could... COULD??? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDIN ME!!!
Posted on 08/01/2009 8:22:01 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
U.S. Submarines Could Retain Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missiles
Friday, July 31, 2009
An ongoing review of the U.S. nuclear weapons posture might call for the country to continue arming some of its attack submarines with nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles, Kyodo News reported (see GSN, March 24).
Washington will look to friendly nations to help decide whether to retire the weapons, a high-level U.S. official told Kyodo News. Japan has asked the United States to consult with partner governments before rolling back any nonstrategic nuclear-weapon deployments, according to the news service.
One U.S. ally has expressed support for the missiles' deterrent value, the official said without naming the country. Some Japanese officials have contended that the weapons help to counter nuclear threats from China and North Korea.
Nuclear-armed cruise missiles are not ideal weapons because they would require submarines and aircraft to move relatively close to a target, according to some U.S. military analysts. Such weapons typically have fairly short ranges, although some are designed to fly over 1,800 miles.
The Bush administration moved to reassess the use of nuclear-armed cruise missiles -- and to consider gradually scrapping the weapons -- but the final decision on their deployment has been delayed pending completion of the comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review (Kyodo News/Breitbart.com, July 30).
How ironic that it is the Japanese who are willing to support openly our continued deployment of nuclear weapons.
Well they know that they are a devastating weapon
I imagine the socialist in our White House will look to Castro and Chavez for advice on our nuclear posture.
Japan will go nuclear if the US retires them.
Well, with Russia’s plan to drop in on Canada, it’s not only the North Korean’s and China that are a threat to our nation.
I say we arm all of our nuclear subs with nuclear missiles. Carry the biggest stick to show the bullies you mean business. I’m sure our Marxists in office would rather we wave the olive branch of “peace”, as if that ever worked before.
Yes, but they know that our deterent is protecting them.
I'm sure Obama's Islamfacsist friends would like to see us scrap them, but I don't think he'll try unless he wins/buys/steals the next election - but I've underestimated the phony one before....
I don’t remember the source of the article (FORBES?) however it was concerning Japanese nuclear power/energy sources. It stated that if the Americans were no longer able to provide military protection of Japan, it would take the Japanese only six months to begin production/conversion of materials for defensive use. And they already have the missile delivery technology, too. They are not allowed by Treaty to create these systems, however if we no longer defend them, I don’t think they need to abide by it subsequent. I know I wouldn’t.
could... COULD??? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDIN ME!!!
The US should be urging Japan to go nuclear despite what happens on this issue.
China’s continued defiance in helping with the NOKO problem would or could be easily rectified with a Japanese government announcement that they are going nuclear. Bet.
Then drive it in to the edge of their territorial water and park it. I have often wondered if anyone but the sub captain really knows where those boats really are laying. They could be here, they could be there, they could be anywhere, They could be 25 miles off of YOUR COAST. What do you have that is within 1000 miles of here?
My father once mentioned that the proper sub could sneak hundreds of miles into Russia in some of their northern rivers and launch from there.
Too much junk floating in rivers.
It does appear that we have been able to float undetected near the 3 mile limit of a lot of countries.
sounds like they are trying to stir things up to me. If I recall correctly, Bush I removed all the nukes from aboard Navy ships (excepting the ballistic missile subs) during his term, pursuant to the INF treaty. I’m not sure it was REQUIRED under the treaty, just that he did so. This included the Tomahawk nuclear variants. So, the current attack subs don’t have the things right now.
Reason for publishing this in Japan? Well, the Japanese people are (for good reason) sensitive about nuclear weapons in and around their country. Saying that we have those aboard subs that visit their country’s ports doesn’t give them warm fuzzies, quite the opposite. We’ve generally been good about honoring their concerns and not sending SSBNs there. Saying that we’re going to send nuclear-armed subs there would tick them off some.
My take: someone over there wants to stir up crap between us and Japan. Hmmm who might want to do that?? Kim Mentally-Ill, perhaps?
Bump4Later.
Bump4Later.
Japan has asked the United States to consult with partner governments before rolling back any nonstrategic nuclear-weapon deployments,
Some Japanese officials have contended that the weapons help to counter nuclear threats from China and North Korea.
This is...important. There is SOOOOOOOO much meaning there that is not getting written, you know....?
The US has penetrated Soviet waters and carried out missions on numerous occasions over the years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.