BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...


Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick have?
The answer is none.

Not read the whole thread so apologies if already discussed--

In the 60s, the Brunswick, Maine, place (not to be confused with Brunswick,
Georgia, which was Glynco--or even the province of New Brunswick just next
to Maine), held the nuclear weapons (air to air plus ?) that were supposed
to be forwarded to Newfoundland for the US forces stationed there, when
things got hot and Canada agreed to that move of the nukes. (When the
chips were down, in Oct 1962, the then anti-US biased Canadian government
initially refused permission to move the nukes and even for US aircraft to
overfly Canadian airspace! This was " leaked" to the general public and
that government fell on the resulting next election, such was the public's
embarrassment. (Hard to say if that public sentiment still exists back east,
sad to say, but it sure still does in the West G) Later, ~1968/9 the new
government agreed to store the warheads in Canada under guard. ) So
Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of things--presumably
also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.

So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it going to
go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Regards,
Barry

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:SQaie.67147$tg1.22596@edtnps84:


"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...


Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick
have? The answer is none.

Not read the whole thread so apologies if already discussed--

In the 60s, the Brunswick, Maine, place (not to be confused with
Brunswick, Georgia, which was Glynco--or even the province of New
Brunswick just next to Maine), held the nuclear weapons (air to air
plus ?) that were supposed to be forwarded to Newfoundland for the US
forces stationed there, when things got hot and Canada agreed to that
move of the nukes. (When the chips were down, in Oct 1962, the then
anti-US biased Canadian government initially refused permission to
move the nukes and even for US aircraft to overfly Canadian airspace!
This was " leaked" to the general public and that government fell on
the resulting next election, such was the public's embarrassment.
(Hard to say if that public sentiment still exists back east, sad to
say, but it sure still does in the West G) Later, ~1968/9 the new
government agreed to store the warheads in Canada under guard. ) So
Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of
things--presumably also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.

So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it
going to go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's business
where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

Dave in San Diego

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So
Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of
things--presumably also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.

So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it
going to go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's business
where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill me

Regards,
Barry

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So

[snip]

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
me

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Ian MacLure wrote:

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
me

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
is neither confirmed or denied.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:428a7fd1.4104857
@supernews.seanet.com:

Ian MacLure wrote:

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
me

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
is neither confirmed or denied.

D.

It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
classes, you name it. It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

--
DS

DeepSea wrote:
It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
classes, you name it.

I wonder what changed across the mid-90's, as we were doing that here
at Bangor ca 1987-1990. For that matter, in the mid-80's we fairly
routinely gave tours at King's Bay. (4 refits on a '41 - and I can't
recall one of them without a tour of some sort.)

It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

nods Yes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Tue, 17 May 2005 01:24:30 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:

Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

But in this case it's pretty darn easy. In 1992 then-President Bush
(the other one!) ordered withdrawl of all tactical nuclear weapons.
The Navy's tactical nuclear weapons were retired or placed in depot
storage.

Considering that policy has not been reversed (as far as we know,
anyway), it's a safe bet that Brunswick has none.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Actually one can be reasonably sure that "special weapons" were at NASB
through the 1980's, maybe very early 1990's. I forget what exact year Bush
Sr. ordered tactical special weapons removed from fleet units and shore
installations.

The removal of these weapons allowed for the closing of the marine barracks
at this and other installations.