More bases added to BRAC? Oceana?

[Flash]

I didn't say "I"CBM .... I said "ballistic missile"..... and one would suppose there are all sorts of range capabilities available to various missiles, just like there are all sorts of delivery vehicles, "I"CBM or not. One size doesn't fit all. For example, to quote from Article II of "The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles" -- State Department website (*whew* ... State Department -- wordy or what?) , in force June 1, 1988:

For the purposes of this Treaty:

1. The term "ballistic missile" means a missile that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched ballistic missile (GLBM)" means a ground-launched ballistic missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

5. The term "intermediate-range missile" means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1000 kilometers but not in excess of 5500 kilometers.

So ... 5500 kilometers =3,417.5 miles .... hardly going to reach the East Coast from China or N. Korea .... but Hawaii? ALOHA.

Again, the devil is in the details. If a missile is capable of reaching the continental US from one of our 'enemies' who posses ballistic missiles, it would be by definition an ICBM, unless the enemy was in North or South America. If Cuba or Venezuela picks up some ballistic missiles, if they could afford them, then the whole US would be in the threat ring.

Some definitions of the different types of ballistic missiles:

http://www.answers.com/topic/surface-to-surface-missile

tactical SSMs are usually short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), <1000 km (600 mi)
strategic SSMs are usually:
medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), 1000-3000 km (600-2000 mi)
intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), 3000-4800 km (2000-3000 mi)
long-range ballistic missiles (LRBMs), 4800-8000 km (3000-5000 mi)
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), >8000 km (5000 mi)


These are close to the generally accepted standards for differing definitions of ballistic missiles, though I have rarely seen LRBM, those generally fall under the ICBM definition.

If you are talking about Alaska or Hawaii then some of our 'enemies' might be able to hit them with IRBM's but it would be a stretch. Here is a pretty good explanation of the ballistic missile threeat from 'rogue' nations to the US:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/e20010620rogue.htm

What is the point? Basing should take into consideration all threats but the credible ballistic missile threat to the US, specifically the 50 states, only comes from ICBM's and SLBM's. There are only 4 countries that posses that capability right now to hit the 50 US states with ballistic missiles: Russia, China, France and the UK. North Korea is still a big if, they only launched their longest range missile once and it failed http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1998/walpole_speech_120898.html

To say that a particular base in the US should not be used because of the threat of ballistic missiles is not a valid argument, unless you are talking about Guam. If someone pops off an ICBM at us I would think we would have bigger problems on our plate than what bases were closed due to the BRAC.

 

[SteveG75]

From what I have heard from a close friend in VA Beach Government, they do not want NAS Oceana to close, they just do not want noisy airplanes flying in and out of the base.

I like to call this the Roosevelt Roads arguement.

Puerto Rico: "Close Vieques"
Navy: "OK, but then we won't need Roosey Roads."
Puerto Rico: "Wait, don't leave. We want your money."
Navy: "Sorry, bye."

I loved it when ADM Natter laid his cards on the table and closed Roosey Roads after we shut down Vieques. If you want to play with the bull, sometimes, you get the horns.

http://www.sshep.com/protest_lesson.htm

 

[A4sForever]

Again, the devil is in the details......... If someone pops off an ICBM at us I would think we would have bigger problems on our plate than what bases were closed due to the BRAC.

Of course, when has it ever been otherwise ..... ???

I'm just amazed how it appears that you feel the need to jump in my "stuff" anytime I open my mouth on all things geo-political-strategic ... go pick on somebody else. Or, tell me, who does have all the answers??? The Puzzle-Palace??? You ??? You don't do this at work, do you?? If so -- that's NOT how we like to spend our tax dollars .....

My eyes glaze over. Careful where you step .... ALOHA

 

[gregsivers]

I like to call this the Roosevelt Roads arguement.

Puerto Rico: "Close Vieques"
Navy: "OK, but then we won't need Roosey Roads."
Puerto Rico: "Wait, don't leave. We want your money."
Navy: "Sorry, bye."

I loved it when ADM Fallon laid his cards on the table and closed Roosey Roads after we shut down Vieques. If you want to play with the bull, sometimes, you get the horns.

Yeah I read an article recently, don't remember where, that said the towns around Roosey Roads are in a dump. No one has jobs, there's no military to spend money in the local stores, and everthing is going to sh!t. Serves them right.

 

[flynsail]

Does anybody really think that the the economic impact of closing NAS Oceana would be comparable to that of NS Roosevelt Roads? It would have an economic impact, but it would not be the same as Puerto Rico felt. If Oceana went bye-bye, there would still be at least 4 installations in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads/ VA Beach area.

As for the idea of NAS Cecil being reopened, that would be awesome. From the few summers I spent in VA Beach, Oceana seems to be in a very nice location of VA Beach with lots of room for growth (residential/commercial) there.

Jax, on the other hand, is developing very nicely SE of the St. John's River. Cecil is on the western side of the river, and last time I saw, there was little growth going on in that section of Jax. The point I am trying to make is that encroachment, in the future (yes I consulted my magic 8-ball), would be less severe in Jax. Like someone said earlier too, Jax is a military friendly city.

By the way, Greg, that article you were referring to was probably from Navy Times.

 

[BigIron]

Does anybody really think that the the economic impact of closing NAS Oceana would be comparable to that of NS Roosevelt Roads? It would have an economic impact, but it would not be the same as Puerto Rico felt. If Oceana went bye-bye, there would still be at least 4 installations in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads/ VA Beach area.

.... Like someone said earlier too, Jax is a military friendly city./QUOTE]

I don't think it would be comparable, but it would sting the VA Beach Economy. Also the BRAC has decided to close FT Monroe, which is also in Hampton Roads. 2 hits in one locale is a bit much. Just because it is a nice area does not mean that developers want to swallow it up. Look at the E shore of VA,MD, DE. Really nice coastal region, but not much else.

VA Beach is a military friendly city as well. There are a few vocal idiots called citizens concerned against jet noise www.jetnoise.org who have a problem with Oceana. These clowns have decided to buy/build next to Oceana and complain about it. The majority of VA Beach residents have "WE (HEART) JET NOISE!" Oceana is really only encroached on the North and NW sides.

They (BRAC) are meeting today and the CNO is supposedly going to bat for Oceana. However, there seems to be strong political opposition to close it. We'll have to see.

 

[Flash]

Of course, when has it ever been otherwise ..... ???

I'm just amazed how it appears that you feel the need to jump in my "stuff" anytime I open my mouth on all things geo-political-strategic ... go pick on somebody else. Or, tell me, who does have all the answers??? The Puzzle-Palace??? You ??? You don't do this at work, do you?? If so -- that's NOT how we like to spend our tax dollars .....

My eyes glaze over. Careful where you step .... ALOHA

Why do I "jump in your stuff" whenever you spout off about geo-political stuff? Well, I don't agree with a lot of the geo-political stuff you say. There is is one more viewpoint when it comes to such subjects, I am merely trying to inject my own two cents in, much like you. My two cents jsut don't line up with yours too often, is that so bad? Plus, when you make broad statements about putting all our assets on one coast because of a ballistic missile threat, I thought a little bit more detail and a few facts about the subject would be welcome. Plus, isn't a forum a free exchange of ideas?

Finally, haven't you ever heard of a coffee break? I do my fair share of work, and then some.

 

[A4sForever]

Why do I "jump in your stuff" whenever you spout off about geo-political stuff? Well, I don't agree with a lot of the geo-political stuff you say. There is is one more viewpoint when it comes to such subjects, I am merely trying to inject my own two cents in, much like you. My two cents jsut don't line up with yours too often, is that so bad? Plus, when you make broad statements about putting all our assets on one coast because of a ballistic missile threat, I thought a little bit more detail and a few facts about the subject would be welcome. Plus, isn't a forum a free exchange of ideas?

Finally, haven't you ever heard of a coffee break? I do my fair share of work, and then some.

O.K. ... I guess I can live with all that ..... have a cup of coffee on me ...

 

[Flash]

O.K. ... I guess I can live with all that ..... have a cup of coffee on me ...

Thanks, though I am going to have a beer instead now that I am home :icon_smil .