"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"

On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.

BB

On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.

The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). Such orders
need not be made public. Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. All we KNOW is
that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
weapons.

On Apr 29, 11:20*pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote :

Mike ha scritto:
Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009

GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY

The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
delivering a nuclear bomb.

Ugh.....

let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
program......

* * * * Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
* * * * whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
* * * * nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
* * * * of safety gear related to weapon fusing.

* * * * IBM

Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified.

On May 3, 8:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank wrote:
On May 3, 8:08 pm, wrote:



On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:15 am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

My understanding of the current calculus is CVN's
are only for conventional warfare, and IF the lunatic
switch starts WW3, they are ignoreable.
However, making CVN's F-35 nuke able, that big
fat floating target is quick to sizzle.
Ken

On May 3, 8:17*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:



On May 3, 6:08*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 3, 6:15*am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. *Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
pink tutu's. *But *AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.

The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). *Such orders
need not be made public. *Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. *All we KNOW is
that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
weapons.

No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
regardless of standing policy.

BB

On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:



2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.

Well, from the air or surface maybe...

BB

On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:



2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.

Well, from the air or surface maybe...

Well, no.

I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but
I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
immortal. :-)

On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank
wrote:

Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?

We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.

Which ones?

On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:


No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
regardless of standing policy.

Indeed. And you don't KNOW what's in a magazine until you eyeball it.