B-58's targets in a nuclear war

"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/jo...b/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..

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/jo...b/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

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/jo...b/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?

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/jo...b/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,

"Darrell S" wrote in message
news

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/jo...b/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.

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.

----------
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

"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(?)

"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.

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.