Here is another strange item from Garynorth.com

The Department of Defense is on "full alert". We are worried about attacks around the world. The job of the navy is primarily off our shores, yet 10 of 12 carriers and 89% of subs and 3/4 of other ships are in port. Very reassuring.

Just food fot thought.

******

Military Date: 1999-12-21 07:15:57 Subject: Why Are 10 of the 12 U.S. Aircraft Carriers in Port as of December 20? Comment: Maybe this is normal at Christmas. Maybe not. I am open to suggestions.

The United States has 12 aircraft carriers.

The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy is the the Arabian gulf.

The U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is in the Pacific.

The rest are in port. So are almost three-quarters of our other ships, including 89% of our submarines.

"Speak softly, and keep your big stick at home." -- Teddy Koskinen

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), December 21, 1999

Answers

Hey, all those sailors are probably going to be used as extras to help out the army, Marines and NGs. Well, probably not....but for you historians out there, Admiral Doenitz "volunteered" 12,000 sailors to help defend greater Berlin from the Russians during the last days of WWII.

-- impala (impala@wild.com), December 21, 1999.

"Comment: Maybe this is normal at Christmas. Maybe not."

I have no idea if it's normal, either. But, it surely could not have been too difficult to find out...

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), December 21, 1999.

Actually, this is interesting intel. Many of the ship, for that matter all of them utilize solid-state imbedded chip technology in their navigation systems. Very few of those big boys were built in the past 5 to 10 years. Wonder if they know something...hmmm. Havta check with my Squid-Bros and see what they say...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 21, 1999.

My youngest son is aboard the JFK and I know that she is a conventional powered ship. The Kitty Hawk I think, is also conventional. What gnaws at my mind is: If there is going to be an oil crunch, why field ships that depend on oil? The only reason I can think of is that being oil burners and much smaller than the nukes, they are permitted to enter ports and harbors that the big guys cannot. Maybe they will be relegated to evacuation duty or some such thing. If the crew and evacuees "hot beds" every 8 hrs, they could concieveably take on 10,000 passengers.

Bill in South Carolina

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), December 21, 1999.

Bill just wants to make sure his friends get most on the first go around.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 21, 1999.

Just checked with a correspondent who is a Navy vet and a computer contractor on a naval base. He will have to remain anonymous. Here is his response to my question as to whether this was normal:

No. Anything but normal. My opinion is that the CNO (Chief Naval Officer?) is mouthing compliance, etc, etc., and hedging bets by keeping as much inventory in port as possible to prevent any chance of losses at sea due to embedded chips.

Also, FWIW, recieived this from him yesterday:

I had to explain last Thursday to the CIO of a Naval Installation what an embedded chip is, how it works, and how it could fail.

The little pieces are filling in the picture puzzle people. I don't like what I see, but there it is.

You make your own interpretations.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), December 21, 1999.

CNO = Chief of Naval Operations. I.O.W., a really big cheese in charge of all navy boats planes ect. This is not good....

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 21, 1999.

With 3 count them 3 shots you could take out 5/12 aircraft carriers and all the Ballistic Missile Subs (Deterrence???) in port. With a grand total of 6 shots you can double the lost aircraft carriers and through in the fast attacks. And get this you don't have to use nukes to do it. It would be like Pearl Harbor but we would lose most of the aircraft carriers.

If the attack took out most of our "threat projection" capability but not any "major" cities, do you think Bill would counter with our cities held hostage? Do you think our European "allies" would rally to our defense?

This is as close to criminal treason that I have ever seen. Wonder how many Russian subs are tied up next to the pier?

If any alphabet agencies are monitoring this how about at least dropping the shore power and maintaining crews on-board. If the Russians jumped the threat level we would not have the hours it would take to bring the reactor critical, drop the shore power and prepare to get under way before it would be all over.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 21, 1999.

I may be mistaken, but believe that the JFK is a Nimitz class carrier, and if so, it is a nuclear powered ship.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.xnet), December 21, 1999.

If this report is true, it would certainly appear that our Red President is inviting a nuclear attack, and doing everything in his power to ensure that it will succeed. First he announces that we will no longer respond upon launch of enemy missiles, but wait until they impact to decide if we want to retaliate, a policy ensuring that most of our missiles will be destroyed in their silos.

Then he orders most of our nuclear missile subs into port where they can be easily destroyed, and makes sure that information about their whereabouts is readily available. Thus a nuclear sneak attack by Russia under cover of a Y2K glitch in early January would destroy most of our ability to retaliate, since many of our strategic bombers would undoubtedly be destroyed on the ground, and those B52s that were not would have precious little chance of making it to targets over Russia, lacking stealth technology.

In one shot we would go from being the 'Lone Superpower' to being a vassal state of Russia, exactly where our Red President and First 'Lady' want us to be. I'm fairly alarmed here.

-- Tom Knepper (kneppert@symbol.com), December 21, 1999.

Squid - I'm in total agreement with your recommendation. Our men and women abourd those boats and ships deserve a lot better than be used as sitting ducks for the politicos games.

My brother did a tour aboard the USS Skipjack, a nuke fast attack boat. One time I made the comment to the effect that "Guess y'all are glad to put your feet back on solid ground every now and then. His resposnse caught me off-guard ... "HELL NO!!! We always hate being in port. At least when we are out ... we KNOW what is going on around us, and if and what is coming at us. Tied up next to our tender tho, we are 'supposed to be' blind, deaf, and dumb!"

He went on to explain a few things that I shan't repeat here. I know what it's like to get waken up by unexpected things that go boom in the middle of the night.

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 21, 1999.

The nuclear reactors on these ships can be tied to the land based grid to supply power in an outage.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), December 21, 1999.

Me too Tom. If you look at the whole record of Bill Clinton as reguards nuclear defence, the conclusion is inescapeable that he is either a total idiot or a traitor. The Cuba missile crisis was no more threatening than our current situation, and robably quite a bit less so. At least we had the ability to respond then.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 21, 1999.

December 7 1941

A Day that will live in Infamy!

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), December 21, 1999.

Oh good grief, here we go again. One writer asks how many Russian subs are tied up to the piers. Answer: nearly all. The Russian navy isn't ready to patrol its own borders, much less make global war. I live in Jacksonville, a big navy base. The big P-3 Orion subhunter planess thunder overhead constantly, seeking out Soviet subs off our Atlantic seaboard. Oops! Make that used to thunder overheaad constantly. It's pretty quiet now. Is this lack of business due to our effort to leave ourselves defenseless? No -it's because there are so few dang Russian subs out there anymore! (Info given me by navy people here). Further, the US Government is privy to lot more intelligence, thnaks to the CIA, NSA, etc., than any of us are. Can you possibly entertain the idea that they know we have no Russian threat to worry about? Folks, the Russians are in a bad way -yes they are a nuclear power. No, they don't want war. Fact is, they never wanted it any more than we did -but I won't open that can of worms, because the crazies aren't interested in any view of Russia other than "the Red Terror".

-- tom (2theman31999@aol.com), December 21, 1999.

Tom (the last one);

Its disappointing that what you say, the most 'optimistic' comment so far, is also the most idiotic. Who told you the Russians have fewer subs? It may even be true numerically, but their nuclear forces (land based ICBMs, ship launched, and sub launched)are as large as ever. And your analysis of the Russian ideology falls way short.

The fact is we don't have a Navy just to keep 90% of it in port (in any realistic scenario). So whats up? I don't know, but your "everything is beautiful, the Russians are powerless" is the least believable.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), December 21, 1999.

tom

I'm only a couple miles down river from Mayport myself.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), December 21, 1999.

If you look at the whole record of Bill Clinton as reguards nuclear defence, the conclusion is inescapeable that he is either a total idiot or a traitor.

I personally believe that he is a traitor. Hillary has been openly linked with Communist-front organizations, but the rapist has kept his friendship with Moscow and Beijing more under wraps. But there is that 'antiwar' mission to Moscow that has never been explained. And we know that Bejing has been financing him for years.

One possible nightmare scenario: 1. While our Russian 'observer' assures us that these blips are merely a Y2K glitch, a sneak attack takes out our silo-based missiles, most of our 'boomer' subs, military installations, naval ports, and airports with military usefulness. Thanks to the rapist's laid-back nuclear defense posture, we make no response.

2. An ultimatum from 'Boris' or whoever is propping him up at the moment assures us that with one press of the button, he can vaporize 100 million of our population, and there is nothing we can do to stop him.

3. The President has fled, and whoever has replaced him realizes that Boris is right. The small number of our nuclear missiles that have escaped destruction cannot possibly turn the tide of this conflict, especially since many of them will be intercepted by Russia's ABM system. The price for using them will be the annhililation of a good portion of our population.

4. We surrender, without having fired a shot.

5. How do you say 'Happy New Year' in Russian?

-- Tom Knepper (kneppert@symbol.com), December 21, 1999.

Tom:

You are certainly hopeful in your thoughts. The talk about the crews normally getting Holidays off, Hhhhmmmm care to guess how many Holidays I spent under the surface? Clue, more than one. At least half of the ballistic missile subs were on patrol at all times. Not in the port, not on R & R. Also the missiles today can be fired from Vladivostok, but again since you are so sure I ask How Many Russian Subs including the their newest (with the most missiles) are at sea? I would not base the defense of this country on your wishful thinking. Sounds almost like the military impaired administration.

-- Squid (ItsDarker@down.here), December 21, 1999.

Mr. Knepper,

Above, you alluded to Clinton having already stated publicly that the U.S. will not respond to a nuclear strike on its soil until the bombs have actually landed. Did I understand you correctly? I would certainly be grateful if you would provide the source to support this.

Thanks A long time lurker

-- (ALongTimeLurker@ThisForum.com), December 21, 1999.

Joel Skousen is one who talks about PDD-60, which I admit gets scant coverage by our national 'news' media, otherwise known as the controlled press. Link is: www.xsw.com/worldbrief/wabback2.htm I copied part of his backgrounder. I was also stunned when I first heard about PDD-60; I didn't think we could possibly be that stupid.

Launch on Warning takes advantage of the fact that long range ballistic missiles take time to arrive on target--up to 25 minutes depending on where the missiles are fired from. If the Russians were to launch a first strike, our satellites would detect and confirm that launch within seconds. In a launch on warning doctrine, our missiles (if on alert status) could be launched before the Russian or Chinese missiles hit our silos. There is also time to retarget our missiles so that they are not wasted on Russian silos that are now empty. Thus, one of the great advantages for a launch on warning doctrine is that it allows the nation who launches second to have an advantage over the nation who launches first. The one to launch first wastes a certain number of their missiles on our silos which are now empty. Whereas, our missiles (utilizing real time targeting data from satellites) strike targets that are still viable. Now, that is deterrence--a deterrence that we presently do not have due to PDD-60. National Security Advisor Robert Bell proudly proclaimed to a group of disarmament advocates, "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning--to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence." (emphasis added).

This is patently preposterous. Respond with what? We have no mobile missiles to avoid being targeted. We have already unilaterally agreed to keep over half of our ballistic missile submarines in port at any one time, so they can easily be targeted. After all, we don't want our Russian "allies" to feel insecure! All of our Navy and Air Force strategic forces are incapable of withstanding a nuclear strike. Even the remaining trident subs on patrol would be unable to respond when communication links and satellites are downed in a first strike. PDD-60 removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communications with the President. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. When you tell the Russians we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond. This is not deterrence. This is suicide.

-- Tom Knepper (kneppert@symbol.com), December 21, 1999.

An update from my correspondent:

It is normal to bring as many ships in as possible for morale for the marines and sailors. Everyone wants to be home for Christmas of course. It is not normal to have this many ships in port. Perhaps 3 to 4 of the carriers, 30 to 40% of the rest of the ships. My best guess is that they are keeping as much of their assets in port as possible for two reasons.

First, they don't want to needlessly risk losses at sea because they may have been wrong about embedded chips. Second, in the case of the carriers, it has been proported that the carriers nuclear power plants are being connected to the Eastern Seaboard's power grid to supply emergency power - don't know.

As you know the CNO stated that the Navy was fully compliant - 100% a few days ago. Yet they continue to use a system called MDS (Message Distribution System) which is a DOS based system and KNOWN to be noncompliant. This MDS system is used to transmit critical information throughout the Navy. Yet the MDS system is still in use and the Navy is compliant.

Sorry. I don't think so.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), December 21, 1999.

I never served in the military, and don't know anyone who has served in the Navy in the last 15 years. Therefore, I have no clue whether this is normal or abnormal activity, and what it might be an indicator of.

However, it seems to me a double standard is being applied here. I've seen a great deal of ranting that the United States is going to be particularly vulnerable to attack around 1/1/00 and that we must defend ourselves. Then, when the Navy pulls in to be close to home (and presumably in a good position to defend our shores directly), folks go nuts! Which is it? Do we want the ships on their normal patrol routes doing business as usual where they could be days away from home, or do we want them right here to stick up for us when the bullies come knocking? Pick one position, but not both.

This has happened frequently during the Y2K discussions here on a number of topics. Anything not immediately understood is declared to be 2K related, evil, a conspiracy, the result of "spin" or in some other way the wrong thing to do no matter what it is or how it relates to other statements already made. Now that rollover is upon us, this is a really lousy time to continue with knee-jerk reactions to events and information, whether it is to ignore them as trivial or to assume that they are signs of disaster.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), December 21, 1999.

Paul, "The closer to defend our shores..."

Uhhh...this's the 20th Century Paulie. I'm not flaming you, not hard anyway. Really. We don't want our ships close to home for the rollover. It is just that tactically and strategically speaking, this is an insane plan. Upwards to 90% of American Immeadiate Retaliatory Strike capability is on those ships. Including nukes. If we lose those boats, It'll be years before we can even think of doing anything abroad again. (When come to think of it...not a bad idea...)

The other issue, of 'Surrendering to the Russians without firing a shot'. Never happen. Remember Red Dawn? There is just no way to Russkies could pull this kind of thing off. Ten to fifteen years ago, maybe. But not now. Ivan's only concern is lining his pockets with cash and decadence. Unless the entire country (USA) was disarmed (not bloody likely!) then every person with a weapon would be a potential guerrilla/combat troop. The Russians are even getting the piss stomped outta them in Chechnea. Don't get all nervous...yet.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 21, 1999.

Current CV and CVN locations available at: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/where.htm

-- Jcl Jockey (WeThrive@OnStress.com), December 21, 1999.

Maybe, just maybe, the Navy wants the carriers in port in case Bill Gates and some other billionaires decide they want to buy one and turn it into their Y2K yacht on rather short notice. After all, Gates is in Australia checking out one of his buddies former Navy warship- to-yacht convesions.

Besides, wouldn't Gates have enough room for all his buddies to fly their helicopters in for parties if he had something like the Nimitz or Enterprise?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), December 21, 1999.

And people have called ME a troll for daring to start a thread here and there suggesting that the Russkies are going to nuke us. Look at the info above. I wouldn't be suprised if Bill Klintoon had big targets printed on the ships and subs. Wake up, you DWGI's about the real possibility of having a nuke in your front yard before the new year. Y2K supplies do not nuke proof you. There is going to be a cataclysmic attack on the US SOON.

-- We're Toast (itwasnicewhile@itlasted.com), December 21, 1999.

All the nuclear carriers are in port. The JFK (CV-67) is a conventional carrier, having been built and named prior to the development of the Nimitz (CVN-68) and the twelve other nuclear carriers, most of which bear presidential monickers (Eisenhower, Truman, Reagan, etc.)

The Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is currently homeported and forward-deployed in Japan. She just wrapped up a joint exercise (FOAL EAGLE) with South (a.k.a., the Republic of) Korea.

Given that these are the only carriers out of port, we are not really "projecting force" at all, which is very, very unusual.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), December 21, 1999.

Tom (2theman) said: "Further, the US Government is privy to lot more intelligence, thnaks to the CIA, NSA, etc., than any of us are..."

I'm LOL. The CIA was caught completely off guard by the collapse of the Soviet Union and didn't have a clue until the slaves began to punch through the Berlin Wall with sledge hammers. Maybe this is not entirely the fault of the CIA. I suspect that they have been defunded until they or quite the shell of their former substance.

With this administration of socialists and Bill's penchant for fornication with the Red Chinese military it wouldn't matter what clues the CIA had. Bill and his one worlders are hell bent on disarming America and bringing her down.

Hello, U.S. military, if you are reading this, I am a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have seen the nuclear mushroom clouds and the conventional surprise attacks by planes against this country. This is what happens to nations who become a stinch in God's nostrils. This is what happens when we turn our back on Almighty God and make for ourselves idols and say in our heart, "their is no God". This is what happens when we commit government-encouraged and government- sanctioned infanticide by the millions every year until now we are selling little baby body parts that we harvest in the process. It's so disgusting I want to heave. This is what happens when we turn to our own ways and mock the Commandments of God and ban them from our schools and courts of law.

May God have mercy on us.

Oh by the way, when China attacks, America will be powerless to defend and our feminized military will have zero morale.

Romans 8:31 "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" but if God be against us ...

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), December 21, 1999.

"This is what happens when we turn our back on Almighty God and make for ourselves idols and say in our heart, "their is no God"."

should be "there is no God".

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), December 21, 1999.

The Russians can't even take Chekneya, yet they are going to take the U.S.? You guys are nuts.

-- Freethinkr (ima@nut.com), December 22, 1999.

freethinkr:

For what it's worth, I don't see any conflict between the U.S. and China/Russia until 6 months to 2 years (or more). Much will change. Don't look at what you see now. Look at the writing on the wall. Look at the trends. Besides what God has revealed to me, what I see with my earthly eyes and evaluate with my God given brain I'm not real encouraged. The U.S. is on this downward socio/economic spiral and moral free fall.

Of course anything is possible. Major conflict could break out sooner but I don't see it.

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), December 22, 1999.