Our esteemed and honorable reptilian overlords anticipated this, but decided the timeframe was too slow even from their long view perspective. Hence the beams and anti-gravity and the utter suppression of the news media about reporting this.
I can only thank my lucky stars that I found a friend within the ranks of the reptiliods. Otherwise, this would be utterly nonsensical.
Well, the number of Russian submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and the submarines that launch them (SSBNs) is fixed by treaty and cannot change. The Chinese are probably building more SSBNs, but as of a few years ago had only ONE, and it demonstrated embarassing depth-control problems.
More to the point, San Diego would be a strategic target even if there were no military facilities located there at all. One main tenet of nuclear weapons targeting is to hold the potential adversary’s populations under threat. In any sizable exchange, San Diego will get a warhead (or several) regardless of the Navy’s presence.
The only way to change that is to move enough people out of San Diego that it becomes too small to bother attacking.
I see the mistake I have made in saying “Have you heard” or “is this just a rumor”
This board requires you to dot your eye’s and cross your tee’s …
“I wonder if it would beneifit the population of San Diego, California (some four million people in the area) if the United States Naval Base now presently located in San Diego were to close down and all of it’s ships and men and supplies transfered to another area more strategic to fighting the real threat of a nuclear first strike/sneak attack to the fleet stationed in San Diego?”
I had to look it up too and I am on dial-up with the only results being a pizza place in Alaska or the country of Ireland.
I realized in the OP that there was no port in Alaska that could hold a fleet of that size and so stated the fact as so.
Sailboat is one of the few that made sense in his reply …
Let’s stop being silly that this thread has anything to do about moving an entire city from one place to another, when the real subject is the lives of a few million people that live in San Diego.
as for the known enemies of the United States that could or would launch a first strike/sneak attack would be Russia or China.
Russia has the ability to reload the ICBM’s silo’s and America does not, the submarines do not launch all of their missiles at the same time, but only a few and make a run for another area to launch the rest.
The hot line would already be burning hot to give up or we will launch the rest of our mobile and submarine missiles and by now reloaded ICBM silo’s.
Would the President of the United States give in to save the rest of the population that has not been already blown to smitherians?
The Artic circle has become the next war zone for submarine launched missiles from the top of the world they can reach every city in North America.
The threat of war is real … why not be ready?
This would take years to do of course with conferences and the openess of America we could never keep it secret.
Turn the bases into federal reserves for ex-military and government employees to enjoy their retirement years.
San Diego would be better off … the red dots for south California would disappear for first strike/sneak attack and if you move Beal Airforce base (home of the Strategtic Air Command) near Sacramento in northern California there would be no targets left.
Make fun of it or see the benefits …
PS I love San Diego, California and have many friends there … I love America too, but this is about the truth of a few million peole being better off without the US Navy (which I also love)
As noted above, San Diego is toast in a nuclear exchange whether or not the Navy is there. It’s one of the finest, if not THE finest anchorage on the West Coast. And the 8th largest city in the country. So you are proposing spending trillions of dollars to reduce the threat to a city not one iota. In fact, moving the Navy would cripple the city for the next 100 years or so.
Have you heard of chess? Have you heard of “Yamantau”
Yes it is feesible … have you heard of the budget battles to reduce cost? have you heard of bases closing all over America?
Have you ever been in the naval war college room in Rhode Island?
San Diego would not suffer … the civilan shipyards would not suffer. Having a new International airport at North Island would not suffer. Tourism would not suffer. The only thing that would suffer is a bunch of stuffy old admirals that like I do, love San Diego.
The War College?? What have they got to do with anything in this topic? Are you saying that the NWC in Rhode Island can “game out” a reduced cost move to Alaska? Really?
Despite losing 1/4 to 1/3 of it’s employment/job dollars? (see cite above, which does not include civilian jobs needed to support the civilian population moved, like supermarkets, police, fire, teachers…)
They are a strategic target themselves. Period. Even without the Navy. shipyard
I am not so sure as you that the citizens of Coronado would want the NAS to become a busy International Airport.
So?
Nobody, but nobody, has argued that the military needs to stay where it is to protect tourism.
The reality is they are moving Alaska to California, since there is a lot less snow in California and the Alaskans are sick of snow. They are unsure what to do with the moose and caribou, though…
