Nuclear powered aircraft carrier to be stationed in Japan

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 30 total items

Cancel

Japanese are upset to learn of American navy plan of deploying one of Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carrier to Japan when conventional powered Kitty Hawk is retired in 2008.

Considering how Japanese feel about anything nuclear I am curious as to how others feel about this matter.

If I remember correctly U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is one of the last of conventional aircraft carrier left in the navy so the replacement carrier being nuclear is unavoidable unless Japanese politician make a firm stand and say no to the deployment. Below is English edition of Mainichi News.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20051028p2a00m0na008000c.html

  • Nov 06, 2005
Cancel

I'm sure that many Japanes people, including some politicians are truly upset. But I wonder, is this just another way to poke hatred at the Bush administration? It seems that everyone who has ever had a beef with US foreign policy is jumping at the chance to raise concerns over something that will have positive results, like the deployment of a US carrier task force stationed in Japan.

I thought all the differences were put aside between the US and Japan in terms of military presence. We've long been allies now, and we share many mutual commercial and scientific interests. I wish the people who spread hatred and undeserved fear among the undereducated would take a long walk of a short pier. Get over it. The US military power is here to stay and serves to protect peace across the planet.

  • Nov 06, 2005
Cancel

Quote by bladerunner2005I'm sure that many Japanese people, including some politicians are truly upset. But I wonder, is this just another way to poke hatred at the Bush administration? It seems that everyone who has ever had a beef with US foreign policy is jumping at the chance to raise concerns over something that will have positive results, like the deployment of a US carrier task force stationed in Japan.

I thought all the differences were put aside between the US and Japan in terms of military presence. We've long been allies now, and we share many mutual commercial and scientific interests. I wish the people who spread hatred and undeserved fear among the undereducated would take a long walk of a short pier. Get over it. The US military power is here to stay and serves to protect peace across the planet.

Why would you assume that "hatred" and "differences" would be included in this debate? The main subject is nuclear energy, regardless of what it is composed of, let it be in a ship, in a spacecraft, or even in a car.

Nuclear energy causes radiation, which you should know is extremely toxic and kills us. Could you recall Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl? Hell, why not include Yucca Mountain right here where my home is? I would NEVER want nuclear energy to be around where I live simply because any sort of accident could happen, and BOOM, there goes my home, which is now quarantined? I don't think so. Now it is true that "extra deep" care of toxic waste is cared for.

As for the spent energy, it doesn't even matter if they are "taken extra-care of". Shit happens, especially to us humans because we are not perfect. I quarrel at the idea of having anything be nuclear in the hands of us humans.

In an aircraft carrier? That's hell of a lot of nuclear energy.

  • Nov 06, 2005

Shkira

Shkira

Cake!!

Cancel

I think it's fine. It's the new wave of carrier and we've got to replace a ship that will be lost. The position at Yokosuka is crucial in the defense of Japan and other interests in the East.

As for what Napishtim said, we can feel sympathetic toward's people's feelings, but ultimately those feelings are fear. It's a dread over what could happen if something goes wrong.

If you always lived your life like that, what would become of you? You can't not do something that has great potential to benefit just because an accident could happen. Car crashes happen all the time, yet people still drive them. School shootings, sexual assaults, and other corrupt actions aren't entirely uncommon, yet people still attend public schools.

Yes, nuclear disaster isn't new to Japan and it'd be a horrendous repeated event (as opposed to the smaller scaled examples above), but the principle is the same.

zoku88

zoku88

Resident Lolicon

Cancel

Quote by NapishtimNuclear energy causes radiation, which you should know is extremely toxic and kills us. Could you recall Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl? Hell, why not include Yucca Mountain right here where my home is? I would NEVER want nuclear energy to be around where I live simply because any sort of accident could happen, and BOOM, there goes my home, which is now quarantined? I don't think so. Now it is true that "extra deep" care of toxic waste is cared for.


Radiation is only dangerous if you are exposed to it for a long time or if its really powerful (i.e. meltdown or bomb.) Many items in daily life emit some type of radiation.

Cellphones? Emits radiation.
Microwaves? Emits radiation.
The Sun? You betcha.

The only reason we are alive is due to radiation.

Here's an image that I stole.
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/ral2-1.gif

Futhermore, nuclear reactors aren't that dangerous. Sure, its disasterous if a meltdown happens, but the chances of that are very little.

Quote: If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear [power] is really very good.
-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, June 2001

This is a good alternative to coal power plants which slowly poison people via air pollution, dams that ruin nearby habitats, solar plants and windmills that hardly produce any energy at all and are very unreliable. Compared to the other plants, it is the most reliable and efficient energy source.

Anyway, how many nuclear subs have you heard have some type of nuclear accident? The possibility of major nuclear accidents is very low. Minor nuclear accidents occur frequelenty, however, but rarely effect anybody but the people working at the sites.

Source

EDIT:

Quote by ShkiraIf you always lived your life like that, what would become of you? You can't not do something that has great potential to benefit just because an accident could happen.

Probably some of the best advice someone can give.

EDIT2: Here's a list of worldwide civilian nuclear incidents

from the 1950s - 2000s.

Take notice on how most of those incidents are not only minor, but compared to the total number of nuclear reactors in the world, its a very small number of them.

and here's military

Notice how the number of accidents has decreased in the past decades comared to the 50s and 60s. The last incident with the United States military was in 1986

Cancel

Quote by zoku88

Quote by NapishtimNuclear energy causes radiation, which you should know is extremely toxic and kills us. Could you recall Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl? Hell, why not include Yucca Mountain right here where my home is? I would NEVER want nuclear energy to be around where I live simply because any sort of accident could happen, and BOOM, there goes my home, which is now quarantined? I don't think so. Now it is true that "extra deep" care of toxic waste is cared for.


Radiation is only dangerous if you are exposed to it for a long time or if its really powerful (i.e. meltdown or bomb.) Many items in daily life emit some type of radiation.

Cellphones? Emits radiation.
Microwaves? Emits radiation.
The Sun? You betcha.

The only reason we are alive is due to radiation.

Here's an image that I stole.
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/ral2-1.gif

Futhermore, nuclear reactors aren't that dangerous. Sure, its disasterous if a meltdown happens, but the chances of that are very little.

Quote: If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear [power] is really very good.
-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, June 2001

This is a good alternative to coal power plants which slowly poison people via air pollution, dams that ruin nearby habitats, solar plants and windmills that hardly produce any energy at all and are very unreliable. Compared to the other plants, it is the most reliable and efficient energy source.

Anyway, how many nuclear subs have you heard have some type of nuclear accident? The possibility of major nuclear accidents is very low. Minor nuclear accidents occur frequelenty, however, but rarely effect anybody but the people working at the sites.

Source

EDIT:

Quote by ShkiraIf you always lived your life like that, what would become of you? You can't not do something that has great potential to benefit just because an accident could happen.

Probably some of the best advice someone can give.

EDIT2: Here's a list of worldwide civilian nuclear incidents

from the 1950s - 2000s.

Take notice on how most of those incidents are not only minor, but compared to the total number of nuclear reactors in the world, its a very small number of them.

and here's military

Notice how the number of accidents has decreased in the past decades comared to the 50s and 60s. The last incident with the United States military was in 1986

You attacked me by changing my main idea.

However, well said. I must shake off the alcohol thats getting into my head before posting again.

  • Nov 06, 2005

Devildude

Devildude

- Alstroemeria Records -

Cancel

I believe it should be at a level of acceptable responses.
the reason is simple in my head at least, as to what i know, the possibility of a nuclear meltdown is very small, minute to even say it, the general meltdown rate is somewhat possible only if something triggers the meltdown, which is unlikely consider a nuclear powered or engineered environment would be sealed in a tight security area.

in the interest of security is more of my concern, i believe it has connections of spreading some degree of misinformation, the reason is that if Nuclear is passed to the country, the possibility of scaring the undereducated is high.

partly due to history, lets not forget the days of world war 2, when nuclear power greatly devastated the place of Japan regions. It also turned the outcome of the war. I am sure a lingering disagreement with the Americans still is there.

Having a nuclear operated vessel near the shores of Japan will undoubtedly hurt the local interest as to my view, because people will make mistakes and there can be accidents but that aside, it can put in an unnecessary fear for the locals near this vessel said.

Although tight control can be there, there are always unknown factors.
the locals will be affected by morally, how near the vessel is near their home.
but here is one thing for the political and social side:

Having a nuclear powered vessel near your shore that is not controlled by you is like having your enemy place a knife to your throat.
having no authority or control over the vessel can lead to unjust judgement and possible arguments and that is bad for a alliance like America and Japan. I hope it strikes clear that having something so important owned by an ally even, can be extremely dangerous.

More so now, with Bush that fellow running the scene, i doubt its a good idea. I take this personally cause the Katrina Incident has been a shadow of this happeining, we can see that he is not a responsible person, having a possible insecurity item in another country under his hold is DANGEROUS!

Click signature for my blog
Signature Image
The wind of destiny blows, and the descendant shall walk the earth once more...

Magihunt

The End.

Cancel

The matter of Nuclear energy is a matter which is always 'Blown-up' but media. however I'm confused about this 'Security condition' that they mention.

I want to know what the US Military are paranoid about... With 99% of the world interested in world peace and the remainder just wanting to terrorise people - I don't see why such a large scale defence force boost is needed. What is needed is a boost in the Intelligence Agency.

The beginning is past - the end is to come. I'll show you what was around before the end comes.

  • Nov 06, 2005

zoku88

zoku88

Resident Lolicon

Cancel

Quote by Napishtim

Quote by zoku88

Quote by Napis(...) energy causes radiation, which you should know is extremely toxic and kills us. Could you recall Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl? Hell, why not include Yucca Mountain right here where my home is? I would NEVER want nuclear energy to be around where I live simply because any sort of accident could happen, and BOOM, there goes my home, which is now quarantined? I don't think so. Now it is true that "extra deep" care of toxic waste is cared for.[/quote
Radiation is only dangerous if you are exposed to it for a long time or if its really powerful (i.e. meltdown or bomb.) Many items in daily life emit some type of radiation.

Cellphones? Emits radiation.
Microwaves? Emits radiation.
The Sun? You betcha.

The only reason we are alive is due to radiation.

Here's an image that I stole.
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/ral2-1.gif

Futhermore, nuclear reactors aren't that dangerous. Sure, its disasterous if a meltdown happens, but the chances of that are very little.

Quote: If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear [power] is really very good.
-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, June 2001

This is a good alternative to coal power plants which slowly poison people via air pollution, dams that ruin nearby habitats, solar plants and windmills that hardly produce any energy at all and are very unreliable. Compared to the other plants, it is the most reliable and efficient energy source.

Anyway, how many nuclear subs have you heard have some type of nuclear accident? The possibility of major nuclear accidents is very low. Minor nuclear accidents occur frequelenty, however, but rarely effect anybody but the people working at the sites.

Source

EDIT:

Quote by ShkiraIf you always lived your life like that, what would become of you? You can't not do something that has great potential to benefit just because an accident could happen.

Probably some of the best advice someone can give.

EDIT2: Here's a list of worldwide civilian nuclear incidents

from the 1950s - 2000s.

Take notice on how most of those incidents are not only minor, but compared to the total number of nuclear reactors in the world, its a very small number of them.

and here's military

Notice how the number of accidents has decreased in the past decades comared to the 50s and 60s. The last incident with the United States military was in 1986

You attacked me by changing my main idea.

However, well said. I must shake off the alcohol thats getting into my head before posting again.

I'm not trying to attack anyone (ad hominem) just trying to show that the dangers of radiation is overplayed. I'm sorry that I did not address your main idea, but I thought the thing I quoted was actually more important, (although I did allude to your main idea in my post when I used the example with the nuclear sub.)

Shkira

Shkira

Cake!!

Cancel

Quote by MagihuntThe matter of Nuclear energy is a matter which is always 'Blown-up' but media. however I'm confused about this 'Security condition' that they mention.

I want to know what the US Military are paranoid about... With 99% of the world interested in world peace and the remainder just wanting to terrorise people - I don't see why such a large scale defence force boost is needed. What is needed is a boost in the Intelligence Agency.

Yes, the majority of the world would love peace, but that's still not all. For a nation that isn't allowed their own military, the US is helping to defend them against whatever. As allies we are strengthening them.

Also, the position of Japan to a world threat (RIGHT ACROSS Korea) makes it a crucial place to have forces as a deterent, or just to have readily available if they should start something.

It's the same with all militaries across the world. If you're not fighting a war or plotting one, then you're there to be prepared for one. Why be caught off guard? No one will be.

Magihunt

The End.

Cancel

Ermmm - Japan does have it's own military - It's just limited to a small size.

Nevertheless - your right about the point on N Korea

The beginning is past - the end is to come. I'll show you what was around before the end comes.

  • Nov 06, 2005
Cancel

Quote by MagihuntErmmm - Japan does have it's own military - It's just limited to a small size.

Nevertheless - your right about the point on N Korea

In the CIA World Factbook, Japan spent 45 billion in 2004. Their military is actually quite a formidable force in term of military hardware.

  • Nov 06, 2005
Cancel

Hmmmm... well I would have to ask, exactly who does the land belong to where the carrier is going to be stationed?

If it belongs to Japan, then Americans would be considered guests and should respect the wishes of Japan or start negotiations with them. It would be quite rude if a guest started bullying you in your house wouldn't it? There should be other ways to go around this, they could negotiate some sort of deal i.e. assurances/guarantees and other diplomatic stuff like that.

If it belongs to America, well... certain areas of the world are foreign soil but since an American base is there, automatically belongs to America, but just that area around the base. So if its their land, then they can do whatever they please.

We're not mainly interested in the safety of the carrier or the defenses that the carrier might provide. They already have a conventional-powered carrier there, which has never caused problems before with the local people of Japan, wherever the naval base is located that houses the carriers.

Bullying and saying "Get over it" is never a good idea. People don't "get over it" if you nuked two of their cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Germany is STILL paying reparations until now... some 50+ years later? There are other options available, such as negotiation and education -- if people are undereducated, then why not educate them to the advantages of the new carrier?

  • Nov 06, 2005

Devildude

Devildude

- Alstroemeria Records -

Cancel

I can see that, ever since he step up, there has been nothing but bad things happening isn't it. personally at a level othewise, he is bad luck!

he stepped up and then 9/11 happened, then a war, the first war to happen in ten years of peace then another stupid and mindless war that drank up resources. then the katrina incident now this....

Ameica is fast becoming an idiotic power with mindless extent of their arms into foreign policies, i think it is about time and hopefully so that China can take away a little of that power...these people can are far too dangerous.

"What do all men with power want" asked the Oracle to the confused Neo.
"......"
"More power......" replied the Oracle.

[Matrix]

I believe that this is another way of the americans aiming to place their hold of power along olther people's country, why, with such immensive force or power, they can do so by saying their are interested for the security of the world, of course, smart people by now would have been already alerted and know their style of barging into people's houses or country, they would have see it differently, i guess it is a matter of how hard or how far they can push their superior police into the world.

Indeed, i must say that on a more personal level, Bush has done nothing but to make the world look bad. His version is anyone not wearing a tie and suit is a terrorist. "God told me to fight a war with Iraq and save those people" one of his latest quote truly confirms my fear that he is psychotic and is an idiot.

nuclear power....? I think he should go into an iranium core and make salad out of himself. with this weapon and potential power in their hands so near to the Japanese shore, we are expecting massive trouble.

Click signature for my blog
Signature Image
The wind of destiny blows, and the descendant shall walk the earth once more...

griffin

griffin

Super Natty

Cancel

Well hang on. I don't get this arguement in that I'm under the impression that Japan is covered in nuclear power stations. I don't see how a nuclear ship parked at the docks makes a scrap of difference. The nuclear warheads that it probably carries are probably also on the conventional American vessel.

Having said that I will go on to the next part of this thread and say that no country has the right to occupy another.

  • Nov 07, 2005
Cancel

Even though I believe Japan is more than capable of defending itself against threat from abroad I doubt seriously the country will want to go on its own away from America's protection. Secondary consideration is how other countries invaded by Japan during World War II will view Japan rearming itself than they are already.

I believe most countries would prefer America continue its mutual defense treaty with Japan and Japanese government will agree to stationing of nuclear aircraft carrier even against the wish of the people.

  • Nov 07, 2005

BorisGrishenko

BorisGrishenko

send spike

Cancel

The stationing of a nuclear aircraft carrier is actually one of the best things that could happen to Japan's defense, especially in regards to the American components. Replacing Kitty Hawk with a CVN makes it much more feasable to have unrestricted deployment in event of China or North Korea doing something stupid, without the fuel limitations of an old "conventional" (though no longer really conventional) carriers.

I'm all for it. Nuclear reactors and atomic bombs are completely unrelated in regards to their usage. I would also like to remind everyone that the biggest reason soviet-built nuclear devices were so much more dangerous was poor construction standards and building for numbers rather than quality. This is why despite the Soviets usually having the edge as far as numbers, the number of actual effective units was always much lower and the odds of random losses to equipment failures and errors was much greater.

All in all, I wouldn't mind if they wanted to put this kind of power plant in my town. Why would I object to it in a carrier anywhere in the world?

I am invincible!

  • Nov 08, 2005

Shkira

Shkira

Cake!!

Cancel

Quote by griffin
Having said that I will go on to the next part of this thread and say that no country has the right to occupy another.

Depends on your definition of "occupancy". The way I see it, America isn't occupying Japan in a military sense, and yet I occupy Japan as a person, living there. How's that for perspective? ;)

Cancel

Quote by Shkira

Quote by griffin
Having said that I will go on to the next part of this thread and say that no country has the right to occupy another.

Depends on your definition of "occupancy". The way I see it, America isn't occupying Japan in a military sense, and yet I occupy Japan as a person, living there. How's that for perspective? ;)

(chuckle) That was a good one. :D

I would also like to add that Japan is not occupied like the way old Soviet Union did during the cold war. Japan can tell United States to leave if they really want us out. How many people remember that we left Phillipine because that government no longer wanted us?

  • Nov 08, 2005
Cancel

There is a big difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Since I was a Naval Nuclear Power plant operator on an aircraft carrier, I don't really see a huge issue. Sure it's nuclear power, but it is completely different story.

  • Nov 09, 2005

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

Cancel

Again, like most people have already said,that this is a NUCLEAR POWERED carrier. Meaning only the propulsion system is nuclear powered! I can garauntee that the weapon systems on board aren't nuclear tipped. I am sure that everyone on this thread knows to only reason why there is nuclear powered vessels is because of its endurance; a nuclear powered vessal can operate far longer that conventional powered ones. I think the term NUCLEAR is being used a bit loosely.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

  • Nov 11, 2005
Cancel

Considering the US Navy has been operating Nuclear Powered Carriers, Cruisers, and Submarines for at least 40 years with no problems suggests that it is reasonable for one to beleive it is perfectly safe to have them parked offshore.

And considering that a near-peer power such as China is growing in military strength and potentially threaten Japan's economic lifeline; being the seaways. It would make sense having your friendly neigborhood carrier battlegroup stopping by.

The issue has less to do with the safety of a warship such a Nimitz-Class Carrier and more to do with politics...ie Anti-Bush seniment.

Signature
	Image[/img]

  • Nov 12, 2005
Cancel

Quote by griffonConsidering the US Navy has been operating Nuclear Powered Carriers, Cruisers, and Submarines for at least 40 years with no problems suggests that it is reasonable for one to beleive it is perfectly safe to have them parked offshore.

Actually, that is almost true. United States Navy lost two nuclear powered submarines. One submarine was U.S.S. Thresher and the other was U.S.S. Scorpion during the Cold War period. The probable reason given was equipment failure on the submarine. There was a time when U.S. Navy tried to save money by cutting back on maintaining nuclear submarine but the result speak for itself when the subs were lost while out in patrol.

  • Nov 13, 2005
Cancel

This is an odd reaction considering Japan has nuclear power plants. Either these people have an irrational fear of anything nuclear or politics are involved.

Note that the article does not give much detail. Is it most of the residents who oppose this? Some? A minority?

  • Nov 13, 2005

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 30 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.