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

[Nowhere]

Yeah, but as DrM somehow pointed out...why not use conventional weapons for that? Especially since they would need a bit more than few nukes to be effective against navy?
And...why assume that all carriers are armed right now, perhpas it was brewing for some time?

[cjolley]

Yeah, but as DrM somehow pointed out...why not use conventional weapons for that?

Because the Chinese would have to use NW to prevail, and they know it.
And so do we.

Especially since they would need a bit more than few nukes to be effective against navy?

What makes you think it's "just a few" nukes?

And...why assume that all carriers are armed right now, perhpas it was brewing for some time?

Why do you thing no US carrier has ever docked at a Japanes port?

[Dr Mordrid]

This is the ultimate "don't ask, don't tell".

They don't ask if we have nukes on our carrier & its group and we don't volunteer the information, though both know full well that they are packin' in a huge way.

Any kind of nonsense on an agressors part would bring a response from the battle group as a whole, and trust me some of the Aegis cruisers therein have anti-missile systems onboard (SM-2/3's) and would likely use them.

An agressors retaliation on the battle group or an ally would very likely be met with every US asset from Alaska to the South Pacific first then the whole shebang in very short order.

Dr. Mordrid

[GT98]

Why do you thing no US carrier has ever docked at a Japanes port?

Not quite..the USS Kitty Hawk is forward Deployed to Japan

http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/

No Nuclear Powered Carrier has been docked there is a more accurate term.

This might just be a case of the Kitty Hawk being phased out and replaced by a CVN carrier, thus the change in the stance of the Japanese Goverment...

I read on the Kitty Hawk Site that shes going out of service come 2008, and with Doc's comments below..I believe that it will be the USS George W Bush possibily replacing her since she comes into service in 2009.

[Dr Mordrid]

Yeah....replace it with CVN-76, the USS Ronald Reagan. That should be enough symbolism to get the point across

After that they could make sure there is always one of the upcoming CVN-21 (previously CVNX). These will re-define the term "SuperCarrier";

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm

20% higher sortie rate, electromagnetic catapult & recovery systems, updated reactor design, smaller crew etc. etc.

Some even predict that later CVN-21 class ships will have rail guns and other advanced tech arms.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

Because the Chinese would have to use NW to prevail, and they know it.
And so do we.

What makes you think it's "just a few" nukes?

It's just that...Chinese would know about the nukes, yes? So they would probably keep their ships in a distancess that mean you have to score direct hit anyway? So..it wouldn't be that much difference when compared to conventionall weapons?
I don't know, perhaps I should play Harpoon sometimes

Why do you thing no US carrier has ever docked at a Japanes port?

It could well be the other way around, "this one is docking, because..." But I think Doc is closer to how it looks...

[cjolley]

Not quite..the USS Kitty Hawk is forward Deployed to Japan

http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/

No Nuclear Powered Carrier has been docked there is a more accurate term.

This might just be a case of the Kitty Hawk being phased out and replaced by a CVN carrier, thus the change in the stance of the Japanese Goverment...

I read on the Kitty Hawk Site that shes going out of service come 2008, and with Doc's comments below..I believe that it will be the USS George W Bush possibily replacing her since she comes into service in 2009.

Hmmm... I wonder when that started.

The "don't ask, don't tell" game, as Doc put it so well, has been ging on a long time.
Maybe the no-NW changed earlier.
Or, the Kitty Hawk has been NW disarmed owing to it's impending decommissioning.
(I doubt it, given it's proximity to NK)


@Nowhere
Forcing them farther away would give us a big advantage, even in a conventional battle.

[Dr Mordrid]

Interesting summary of the issues from the perspective of a recent US Naby Pacific conference with navies of other nations;

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051027-043408-6992r

Dr. Mordrid