“It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.”
You know, you could replace Assange's name in this quote with Obama's and it would read equally true. Trying to drag us Europeans in as allies to support what looks like a war on exposed government cover-ups will not do wonders for how the US government is perceived over here.
[...]reducing the amount of flammable liquids held in a ship that might get hit by a missile[...]
Only now you have a nuclear reactor on a ship that might get hit by a missile.
While I can understand the basic reasoning behind this procedure you will always need to have a large concentration of energy around if you want, well, a large amount of energy at your disposal. And large amounts of energy are inherently dangerous; the only way to make them safer is to require less in the first place. Which means in this case storing the energy in conventional fuel, not something generated by a lossy process. This also allows for a more distributed risks instead of a single point of failure - take out the fuel generating ship and pretty soon the rest of the fleet and the planes won't be able to function.
This is now. Later is later.