US nuclear carrier(s?) to Japan....

[Dr Mordrid]

Changing existing policy Japan will now host US nuclear carriers. Most likely in response to the buildup in China and the N. Korea problems.

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan said Friday that stability in East Asia will be strengthened by an agreement with Washington to let the U.S. Navy station a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Japan's waters for the first time.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/japan.nuclear.ap/index.html

Dr. Mordrid

[SpiralDragon]

god... what is the world coming to....

[KvHagedorn]

I don't see why this is such a huge deal.. There are 55 Nuclear Reactors in Japan today, providing 30% of their energy. These are all much larger than a naval reactor, and are subject to earthquakes, too.

[cjolley]

I don't see why this is such a huge deal.. There are 55 Nuclear Reactors in Japan today, providing 30% of their energy. These are all much larger than a naval reactor, and are subject to earthquakes, too.

It's not the carrier's power plant. It's the bomb.
We don't advertise it, but our carriers are all packin'.

[Nowhere]

I don't think it's about presence of nuclear reactors...

I suppose it was the fact that many countries aren't willing to keep alien forces on/near their territory. On one hand they see that themselves as unacceptable, on the other...other countries may regard them more in the direction of "puppet state" (not "puppet state", just closer to that on whole continuum from "totally independent")

edit: cjolley: really? There are nuclear devices onboard to be carried by planes?

[ZokesPro]

"Japan believes that the continued presence of the U.S. Navy ... will contribute to Japan's safety and ... stability in the Far East," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said Friday.

This is my concern.

Then there's the threat of actually using a nuclear weapon once more.

[cjolley]

edit: cjolley: really? There are nuclear devices onboard to be carried by planes?

Of course. What good would they do sitting in a warehouse back in the US?

The whole point of those arms is to make a first strike unthinkably costly for the agressor.

If something really nasty broke out it would be way too late to get them forward.

PS and cruse missiles.

[Nowhere]

It's just that...I don't really see the need for them onboard of all US carriers in todays world...

[Dr Mordrid]

Just letting China/NK know that if they start something we'll finish it.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

It's just that...I don't really see the need for them onboard of all US carriers in todays world...

In case you hand't noticed, some of the world is extreemly not nice, and even more could become so on very short notice.

[ZokesPro]

In case you hand't noticed, some of the world is extreemly not nice, and even more could become so on very short notice.

And nuclear weapons are the solution? Nuclear fallout from the thousands of tests done in Neveda back in the 60's (between 1952 and 1962) still has adverse affects on the U.S. citizens today.

Just letting China/NK know that if they start something we'll finish it.

Dr. Mordrid

No kidding!

[UtwigMU]

Well, that theatre is becoming interesting:
- China is ramping up production capabilities, we all know that modern wars require that
- They are arming: EU embargo lifted, nuclear missiles data stolen under Clinton administration from USA, Israel selling arms to china, Russia exporting missiles, also Chinese recently made new fighter plane.
- Then there's whole Central Asia (Zbig's chessboard) - resources, Russia, China and USA trying to establish/maintain/expand presence
- Also Taiwan issue (in ~08 China is projected to be militarily capable of annexing Taiwan) and North Korea issue

So by end of decade things will become interesting. Of course Bush & Co. planning to exert pressure on Iran and Iraq democratization is not helpful due to forces and resources being tied up there.

As per nukes, if you examine PNAC, there have been calls to change nuclear doctrine and develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Expecting nukes to be kept in warehouses in today's world is ilusory wishful thinking .

[Nowhere]

cjolley, land-based warheads and the ones on submarines aren't enought? O_o
Wouldn't make a difference if this carrier or two stationed in Japan wouldn't have them... (hmm, perhaps that's even the deal? Not announced because nobody's talking about nuclear weapons onboard carriers openly in the first place...)

Oh, and I'm basically just wondering about this from the perspective of Japanese policy up to date, I'm not calling for ban of warheads on surface ships...

[Dr Mordrid]

The amount of non-nuclear firepower in a nuclear carrier and its battle group is overwhelming, so it's not just the nuclear option that they present. Not only that but they also bring an extermely high level of intelligence assets to the table.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

cjolley, land-based warheads and the ones on submarines aren't enought? O_o
Wouldn't make a difference if this carrier or two stationed in Japan wouldn't have them... (hmm, perhaps that's even the deal? Not announced because nobody's talking about nuclear weapons onboard carriers openly in the first place...)

Oh, and I'm basically just wondering about this from the perspective of Japanese policy up to date, I'm not calling for ban of warheads on surface ships...

Having medium and small nukes on the surfase ships would allow us to respond against thier navy.

Without them the options are
1, no response. not good
2, all out response. not good

Japan has had a policy of not allowing NW on thier terratory.
US has a policy of not saying which of it's ships are NW armed.
So, there have just been certain ships that did not call at Japanese ports for some reason or other*.

Given that we are pretty unlikely to have a NW disarmed carrier within 24,000 miles of NK right now, it's pretty safe to assume that Japan is worried enough to change it's policy.
And did so.
But don't expect an official anouncement of those reasons from either side. ever.


* including ALL of our carriers