A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

B-58's targets in a nuclear war



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 2nd 06, 09:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Robert[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war


"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert" wrote:

Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.


That seems to be changing - after Kim tested his little toy, the
japanese government has been mumbling about getting their own nukes.


Quickly followed by calls for his resignation. I'd say the rabid crowed is
still there, just that the rest of the population is waking up to reality.

Kind of like the European anti-nuke groups funded by the USSR to improve
their positions in the SALT negotiations - if NATO was internally forced to
give up all the sort/intermediate ranged weapons before the negotiations the
Russians wouldn't have to give up anything at the table.


  #22  
Old December 2nd 06, 11:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war


Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...


[trim]

Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
Japan?

That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could
re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and
I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans,


While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
details.)

As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????

The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland,
Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba
Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know
for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would
argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery
bases either.

The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
details may still be.


Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.

The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard
of any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP
and 2 host country ones watching each plane.

The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation.
Japan's anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the
offending devices. :-)

During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest
don't rank very high.

One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the
embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel
outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?)


Japan may have a rabid anti-nuke crowd but that doesn't change the facts!
The US put nukes into Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan on Nike missiles, with
or without the host countries permission and they weren't "dual -key"
either. South Korea, Taiwan, and Chiba-Jima (a Japanese island) had
short/


SNIP

I'd like cites for your information. Going on my often imperfect
memory, this was
the order of battle for nuclear capable surface to surface systems in
the Far
East over the years (approx 1955 to 1975)

Honest John free-flight rocket at the Division level in Korea

Corps level Corporal, then Sergeant IIRC on Okinawa

Lance, which replaced the above three, also Okinawa, maybe Korea

(FWIW Lance has been replaced by the Army Tactical Missile System,
fired from a MLRS launcher)

Army level Redstone went to Germany, not the Pacific

USAF Mace then Matador cruise missiles in hardened sheleters on Okinawa
(A mobile version went to Germany - any make it to the Pacific?)

With the exception of Lance all gone by the early/mid Seventies

BYW, all these systems could carry nuclear, HE (later versions was ICM)
& chemical warheads


medium/

SNIP

Nope

All the Pershings were assigned to the 56th Missile Brigade in Germany

(they might be have been classed by DOD as SRBM's, as the DOD MRBM
range bracket is 1000-3000 Km)


intermediate range ballistic missiles,

SNIP

Nope

Only two US IRBM's - Jupiter & Thor - went to the UK, Italy & Turkey

Back then the DOD range bracket for an IRBM was 2500 Km, today it is
3000-5500 Km
Abobve 5500 Km and it's an ICBM



in addition of the Nike
SAM's. Iwo Jima, Okinawa, also had gravity bombs (nukes) stored there. In
mainland Japan: The US Army had nuke warheads for the Nike missiles, and
most likely some tactical warheads for the Honest John rocket, etc. The US
Navy and USAF had several locations where they stored gravity nuke bombs,
torpedoes, depth charges, and missile warheads.

Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a
google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa".


SNIP

Yep & got nothing


I believe these were the last that
the US operated in Japan. (IIRC to the 1970's) As nuke's are very likely
still stored in Japan by the US Navy (and USAF ??) I don't know what google
would find there.

As a matter of policy, during the late 50's and into the 60's the US put
nukes in a lot of different places, without the host countries (official or
otherwise) knowledge or consent. This first became public knowledge in the
mid- 1990's with the de-classification of information from the Cuban Missile
Crisis. The knowledge that the US had deployed nuke missiles in Turkey (and
Italy) was known but when information started becoming available in the mid
90's it came out that the US had circled the Soviet Union, China and North
Korea with nukes.


SNIP

Considering that every Soviet Tank & Motor Rifle Divison had an organic
FROG (equiavlent to Honest John) Battalion specfically for nuclear and
chemical fire support and the higher Army echelons had Scud &
Scaleboard mobile launchers, the idea of encirclement" sounds closer to
"deterence"



BTW as the number of US Marines stationed at a US Embassy is seldom more
than a dozen, its not very like that they will be sizing any
airports/tankers.


  #23  
Old December 2nd 06, 12:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Diamond Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war

wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...


SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -


I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge, learn
to do your own searches, here are just a few quick ones on this subject. If
you follow the references, and do a good search you can find all kinds of
documents that have been unclassified under FOIA pertaining to this and
similar things.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd42/42base.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB22/index.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/japan/okinawa/okinawa.htm

http://www.nautilus.org/archives/lib...mbrella-1.html

SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!

Note (1): I never stated that all of the nukes and/or weapons systems in
Japan and its islands were deployed and operational, many if not most were
in storage (pre-positioned). The Nike missiles were, of course.

Note (2): Chiba Jima, Chici Jima, Chici Shima, Chichi Shima, (or whatever is
the current correct name is) etc all are meant to refer to the island that
had a small US Naval presence in the Bonin Islands. It is approximately 165
miles NNE of Iwo Jima (Io Jima) and approximately 610 miles SSE from Tokyo.

Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a
google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa".



SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!

Yep & got nothing

If you can't find pages and pages of information on this subject with a
google search then you need to learn how to use it.


  #24  
Old December 2nd 06, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Dan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war

Diamond Jim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...


SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -


I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge, learn
to do your own searches,


snip a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #25  
Old December 3rd 06, 12:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Diamond Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war


"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...


SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -


I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
learn to do your own searches,


snip a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.

I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the information,
its public knowledge, and the information is widely available. All he had to
do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US nuclear weapons in Japan" into
a search engine and hit the return key.

Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't have
the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any resurch on
the subject he would have quickly found out he was misinformed. If someone
can't help themselves then why should I waste my time tying to help them.

BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of this
reply sums everything up nicely.


  #26  
Old December 3rd 06, 03:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Dan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war

Diamond Jim wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...
SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
learn to do your own searches,

snip a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.

I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the information,
its public knowledge, and the information is widely available. All he had to
do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US nuclear weapons in Japan" into
a search engine and hit the return key.

Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't have
the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any resurch on
the subject he would have quickly found out he was misinformed. If someone
can't help themselves then why should I waste my time tying to help them.

BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of this
reply sums everything up nicely.


Would it hurt you to be civil about it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #27  
Old December 3rd 06, 03:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Diamond Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war


"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...
SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
learn to do your own searches,
snip a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.

I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the
information, its public knowledge, and the information is widely
available. All he had to do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US
nuclear weapons in Japan" into a search engine and hit the return key.

Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't
have the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any
resurch on the subject he would have quickly found out he was
misinformed. If someone can't help themselves then why should I waste my
time tying to help them.

BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of
this reply sums everything up nicely.


Would it hurt you to be civil about it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)




  #28  
Old December 4th 06, 12:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Dean A. Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war

Diamond Jim wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Diamond Jim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Diamond Jim wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
m...
SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
learn to do your own searches,
snip a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.

I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the
information, its public knowledge, and the information is widely
available. All he had to do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US
nuclear weapons in Japan" into a search engine and hit the return key.

Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't
have the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any
resurch on the subject he would have quickly found out he was
misinformed. If someone can't help themselves then why should I waste my
time tying to help them.

BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of
this reply sums everything up nicely.


Would it hurt you to be civil about it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)




I must agree with Dan. Would it hurt you to be civil? At the very
least it will keep you from being seen as a narrow-minded, nasty,
know-it-all.

Oh and your note is noted and ignored.

Dean
  #29  
Old December 4th 06, 04:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war

In article ,
"Diamond Jim" wrote:


Would it hurt you to be civil about it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)


A simple "no" would suffice.
  #30  
Old December 12th 06, 04:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
DDAY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default B-58's targets in a nuclear war



----------
In article , "Darrell S"
wrote:

Some country leaders may "privately" allow our aircraft and weapons on their
soil but, for political purposes, don't wish that information to become
public knowledge. I don't approve or disapprove of that secrecy but....
that's the way it is.


An example being Jordan. The USAF had at least a couple of squadrons of
F-16s flying out of Jordan during the Iraqi invasion. But neither country
would confirm it. The information leaked out later.



D
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
N. Korea's Nuclear Weapon Test, Possible 'dud', 1 Kiloton or less ? AirRaid Naval Aviation 0 October 9th 06 10:15 PM
Iran's nuclear program Thelasian Military Aviation 107 August 31st 04 06:35 AM
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield Paul J. Adam Military Aviation 1 August 9th 04 08:29 PM
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 25 January 17th 04 03:18 PM
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 December 7th 03 09:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.