Japan will allow US to base nuclear-powered carrier

[Ma Deuce]

Japan to Let U.S. Navy Port Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (Update2)

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Japan will allow the U.S. Navy to assign a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at the Yokosuka naval base, near Tokyo, in 2008, the Pentagon announced. The move overturns three decades of local opposition to nuclear vessels.

Since the mid-1960s, local governments near U.S. naval bases in Japan have objected to visits by or permanent basing of nuclear-powered ships or submarines or vessels carrying nuclear weapons. The U.S. has responded to the complaints by limiting its ships using Yokosuka as a home port to conventionally powered ships. Yokosuka is the forward-deployment headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet.

Japan, the only nation ever to experience atomic attack, has since disavowed nuclear weapons in a policy it calls the three ``non-nuclear principles'' that say Japan will not possess, produce or admit nuclear weapons to the country. The decision on permanent stationing of a U.S. nuclear carrier in Japan comes as the U.S. grows increasingly concerned over China's military buildup.

``The security environment in the Western Pacific region increasingly requires that the U.S. Navy station the most capable ships forward from established forward-deployed positions,'' the Pentagon said in a press release issued in Washington.

``This posture allows the most rapid response times possible for maritime and joint forces and brings our most capable ships with the greatest amount of striking power to bear in the timeliest manner,'' it said.

Yokosuka is the only port outside the U.S. to permanently host a U.S. carrier.

Nuclear Ship Visits

Although Japan has not allowed the U.S. to use its ports for nuclear carriers or vessels, it has allowed nuclear-powered warships to visit more than 1,200 times since 1964, the Pentagon press release said.

``The maintenance of a stable presence of the U.S. military in and around our country contributes to peace and safety in Japan, the far east and internationally,'' Hiroyuki Hosoda, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, told reporters at a regular briefing today.

The Kitty Hawk, one of two non-nuclear aircraft carriers, left its base at Yokosuka for sea duty on Oct. 24 after routine repairs, the ship's public affairs office reported on its Web site. It's the third carrier to be ported there and is to be decommissioned in 2008 after 47 years of service. The other is the USS John F. Kennedy, which the Navy also is trying to retire over opposition of the U.S. Congress.

The Navy has 10 nuclear-powered carriers. The Pentagon press release did not name the nuclear carrier that would be transferred from a U.S. port to Yokosuka.

The agreement may prove controversial.

``In light of the strong anti-nuclear sentiments in Japan, observers believe that a Navy proposal to homeport one of its nuclear-powered carriers there would meet with potentially substantial public opposition,'' the non-partisan Congress Research Service said in a May 25 report.

Formal Protest

The mayor of the city of Yokosuka officially protested the plan earlier in a meeting Oct. 4 in Tokyo with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Schieffer, the Kyodo News service reported.

Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya handed Schieffer a letter requesting that a conventional carrier replace the USS Kitty Hawk, which is to be decommissioned in 2008, Kyodo News said, citing city officials.

``This ship rotation is part of the Navy's long-range effort to routinely replace older ships with newer, more capable platforms and is part of an ongoing effort to consider the nature of all forward deployed forces when looking at the unpredictable security environment in the Western Pacific,'' the Pentagon said.

[The Kernel]

I've never understood this policy in the first place. Japan has always been a big proponent of nuclear power. Now, I get the concept of not allowing SSBN's harbor there, but nuclear powered ships?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've never understood this policy in the first place. Japan has always been a big proponent of nuclear power. Now, I get the concept of not allowing SSBN's harbor there, but nuclear powered ships?

I'm not up on USN nuclear weapons policy, but it's not unreasonable to assume that US carriers have nuclear weapons onboard.

[Dominus Atheos]

Hmm, why would Japan not want American nuclear devices anywhere near them? Gee, that IS a mystery.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hmm, why would Japan not want American nuclear devices anywhere near them? Gee, that IS a mystery.

Kernel was talking about nuclear power and not nuclear weapons. Japan is a huge proponent of nuclear power so forbiddening a US nuclear warship on the basis that it is nuclear is pretty fucking stupid.

Which isn't the case so :p

[Singular Quartet]

Not sure. There really isn't any way for them to launch them, although I suppose it's possible that a CVN might carry a bomb or something. Thinking it over, though, I'm not really sure whether or not a CVN would have anything that could make use of it.

Somebody else that's more knowledgable can correct me, however.

Looking over the Carrier fleet, we don't really have any CVs that are up to par left. The other thing to consider, though, is that the Kitty Hawk (CV-63) isn't a nuclear carrier. I'm tempted to say that it might just be a matter of NIMBY - Not In My BackYard.

Which doesn't make sense, really, since The Independence (CV-62) was also stationed there. Maybe they just want the carrier to leave and not come back?

[Singular Quartet]

Just did some checking: CVs do carry nuclear warheads, although I have yet to understand how they make use of them.

Anyways, yeah, the mayor is just being a whiney bitch about the whole nuclear power thing, since Japan loves it's nuclear reactors.

Oh, and there were some fucku-ups in previous post, since I misread some stuff.

[Chris OFarrell]

Just did some checking: CVs do carry nuclear warheads, although I have yet to understand how they make use of them.

Anyways, yeah, the mayor is just being a whiney bitch about the whole nuclear power thing, since Japan loves it's nuclear reactors.

Oh, and there were some fucku-ups in previous post, since I misread some stuff.

No US surface warships have carried nuclear warheads since the 1990's.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just did some checking: CVs do carry nuclear warheads, although I have yet to understand how they make use of them.

Free fall bombs would be a good guess.

[Edward Yee]

That'd be a plane system, not a system of the carrier.

Oh, btw, it was planned I believe that the first of the new CVN-21's would be specifically ordered to replace the Kitty Hawk, this just makes it more likely.

[Ma Deuce]

Just did some checking: CVs do carry nuclear warheads, although I have yet to understand how they make use of them.

Free fall bombs would be a good guess.

They were B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, but they were all relinquished to the USAF in the early '90s. Coupled with the retirement of the TLAM-N, ASROC-N, and the other tactical nukes employed by various USN ships, the Ohio-class SSBNs are now the only nuclear-armed vessels in the US Navy.

[Jalinth]

Just did some checking: CVs do carry nuclear warheads, although I have yet to understand how they make use of them.

The US never confirms or denies whether any ship carries nukes. So unless you have a very high security clearance, you'd never know one way or the other. The only exception would be your missile subs, the only purpose of which is to carry nukes. And these guys don't generally make foreign visits.

[Tsyroc]

Back under Bush I the policy changed so that the USN wouldn't have nuclear weapons onboard surface ships. The lingo on what we were supposed to say changed to "I cannot cofirm nor deny the presense of nuclear weapons onboard USS "fill in ship name here". However, it is the policy of the US Government that nuclear weapons would not be carried upon surface ships".

Something close to that anyway.


Anyway, all the Weapons Techs (WT), the guys who used to handle the nuclear weapons onboard surface ships all got farmed out to other rates. The guys I knew either became regular ordinance men or they used whatever security clearance they had to switch to a rate where that was helpful. One guy, I knew became an Information Specialist which usually required a TS clearance.

[Mr Bean]

Japan's populace ALWAYS throws a hissy fit anytime a nuclear powered ship or sub vists. (That they hear about) Of course nuclear power made and run by their own people is just fine, but pull up a Nuclear Fast attack along side a Japansese port and everyone and their grandmother comes down to picket the base and the evil americans.

[Specialist]

Japan's populace ALWAYS throws a hissy fit anytime a nuclear powered ship or sub vists. (That they hear about) Of course nuclear power made and run by their own people is just fine, but pull up a Nuclear Fast attack along side a Japansese port and everyone and their grandmother comes down to picket the base and the evil americans.

And what's the problem with not allowing another country to bring nuclear weapons/power ship into your port again?

[Glocksman]

Japan's populace ALWAYS throws a hissy fit anytime a nuclear powered ship or sub vists. (That they hear about) Of course nuclear power made and run by their own people is just fine, but pull up a Nuclear Fast attack along side a Japansese port and everyone and their grandmother comes down to picket the base and the evil americans.

And what's the problem with not allowing another country to bring nuclear weapons/power ship into your port again?

If you are a military ally of the US, plenty, as nuke powered vessels and nuclear weapons are a significant part of that power you are allied to.

[Mr Bean]

And what's the problem with not allowing another country to bring nuclear weapons/power ship into your port again?

Its not Nuclear Weapons/Ship, its Nuclear Ships, most of the Navy's fleet is nuke powered(Minus our smaller ships) The only reason we kept the Shittykitty in service for so long is because we could never convice the Japanse to allowe a modern carrier to be based out of Japan.

Nuclear ships are NOT floating bombs, they are NOT heath risks they dischange MUCH less waste then conventionaly powered ships but because they are Nuke powered they are universaly rejected by the Japanse populace because we like thinking with our emotions rather than common sense.

Nevermind if North Korea goes off the deep end and starts launching your only hope is having a few US Navyships alongside.

[Edward Yee]

Who's with me on thinking that the Kitty Hawk's spot will be the best posting for for CVN-78, the first of the post-Nimitz-class carriers? Maybe while they're at it, they'll call it the USS Enterprise.

And point to Mr Bean. Damn, but I don't recall a single Indonesian complaint about a USN nuclear carrier when it was around, USS Abraham Lincoln... I wonder why?

On a possibly related note, the LDP proposes having [a] 'real' military...

[Kamakazie Sith]

That'd be a plane system, not a system of the carrier.

Oh, btw, it was planned I believe that the first of the new CVN-21's would be specifically ordered to replace the Kitty Hawk, this just makes it more likely.

No shit. Air power being the primary power of a carrier.

[Edward Yee]

I know, Kamakazie.

Oh, scratch what I said, I was wrong. A Nimitz will replace Kitty Hawk.

[Wyrm]

Nuclear ships are NOT floating bombs, they are NOT heath risks they dischange MUCH less waste then conventionaly powered ships but because they are Nuke powered they are universaly rejected by the Japanse populace because we like thinking with our emotions rather than common sense.

I think the Japanese never got over the two nukes the US dropped on them in WWII, and this is the only way they can vent this frustration without seriously offending the Americans.

[Ender]

I've never understood this policy in the first place. Japan has always been a big proponent of nuclear power. Now, I get the concept of not allowing SSBN's harbor there, but nuclear powered ships?

I'm not up on USN nuclear weapons policy, but it's not unreasonable to assume that US carriers have nuclear weapons onboard.

Bush the first ordered their removal. Carriers do not have nuclear weapons onboard them.

[Ender]

That'd be a plane system, not a system of the carrier.

Oh, btw, it was planned I believe that the first of the new CVN-21's would be specifically ordered to replace the Kitty Hawk, this just makes it more likely.

Nope, CVNX is suppossed to replace the Enterprise. It would be the next ship to have that name.

[Edward Yee]

CVNX is now called CVN-21; IIRC the first of the CVN-21's would get to have the name Enterprise assuming that the USS Enterprise decommissions on schedule, but it would still take its place in the Kitty Hawk's former posting.

[Uraniun235]

I'm not up on USN nuclear weapons policy, but it's not unreasonable to assume that US carriers have nuclear weapons onboard.

So... why would the Japanese let Kitty Hawk into their waters, then?