BuffettNews.com

Welcome To your new home. These vessels are ABSO-BLEEPING-LUTELY AWE-BLEEPING-SOME!!!!

>>>>NOTE-<<<<>>>>> THe article says St.Marys, is in Fla......that is news to many people around here because St.Marys and NSB Kings Bay are in GEORGIA.

At least a couple of other people that post in here, besides me have been there and know where it is.

*************************************************************

http://www.news4jax.com/news/4240790/detail.html

Kings Bay Gears Up For New Submarine

POSTED: 11:31 am EDT April 2, 2006

ST. MARYS, Fla. -- Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base is gearing up for the arrival of a new submarine, the USS Florida, later this month.

(PHOTO)
The oldest Trident submarine, the USS Ohio, is the first to be converted to a multi-mission platform optimized for covert strike and special operations warfare.

The submarine has been undergoing a $1 billion conversion in Norfolk, Virginia. It's set to arrive at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base this month, for its official return to service in May.

The Florida -- commissioned in 1983 -- was converted from carrying nuclear weapons to carry 154 Tomahawk missiles and birthing for special operations personnel to conduct covert missions.

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

Other Ohio-class submarines at Kings Bay have a crew capacity of about 160 sailors. The Florida, however, will have a crew of about 220, including 66 Navy SEALs.

Kings Bay may have another homecoming next year when the base is scheduled to get another converted Ohio-class submarine.

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

(up on soapbox) geez, how do we manage only having 12 subs that have nukes. thats still an insane number (steps back down).

NorthernConch wrote:

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

(up on soapbox) geez, how do we manage only having 12 subs that have nukes. thats still an insane number (steps back down).

How do you think we won "The Cold War" ?
Where do you think we would be without those weapon systems and those weapons?

What do you think we should do? unilaterally disarm ? Do you think Russia no longer has any nuclear armed missiles or SSBNs?? What about China? North Korea?

Last time I looked, we do not live in a perfect world.

Sam wrote:

NorthernConch wrote:

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

(up on soapbox) geez, how do we manage only having 12 subs that have nukes. thats still an insane number (steps back down).

How do you think we won "The Cold War" ?
Where do you think we would be without those weapon systems and those weapons?

What do you think we should do? unilaterally disarm ? Do you think Russia no longer has any nuclear armed missiles or SSBNs?? What about China? North Korea?

Last time I looked, we do not live in a perfect world.

Sam, I don't see where NorthernConch said we shouldn't have any. I was thinking that all we need is 4 or 5....cause all it takes is one nuke attack and then we are all toast.

But, back to Kings Bay. It amazes me how that place just grows and grows.

A great place to raise a family and you can leave your house and car unlocked...but then we were there back 10 years ago, so things may have changed....like no paper mill smell?

Sam wrote:

NorthernConch wrote:

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

(up on soapbox) geez, how do we manage only having 12 subs that have nukes. thats still an insane number (steps back down).

How do you think we won "The Cold War" ?
Where do you think we would be without those weapon systems and those weapons?

What do you think we should do? unilaterally disarm ? Do you Russia no longer has any nuclear armed missiles? what about China? North Korea?

START II is a treaty between contracting states (U.S. and former Soviet Union) whereby ALL parties reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their formidable arsenals. Disarmament doesn't have to be unilateral. This is what's known as a GOOD THING.

The number of nukes possessed by all the other members of the nuclear weapons club taken together is TINY compared with the numbers still possessed by either the U.S. or former Soviet states. The U.S. and her former Cold War adversaries can afford to make even larger mutual reductions in the numbers of these weapons without affecting their ability to wave the nuclear penis around at some future time, if they so choose.

Obviously, someone at DOD agreed that the subs would be better used to transport Navy SEALS around as opposed to lugging around a bunch of unusable, impractical nukes.

Cheers.
**edited for content**

flyboy55 wrote:

Sam wrote:

NorthernConch wrote:

The conversions are being done to comply with of the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which limits the number of American submarines armed with nuclear missles to 12.

(up on soapbox) geez, how do we manage only having 12 subs that have nukes. thats still an insane number (steps back down).

How do you think we won "The Cold War" ?
Where do you think we would be without those weapon systems and those weapons?

What do you think we should do? unilaterally disarm ? Do you Russia no longer has any nuclear armed missiles? what about China? North Korea?

START II is a treaty between contracting states (U.S. and former Soviet Union) whereby ALL parties reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their formidable arsenals. Disarmament doesn't have to be unilateral. This is what's known as a GOOD THING.

The number of nukes possessed by all the other members of the nuclear weapons club taken together is TINY compared with the numbers still possessed by either the U.S. or former Soviet states. The U.S. and her former Cold War adversaries can afford to make even larger mutual reductions in the numbers of these weapons without affecting their ability to wave the nuclear penis around at some future time, if they so choose.

Cheers.

Yes drawing down is a good thing. I know for a fact that ( will not name number) silos and another weapon system I was part of no longer exist.
The building I used to work out of was destroyed. Where it stood is now a Peace Park. Sad thing to see happen but a good thing that it did.

One need look at how many of those weapons are operationally ready or launch capable at any given moment.

Considering the rotation of crews and subs at sea for our side, and what we have to lose, and the world situation being what it is, NO I don't think that is too many weapons at all.

Would anyone care to try to afford and build up a military comprised of manpower alone to take the place of those beasties? The cost would be astonomical. Nukes are relatively cheap in comparison and very efficient.