Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/31/2002 7:26:23 AM EST
Going to the middle east. God speed.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:34:37 AM EST
Anyone on this site a member of the Division?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:38:29 AM EST
Georgia
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:43:59 AM EST
It is on Fox news now. They are reporting that a Marine unit is going with them, but the are not telling what unit it is.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:55:52 AM EST
Anybody here close to Ft. Stewart?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:55:54 AM EST
Col. Hackworth is saying that the theater comander will have the ability to use [b]nukes[/b]! The others on the program with him are poo pooing him.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:58:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 7:59:28 AM EST by ChrisLe]
God Speed my brothers.....[USA]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:01:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By ar10er: Col. Hackworth is saying that the theater comander will have the ability to use [b]nukes[/b]! The others on the program with him are poo pooing him.
View Quote
I guess I'm watching the same show. Hackworth was saying 2-stars would have that authority - that would be the Division-level commander. In this case, once he gets on the ground, the 3ID commander! I wonder if we would have been able to put nukes on board a ship without the word getting out? If so, we must have some Navy folks out there seeing some rare shit!
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:03:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Originally Posted By ar10er: Col. Hackworth is saying that the theater comander will have the ability to use [b]nukes[/b]! The others on the program with him are poo pooing him.
View Quote
I guess I'm watching the same show. Hackworth was saying 2-stars would have that authority - that would be the Division-level commander. In this case, once he gets on the ground, the 3ID commander! I wonder if we would have been able to put nukes on board a ship without the word getting out? If so, we must have some Navy folks out there seeing some rare shit!
View Quote
There are nukes on the carriers already.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:10:51 AM EST
What kind of nukes do carriers carry?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:12:19 AM EST
Bombs and missles for the aircraft.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:41:32 AM EST
So the US is about to go to war for no other reason than it can. It leaves me feeling kind of sick to my stomach.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:02:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 9:06:53 AM EST by Zardoz]
Anyone on this site a member of the Division?
View Quote
An old friend of mine is in the 3ID. I saw him the day after Christmas, and they already knew they would be going.
So the US is about to go to war for no other reason than it can. It leaves me feeling kind of sick to my stomach.
View Quote
What makes ME sick to my stomach is dumbass comments like this. Edited to remove a derogatory remark about the idiot who posted ahead of me.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:13:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Zardoz:
Anyone on this site a member of the Division?
View Quote
An old friend of mine is in the 3ID. I saw him the day after Christmas, and they already knew they would be going.
So the US is about to go to war for no other reason than it can. It leaves me feeling kind of sick to my stomach.
View Quote
What makes ME sick to my stomach is dumbass comments like this.
View Quote
Ok, since you're obviously so much smarter than the other guy, would you mind helping me out by telling me just what is the smoking gun that is leading us down this path to war? How is the Iraq situation different that it was a couple of years ago?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:17:42 AM EST
i think maybe we have a president that wants to enforce the treaty from 91?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:25:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By hanau: i think maybe we have a president that wants to enforce the treaty from 91?
View Quote
It is not a treaty, just a cease fire, like the one we have with North Korea. And what a joke they are!
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:31:07 AM EST
We finally get someone in office who isn't a liberal pansy and the libs just can't seem to understand. Now you know what sane people felt like when Klintoon was in office!
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:35:23 AM EST
Ok, since you're obviously so much smarter than the other guy, would you mind helping me out by telling me just what is the smoking gun that is leading us down this path to war?
View Quote
Well........it could be that Saddam hussein funds terrorism against the US and it's citizens, develops (or tries to) weapons that may be used against us or our allies, or that the Iraqis constantly fire on aircraft (ours AND British) patrolling the no-fly zones, any of which is more than enough reason to me.
How is the Iraq situation different that it was a couple of years ago?
View Quote
We now have a President in office with enough nuts to do something about it, although in my opinion, we should have took out Hussein back in '91.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:35:53 AM EST
All will be revealed in due time, Grasshopper...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:51:00 AM EST
As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:57:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 9:59:21 AM EST by Sharkman629]
Good luck guys! You have my full support and are in my prayers! Thank you! [USA]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:00:02 AM EST
The loathesome parasites who make their living preying on GIs in the town of Hinesville, GA will now undoubtably make yet another weepy televised bitch about how much they miss "their" soldiers. What they miss is harassing them wherever they go and charging them double what they would charge a civilian in traffic court. Can you tell I was staioned there? Die Hinesville! Die!
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:08:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By 7: As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
View Quote
I kinda doubt they would use a nuke from a sub. It is strategic not tactical.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:15:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By 7: As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
View Quote
I kinda doubt they would use a nuke from a sub. It is strategic not tactical.
View Quote
Subs can launch Cruise Missles...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:18:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By W-W:
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By 7: As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
View Quote
I kinda doubt they would use a nuke from a sub. It is strategic not tactical.
View Quote
Subs can launch Cruise Missles...
View Quote
I did not know they had nuke war-heads for those on the sub.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:26:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By W-W:
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By 7: As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
View Quote
I kinda doubt they would use a nuke from a sub. It is strategic not tactical.
View Quote
Subs can launch Cruise Missles...
View Quote
I did not know they had nuke war-heads for those on the sub.
View Quote
Just an educated guess
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:52:32 AM EST
They took tactical nukes off Navy ships years ago. If they wanted to nuke someone it would be easy enough to send in a B-2 from CONUS. No way would a two-star have authority to use a nuke in this situation. The codes are all going to be kept by the NCA, and no two-star is going to shoot off a nuke without calling up Dubya first. Any conceivable situation that called for nuking someone could wait for a few hours while they phoned home and told mom and dad they'd be out late making glass.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:01:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By W-W:
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By W-W:
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By 7: As for Nukes on Ships, my Navy buddy always said "I can neither confirm nor deny that there are nukes aboard, but I know." But yes, I'd say there are tactical nukes on Aircraft Carriers and possibly a few LA class subs operating in that region.
View Quote
I kinda doubt they would use a nuke from a sub. It is strategic not tactical.
View Quote
Subs can launch Cruise Missles...
View Quote
I did not know they had nuke war-heads for those on the sub.
View Quote
Just an educated guess
View Quote
IIRC, the Los Angeles class attack subs are equipped with a VLS Tomahawk system and there is a Nuke warhead for the Tomahawk known as the TLAM-S. There may also be a 'swim-out' version of the Tomahawk cruise missle that would be cold launched from a torpedo tube, swim/float to the surface in a watertight container that floats vertically and then launch via rocket assist. These launches may also be delayed to give the sub time to effect an escape prior to the missle launching.IIRC
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:04:40 AM EST
Hooah! BTW, I dont think an infantry division has nukes in its MTOE anyways unless DivArty would have them. More likely nukes would be a Corps asset or EAC asset.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:10:16 AM EST
My families prayers are with you guys. Kick some butt!!!!
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:12:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 11:17:07 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
Why the suprise about nuclear weapons being onboard ships? During the low point of American Military Prowess say from mid 70's to early 80's the US didn't have a plan that did not include the use of Nuclear Weapons. In fact it was not until the 80's buildup that the Generals and their Staff could see or even fathom a NON-Nuclear Version of any War that might have been fought in Europe. With American forces in the shape they were in after Vietnam and Nato was in even worse shape the only way they forsaw of stalling a Soviet invasion of Western Germany was with the use of Nuclear Weapons both Strategic and Tactical until sufficient forces could arive in Theater to try to turn the Soviet tide. Were talking around 100 Soviet Tank divisions waiting to plunge through the Fulda Gap (at least on paper). America armed herself accordingly. It wasn't until Reagan took office and began a massive buildup of American conventional forces that like I said earlier there was a non-nuclear option available for the defense of Europe. Nuclear Weapons have been a part of the battle doctrine before, and yes they are still around. Even the F-16 has a nuclear option in the BLU-52. A Tactical Nuke mounted on the centerline underneath the intake. The reason it is being discussed now is because there will be Hell to pay if Saddam uses WMD. The favor will be returned 100 fold if Saddam decides that is the kind of war he would like to pursue.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:13:37 AM EST
By releasing the info that they have the ability and authorization to use nukes, it lessens the chance they will have to. They just sent a message to the Iraqi's via the media that if they don't fight fair, they will be in deep shit. Aviator
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:14:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:29:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:40:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 11:41:35 AM EST by QCMGR]
Originally Posted By trickshot: So the US is about to go to war for no other reason than it can. It leaves me feeling kind of sick to my stomach.
View Quote
I guess 9/11, the USS Cole, etc. does not count.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:50:40 AM EST
I love the Neo-Isolationists that visit our humble lil site. Would they be here if DU had a gunpage? Dang, if they did we would miss seeing adults w/their heads up their butts awaiting the monkey's to fly out...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:53:49 AM EST
Good luck, guys--my thoughts are with you. If I hadn't lost my sight to a large degree, I would be there with you like my Grandpa was as a member of Merril's Marouders in WW2. All I can do now is pray for you guys, and fight the war on the home-front.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:57:50 AM EST
Trickshot, Ethos, others: Let me spell this out for you. Have you forgotten what happened 11 Sept, 2001? Let me help you remember. 1) On that date the Al Quaeda network proved that they would use whatever capability they could get there hands on to cause maximum US casualties. 2) Once everything was being done to contain the direct threat – the actual training camps and leadership in Afghanistan - the next logical step was to step back and see where the next threat could come from (only a fool would think what we did in Afghanistan did anything but slow these guys down). 3) Of course, the worst case scenario would be if these guys got hold of a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the US. I have no doubt that many changes were made behind the scenes to improve our ability to catch such an item trying to get into the country – however no method is foolproof. It is only good common sense to try to figure out where such a nuke would come from. 4) There is one country that we KNOW FOR A FACT was trying to develop nukes, the UN had put measures in place to mitigate this, and yet that nation’s leadership outwardly opposed such efforts and have been allowed to progress with their whims [b]unmonitored[/b] now for several years. 5) Any effort to force this country (Iraq in case you have not figured it out) to properly account for that lost time and prove they will not be a threat to sell a nuke to someone who would use it on us IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO OUR NECESSARY AND RATIONAL RESPONSE TO 11 SEP 01! If you honestly believe what some buffoons whose stuff I have read think – such as that Hussein would somehow not equip Al Quaeda due to religious philosophical differences – you really need to get out more. Some of us live in this thing called the real world – where real people can die, We do not have the luxury of Monday Morning quarterbacking and back seat driving that others have. We have to face real threats that may cause real mass pain and suffering of Americans again some time in the future. Methos: The ability to use nukes does not require a Division Commander to have them available within his organization. They would simply have to be available to be delivered to a place and a at a time he ordered – hence the last several posts talking about the Navy, etc. The Army has not had nukes deployed [i]anywhere[/i] for some time. Benjamin001: Why the surprise? Well, last I checked the cold war was over. Nuclear weapons are a big deal – they take up limited space that could be used for conventional munitions, have special security requirements, and have to be brought on ship secretly to begin with (unless, as other have claimed, the Navy still makes a practice of always keeping some onboard – but since the Army had quit keeping tactical nukes around for around 20 years or so, that would be a surprise to me). Adam
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:01:07 PM EST
Bush The Elder removed nukes from USN ships (with the exception of SSBNs) 11 years ago. USN ships retain the ability to deploy with nukes, but due to US policy they do not carry them. Release authority for nukes remains at the NCA level. Like someone else posted it wouldn't take much to fly a B-2 from CONUS with a nuke payload. I doubt we have nukes in theater. And I doubt we would use them. Our goal is for a friendly post war Iraq. The use of nukes would turn the entire region against us. HACKworth(less)'s remarks reaffirm my opinion that the man is an idiot.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:09:33 PM EST
Shhhhh....
Originally Posted By ar10er: There are nukes on the carriers already.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:12:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:22:52 PM EST
The 155mm and the 8-inch howitzers are all nuclear capable; wether or not they still have nuke rounds ("specials") for them, I couldn't say.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:27:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Any of these still in the inventory? [red]The US has developed several nuclear artillery shells in the 155 mm caliber. The only one to be deployed was the W-48 nuclear warhead developed by UCRL, packaged in the M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) shell. The W-48 nuclear warhead measured 86 cm (34") long and weighed 53.5-58 kg (118-128 lbs). Its yield was on the order of 70 to 100 tons (it was tested in the Hardtack II Tamalpais shot with a yield of 72 tons, predicted yield was 100-300 tons).[/red]
View Quote
They still most likely exist - I doubt we have destroyed them all (I remember watching a training film for the M198 Howitzer that was made int he '60s. They simulated loading and firing the above round - even showed a mushroom cloud off in the distance after firing. Scary shit!). However, they are not available to any Army commander and I am pretty sure they no longer even have DODICs (ID numbers by which ammo is stored, ordered, and issued). To bring such shells back into tactical play would be BIG deal. Adam
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:27:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:39:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: At least for the Army, the 8 inchers are gone... the units that didn't dissappear coverted to MLRS.
View Quote
No more 8-inch??? Damn, what a pisser! Of course, we froze our asses off in germany (even with the winterization kit), but still.......they were a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, especially on the direct fire range (nothing else in the Army picks up and throws things like an 8-inch HE round).
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:59:31 PM EST
They took tactical nukes off Navy ships years ago. If they wanted to nuke someone it would be easy enough to send in a B-2 from CONUS.
View Quote
[size=3]Hah! Ever wonder why much of the nuclear storage bunkers are near the Naval ports? Ever been through THE back gate at Camp Pendleton? Your information is not accurate and it is not entirely about being a delivery platform for nuclear weapons being about Naval ships. In fact, it is a minor reason. The main reason is strategic and still is classified even though you can search the internet and find the answer.[/size=3]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 1:00:25 PM EST
Kick some a@@ and watch your six! We all stand behind our fellow Americans. We will keep you in our prayers.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 1:09:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 1:13:47 PM EST by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By Methos: Hooah! BTW, I don't think an infantry division has nukes in its MTOE anyways unless DivArty would have them. More likely nukes would be a Corps asset or EAC asset.
View Quote
Yep, Division Artillery has nuke capability. The 155 howitzer can only safely fire a nuke once. The powder charge they use to launch it a safe distance max's out safety limits, so they don't fire that gun again until it's checked out. They use a special lanyard thats about 40 feet long when they set it off. I was a FA surveyor with the 1/41 FA at Ft. Stewart when it was the 24ID. We spearheaded the attack across the Euphrates valley. I'll never forget the 8" guns and the MLRS 12packs that night. I'll have to post some pictures. I to can identify with the nervousness some here feel about our starting a war with Iraq again. It has the potential to escalate badly.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 1:16:44 PM EST
stator, Can you point me in the right direction regarding the storage issue? I've never been to California, much less Camp Pendlelton or its back gate. I have been to NWS Yorktown and NWS Charleston, however. Hell the Navy used to have nuke antiaircraft missiles (for hordes of Soviet bombers) and nuke antisubmarine rockets in addition to TLAMS. The rumor a couple of years ago was that the nuke version of the TLAM was being rearmed to a conventional warhead due to TLAM shortages.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 1:22:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Originally Posted By Methos: Hooah! BTW, I don't think an infantry division has nukes in its MTOE anyways unless DivArty would have them. More likely nukes would be a Corps asset or EAC asset.
View Quote
Yep, Division Artillery has nuke capability. The 155 howitzer can only safely fire a nuke once. The powder charge they use to launch it a safe distance max's out safety limits, so they don't fire that gun again until it's checked out. They use a special lanyard thats about 40 feet long when they set it off. I was a FA surveyor with the 1/41 FA at Ft. Stewart when it was the 24ID. We spearheaded the attack across the Euphrates valley. I'll never forget the 8" guns and the MLRS 12packs that night. I'll have to post some pictures. Shit I'd want a lanyard stretching back to Hawaii before I'd yank on it! I to can identify with the nervousness some here feel about our starting a war with Iraq again. It has the potential to escalate badly.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 1:31:46 PM EST
Good luck, Godspeed, and take care, my American brothers and sisters. Do right on our behalf over there and we will do right on your behalf over here. You are in our prayers. Having said that, and it comes from the heart, I hope we do get more "proof" that war is necessary. BTW, I have an Encyclopedia from 1958 and it has a picture of a tactical nuke arty round going off in the Southwest American desert. Those jobbies are old.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top