Japan to alow basing a Nuk carrier there.

[Diamond Jim]

On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US an
Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html

As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means we will
still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I wonder how long
before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered ships to be based there
as well?

[Thomas Schoene]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US
> an Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html
>
> As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means we
> will still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I
> wonder how long before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered
> ships to be based there as well?

There are no "other nuke-powered ships" in the USN, just the carriers and
submarines.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Diamond Jim]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Diamond Jim wrote:
> > On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US
> > an Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html
> >
> > As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means we
> > will still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I
> > wonder how long before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered
> > ships to be based there as well?
>
> There are no "other nuke-powered ships" in the USN, just the carriers and
> submarines.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
>

Well, it's not my fault that the Long Beach, Truxtun, and Bainbridge were
decommissioned. You will have to blame someone else!

[Yeff]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:47:46 GMT, Diamond Jim wrote:

> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>> On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US
>>> an Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html
>>>
>>> As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means we
>>> will still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I
>>> wonder how long before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered
>>> ships to be based there as well?
>>
>> There are no "other nuke-powered ships" in the USN, just the carriers and
>> submarines.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
>> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
>>
>
> Well, it's not my fault that the Long Beach, Truxtun, and Bainbridge were
> decommissioned. You will have to blame someone else!

Wasn't there a big stink in Japan once when B-52s from Guam safe-haven'd
('phoon evaced) at Kadena on Okinawa? This would've been the late 70s or
early 80s..
--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Michael Fenyes]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Diamond Jim wrote:
> > > On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US
> > > an Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html
> > >
> > > As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means we
> > > will still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I
> > > wonder how long before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered
> > > ships to be based there as well?
> >
> > There are no "other nuke-powered ships" in the USN, just the carriers and
> > submarines.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> > wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
> >
>
> Well, it's not my fault that the Long Beach, Truxtun, and Bainbridge were
> decommissioned. You will have to blame someone else!

All California Class cruisers (both of them) were nukes as well.

[Tex Houston]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> Wasn't there a big stink in Japan once when B-52s from Guam safe-haven'd
> ('phoon evaced) at Kadena on Okinawa? This would've been the late 70s or
> early 80s..
> --
>
> -Jeff B.

First time I know of was July 1965.

Tex Houston

[Diamond Jim]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wasn't there a big stink in Japan once when B-52s from Guam safe-haven'd
> > ('phoon evaced) at Kadena on Okinawa? This would've been the late 70s
or
> > early 80s..
> > --
> >
> > -Jeff B.
>
> First time I know of was July 1965.
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

I don't know about July 1965 but they definitely stopped by in Nov of 65. I
had to go through survival school at NTA! Again! I always got caught up in
those quota filling deals, I guess someone wanted to make sure I was one
finely tuned and trained warrior. BTW the rain was warmer at survival school
in the Philippines

I know when they took off and passed over NTA it looked like there were
still struggling to get up to 1000 feet. They were so low I kept expecting
them to blow over the shelter I was trying to make with my parachute. It
would be two or three B-52's then a KC-135 trying to catch up, to be
repeated about every ten minutes until you couldn't stand it anymore.

I don't remember anyone protesting them being there. But then again about
the only thing we were ever told was what a bunch of dumb asses we were,
that we needed to pay attention, or we wouldn't make it when we went back
south and got shot down.

[Diamond Jim]

"Michael Fenyes" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Diamond Jim wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Diamond Jim wrote:
> > > > On CNN I just saw where an agreement has been reached between the US
> > > > an Japan that will allow basing of a Nuke carrier there.
> > > >
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html
> > > >
> > > > As we are running out of conventional powered carriers, this means
we
> > > > will still be able to have a carrier based there in the future. I
> > > > wonder how long before they will allow subs, and other nuke powered
> > > > ships to be based there as well?
> > >
> > > There are no "other nuke-powered ships" in the USN, just the carriers
and
> > > submarines.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > > "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> > > wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
> > >
> >
> > Well, it's not my fault that the Long Beach, Truxtun, and Bainbridge
were
> > decommissioned. You will have to blame someone else!
>
> All California Class cruisers (both of them) were nukes as well.

You can't blame that on me either! And I didn't approve of getting rid of
the Virginia class at all.

[Yeff]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:52:29 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:

> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wasn't there a big stink in Japan once when B-52s from Guam safe-haven'd
>> ('phoon evaced) at Kadena on Okinawa? This would've been the late 70s or
>> early 80s..
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B.
>
> First time I know of was July 1965.

Then the incident I'm thinking of was probably the early 80s. The
communist in the country were acting up and promoting more anti-American
events than ever before. World-wide the anti-nuke movement was big so I
can see many Japanese people getting outraged at the B-52s around then.

--

-Jeff B. (who spent 19 months at Misawa)
zoomie at fastmail dot fm