B-58's targets in a nuclear war

All right, the source I quoted in my first post indicated that some
B-52s would have landed somewhere in the Middle East after bombing
Soviet targets.

"7. The air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations,
and SAC still has contingency plans for their use. These involve the
prestrike forward deployment of some B-58 bombers and accompanying
tankers, the post-strike recovery for a few B-52's [1 line of source
text not declassified] in the Middle East."

As I understand, the B-58 was a weapon for deterence,
it was a 1 way strike mission....1 way.
Ken


yes, like the B-47 they were intended for one way missions.
Runways to land on outside the USSR would likely have been selected but
noone (least of all the crews) expected to ever reach them (or find them in
usable condition if they made it).

Diamond Jim wrote:
It is late at night and I can't sleep so here are a few thoughts I recall
from discussions at the time. As an example this is how the war would have
probably been fought in the 1980's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At +60min the strategic portion of the nuclear war is over. The use of
tactical weapons at sea and wherever there are land battles will continue
until the combatants either run out of tactical nukes or targets.

It should be assumed that every country that had a deliverable nuke weapon
used them against someone rather than loose them.

Wow...it makes me queasy just thinking about it all. The most
mind-bogglingly destructive act that mankind could ever conceive.

Darrell S wrote:
"KDR" wrote in message
ups.com...
A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into
Eastern USSR..

Sorry to make light off that.
The Okinawa AFB is melted, but Tokyo International
airport is available, please have your passports ready.
Ken

Darrell S wrote:
"KDR" wrote in message
ups.com...
A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into
Eastern USSR..

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?

KDR wrote:
A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.


The B-58 was a high-maintenance airplane and very rarely moved for very
long from home base.

Moving a squadron for an extended stay would be a logistical
challenge-- just the number of tools, spares, and test gear was not
something done on a whim. I suspect there were no cargo aircraft
assigned for such a move, so it's not something that could be set in
motion in under a week or so.

During the Cuban Crisis some B-47's were flown to various disparate
civilian airports within the US, but those required much less ground
support.

Darrell S wrote:
"KDR" wrote in message
ups.com...
A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm
mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return,
it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
into
Eastern USSR..

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,

"Darrell S" wrote in message
news

Darrell S wrote:
"KDR" wrote in message
ups.com...
A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary
Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo...b/xii/2262.htm
mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC
operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and
return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
into
Eastern USSR..

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.

"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(?)

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

Darrell S wrote:
Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
later
in
Arkansas and Indiana.


Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of
required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and
return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
into
Eastern USSR..

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.

That's exactly why I used the term "sensitive" rather than "classified".
Pundits frequently correctly state that nuclear weapons are in a particular
place but for a military person to confirm that with his personal knowledge
is not recommended. Most especially information about weapon types and
aircraft/weapon numbers. A similar situation exists on discussions about
what countries permit our military aircraft/weapons to be on their soil.
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.

"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/medium/intermediate range ballistic missiles, 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". 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.

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.