Reference, Questions and Help > Lessons Learned

Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima

(1/4) > >>

thenukeman:
I went to a presentation concerning Fukishima and the help provided by the United States.  A interesting note was Army Nukes versus Navy Nukes.  My understanding was that the Navy Nukes help was not helpful and the Army Nukes were very helpful.  I basically stated that makes sense because Navy Nukes work in mostly pristine conditions on subs and aircraft carriers and anything above that they are not used to dealing with properly.  Army Nukes train with the worst case scenario with multiple nukes going off and dealing with that.  So it makes sense that the navy  nukes would not be that useful in this situation and Army Nukes would be alot more helpful.  Any other thoughts on this?  Not to flame on this and please do not NUKE my KARMA just putting out what was presented.  One story was the Navy trying to frisk out a bus back and forth.

Gamecock:
Really?? ::)

thenukeman:


Not making this up.  I believe a unbiased person was giving a perspective on what help was provided by the USA.  Just saying what he said, Really Really!!

hamsamich:
Maybe if all navy nukes only worked right after they got out of the navy for a year, then yeah, ok.  Most navy nukes who are RP techs have loads of other experience since getting out of the navy, sometimes working with really nasty stuff.  I feel silly pointing this out, but wow, come on.   :o

thenukeman:
I agree Hamsamich.  I believe  a 5 year RP Tech or RSO who was a Navy Nuke  would have been great in this.  One just off the boat or sub, not so much.   I believe they got them right  off the boat and they did not have the right perspective in this.  Just my opinion.  Army training with high contamination, decon, fallout predictions, aerial surveys etc, would seemed to be more helpful in this situation.   Gamecock, I  noticed John Wayne as a Marine.  The Marines ( the Navy's Army) are trained by the US Army in Nuclear warfare at the Army School when I served.    Probably more practical training for use in incidents such as Fukishima.  


Here is A wiki  of the training.  

Training Facilities
 
The Army CBRN School provides numerous courses for officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Initial Entry Soldiers, ranging from highly technical to the more general in nature. Numerous international officers also send students to train at the CBRN School. Additionally, the US Air Force, US Navy, US Coast Guard and US Marine Corps all also maintain training elements at Fort Leonard Wood who, in partnerships with the Army CBRN School, train their personnel in CBRN operations.
 
Fort Leonard Wood and the Army CBRN School have world-class facilities in which to conduct training. Perhaps the most famous[citation needed] is the Chemical Defense Training Facility (or CDTF) where military students from across the globe train and become familiar with actual nerve agents in realistic scenarios, and also conduct training with radiological isotopes and inert biological agents. The Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Teaching Laboratories is one of the very few radiological teaching laboratories licensed by the NRC in the Department of Defense. It provides a variety of training in radiological and nuclear defense under the supervision of credentialed scientists.
 
The newest facility at the CBRN School is the Lieutenant Joseph Terry CBRN Training Facility. Opened in November 2007, The 1LT Joseph Terry Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Responder Training Facility occupies approximately 22.5 acres (91,000 m2) and provides a state-of-the-art CBRN Responder Training Campus for Inter-Service and other Agencies as requested. The US Army CBRN School is the lead for all DoD CBRN Response Training. This facility provides unmatched training opportunities in the fields of CBRN Consequence Management, Hazardous Materials Incident Response, Realistic training venues and other CBRN Response arenas as required. The CBRN School also provides training in Sensitive Site Assessment and Exploitation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version