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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes, and no "allie" wants or needs them. You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not. By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991 finished by 1992. Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic. BB |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote: On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes, and no "allie" wants or needs them. You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not. By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991 finished by 1992. Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic. The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). Such orders need not be made public. Under such conditions claims that we KNOW the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. All we KNOW is that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the weapons. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Apr 29, 11:20*pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote : Mike ha scritto: Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009 GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare -- delivering a nuclear bomb. Ugh..... let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version, available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire program...... * * * * Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to * * * * whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between * * * * nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form * * * * of safety gear related to weapon fusing. * * * * IBM Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 3, 8:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes, and no "allie" wants or needs them. You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not. By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991 finished by 1992. Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank wrote:
On May 3, 8:08 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:15 am, wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes, and no "allie" wants or needs them. You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not. By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991 finished by 1992. Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it. My understanding of the current calculus is CVN's are only for conventional warfare, and IF the lunatic switch starts WW3, they are ignoreable. However, making CVN's F-35 nuke able, that big fat floating target is quick to sizzle. Ken |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 3, 8:17*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes, and no "allie" wants or needs them. You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not. By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991 finished by 1992. Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear pink tutu's. *But *AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic. The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). *Such orders need not be made public. *Under such conditions claims that we KNOW the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. *All we KNOW is that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the weapons. No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not." Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants regardless of standing policy. BB |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed. Well, from the air or surface maybe... BB |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote: On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed. Well, from the air or surface maybe... Well, no. I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and immortal. :-) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank
wrote: Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back? We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it. Which ones? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote: No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not." Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants regardless of standing policy. Indeed. And you don't KNOW what's in a magazine until you eyeball it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 24 | June 16th 08 03:27 PM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 259 | December 13th 07 05:43 AM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 212 | December 13th 07 01:35 AM |
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 8 | March 10th 07 08:20 PM |
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 1 | January 26th 07 03:04 PM |