BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

Derek,

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas
encroached upon the base.

Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the mountain or
the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote in
greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any more
intelligently.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

[ NAS/NAF Brunswick]
Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville.

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban
areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport
were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and
now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially
down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
suburb status.

It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used
to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's
solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.

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

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

Mike Kanze wrote:
Derek,

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the
urban areas
encroached upon the base.

Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the
mountain or
the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote
in
greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any
more
intelligently.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

[ NAS/NAF Brunswick]
Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS
Jacksonville.

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the
urban
areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and
Mayport
were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then
and
now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth,
especially
down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
suburb status.

It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It
used
to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now
it's
solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.

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

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


aften spelled "oeno"

"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

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.


not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3
you dismissed so quickly--you know, the ones that Clark acknowledged almost
three YEARS ago were already performing homeland defense operations?). You
need to attend a basic antiterrorism course before you make such ridiculous
claims.

Brooks


--
Andrew Toppan

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:58:44 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

For a possible one, see the cite below...

OK, you've provided one possibility....that's what I asked about.

In my opinion it's a farfetched one, but anyway....

And still, nobody has identifed this as a potential new mission for
Brunswick. All you've done is identified a concept that exists.

And I identified past use of the the P-3 in the homeland defense role,
something you claimed was just not possible...


You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance
role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance?

Sure, EC-130s and MC-130s and such. That's not what we're talking
about here.

Really? There are other options--for example, the USAF has a "strap on"
intel package that turns a vanilla C-130H into an ELINT/SIGINT platform. The
USCG uses C-130's in the surface surveillance role quite regularly
(sometimes visual recon is still required, didn't you know?).


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

And I guess you figure that (a) that will always be the case, (b) joint
operations don't exist (where USAF or USCG aircraft could operate from the
naval airfield), and (c) the P-3's have magically disappeared from your
litany since proof was provided that they have indeed been involved in
homeland defense operations?

Brooks



--
Andrew Toppan

"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

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.

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:11:59 -0400, nafod40
wrote:


Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site


777? Who's planning to give the Navy 777s?

Typo. 737s.

Land is cheaper? Who's planning to buy land? NAS Brunswick was
bought in the 1940's.

Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.