[burzum]

The carrier will have more than a nuclear power plant on it. The protestors (and everybody else) knows exactly what's being carried.

If you are trying to imply that the carrier will be carrying nuclear weapons, you are wrong. US aircraft carriers are sort of a joke if a nuclear conflict ever arises. They would have no use since the three tier nuclear standoff approach does not need them at all. Our three tiers are submarine launched ballistic missiles (the primary weapon to keep foes in the area around Japan pacified), B-2 bombers (the sneak attack nuclear weapon--it fairly useless for a retaliatory nuclear attack), and intercontinental ballistic missiles (the weapons to end all wars--these are the ones that can carry 10 MT weapons).

Aircraft carriers have no use here. While you certainly could put nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier ready to be dropped by an aircraft, it would add nothing to the already formidable nuclear deterrent that is already built up (consider any conflict that we wouldn't use SLBMs (15 min) first followed by ICBMs (30 min)). Almost any attack by aircraft would be slower than SLBMs and ICBMs by hours! And the type of nuclear weapons would be very small (you can't launch very heavy aircraft from an aircraft carrier).

It would, on the other hand, be a considerable risk for the US to have nukes there. We are not going to station nuclear weapons on a ship that goes to third-world port calls. The security risk is too great. There is a reason that our SSBNs (nuclear powered submarines that carry nuclear weapons) do not make port calls in third world countries (they rarely make any port calls--and they are always, if I remember correctly, in the US). There is also a reason why B-2s are stationed in the US (and not forward deployed, unlike almost every other type of aircraft). You do not put nuclear weapons in a place where a clever opponent can snatch them.

[ConorMacNessa]

Good analysis.

[Danae]

"and they are always, if I remember correctly, in the US"

Nope. Their locations are classified. They are however very well travled. My hubby was stationed overseas with his boat for months at a time. You are right in every other point you made however!!!

[Francis McClobber]

Nice analysis, but you did make a few mistakes:

"While you certainly could put nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier ready to be dropped by an aircraft, it would add nothing to the already formidable nuclear deterrent that is already built up (consider any conflict that we wouldn't use SLBMs (15 min) first followed by ICBMs (30 min))."

Nuclear strike from carrier based aircraft served a very significant role in deterrence in that it provided a tactical nuclear strike capability that neither ICBM's nor SLBM's had. They were part of the triad and as a forward presence, were much faster than the land based aircraft nuclear strike.

"And the type of nuclear weapons would be very small (you can't launch very heavy aircraft from an aircraft carrier)."

The weapons employed on a carrier were the same as the weapons a land based bomber carry. As far as launching with ordnance goes, the A-6 could carry 26 thousand pounds.

"It would, on the other hand, be a considerable risk for the US to have nukes there. We are not going to station nuclear weapons on a ship that goes to third-world port calls. The security risk is too great."

Both carriers and the ordnance ships routinely visited third world countries while loaded with nuclear ordnance.

I really like your bio page, by the way. Good luck in school.