 1985-88(?) who became a RADM. I was a shipmate to Dave Corley above (Greetings Dave!), though my Naval career was much shorter than those mentioned here. Ken Naugle, Junior Officer, SSN-705, 1982-86

Perversion of the US Americans

There can be no doubt that naming a military submarine that may carry nuclear warheads after Jesus Christ is one of the most stupid and pervert ideas imaginable. I wonder whether there have been protests against it in the USA.--93.244.50.221 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been waiting thirty years to respond to people like the one above (who didn't sign his/her name) who equates religion and the USS City of Corpus Christi. I am a plank owner of the USS City of Corpus Christi; this means that I arrived as a member of the crew while the ship was being built. The United States Navy would not allow us to respond to statements, either positive or negative, about the ship. The ship was not named after Jesus Christ; it was named for a city in Texas. The USS City of Corpus Christi is the second navy ship named after Corpus Christi, Texas. The other thing I discovered to my surprise is that many of the protesters did not know the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a ship armed with nuclear missiles. The USS City of Corpus Christi was not designed to carry inter-continental ballistic missiles, but it was designed to have a nuclear reactor to provide power and propulsion to the ship. The most "stupid and pervert ideas imaginable" is to not have the basic knowledge required to discuss a topic and to ignore any facts which refute your prejudiced claims. Such as the claim that the ship was named after Jesus Christ when each ship of the class (17 before the USS City of Corpus Christi) were all named for a city in the United States( the exception being the Hyman G. Rickover named for an admiral who died shortly before the ship was named). Also ignored is that after the initial protests over the ship’s name the President Reagan changed the name of the ship from USS Corpus Christi to USS City of Corpus Christi. It was believed that this would remove any doubt as to the source of the ship’s name, and except in the minds of extremists, the changing of the name of the ship did just that. Joe Charles Combs 2nd crewmember USS City of Corpus Christi SSN-705, 1982 to 1984

2000 years ago a man brought the following words to people like you, Joe Charles Combs: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." But you seem not to understand these words, as every single point of your argument above is flawed. The first name of the ship was definitely "Corpus Christi" and it had to be renamed because of the religious implications. This action alone proves that something was wrong. By the way, Corpus Christi is still contained in the current name and you maintain that naming a ship after a city that is named after Jesus has nothing to do with the initial name ... If some muslims name an atomic bomb first "Allah" then rename it "City of Allah" (e.g. the really existing Allahabad), would the new name abolish the abuse of religious notions? Also, the above nameless "protester" was well aware that the current ship does not carry IBMs, but also that its cruise missiles may carry nuclear warheads, in number and strength well suited to kill millions of people. To name any weapon after (a city that was named after) Jesus is just perverse, Mr. Combs. --Discordion (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Inactivated vs. decommissioned

@182.130.237.9: Recently, IP editor 182.130.237.9 has been edit warring to attempt to push into the article the this ship has been decommissioned as of 30 May 2016. This is provably incorrect. The Naval Vessel Register (NVR) is "the official inventory of U.S. Navy ships and service craft." It is updated on a weekly basis. Despite this, the IP has claimed that the NVR is "outdated". I fail to see how the official inventory provided by the USN, which is updated weekly, is somehow out of date. I have asked the IP on their talk page to provide cites supporting their claim. They have failed to respond. Instead, they have continued to edit war to push this incorrect information into the article. I readily grant that a decommissioning ceremony was held, per this story from the Navy. But, a decommissioning ceremony and the actual decommissioning are not the same thing. She was officially inactivated. Inactivated does not mean decommissioned. The ship departed Pearl, under her own power and with her own crew, for Bremerton. Per NVR, she remains in commission. See NVR entry. Also see the NVR entry for the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) [1] which shows the ship was inactivated a bit over a year before she was actually decommissioned. Can any one provide any cites that contradict what I have laid out here? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)