I highly doubt that South Korea would be a target. I have seen no bad relations between China and South Korea in recent times. And how do you know they will actually attack Japan to get at US forces? Do you really think they would risk declaring war on two other countries even when they would have a tough time taking Taiwan?slapshot said:
Japan agrees to harbor (port) a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
Rationally? No. But totalitarian states have never shown a propensity for acting rationally. I hope they do not...but would not discount it.Snayke said:
My guess is that nothing of that sort would occur until well after the Olympics in any event, not until their force buildup went through quite a few more iterations in terms of numbers, technology and training...and then only if there were a significant change in the White House.
Just my opinion though.
Actually totalitarian states have only one goal in mind, staying in power.Jeff Head said:
In a study of history, rarely will a totalitarian state take risks which would all the people in power to be deposed. They do at times take "prudent" risks to bolster their position in the regime. Italy in Ethiopia is a good example, Germany taking parts of East Europe is another. Japan got away with all kinds of stuff pre-Pearl Harbor. But rarely will they do something blatenly stupid which will force them from power should their endeavor be thwarted.
The ChiComs will be happy to stay where they are, lest they get their military destroyed which would probably cause the old boys to be tossed out.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
You have to be kidding. Actually, every example you mentioned went on to do extremely irrational and brutal things that resulted not only in the absolute deposal of those leaders (and their deaths in most cases) but also led to the abject defeat of their people and the destruction of most of their nations...that is the true study of their history.EW3 said:
Snakye I was just responding to PLA2025's remark that China has no plans to attack Japan. China must have a plan to attack American assets on Japan and South Korea if it ever launches an attack to take Taiwan, that would only make millitary sence since most of the logistic support for american forces would come from there bases there and Gaum. I think that is one reason China is trying to build or buy a carrier force as an attack on Gaum would be a out of the question with out air support. I would be very surprised if China attack Taiwan any time soon thow.
Not in the least. Germany, Italy and Japan were very careful in their early endeavors. So was the Soviet Union regarding the eastern block. So is China, the best they have done is take Nepal.Jeff Head said:
It was only when they were not put pressure on in the early stages, that they went on to do stupid things. (Think Chamberlain). And that actually proves my point. They start out as petty thieves so they can stay in power.
Hitler did not start out by attacking France, Tojo didn't start with Pearl Harbor.
But once they (it's usually a single individual and his staff) feel they are safe to move forward as they will meet no resistance, that they risk it all, which forces the pacifists to finally concede they have to respond, do the totalitarian states fail.
Re: US names nuclear carrier going to Japan it's.....
I'm no moderator but I'm not going to get into a political discussion..OK?
Did you fella's know that the USS George Washington CVN-73 has been desginated to move to Yokouska in 2008? No you did not...This is an exclusive story from hamptonrodas.com I think that CVN-73 was chosen because it will not need a re-fuel until 2017 timeframe. that would give it 9 years in Japan. This article points out the ship was chosen because it's name does not offend the Japanese? The names Enterprise, Nimitz,Esienhower would??? What??? Check it out Japan..you lost WW ll! Get over it!
And VA politicans ..get a grip! CVN-73 will be replaced by CVN-70(Now in for(re-feuling) Or CVN-77 due to be comissioned in 2007(?)
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=95581&ran=91218
Navy plans to move carrier George Washington to Japan
By DALE EISMAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© November 18, 2005
WASHINGTON — The Navy has decided to send the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier George Washington to Japan to replace the aging carrier Kitty Hawk when it is retired from service in 2008, a senior defense official said Thursday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Virginian-Pilot that an announcement of the shift will be made within a few weeks.
It will allow the Pentagon to keep a force of six carriers in the Pacific, an area of growing concern to the Bush administration because of China’s aggressive efforts to upgrade its navy, but probably leave only five flattops in the Atlantic Fleet.
The move raises the possibility that the carrier force at Norfolk Naval Station could be cut from five to four, with a fifth Atlantic carrier assigned to Mayport Naval Station , near Jacksonville, Fla. Losing a carrier could drain about 3,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Hampton Roads economy.
“There are just a lot of things that aren’t final yet,†cautioned U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2nd District, who said Navy officials have not yet briefed lawmakers on their plans.
She said she would be “extremely concerned†if the Navy tries to shrink its Norfolk-based carrier force, but it’s far from certain that will occur.
“Nothing will happen fast,†Drake said.
Norfolk is easily the Navy’s largest hub for carriers, which along with being a source of civic pride are a major engine for the local economy. No other port has more than two flattops.
The loss of just one of the ships would drain about $225 million per year from the local economy, according to a preliminary estimate developed by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
David Gist, a commission economist, said the estimate is a rough calculation and could change depending on how the Navy executes the transfer.
If the service sent the Washington’s air wing and other ships in its battle group along with the carrier, for example, the local economic damage could swell to $982 million annually, he said.
That scenario may be unlikely because other ships and an air wing already are in place in Japan with the Kitty Hawk.
The George Washington would be the first nuclear-powered ship to be permanently stationed in Japan, the only nation ever attacked by nuclear weapons.
The Japanese government agreed last month to allow a nuclear ship to replace the oil-fired Kitty Hawk, but local opposition in the port city of Yokosuka, where the ship would be stationed, could sour the deal, Drake said.
Selecting a replacement for the Kitty Hawk has been a matter of some delicacy for the Navy and the Bush administration. The Norfolk-based Harry S. Truman and the Nimitz, based in San Diego, were ruled out almost immediately because of President Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz’s role as a key leader of U.S. naval forces in the war.
The carrier George H.W. Bush, which will enter service as the Kitty Hawk retires, also was disqualified. The first President Bush flew Navy torpedo bombers in battles with the Japanese from 1942 to 19 45.
The transfer also could be politically delicate at home. While planning to send the George Washington to Japan, the Navy wants to retire the carrier John F. Kennedy, now based in Mayport, and reduce the overall carrier fleet to 11.
The Navy hasn’t decided whether to replace the Kennedy in Mayport, but the senior defense official indicated that the Atlantic Fleet will retain five carriers with at least four of them in Norfolk.
A coalition of Virginia and Florida lawmakers blocked the Kennedy’s retirement earlier this year, forcing the Navy to keep the ship until at least the middle of 2006, and legislation to require a 12-carrier fleet is pending on Capitol Hill.
The number of carriers and their placement around the world are major topics of the “Quadrennial Defense Review,†a Pentagon study of worldwide military threats and U.S. forces needed to meet them.
The review is to be completed and submitted to Congress early next year, and defense officials have declined to speculate on what it might recommend.
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters this week that the Defense Department remains committed to retiring the Kennedy. Other officials suggested privately that administration plans to cut Pentagon spending by
$32 billion during the next five years will intensify pressure to mothball the ship.
The Navy estimates retiring the conventionally powered Kennedy, now 38 years old and the most expensive-to-operate ship in the fleet, will save about $200 million per year. Adm. Mi chael G. Mullen, the chief of naval operations, endorsed the cut last month, telling reporters that he’s satisfied the service can execute its missions with the 11 remaining flattops.
An aide to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Thursday that his boss still thinks a 12-carrier fleet is “the right thing to do for America †but also intends to press for facility improvements that will allow Mayport to accommodate a nuclear-powered carrier.
That sets the stage for a struggle between Florida’s congressional delegation, backed by Gov. Jeb Bush – the president’s brother and a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008 or beyond – and a Virginia contingent led by U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. George Allen, another GOP presidential aspirer .
Reach Dale Eisman at (703) 913-9872 or [email protected].
I'm no moderator but I'm not going to get into a political discussion..OK?
Did you fella's know that the USS George Washington CVN-73 has been desginated to move to Yokouska in 2008? No you did not...This is an exclusive story from hamptonrodas.com I think that CVN-73 was chosen because it will not need a re-fuel until 2017 timeframe. that would give it 9 years in Japan. This article points out the ship was chosen because it's name does not offend the Japanese? The names Enterprise, Nimitz,Esienhower would??? What??? Check it out Japan..you lost WW ll! Get over it!
And VA politicans ..get a grip! CVN-73 will be replaced by CVN-70(Now in for(re-feuling) Or CVN-77 due to be comissioned in 2007(?)
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=95581&ran=91218
Navy plans to move carrier George Washington to Japan
By DALE EISMAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© November 18, 2005
WASHINGTON — The Navy has decided to send the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier George Washington to Japan to replace the aging carrier Kitty Hawk when it is retired from service in 2008, a senior defense official said Thursday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Virginian-Pilot that an announcement of the shift will be made within a few weeks.
It will allow the Pentagon to keep a force of six carriers in the Pacific, an area of growing concern to the Bush administration because of China’s aggressive efforts to upgrade its navy, but probably leave only five flattops in the Atlantic Fleet.
The move raises the possibility that the carrier force at Norfolk Naval Station could be cut from five to four, with a fifth Atlantic carrier assigned to Mayport Naval Station , near Jacksonville, Fla. Losing a carrier could drain about 3,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Hampton Roads economy.
“There are just a lot of things that aren’t final yet,†cautioned U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2nd District, who said Navy officials have not yet briefed lawmakers on their plans.
She said she would be “extremely concerned†if the Navy tries to shrink its Norfolk-based carrier force, but it’s far from certain that will occur.
“Nothing will happen fast,†Drake said.
Norfolk is easily the Navy’s largest hub for carriers, which along with being a source of civic pride are a major engine for the local economy. No other port has more than two flattops.
The loss of just one of the ships would drain about $225 million per year from the local economy, according to a preliminary estimate developed by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
David Gist, a commission economist, said the estimate is a rough calculation and could change depending on how the Navy executes the transfer.
If the service sent the Washington’s air wing and other ships in its battle group along with the carrier, for example, the local economic damage could swell to $982 million annually, he said.
That scenario may be unlikely because other ships and an air wing already are in place in Japan with the Kitty Hawk.
The George Washington would be the first nuclear-powered ship to be permanently stationed in Japan, the only nation ever attacked by nuclear weapons.
The Japanese government agreed last month to allow a nuclear ship to replace the oil-fired Kitty Hawk, but local opposition in the port city of Yokosuka, where the ship would be stationed, could sour the deal, Drake said.
Selecting a replacement for the Kitty Hawk has been a matter of some delicacy for the Navy and the Bush administration. The Norfolk-based Harry S. Truman and the Nimitz, based in San Diego, were ruled out almost immediately because of President Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz’s role as a key leader of U.S. naval forces in the war.
The carrier George H.W. Bush, which will enter service as the Kitty Hawk retires, also was disqualified. The first President Bush flew Navy torpedo bombers in battles with the Japanese from 1942 to 19 45.
The transfer also could be politically delicate at home. While planning to send the George Washington to Japan, the Navy wants to retire the carrier John F. Kennedy, now based in Mayport, and reduce the overall carrier fleet to 11.
The Navy hasn’t decided whether to replace the Kennedy in Mayport, but the senior defense official indicated that the Atlantic Fleet will retain five carriers with at least four of them in Norfolk.
A coalition of Virginia and Florida lawmakers blocked the Kennedy’s retirement earlier this year, forcing the Navy to keep the ship until at least the middle of 2006, and legislation to require a 12-carrier fleet is pending on Capitol Hill.
The number of carriers and their placement around the world are major topics of the “Quadrennial Defense Review,†a Pentagon study of worldwide military threats and U.S. forces needed to meet them.
The review is to be completed and submitted to Congress early next year, and defense officials have declined to speculate on what it might recommend.
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters this week that the Defense Department remains committed to retiring the Kennedy. Other officials suggested privately that administration plans to cut Pentagon spending by
$32 billion during the next five years will intensify pressure to mothball the ship.
The Navy estimates retiring the conventionally powered Kennedy, now 38 years old and the most expensive-to-operate ship in the fleet, will save about $200 million per year. Adm. Mi chael G. Mullen, the chief of naval operations, endorsed the cut last month, telling reporters that he’s satisfied the service can execute its missions with the 11 remaining flattops.
An aide to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Thursday that his boss still thinks a 12-carrier fleet is “the right thing to do for America †but also intends to press for facility improvements that will allow Mayport to accommodate a nuclear-powered carrier.
That sets the stage for a struggle between Florida’s congressional delegation, backed by Gov. Jeb Bush – the president’s brother and a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008 or beyond – and a Virginia contingent led by U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. George Allen, another GOP presidential aspirer .
Reach Dale Eisman at (703) 913-9872 or [email protected].
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
The Nazis miscalculated the enitre way, starting with the Sudetenland. They kept gobbling until war ensued, and then they invaded Russia in what had to be the epitome of miscalculations. Hitler's gambit was a miscalculation from the get go and it proved the absolut and comp[lete destruction of their infrastructure, their military, their economy, and millions of their people.EW3 said:
Stalin and his follow-on leaders were the same and it led to the absolute and inevitable collpase of their system.
If the PRC tries to take Taiwan by force they will be diong the same IMHO.
Sorry...but although individual steps along the way may not seem to be, the entire ideology and attempts that depsots and dictators have made throughout the 19th and 20th century make my point far better than any discussion like this could. The results speak for themselves.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
Re: US names nuclear carrier going to Japan it's.....
I agree wholeheartidly my friend. I had heard this but have not been able to take the chance to comment on it until now. Glad to see the Washington going there and I believe the timing of her refueling has A LOT to do with it too.bd popeye said:
The idea of increased U.S presence in Japan is actually good for the Japanese people. They are basically getting a free military to protect them. Not only a free military, but also the most advanced and powerful one on the planet! Don't you just love things when they are free?
You mught have been misunderstood something here.Defcon 6 said:
One big share of JDA's budget is on maintaining the US forces on japanese soil. Facilities, gas and the like used by US forces are payed with japanese taxes.
Nothing is free here down.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
Agreed. There will be anti-nuclear protests, but that will be hyped. The vast majority will be happy a US carrier is based there with its battle group and will see a nuclear carrier as the increased commitment and deterrent that it is.Francois said:
In the end, it is really a not so subtle message to China...along with the increased subs at Guam and the potential for another carrier in Hawaii.
I thought that Guam was to host another CVN ESG? Or was that no longer considered necessary, now that Japan has decided to allow a CVN to homeport there? Or is it possible that a CVN ESG could be based at both?
In any case, a CVN task force based in Japan is probably the better choice, if the primary hypothetical OPFOR is either China, and/or North Korea.
The most likely advantage for basing an ESG at Guam, would simply be a ( slightly ) lower risk from nuclear missiles.
But then, if nuclear warheads are being tossed about, it hardly matters where the carriers are... All that matters after a nuclear attack, is whether one has made peace with their Creator.
In any case, a CVN task force based in Japan is probably the better choice, if the primary hypothetical OPFOR is either China, and/or North Korea.
The most likely advantage for basing an ESG at Guam, would simply be a ( slightly ) lower risk from nuclear missiles.
But then, if nuclear warheads are being tossed about, it hardly matters where the carriers are... All that matters after a nuclear attack, is whether one has made peace with their Creator.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
I would think if the US wanted to base another Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific. I would base it at Pearl Harbor and forward deploy it to Guam in times of crisis.......IMOWild Weasel said:
Well, that's a possibilty. But I think any crises that requires an ESG to sortie to Guam, would probably require that the group contine heading west to to deal with the problem.
Might as well save several days transit time, by starting a lot closer to where the crisis is likely to originate.
Might as well save several days transit time, by starting a lot closer to where the crisis is likely to originate.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Wild Weasel said:
Well, I guess it would depend on the level of the threat? Some may consider Guam alittle to close.................
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
From all I have read, it seems that this is the current thinking. Based in Hawaii and ready roll west when necessary...with more in Washington and San Diego should the need arise.Crusader2000 said:I would think if the US wanted to base another Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific. I would base it at Pearl Harbor and forward deploy it to Guam in times of crisis.......IMO
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Jeff Head said:
Is Guam equipped take a ship the size of the Nimtz Class?