Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. diverting strategic nuke subs to Pacific to keep China in check (China & NK saddened)
Kyodo ^ | 09/05/05

Posted on 09/05/2005 6:58:45 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

Monday September 5, 6:35 PM

U.S. diverting strategic nuke subs to Pacific to keep China in check

(Kyodo) _ The United States is strengthening its strategic nuclear capacity in the Pacific by diverting its strategic nuclear submarines from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and upgrading nuclear warheads, in an apparent move to keep China and North Korea in check, U.S. Congress sources and nuclear experts said Sunday. The change in balance of the submarine fleet reflects a shift in the U.S. nuclear deployment strategy away from competing with Cold War rival Russia to demonstrating deterrence against China over flash points in Asia such as tensions across the Taiwan Strait and on the Korean Peninsula.

In the Defense Department's annual report to Congress in July, the United States expressed wariness over China's rapidly growing military power.

The report noted that China's Dongfeng-31 intercontinental ballistic missiles, which can threaten the U.S. homeland, will become mobile by next year and its submarine-launched ballistic missiles upgraded.

The United States had eight Ohio-class strategic missile submarines in the Pacific and 10 in the Atlantic in 1997. The number in the Pacific has since been halved with four of the Trident-missile-fitted submarines converted into conventionally armed cruise missile submarines.

However, sources in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Congress said that by the end of this year, four Ohio-class submarines in the Atlantic will have been diverted from the Atlantic side to a Navy base in Bangor in the state of Washington on the Pacific coast.

In addition, the U.S. military is planning to send another submarine from the Atlantic for deployment at the base, the sources said.

While the newest U.S. Trident II missile has a range of more than 7,400 kilometers, it would not reach Asia from the Atlantic.

If the plan is realized, a record number of nine Ohio-class submarines will be deployed in the Pacific, while five will be on the Atlantic side based in Kings Bay, Georgia.

Hans Kristensen, a nuclear program consultant at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, said the U.S. military is planning to upgrade the W76 nuclear warheads equipped on the Ohio-class submarines so they can explode close to ground in order to destroy an enemy's underground headquarters.

Each Ohio-class submarine is equipped with 24 Trident missile launchers and each missile can carry up to eight nuclear warheads. Currently, about 2,000 nuclear missiles are fitted on the 14 submarines in the Pacific and the Atlantic.

U.S. strategic missile submarines were introduced in the early 1960s as the principal strategic deterrent for the United States during the Cold War period to prevent direct attacks from the Soviet Union so that the nation can survive even if the enemy launches a nuclear first-strike.

Even after former U.S. President George Bush decided in 1991 to remove strategic nuclear arms from aircraft and offensive submarines, Ohio-class submarines with strategic nuclear missiles continued to be deployed.

The administration of President Bill Clinton decided in the 1990s to reduce the number in the fleet from 18 to 14 but kept the deployment focus on Russia.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atlantic; boomer; china; korea; nkorea; nuclearsub; ohioclass; pacific; submarine; taiwan; trident; usn; w76
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
In short, China is getting what they deserve. So is N. Korea.
1 posted on 09/05/2005 6:58:55 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

BTTT


2 posted on 09/05/2005 7:00:22 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; Jet Jaguar; Iris7; Paul_Denton; MizSterious; SevenofNine; ...

Ping!


3 posted on 09/05/2005 7:00:27 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Don't believe everything you read.

We don't tell anyone where our subs are.

Not ever.
4 posted on 09/05/2005 7:02:51 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

If they're culling this from budget memos and the like, and we're reading it on the Internet and in "Kyodo" (whatever that is), it seems to me this is probably the least of the threats China and North Korea need to be worried about. It's the threat they're NOT reading in the paper that they need to be concerned with... We're pretty good at keeping our nuclear submarine activities out of the paper.


5 posted on 09/05/2005 7:03:18 PM PDT by FinallyBackInNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

The Pacific is kinda big. I don't think the chinese will be able to find them anytime soon.


6 posted on 09/05/2005 7:07:25 PM PDT by gbaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Not good. This signals weakness to France.


7 posted on 09/05/2005 7:08:56 PM PDT by Shermy (Laissez le bon temps roulez encore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

ABSOLUTELY..another piece of pure rubbish. NOBODY, not even most of the crew knows where they are at while they are on those things.
All they might know is that they are in the Pacific someplace or the Atlantic and thats not even a given as those things move very fast.


8 posted on 09/05/2005 7:09:34 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Re #7

I am not sure if France cares.:)

9 posted on 09/05/2005 7:16:40 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: crz; Pukin Dog

We also do not tell what type of warheads are on the boomers; each MIRV can have a different burst altitude. This article was based on conjecture, not fact. Of course, the press believes their conjecture is fact, and the idiots that read the MSM reports believe everything they read.


10 posted on 09/05/2005 7:17:29 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Never the less, Maybe we should send the Idaho National guard over there to keep an eye on the frogs.


11 posted on 09/05/2005 7:21:15 PM PDT by JDB520
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: crz

Actually everybody knows where they are homeported and it's doubtful that they would move 4 or 5 Boomers to Bangor just to send them under the icecap and back to the Atlantic of deployment. So it's safe to say they are in the Pacific theatre if not actually in the Pacific Ocean.


12 posted on 09/05/2005 7:21:54 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Back then they didn't want me, now I'm hot and they all on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Let me be clear, I was referring to where our subs are when not in port. We would not be discussing where we would be moving them, or anything else. Where the subs are based is common knowledge.
13 posted on 09/05/2005 7:24:24 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Huber

ping


14 posted on 09/05/2005 7:36:48 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
If China is such a friend that we give them favored nation
trading status why are we deploying the big boomers to the pacific to keep them in check.
15 posted on 09/05/2005 7:50:28 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
The administration of President Bill Clinton decided in the 1990s to reduce the number in the fleet from 18 to 14 but kept the deployment focus on Russia.

With Clinton, the Chinese got their money's worth. And then some.

16 posted on 09/05/2005 7:53:13 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is why we shouldn't be closing military bases, But increasing them, The threat is real.


17 posted on 09/05/2005 8:04:51 PM PDT by Petey139
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Because of traitorous global government idiocies.


18 posted on 09/05/2005 8:18:23 PM PDT by Quix (GOD IS LOVE and full of mercy HE IS ALSO JUST & fiercely HOLY. Cultures choosing death shall have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
We don't tell anyone where our subs are.

Not ever.

Umm sure, while on patrol. But don't you think people might notice if a sub's base of operations were moved from one coast to another? I mean sure, there's no rule that says a sub deployed from the Atlantic can't patrol the Pacific and visa versa, but is that sensible?

19 posted on 09/05/2005 8:26:32 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins
If China is such a friend that we give them favored nation trading status why are we deploying the big boomers to the pacific to keep them in check.

Because there is a lot of money to be made selling their goods to other Americans.

20 posted on 09/05/2005 8:50:22 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson