B-58's targets in a nuclear war

[KDR]

A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
forward deployment there.

How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
in the USSR and come back to Spain?

On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
"Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
- operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
targets in Eastern Europe.

[Darrell S]

Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in
Arkansas and Indiana.

--
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/


"KDR" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> forward deployment there.
>
> How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>
> On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> targets in Eastern Europe.
>

[KDR]

Darrell S wrote:
> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in
> Arkansas and Indiana.
>
> --
> Darrell R. Schmidt
> B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>
>
> "KDR" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> > forward deployment there.
> >
> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> >
> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> > targets in Eastern Europe.

Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
the USSR and come back to Spain.

[Tex Houston]

"KDR" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Darrell S wrote:
>> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
>> in
>> Arkansas and Indiana.
>>
>> --
>> Darrell R. Schmidt
>> B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
>> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>>
>>
>> "KDR" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
>> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
>> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
>> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
>> > forward deployment there.
>> >
>> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
>> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>> >
>> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
>> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
>> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
>> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>
> Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> the USSR and come back to Spain.
>

You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in question
might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not be
home but a place that might have some chance of still being in existence
such as a bare bones strip somewhere.

Tex Houston

[leadfoot]

> You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in
> question
> might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not
> be home but a place that might have some chance of still being in
> existence such as a bare bones strip somewhere.

Would the speed of the aircraft be a factor? Harder to turn around a mach 2
B-58 isn't it?

In the early 70's I heard the assumption was that every runway that could
support a B-52 in the US would be hit with a nuke.

>
> Tex Houston
>

[Diamond Jim]

"leadfoot" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in
>> question
>> might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not
>> be home but a place that might have some chance of still being in
>> existence such as a bare bones strip somewhere.
>
> Would the speed of the aircraft be a factor? Harder to turn around a mach
> 2 B-58 isn't it?
>
> In the early 70's I heard the assumption was that every runway that could
> support a B-52 in the US would be hit with a nuke.
>
>>
>> Tex Houston
>>

Actually it was assumed that every runway that could support loaded and
dispersed B-52's would be hit by a nuke. Most if not all would probably
receive additional nukes at varying distances/altitudes from these runways
in attempts to destroy any B-52' that had managed to take off.

It is late at night and I can't sleep so here are a few thoughts I recall
from discussions at the time. As an example this is how the war would have
probably been fought in the 1980's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary attacks would be made against military satellites by ground
based laser and "Killer" satellites. (This may or may not have been
perceived as leading to nuclear war).

Most likely the Soviets would have launched a co-ordnated attack by all
their forces starting with a preemptive strike of over 1,000 missiles
carrying 5,000+ warheads.

First strikes (1st wave) from SLBM (+5/15 min) off our coast, were assumed
to target Command/Control with multiple upper atmosphere explosions (EMP)
and any missile fields (Arkansas) or bomber runways within their range, and
patterns around these runways to destroy any bombers already in the air. Sub
launched cruise missiles (+15 min) would have been targeted at near coastal
military facilities, and infrastructure, such as harbors, bridges, and
transportation facilities.

First strikes (2d wave) from land based ICBM's (+20min) were assumed to
target all missile fields, and all runways to include hitting with ground
burst to maximize the destruction and prevent farther use.

Follow on strikes (3d wave) from the remaining ICBM's (+20/40min) were
assumed to target and destroy any remaining military infrastructure,
air/ground burst attacking cities and any other remaining targets.

By this time it can be assumed that all of the Soviet and US, ICBM's and
bombers have been launched. The US is now launching most of its remaining
significant SLBM's, and the Soviets are launching the remaining ICBM's and
any reloaded missiles they have.

At +60min the strategic portion of the nuclear war is over. The use of
tactical weapons at sea and wherever there are land battles will continue
until the combatants either run out of tactical nukes or targets.

It should be assumed that every country that had a deliverable nuke weapon
used them against someone rather than loose them.

[KDR]

Tex Houston wrote:
> "KDR" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Darrell S wrote:
> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
> >> in
> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Darrell R. Schmidt
> >> B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
> >> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> >>
> >>
> >> "KDR" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> >> > forward deployment there.
> >> >
> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> >> >
> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
> >
> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
> >
>
> You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in question
> might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not be
> home but a place that might have some chance of still being in existence
> such as a bare bones strip somewhere.
>
> Tex Houston

All right, the source I quoted in my first post indicated that some
B-52s would have landed somewhere in the Middle East after bombing
Soviet targets.

"7. The air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations,
and SAC still has contingency plans for their use. These involve the
prestrike forward deployment of some B-58 bombers and accompanying
tankers, the post-strike recovery for a few B-52's [1 line of source
text not declassified] in the Middle East."

[Ken S. Tucker]

KDR wrote:
> Tex Houston wrote:
> > "KDR" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > Darrell S wrote:
> > >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
> > >> in
> > >> Arkansas and Indiana.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Darrell R. Schmidt
> > >> B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
> > >> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "KDR" > wrote in message
> > >> ups.com...
> > >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> > >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> > >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> > >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> > >> > forward deployment there.
> > >> >
> > >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> > >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> > >> >
> > >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> > >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> > >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> > >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> > > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> > > the USSR and come back to Spain.
> > >
> >
> > You're making an assumption that might not be true. The sortie in question
> > might not come back to that base. A Post-Strike Recovery Base might not be
> > home but a place that might have some chance of still being in existence
> > such as a bare bones strip somewhere.
> >
> > Tex Houston
>
> All right, the source I quoted in my first post indicated that some
> B-52s would have landed somewhere in the Middle East after bombing
> Soviet targets.
>
> "7. The air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations,
> and SAC still has contingency plans for their use. These involve the
> prestrike forward deployment of some B-58 bombers and accompanying
> tankers, the post-strike recovery for a few B-52's [1 line of source
> text not declassified] in the Middle East."

As I understand, the B-58 was a weapon for deterence,
it was a 1 way strike mission....1 way.
Ken

[[email protected]]

KDR wrote:
> Darrell S wrote:
> > Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later in
> > Arkansas and Indiana.
> >
> > --
> > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > B-58 Hustler Web Site URL (below)
> > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> >
> >
> > "KDR" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> > > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> > > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> > > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> > > forward deployment there.
> > >
> > > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> > > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> > >
> > > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> > > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> > > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> > > targets in Eastern Europe.
>
> Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> the USSR and come back to Spain.

Issue was if the balloon was that far up, the Spanish base would be
history.

[Darrell S]

>> "KDR" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
>> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
>> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
>> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
>> > forward deployment there.
>> >
>> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
>> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>> >
>> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
>> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
>> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
>> > targets in Eastern Europe.

> Darrell S wrote:
>> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
>> in
>> Arkansas and Indiana.
>>
>
> Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> the USSR and come back to Spain.

B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the
situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another
crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases
but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them
all being wiped out before any could launch.

Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S..
Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it
should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into
Eastern USSR..

[Jeroen Wenting]

>> All right, the source I quoted in my first post indicated that some
>> B-52s would have landed somewhere in the Middle East after bombing
>> Soviet targets.
>>
>> "7. The air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations,
>> and SAC still has contingency plans for their use. These involve the
>> prestrike forward deployment of some B-58 bombers and accompanying
>> tankers, the post-strike recovery for a few B-52's [1 line of source
>> text not declassified] in the Middle East."
>
> As I understand, the B-58 was a weapon for deterence,
> it was a 1 way strike mission....1 way.
> Ken
>

yes, like the B-47 they were intended for one way missions.
Runways to land on outside the USSR would likely have been selected but
noone (least of all the crews) expected to ever reach them (or find them in
usable condition if they made it).

[Jeb Hoge]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> It is late at night and I can't sleep so here are a few thoughts I recall
> from discussions at the time. As an example this is how the war would have
> probably been fought in the 1980's.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> At +60min the strategic portion of the nuclear war is over. The use of
> tactical weapons at sea and wherever there are land battles will continue
> until the combatants either run out of tactical nukes or targets.
>
> It should be assumed that every country that had a deliverable nuke weapon
> used them against someone rather than loose them.

Wow...it makes me queasy just thinking about it all. The most
mind-bogglingly destructive act that mankind could ever conceive.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Darrell S wrote:
> >> "KDR" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> >> > forward deployment there.
> >> >
> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> >> >
> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>
> > Darrell S wrote:
> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
> >> in
> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
>
> B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
> weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the
> situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another
> crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
> contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
> them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
> reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases
> but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them
> all being wiped out before any could launch.
>
> Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S..
> Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
> But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it
> should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into
> Eastern USSR..

Sorry to make light off that.
The Okinawa AFB is melted, but Tokyo International
airport is available, please have your passports ready.
Ken

[KDR]

Darrell S wrote:
> >> "KDR" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> >> > forward deployment there.
> >> >
> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target
> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
> >> >
> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes
> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>
> > Darrell S wrote:
> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and later
> >> in
> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
>
> B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
> weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if the
> situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after another
> crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
> contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
> them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
> reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other bases
> but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of them
> all being wiped out before any could launch.
>
> Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the U.S..
> Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
> But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return, it
> should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep into
> Eastern USSR..

Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
Japan?

[Ancient_Hacker]

KDR wrote:
> A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
> at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned
> that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
> and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> forward deployment there.


The B-58 was a high-maintenance airplane and very rarely moved for very
long from home base.

Moving a squadron for an extended stay would be a logistical
challenge-- just the number of tools, spares, and test gear was not
something done on a whim. I suspect there were no cargo aircraft
assigned for such a move, so it's not something that could be set in
motion in under a week or so.

During the Cuban Crisis some B-47's were flown to various disparate
civilian airports within the US, but those required much less ground
support.

[Darrell S]

>
> Darrell S wrote:
>> >> "KDR" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk
>> >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm
>> >> > mentioned
>> >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations
>> >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
>> >> > forward deployment there.
>> >> >
>> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
>> >> > target
>> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>> >> >
>> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
>> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
>> >> > Vigilantes
>> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
>> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>>
>> > Darrell S wrote:
>> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
>> >> later
>> >> in
>> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
>> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
>> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
>>
>> B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
>> weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
>> the
>> situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
>> another
>> crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
>> contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
>> them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
>> reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
>> bases
>> but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
>> them
>> all being wiped out before any could launch.
>>
>> Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
>> U.S..
>> Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
>> But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and return,
>> it
>> should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
>> into
>> Eastern USSR..
>
> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
> Japan?

That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52
as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR and
China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia. Some
bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back to North
America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the host
countries even knew they were in our plans, >

[Diamond Jim]

"Darrell S" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Darrell S wrote:
>>> >> "KDR" > wrote in message
>>> >> ups.com...
>>> >> >A 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary
>>> >> >Rusk
>>> >> > at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm
>>> >> > mentioned
>>> >> > that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC
>>> >> > operations
>>> >> > and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
>>> >> > forward deployment there.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
>>> >> > target
>>> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
>>> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
>>> >> > Vigilantes
>>> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
>>> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>>>
>>> > Darrell S wrote:
>>> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
>>> >> later
>>> >> in
>>> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of required
>>> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
>>> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
>>>
>>> B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
>>> weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
>>> the
>>> situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
>>> another
>>> crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
>>> contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
>>> them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
>>> reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
>>> bases
>>> but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
>>> them
>>> all being wiped out before any could launch.
>>>
>>> Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
>>> U.S..
>>> Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
>>> But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and
>>> return, it
>>> should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
>>> into
>>> Eastern USSR..
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
>> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
>> Japan?
>
> That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the B-52
> as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the USSR
> and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and Asia.
> Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy back
> to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not sure the
> host countries even knew they were in our plans, >
>

While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it is
classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific details.)

As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????

The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan,
South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima, Iwo
Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a number
of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue that they
didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases either.

The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive" nature,
but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific details may
still be.

[Robert[_1_]]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
m...
>

[trim]
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
>>> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
>>> Japan?
>>
>> That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
>> B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
>> USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
>> Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy
>> back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not
>> sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, >
>>
>
> While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
> is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
> details.)
>
> As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????
>
> The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan,
> South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima,
> Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a
> number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue
> that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases
> either.
>
> The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
> didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
> nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
> details may still be.

Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.

The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard of
any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP and 2
host country ones watching each plane.

The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation. Japan's
anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the offending
devices. :-)

During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest don't
rank very high.

One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the
embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel
outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?)

[Darrell S]

>>>> >> > How many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its
>>>> >> > target
>>>> >> > in the USSR and come back to Spain?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book
>>>> >> > "Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers" that the Navy RA-5C
>>>> >> > Vigilantes
>>>> >> > - operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay - were assigned to
>>>> >> > targets in Eastern Europe.
>>>>
>>>> > Darrell S wrote:
>>>> >> Probably 2 refuelings since the B-58's were first kept in Texas and
>>>> >> later
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> Arkansas and Indiana.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for the reply but what I want to know is the number of
>>>> > required
>>>> > refuelings when the B-58s flew from bases in Spain to bomb targets in
>>>> > the USSR and come back to Spain.
>>>>
>>>> B-58s were not "based" in Spain. We occasionally flew B-58s there for
>>>> weapon loading practice and to test the ability to deploy them there if
>>>> the
>>>> situation required it. I flew one from Madrid to Little Rock after
>>>> another
>>>> crew had flown it from Little Rock to Spain. There may have been some
>>>> contingency plans but, as aircrews, we never studied them or considered
>>>> them. When the ballistic missile threat from submarines off our coasts
>>>> reduced the early warning time we began deploying some B-58s to other
>>>> bases
>>>> but they were in the U.S.. This was done to reduce the possiblility of
>>>> them
>>>> all being wiped out before any could launch.
>>>>
>>>> Potential war sorties out of the U.S. did not include returning to the
>>>> U.S..
>>>> Post strike bases were on the periphery of the Soviet Union and China.
>>>> But... IF... the B-58 were to launch from Spain, strike USSR, and
>>>> return, it
>>>> should not require any air refuelings except for very long sorties deep
>>>> into
>>>> Eastern USSR..
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
>>> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
>>> Japan?
>>
>> That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
>> B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
>> USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
>> Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could re-deploy
>> back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and I'm not
>> sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, >
>>
>
> While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
> is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
> details.)
>
> As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????
>
> The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland, Tiwan,
> South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba Jima,
> Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know for a
> number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would argue
> that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery bases
> either.
>
> The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
> didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
> nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
> details may still be.

That's exactly why I used the term "sensitive" rather than "classified".
Pundits frequently correctly state that nuclear weapons are in a particular
place but for a military person to confirm that with his personal knowledge
is not recommended. Most especially information about weapon types and
aircraft/weapon numbers. A similar situation exists on discussions about
what countries permit our military aircraft/weapons to be on their soil.
Some country leaders may "privately" allow our aircraft and weapons on their
soil but, for political purposes, don't wish that information to become
public knowledge. I don't approve or disapprove of that secrecy but....
that's the way it is.

[Diamond Jim]

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>
> [trim]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
>>>> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
>>>> Japan?
>>>
>>> That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
>>> B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
>>> USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
>>> Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could
>>> re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and
>>> I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, >
>>>
>>
>> While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
>> is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
>> details.)
>>
>> As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????
>>
>> The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland,
>> Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba
>> Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know
>> for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would
>> argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery
>> bases either.
>>
>> The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
>> didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
>> nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
>> details may still be.
>
> Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.
>
> The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard
> of any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP
> and 2 host country ones watching each plane.
>
> The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation.
> Japan's anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the
> offending devices. :-)
>
> During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest
> don't rank very high.
>
> One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the
> embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel
> outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?)
>
>
Japan may have a rabid anti-nuke crowd but that doesn't change the facts!
The US put nukes into Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan on Nike missiles, with
or without the host countries permission and they weren't "dual -key"
either. South Korea, Taiwan, and Chiba-Jima (a Japanese island) had
short/medium/intermediate range ballistic missiles, in addition of the Nike
SAM's. Iwo Jima, Okinawa, also had gravity bombs (nukes) stored there. In
mainland Japan: The US Army had nuke warheads for the Nike missiles, and
most likely some tactical warheads for the Honest John rocket, etc. The US
Navy and USAF had several locations where they stored gravity nuke bombs,
torpedoes, depth charges, and missile warheads.

Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a
google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa". I believe these were the last that
the US operated in Japan. (IIRC to the 1970's) As nuke's are very likely
still stored in Japan by the US Navy (and USAF ??) I don't know what google
would find there.

As a matter of policy, during the late 50's and into the 60's the US put
nukes in a lot of different places, without the host countries (official or
otherwise) knowledge or consent. This first became public knowledge in the
mid- 1990's with the de-classification of information from the Cuban Missile
Crisis. The knowledge that the US had deployed nuke missiles in Turkey (and
Italy) was known but when information started becoming available in the mid
90's it came out that the US had circled the Soviet Union, China and North
Korea with nukes.

BTW as the number of US Marines stationed at a US Embassy is seldom more
than a dozen, its not very like that they will be sizing any
airports/tankers.

[Robert[_1_]]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Robert" > wrote:
>
>> Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.
>
> That seems to be changing - after Kim tested his little toy, the
> japanese government has been mumbling about getting their own nukes.
>

Quickly followed by calls for his resignation. I'd say the rabid crowed is
still there, just that the rest of the population is waking up to reality.

Kind of like the European anti-nuke groups funded by the USSR to improve
their positions in the SALT negotiations - if NATO was internally forced to
give up all the sort/intermediate ranged weapons before the negotiations the
Russians wouldn't have to give up anything at the table.

[[email protected]]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >>
> >
> > [trim]
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks a lot for the reply. Did the post-strike bases on the periphery
> >>>> of the Soviet Union and China include bases in South Korea, Taiwan and
> >>>> Japan?
> >>>
> >>> That's still rather "sensitive" information. I flew the B-47 and the
> >>> B-52 as well as the B-58. Post strike bases were planned all around the
> >>> USSR and China. That includes Europe, North Africa, the Mid-East and
> >>> Asia. Some bases were planned to have fuel so the bombers could
> >>> re-deploy back to North America. Many weren't "bases", just runways and
> >>> I'm not sure the host countries even knew they were in our plans, >
> >>>
> >>
> >> While it may be "sensitive" information today, I seriously doubt that it
> >> is classified in any way. (The general knowledge, not the specific
> >> details.)
> >>
> >> As for the host countries knowledge at the time?????
> >>
> >> The fact that the US had nuke weapons, in such places as Greenland,
> >> Tiwan, South Korea, Japan, (places in mainland Japan, plus Okinawa, Chiba
> >> Jima, Iwo Jima) and a lot of other places around the world, has been know
> >> for a number of years. That the host country didn't know about it would
> >> argue that they didn't know about plans to use their runways as recovery
> >> bases either.
> >>
> >> The fact that the US had weapons at these places when the host country
> >> didn't know about it, isn't talked about because of its "sensitive"
> >> nature, but the general knowledge isn't classified while the specific
> >> details may still be.
> >
> > Japan? Japan has a rabid anti-nuke crowd.
> >
> > The US had dual-key nukes in a number of countries, but I had never heard
> > of any in Japan. There was always a bit of a farce about these - 1 US MP
> > and 2 host country ones watching each plane.
> >
> > The landing sites didn't require pre-approval from the host nation.
> > Japan's anti nuke policy wouldn't apply to a plane that had jettisoned the
> > offending devices. :-)
> >
> > During and after a strategic nuclear war diplomatic letters of protest
> > don't rank very high.
> >
> > One of the more off-the wall plans I remember reading about involved the
> > embassy marines sizing control of the airport and fuel trucks to refuel
> > outbound bombers. This was in Iceland(?)
> >
> >
> Japan may have a rabid anti-nuke crowd but that doesn't change the facts!
> The US put nukes into Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan on Nike missiles, with
> or without the host countries permission and they weren't "dual -key"
> either. South Korea, Taiwan, and Chiba-Jima (a Japanese island) had
> short/

SNIP

I'd like cites for your information. Going on my often imperfect
memory, this was
the order of battle for nuclear capable surface to surface systems in
the Far
East over the years (approx 1955 to 1975)

Honest John free-flight rocket at the Division level in Korea

Corps level Corporal, then Sergeant IIRC on Okinawa

Lance, which replaced the above three, also Okinawa, maybe Korea

(FWIW Lance has been replaced by the Army Tactical Missile System,
fired from a MLRS launcher)

Army level Redstone went to Germany, not the Pacific

USAF Mace then Matador cruise missiles in hardened sheleters on Okinawa
(A mobile version went to Germany - any make it to the Pacific?)

With the exception of Lance all gone by the early/mid Seventies

BYW, all these systems could carry nuclear, HE (later versions was ICM)
& chemical warheads


medium/

SNIP

Nope

All the Pershings were assigned to the 56th Missile Brigade in Germany

(they might be have been classed by DOD as SRBM's, as the DOD MRBM
range bracket is 1000-3000 Km)


intermediate range ballistic missiles,

SNIP

Nope

Only two US IRBM's - Jupiter & Thor - went to the UK, Italy & Turkey

Back then the DOD range bracket for an IRBM was 2500 Km, today it is
3000-5500 Km
Abobve 5500 Km and it's an ICBM



in addition of the Nike
> SAM's. Iwo Jima, Okinawa, also had gravity bombs (nukes) stored there. In
> mainland Japan: The US Army had nuke warheads for the Nike missiles, and
> most likely some tactical warheads for the Honest John rocket, etc. The US
> Navy and USAF had several locations where they stored gravity nuke bombs,
> torpedoes, depth charges, and missile warheads.
>
> Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a
> google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa".

SNIP

Yep & got nothing


I believe these were the last that
> the US operated in Japan. (IIRC to the 1970's) As nuke's are very likely
> still stored in Japan by the US Navy (and USAF ??) I don't know what google
> would find there.
>
> As a matter of policy, during the late 50's and into the 60's the US put
> nukes in a lot of different places, without the host countries (official or
> otherwise) knowledge or consent. This first became public knowledge in the
> mid- 1990's with the de-classification of information from the Cuban Missile
> Crisis. The knowledge that the US had deployed nuke missiles in Turkey (and
> Italy) was known but when information started becoming available in the mid
> 90's it came out that the US had circled the Soviet Union, China and North
> Korea with nukes.

SNIP

Considering that every Soviet Tank & Motor Rifle Divison had an organic
FROG (equiavlent to Honest John) Battalion specfically for nuclear and
chemical fire support and the higher Army echelons had Scud &
Scaleboard mobile launchers, the idea of encirclement" sounds closer to
"deterence"



> BTW as the number of US Marines stationed at a US Embassy is seldom more
> than a dozen, its not very like that they will be sizing any
> airports/tankers.

[Diamond Jim]

> wrote in message
ups.com...>
> Diamond Jim wrote:
>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>> > m...
>> >>

SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!


> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -

I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge, learn
to do your own searches, here are just a few quick ones on this subject. If
you follow the references, and do a good search you can find all kinds of
documents that have been unclassified under FOIA pertaining to this and
similar things.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd42/42base.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB22/index.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/japan/okinawa/okinawa.htm

http://www.nautilus.org/archives/library/security/papers/Nuclear-Umbrella-1.html

SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!

Note (1): I never stated that all of the nukes and/or weapons systems in
Japan and its islands were deployed and operational, many if not most were
in storage (pre-positioned). The Nike missiles were, of course.

Note (2): Chiba Jima, Chici Jima, Chici Shima, Chichi Shima, (or whatever is
the current correct name is) etc all are meant to refer to the island that
had a small US Naval presence in the Bonin Islands. It is approximately 165
miles NNE of Iwo Jima (Io Jima) and approximately 610 miles SSE from Tokyo.

>> Probably the easiest and quickest way to confirm this, would be to do a
>> google on the "Nike Missiles in Okinawa".


SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>
> Yep & got nothing
>
If you can't find pages and pages of information on this subject with a
google search then you need to learn how to use it.

[Dan[_2_]]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...>
>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>
> SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>
>
>> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
>
> I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge, learn
> to do your own searches,

<snip> a bunch of rude stuff.

That was uncalled for.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Diamond Jim]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Diamond Jim wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...>
>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>>>>> m...
>>
>> SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>>
>>
>>> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
>>
>> I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
>> learn to do your own searches,
>
> <snip> a bunch of rude stuff.
>
> That was uncalled for.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.

I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the information,
its public knowledge, and the information is widely available. All he had to
do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US nuclear weapons in Japan" into
a search engine and hit the return key.

Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't have
the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any resurch on
the subject he would have quickly found out he was misinformed. If someone
can't help themselves then why should I waste my time tying to help them.

BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of this
reply sums everything up nicely.

[Dan[_2_]]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...>
>>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>>>>>> m...
>>> SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
>>> I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
>>> learn to do your own searches,
>> <snip> a bunch of rude stuff.
>>
>> That was uncalled for.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.
>
> I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the information,
> its public knowledge, and the information is widely available. All he had to
> do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US nuclear weapons in Japan" into
> a search engine and hit the return key.
>
> Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't have
> the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any resurch on
> the subject he would have quickly found out he was misinformed. If someone
> can't help themselves then why should I waste my time tying to help them.
>
> BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of this
> reply sums everything up nicely.
>
>
Would it hurt you to be civil about it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Diamond Jim]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Diamond Jim wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...>
>>>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> m...
>>>> SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
>>>> I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
>>>> learn to do your own searches,
>>> <snip> a bunch of rude stuff.
>>>
>>> That was uncalled for.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.
>>
>> I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the
>> information, its public knowledge, and the information is widely
>> available. All he had to do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US
>> nuclear weapons in Japan" into a search engine and hit the return key.
>>
>> Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't
>> have the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any
>> resurch on the subject he would have quickly found out he was
>> misinformed. If someone can't help themselves then why should I waste my
>> time tying to help them.
>>
>> BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of
>> this reply sums everything up nicely.
>>
>>
> Would it hurt you to be civil about it?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)

[Dean A. Markley]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...>
>>>>>> Diamond Jim wrote:
>>>>>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> m...
>>>>> SNIP! SNIP!SNIP!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like cites for your information. - - - - - -
>>>>> I am not a damn librarian, look it up, this stuff is public knowledge,
>>>>> learn to do your own searches,
>>>> <snip> a bunch of rude stuff.
>>>>
>>>> That was uncalled for.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>> Thank you. Your opinion is noted and will be ignored.
>>>
>>> I think that reply was called for. First it is easy to get the
>>> information, its public knowledge, and the information is widely
>>> available. All he had to do was type "Nike missiles in Okinawa" or "US
>>> nuclear weapons in Japan" into a search engine and hit the return key.
>>>
>>> Besides from reading his uninformed opinion, it was obvious he didn't
>>> have the slighest clue about the subject. If he had bothered to do any
>>> resurch on the subject he would have quickly found out he was
>>> misinformed. If someone can't help themselves then why should I waste my
>>> time tying to help them.
>>>
>>> BTY why should I waste my time arguing with you. The first sentence of
>>> this reply sums everything up nicely.
>>>
>>>
>> Would it hurt you to be civil about it?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)
>
>
>
>
I must agree with Dan. Would it hurt you to be civil? At the very
least it will keep you from being seen as a narrow-minded, nasty,
know-it-all.

Oh and your note is noted and ignored.

Dean

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Diamond Jim" > wrote:

> >>
> > Would it hurt you to be civil about it?
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Your opinion is noted and will be ignored. (again)

A simple "no" would suffice.

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, "Darrell S"
> wrote:

> Some country leaders may "privately" allow our aircraft and weapons on their
> soil but, for political purposes, don't wish that information to become
> public knowledge. I don't approve or disapprove of that secrecy but....
> that's the way it is.

An example being Jordan. The USAF had at least a couple of squadrons of
F-16s flying out of Jordan during the Iraqi invasion. But neither country
would confirm it. The information leaked out later.



D