Good News for the RN!

[-Jrabbit]

The RN designation is simply a certification that a nurse has completed necessary education. Certification varies by state, but generally speaking, there's a standardized test. Various designations by state licensing boards define the extent/limits of medical practice that those with RN, LPN or other designation may legally undertake. The RN is generally broader in scope than LPN (licensed practical nurse).

There was a time, way back when, when nursing education included a residency program at a hospital. This in no longer the case, something my Mom (a career RN who later earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing) is quite bitter about.

Nursing education in the US is usually via 2-year college programs. And to answer your question, an "unregistered nurse" would probably refer to non-degreed "nursing assistants" who have very limited scope of permissible practice.

There's a decent wiki article under "registered nurse"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_nurse

[Agathon]

What a waste of money, by a country still dreaming of past glories and playing at pretend-to-be-relevant.

Hilarious that they will be giving them these names.

The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

The HMS Prince of Wales, was battered by the Bismarck, suffered multiple failures, and now rests off of the Malay coast courtesy of Japanese aircraft.

You'd thing that the stain of failure would have removed these names from contention.

[Zkribbler]

Ironic. I was just thinking the other day that the U.S. should have fewer carriers and concentrate more on frigates, hydrofoils and other small patrol craft.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Ironic. I was just thinking the other day that the U.S. should have fewer carriers and concentrate more on frigates, hydrofoils and other small patrol craft.

At least the US has a reason to have aircraft carriers. We may not agree with US policy, but given its position in the world, you can see why they might want them.

Britain is no longer that kind of country. Then again, Britain just committed itself to spending a fortune on Trident, which it needs even less than it needs aircraft carriers.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Ironic. I was just thinking the other day that the U.S. should have fewer carriers and concentrate more on frigates, hydrofoils and other small patrol craft.

How did you come to that clearly well thought out opinion?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Agathon


At least the US has a reason to have aircraft carriers. We may not agree with US policy, but given its position in the world, you can see why they might want them.

Britain is no longer that kind of country. Then again, Britain just committed itself to spending a fortune on Trident, which it needs even less than it needs aircraft carriers.

QFT

They can use Lithuanian airbases when they start bombing Moscow.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

How is this shameful? All ships require maintenance and the QE had already seen considerable action in the Mediterranean. Bad timing, period.

That said, I'm sure they could have used more fearsome sounding names for these two new carriers.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lonestar

How did you come to that clearly well thought out opinion?

The chief threat to the U.S. is al Qaeda. Since the fall of the Taliban, they haven't been in a situation where they've been able to hide behind a state sponsor. Thus, the need for a major armed conflict is minimal.

The most effective means of countering al Qaeda is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world -- which mandates even more than the U.S. not engage in any major conflict in the region.

(Can you guess what I think of our war in Iraq? )

At most, we need small commando-type units to launch quick hit-and-run raids against al Qaeda hideouts, headquarters, and training facilities. This implies small, fast, stealthy ships to transport them in and out. And small launching platforms for a few helicopters.

Also, piracy is a growing problem along the Somali and Indoneasian coasts...so again, more small patrol craft are needed.

We need to think small, fast, stealthy and smart -- not big, blundering and hamhanded.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


QFT

They can use Lithuanian airbases when they start bombing Moscow.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Master Zen
That said, I'm sure they could have used more fearsome sounding names for these two new carriers.

I'm all for HMS Gathering Storm.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Agathon
What a waste of money, by a country still dreaming of past glories and playing at pretend-to-be-relevant.

Hilarious that they will be giving them these names.

The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

The HMS Prince of Wales, was battered by the Bismarck, suffered multiple failures, and now rests off of the Malay coast courtesy of Japanese aircraft.

You'd thing that the stain of failure would have removed these names from contention.

The Prince of Wales hit the Bismark and inficted serious damage

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TheStinger

The Prince of Wales hit the Bismark and inficted serious damage

No it didn't.

POW scored three hits. They hit a boat and a plane. One shot passed clean through, and the only one that did any significant damage ruptured a fuel tank. In no significant way was the Bismarck's fighting power compromised.

The Germans hit the POW seven times with accurate fire. If they had chosen to do so, they could have easily pursued and sunk her.

[Blake]

I read RN as National Reserve ( )

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I'm all for HMS Gathering Storm.

I prefer HMS Glory of War but hey, that's just me

[Arrian]

Splitter!

-Arrian