The protestors (and everybody else) knows exactly what's being carried.
>The carrier will have more than a nuclear power plant on it.
The protestors (and everybody else) knows exactly what's being carried.<
As are the majority of US Navy vessels bigger than the FFG class. No news there, these morons are protesting the NUCLEAR! power plant, expecting it will leak like a Senate hearing.............
I wish now that I had a copy of the information related to us by the head of a missions group that has extensive interaction with that region of the World.
He said that he was stunned to learn that the first person martyred for their faith in Japan was a 12 year old Japanese boy who refused to recant from his firm belief in Jesus Christ as his Savior. That was many hundreds of years ago and that martyrdom took place in Nagasaki.
Isa. 59:
17 "For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.
19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun."
Just in case you fell asleep during history class, the atomic bombs ENDED the war. Had Truman not made the decision to drop them, WWII would have continued to 1948 or 49 (at least in the Pacific theater anyway) and have cost hundreds of thousands more lives (both Japanese and American). As terrible a decision as it was to do it, history tells us it was the right one to make at the time. The atomic hell unleashed on Japan broke their will to continue the fight. An overwhelming majority of Japanese later understood that ending the war quickly and decisively was ultimately to the benefit of the nation as a whole for generations to come. A terrible price to pay, but worth it in the long run.
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.