US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups Toward Korean Peninsula: Media

Donate

US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups Toward Korean Peninsula: Media

Pacific Ocean (May 25, 2005) – The nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) leads ships attached to the Nimitz Strike Group and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in formation during a photo exercise in the Pacific Ocean. The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is currently on a regular scheduled deployment in support of the global war on terrorism. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Shannon E. Renfroe (RELEASED)

The US has ordered in a total of three aircraft carrier strike groups toward the Korean Peninsula, South Korea’s primary news outlet, Yonhap, has reported citing a source in the South Korean government. (LINK)

According to Yonhap, the CVN-76 Ronald Reagan carrier strike group  and the CVN-68 Nimitz carrier strike group will enter the Sea of Japan next week. Meanwhile, the CVN-70 Carl Vinson carrier strike group will arrive South Korea’s coast at the same time (allegedly on April 25).

Yonhap’s source added that the US and South Korea are considering to launch a joint naval drills in the area. This drills will allegedly involve the US carrier strike groups.

If confirmed, the move will further escalate the already tense situation in the Korean Peninsula.

US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups Toward Korean Peninsula: Media

Click to see the full-size map

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Daniel Castro

    Hiroshima&Nagazaki nukes, fukushima radiation leak, now god knows how much nukes DPRK will blow on the sea, and nuclear reactors on those carriers (that certainly are going to enter critical mass at the bottom of the sea…), and then USA counterattack, it seems eastern pacific ocean is going to be a radioactive one…

    • Gryphonne

      Nonsense, NK would first need to find the carrier groups and then find a way to actually sink one, let alone hit one with an ICBM (a feat that only China managed on a static target). The kill-chain to take out a carrier at sea is so long that a country such as NK has no hope of ever coming close. The first and foremost danger is that Seoul and large parts of the South Korean economic hub are destroyed. NK will pose no direct danger to the US other than their casualties in South Korean bases. As much as NK likes to bluster, they are woefully behind in every aspect of technology when it comes to warfare. What they do have however, is a strangle-hold on South Korean land up to 40km from the DMZ and perhaps a dozen or so nuclear weapons ready to strike either South Korea or Japan (if their missiles aren’t shot down first).

      Nuclear warfare policy further dictates that the US would not use (strategic) nuclear weapons unless US soil is directly attacked with nukes. I don’t see them using tactical nuclear weapons either because they have plenty of conventional ones to utterly cripple NK’s anemic infrastructure and contain their army.

      • grumpy_carpenter

        “Nonsense, NK would first need to find the carrier groups and then find a way to actually sink one,”

        China and Russia both have satellites that can track ships at sea including submarines at shallow depth. I don’t know if NK would be given access to this intel or if they even have this technology themselves.

        In 2010 during joint US / SK ASW warfare drills in the waters off SK a SK corvette was sunk …. according to the USA by a NK submarine….in SK waters.

        So NK was able to get a submarine into SK waters during an joint USA /SK AWS warfare drill, sink one of the SK sub hunters and sail away undetected. If accurate, this does not bode well for US carrier groups headed for a nuclear standoff in waters in close proximity to Russia and China as well as NK. If the North Koreans can evade the best ASW warfare assets that the USA and SK have to offer how do you think the Russian and Chinese could do? And I can guarantee that both the Russians and Chinese boats are going to be there for this.

        • Bill Wilson

          They knew all about that sub. They watched it come and loiter around a bit before launching the torpedo and hauling ass home. The US and SK decided not to sink it since that’s what NK wanted done.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Really….so if they saw the sub and tracked it why did they have to go to the trouble of raising the vessel and search the seabed for forensic evidence?

            Why did they have to bring in Russian experts to do an investigation into the cause of the sinking. Why is the Russian theory that it was a US rising mine that sank the boat and not a NK sub still being argues if the USA have conclusive proof?

        • Daniel Castro

          The guy thinks the only way to deploy nukes is through ICBM, it’s pointless to argue…

      • Jesus

        The North Koreans have a lot more mojo despite their obsolete equipment, reminiscent of the equipment capability US encountered in Iraq. Yes it can be easy for US, however, surprises can develop. If Russia or China can share intel with North Koreans subtly, and if their submarines are deployed intelligently, I would say the North Koreans could inflict casualties that are not acceptable to US.

  • Nuno Cardoso da Silva

    It seems the US is providing North Korea with enough targets for their nuclear missiles. The question is whether the North Koreans can target and hit three moving strike groups at sea. Maybe a preliminary nuclear explosion to create an EM pulse over those groups would make things easier. Does the NK have the necessary technology? In any case, if nuclear weapons are going to be used in this confrontation, better to use them out at sea against military targets, so that no civilian victims will occur.

    • Gryphonne

      The answer is: they can’t. The above comments are nonsensical:
      I. These carrier groups will operate so close that a high altitude EM will blind their own systems as well.
      II. You can’t hit what you can’t see and NK does not possess a sophisticated high seas fleet or the command and control that goes with that. Not to mention actually hitting a carrier with an ICBM. And I didn’t even bring up the CEP nor the yield of NK ICBMs yet.
      III. Before anyone brings up NK submarines, I bet the US has a dozen subs operating in the area. At least two or three are used to escort carrier groups in any case.
      IV. Last time I checked, NK’s GDP is 50% of Apple’s revenue, let alone a significant percentage of the defense spending of SK, Japan or the US. Anyone thinking this will not be one sided (except for the destruction of Seoul) is very much mistaken.
      V. Is everyone here praying for nuclear weapons to be used?

      • Fola Obisesan

        I don’t think anyone of sound mind desires a nuclear confrontation between NK and USA. I suppose many people understand that this “crisis” has been manufactured by the Trump Administration to make him look tough and decisive for Americans. USA is economically and militarily superior to North Korea and as you put it, NK’s entire GDP adds up to just 50% of Apple’s revenue yet there is a huge American military build-up in the Korean peninsula with NK as the target. There is no corresponding NK military build up near America neither are there any NK military bases near America’s borders yet your president and his cheerleaders label NK a threat. This position is clearly absurd because there is no law against ballistic missile testing and most normal people understand that it is American threats of military action over the years that have pushed NK down the nuclear path. Obviously NK is no threat to America while America holds NK and the world hostage with their crazy threats against peace.

        • Gryphonne

          First of all, “your president” isn’t factually correct, as he’s not my president :)

          I will agree to most you’ve said however, except for the fact that I think we need less ICBM & nuclear weapons (testing) in the world. No country should be “free” to pursue nuclear weapons and although a pipe dream – I would rather see a world with none. In addition, the US had not pushed NK down the nuclear road. NKs nuclear road started in the 50s already, well before the US started making threats. NK is not a nice country, and Kim is not a nice person, his population is not nicely treated by his government. I abhor all warmongering rhetoric, am however a proponent of Russian intervention in Syria and the Syrian government and in general oppose regime changes because they bring disaster. However, I would not shed a single tear if the NK regime would fall.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “NKs nuclear road started in the 50s already, well before the US started making threats.”

            The US Joint chiefs discussed using nuclear weapons in Korea in July 1950. In November 1950 Truman publicly stated that the USA was considering using nuclear weapons and further stated the decision was up to MacArthur. In December 1950 Gen. MacArthur floated an idea of using radioactive nuclear waste to seal off the NK China border.

            So the USA has been under threat of a US nuclear attack since at least July 1950. Since the Soviets only obtained the A-bomb in Sept 1949 your statement implies the NK nuclear program was running virtually parallel with the Soviet program however the North Koreans didn’t even get a nuclear reactor until 1963.

          • Gryphonne

            Sigh, they were pursuing the idea since the 1950s, the research – the institutional capability if you will. It takes a while to actually get a reactor running. The threat by Truman also only happened when UN forces were nearly pushed out into sea, yet never materialised because MacArthur opposed this. Furthermore, what few people seem to grasp here is the zeitgeist of things, the atomic bomb was new, it’s effects not well understood in a geo-political scope. Are you actually defending the likes of NK where people are made to believe to worship the glorious leaders and their God-children? Even people in the US aren’t thát brainwashed, and their critical thinking capacity has been reduced to pretty much nothing in the past 60 years.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Sigh, they were pursuing the idea since the 1950s, the research – the institutional capability if you will. It takes a while to actually get a reactor running.”

            Your argument is that in the period of the 1950’s BEFORE the USA threatened to use nuclear weapons on them… that would be the FIRST TEN MONTHS OF 1950…. In that period the North Koreans had been busy designing a nuclear weapon ……without even having a nuclear reactor to make fuel? And this is evidence of NK’s intention to attack the USA with nuclear weapons?

            First, since when is scientific research illegal?

            Niels Bohr wrote the theoretical paper describing a nuclear bomb in 1913. The Manhattan project was an international scientific effort by scientists from all over the world funded and hosted by the USA. Without scientists from all over the world and research done mostly outside of the USA there would have been no US bomb in 1945 and then five years later it’s an act of aggression to even do research into nuclear weapons.

            I would love to know how they teach nominally smart Americans such bullshit. Kudos to the architects of America’s indoctrination and propaganda….world class.

          • Gryphonne

            I don’t know *exactly when* in the 50s NK started pursuing

            their nuclear dreams, do you? No? I thought so. And yeah, the UK pursued their own nuclear weapons programme from 1946 without having access to nuclear fuel either – it would take them years to get any. Developing a nuclear bomb is much harder than just browsing the internet for a manual and reproducing that. It requires precise electronics, capable explosives, materials etc. There is much more research involved than just obtaining some nuclear fuel and being ready to go. There is ample evidence when the industrial and scientific base of a country is being geared for nuclear weapons research and subsequent production. In the 1950s it is the equivalent of sending someone to the moon.

            Back then (and they still do to some extent) the US desired a nuclear monopoly, and thus research by any other nation was “illegal”. This is what they called the Atomic Energy Act (1946). Their desire for a nuclear monopoly is obvious in the grand scheme of things and especially during that time; unless you think that every nation in the world should have them?

            I however, argue that it should be illegal for everyone, including the US, to possess such weapons. Nuclear research, with the intent to construct weapons is not a peaceful world-loving endeavour. Possessing them is not an indicator of being a peace-loving nation.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “I don’t know *exactly when* in the 50s NK started pursuing

            their nuclear dreams, do you? No? I thought so”

            You just contradicted yourself. You said

            “NKs nuclear road started in the 50s already, well before the US started making threats”

            I said

            “Your argument is that in the period of the 1950’s BEFORE the USA threatened to use nuclear weapons on them… that would be the FIRST TEN MONTHS OF 1950”

            And now you claim “you don’t know”

            Either you know or you don’t know make up your mind.

          • Gryphonne

            Oh boy, it’s “somewhere in the early 50s”, I don’t know the exact month or day relative to Truman’s threat. Does it matter? Probably not.

            I know that once people start losing an argument they try to get the other party on technicalities, so is it that, or is comprehensive reading difficult for you?

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Not at all and I’m trying to remain polite however your argument that the US threat of using nuclear weapons was justified because NK had a nuclear weapons program prior to US threats of nuclear war is not supported by facts.

            North Korea suffered under Japanese occupation from 1911 until Aug 1945. The only exposure to western culture before the Soviets arrived was in the form of religious missionaries. Did they bring with them the theories of quantum physics prior to 1911? Did they even have an operating university in NK by 1950 let alone a nuclear program? I’ve never seen evidence that Koreans even new what a nuclear weapon was until the USA dropped the bombs on Japan let alone had the capacity to conduct even basic research in physics let alone a nuclear program and even then they had no way of even modelling a nuclear weapon in 1950 without a reactor.

          • Gryphonne

            I never said the US threat of nuclear weapons was justified. So, being polite, where did you get that idea? I am a strong opponent of nuclear weapons but I am interested in constructing a truthful narrative of the entire situation, placed within frames of policy, zeitgeist and geopolitics.

            Just beause NK didn’t have the capacity to build or even research a nuclear weapon back then, does not mean they feverishly wanted one; and in this case their feverish desire was transformed into an actual weapons programme.

            NK was relatively isolated before it got their hands on an actual bomb, there have been plenty of border incidents but tensions were not this high until they exploded their first one. So all the discussion about the 1950s is irrelevant, save for the fact that the US did not “push them down a nuclear road”. Even without the threat, they would have pursued the weapon. Most leaders are fools, but Kim is a madman. Which is why I said, I would not shed a tear if he disappears. But that does not mean I support war or intervention even, and I dislike “nuclear chess”.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Just beause NK didn’t have the capacity to build or even research a nuclear weapon back then, does not mean they feverishly wanted one”

            How do you know what the North Koreans wanted or didn’t want in the period prior to the Korean war? Since when has wanting something been a crime? Since when has acquiring nuclear weapons been an international crime or ballistic missiles either?

            If someone threatens you with a gun is it a crime or somehow unethical to want one for yourself?

            As far as nuclear relations between the USA and NK the USA has adopted a first use policy while NK has adopted a no first use policy.

            The NK official policy is no use of nuclear weapons unless attacked in kind. Leave them be and they won’t use them.

            Now consider the question from the NK side.

            1. The USA is the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons.
            2. The USA used these weapons on civilian infastructure not once but twice.
            3. Even after knowing the horrific effects of the bomb the US threatened Russia (1946) and then NK (1950) with nuclear attack.
            4. The USA currently reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first.
            5. The USA unilaterally abandoned the ABM treaty and did so after the fall of the Soviet union when she thought she had a technological advantage over the Russians.

            Items 4 and 5 point to not only a first use policy but that the USA thinks she can get nuclear primacy and pull off a first strike with impunity. I don’t care how good you believe US intentions are the facts speak for themselves

          • Gryphonne

            I understand your argument, but does that mean that we should allow everyone to have nuclear weapons? Especially a country such as NK. Should we allow Saudi Arabia to have atomic weapons, too? Turkey?

            Again, NK was left alone for decades after the war and was slipping into obscurity until they got their hands on an actual bomb. NK continiuously threatens SK and even fired artillery shells on some disputed island, to say they are pursuing peaceful ideologies is questionable at best.

            Even so, the nation has been crippled by decades of sanctions. Unfortunately, the only ones suffering are NKs non-elite.

            Also, I am not so sure about NKs non first-strike policy. Humans are unpredictable, and a single human at the top of a nation with nuclear weapons who is revered like a God-child even more so.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “I understand your argument, but does that mean that we should allow everyone to have nuclear weapons?”

            And who is the ‘we’ that ‘allows’ anything?

            “Should we allow Saudi Arabia to have atomic weapons, too?”

            According to the Saudi’s they already have one as part of the deal to finance Pakistan’s nuclear program. It was Pakistan who developed NK’s nuclear program btw. Pakistan built their nuclear reactor and NK physicists trained at Pakistani universities. This happened in the 1990’s, loooong after the 1950’s and China did their best to stop it.

            “NK continiuously threatens SK and even fired artillery shells on some disputed island, to say they are pursuing peaceful ideologies is questionable at best.”

            The list of incursions and artillery duels between North and South Korea is endless. North and South Korea are in a state of war….the Korean war never ended so it’s not like one side is at peace while the other attacks…..both sides are at war with each other.

            “Also, I am not so sure about NKs non first-strike policy. Humans are unpredictable, and a single human at the top of a nation with nuclear weapons who is revered like a God-child even more so”

            The same can be said about any nation. You’re only as good as your word and history is full of false flags and broken treaties.

            I have a hard time listening to someone living in a nation where their leader is called “the commander in chief” and is followed everywhere by a guy with a briefcase chained to his wrist ….just in case the dear leader wants to fire off nuclear missiles between the main course and dessert complain about “single human at the top of a nation with nuclear weapons who is revered like a God-child even more so”

            As someone with a wife and kids living in a peaceful country I find this macabre and simply insane….que sera.

          • Gryphonne

            We as in human beings and us as in you and me. Personally I find the possession and urge to pursue nuclear weapons insane. And I don’t care whether it is the US, Russia, Pakistan or whatever.

            However, even I am much more comfortable with the US and Russia having nuclear weapons over countries such as Pakistan and NK.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            In 1946 or thereabouts there was a proposal that the UN take control of existing nuclear weapons and technology and no nation would be allowed to have them including the USA but the USA decided against giving them up.

            To date the USA is the only nation to use them, the one nation that could have irradicated them but refused to give them up and the only nation to unilaterally pull out of a major nuclear arms agreement in the ABM treaty of 1972 and well as having a first use policy.

            The real sad part of this story is if Henry Wallace, who ran for the Democrat ticked in 1948 but lost to Truman, had been elected president no nuclear weapons would be in the hands of individual countries today.

          • Bill Wilson

            I’ll give you one guess why the US vetoed that UN proposal in 1946.

          • Bill Wilson

            You’re full of shit. Truman never mentioned using nukes in Korea. MacArthur wanted to against the Chinese and Truman said Hell No. That pissed MacArthur off, so he started to complain about that to the press and during public speeches. That really hacked off Truman who quickly removed MacArthur from his command and forced him to retire.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “On 5 November 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued orders for the retaliatory atomic bombing of Manchurian PRC military bases, if either their armies crossed into Korea or if PRC or KPA bombers attacked Korea from there. The President ordered the transfer of nine Mark 4 nuclear bombs “to the Air Force’s Ninth Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons … and signed an order to use them against Chinese and Korean targets”, which he never transmitted”. Bruce cummings The Korean War a history pp 289-92

            “During the Berlin Blockade of 1948–49, President Truman transferred several B-29 bombers capable of delivering nuclear bombs to the region to signal to the Soviet Union that the United States was both capable of implementing a nuclear attack and willing to execute it if it became necessary.” Office of the Historian, Department of State, The United States of America.

            “You’re full of shit.”

            What a joke….You call ME a liar while putting your foot in your mouth without even doing a little research to find out the real truth. I’d call you an asshole but I respect some assholes.

          • Fola Obisesan

            NK was totally devastated by US bombing during the Korean war (1950 – 1953). Military targets and civilian infrastructure were bombed relentlessly and devastated by US forces. Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea was almost totally destroyed. Is it so hard for you to imagine how threatening the sight of American carrier battle groups would be to the NK military?

            NK may not be a “nice” country as you glibly put it, but are they supposed to meekly roll over and let their people be threatened or killed by American forces? Kim Jong-Un is probably an unstable buffoon but sensible nations use military action to further some clear and discernible national objectives not some invented security concerns, phony morality or dishonest humanitarian motives. What clear and discernible goal does Trump hope to achieve with this ill-thought show of force? Are the North Koreans deterred or intimidated by Trump’s threats on Twitter?

            Smarter American presidents than Trump avoided direct military action against NK over the years because of the potential disastrous consequences. I do not think Trump’s people have thought this through? This is just cynical macho military posturing by Mr Trump to look like a “boss” for the American people.

          • Gryphonne

            Personally, I think that Trump is just a malleable fool, a puppet if you will. It doesn’t matter what presidency the US has. You vote for a progressive black guy, you get a right-wing neocon policy. You vote for a crazy billionaire, you get a right-wing neocon policy. It’s the machine – which conscripts vast human and material resources – that drives the US. And that machine, is the war machine. And the machine finds this president to be especially easy to control.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            I’ve been trying to figure out US FP for years now. I agree it makes no difference who you elect which begs the question ‘is the USA a democratic state or an authoritarian state in sheep’s clothing’

            It appears the role of the US taxpayer these days is the milk cow to pay for all this shit the USA has going on in the world but to whose benefit?

            Then I hear my own hippy dippy liberal PM tow the US foreign policy line as well as the ridiculous bias of the MSM and I have to believe that none of us in the west have any control over our governance when it comes to what kind of world we live in. There is a deeper guiding hand at work here that we have no control over.

            This latest provocation with 3 carriers steaming for the eastern pacific is either a dare for China and Russia to make a move or a desperate bluff by an indebted empire suffering from an overused and underfunded military. I guess there’s always the just plain stupid scenario but that’s a long shot. At least I hope it is.

          • Gryphonne

            Unfortunately, the Western world has been so indoctrinated for the past 70 years by the idea that the US is the saviour of the civilised world, that it’s not that strange that other Western leaders follow the US. Not to mention, the US is quite simply one of the most powerful nations on Earth; so all the others will follow just hoping to get some of the scraps left behind.

            No need to tell you, but you yourself see the line that MSM takes in favour of the US. Hardly any expenditure is questioned, no dissenter is praised – instead they are pursued as criminals, no-one is held accountable. We did not persecute Bush or Blair when it was so obvious that Iraq was just a big fat war crime and it’s likely that we never will.

            I have no idea what this latest act is supposed to be, but it is a dangerous game. I don’t do conspirary theories, because there is no conspirary; it is merely the way of the world – but if I had to guess, the military industrial complex is in for a golden time with Trump. They can test all their new toys and attempt to assert their Cold War power as the number 1 superpower. But times have changed, and *I think* the MIC fails to realise this. The true purpose of it all eludes me however, as the machine is simply too large, too secret and too complex to comprehend.

      • IH8Lies

        As for point 4 “Anyone thinking this will not be one sided (except for the destruction of Seoul) is very much mistaken.”
        You are assuming that Russia and China allow the US to have it’s way.
        That is a very big assumption, only time will tell and I hope that cooler heads prevail.
        If those 2 get involved the aircraft carrier groups are as good as dead.
        Russian and China both possess carrier killer missiles and we know what happened to the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea in 2014.
        This situation is utter madness.

        • Gryphonne

          It is an equally big assumption to think they will actually do anything. It’s not like Russia, China and NK are best friends. The Chinese are growing wary of their spoiled “child”. Also, I love how everyone thinks it’s “easy” to conduct war. You press a button and boom you blow up a carrier. You do this and this happens.

          The Donald Cook incident is irrelevant, it got buzzed? So what. Tu-95s get intercepted all the time, so what. It’s not wartime.

          An actual conflict between the three superpowers is the last thing I want to see, but if you think it’s “as easy as that”, you should probably stick to computer games instead.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            ” It’s not like Russia, China and NK are best friends”

            You don’t have to be friends to have mutual interests.

            If these reports are true this is the first time since the Vietnam war the USA will have 3 carrier groups close to both China and Russia in the pacific as well as having a carrier group in the littoral waters of the Persian gulf.

            A coordinated strike by Iran, Russia, China and NK could put the USA in a bit of a pickle. To date the USA has been very careful strategically about where she located her carrier groups…..this is the first questionable move in decades.

          • Gryphonne

            I don’t think China and Russia are going to wage world war over NK. Even if they have mutual interests. Now would Russia wage war with the US over Syria? Maybe, they have an actual vested interest there (the deep water port with access to the med). But NK? That takes a real strech of imagination. But hey, you never know.

          • IH8Lies

            Do you really think they want another US base popping up on their borders?
            They have had no major issues with NK and NK has never threatened either of those countries but the US has.
            If this situation goes hot, heaven forbid, SK, Japan, Taiwan and probably Singapore will all be be taken out.
            Why leave US bases and allies in the area?

          • Gryphonne

            Do you think SK and Japan (both US allies) are comfortable with missiles flying over their heads now and again? Especially with nuclear testing being done fairly frequently?

            I can understand their predicament. But yeah, the US should really slim down on foreign bases. Sadly, as they try to re-asser their power as No1 world superpower, I don’t think that will happen. Alas, world peace is not part of human nature; and like the pharmaceutical industry, it’s much more profitable to sell a treatment (enduring conflicts and instability) rather than a cure (abolishing military industry).

          • IH8Lies

            As for missiles flying over their heads that it over the top, sure missiles flew but in international waters.
            Did any of these missiles enter SK or Japanese airspace?
            As for nuclear testing, what is the problem with that as it was underground, I would prefer no testing at all.
            If the Japanese were concerned about radiation, they would have sealed the Fukushima reactor by now, but it appears they don’t give a crap about anyone or the environment.

          • Bill Wilson

            The Japanese govt. is allowing Fukushima residents to move back in. Non of them got sick from exposure to radiation and the radiation level inside the city is now considered to be safe.

          • IH8Lies

            Safe?
            I don’t know what news you are reading, but it appears it’s far from safe a report in February they detected a radiation level of 530 sieverts per hour in the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant.
            According to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, exposure to a mere four sieverts of radiation would typically be lethal for one out of every two people.
            Sounds far from safe to me, but your welcome to holiday there if you trust your news source.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Now would Russia wage war with the US over Syria?”

            Unquestionably no. You can accuse the Russians of many things but give them credit for their strategic smarts and self preservation instinct.

            Read what Putin has said about Russia’s objectives in Syria.

            “Maybe, they have an actual vested interest there (the deep water port with access to the med).”

            Not really, certainly not to the point of starting WW3. The Russian uniquely know what WW3 would look like from their own experience in WW2. Without controlling the Bosporus and the checkerboard nature of Caucasian alliances that now exists between Syria and Russian territory, Tartus will always be vulnerable and the Russians know this. Tartus is only a valuable asset in the Syrian war and at peace.

            “But NK? That takes a real strech of imagination.”

            You don’t understand the NK strategy at all in that case. There was no resolution to the Korean war. NK is in a state of war with SK. What we have here is a Mexican standoff, NK gets attacked and Seoul gets levelled.

            As far as China and Russia attacking the USA I don’t have enough information to do more than guess at their intentions.

            We don’t know what US technologies are real and what are BS and vica versa. For example a preemptive strike to stop the USA from weaponizing space may be on their minds….who knows? All three sides have capabilities and intelligence they don’t reveal but are known to each other. That will be the deciding factor

          • Gryphonne

            Of course Russia possesses strategic smarts, but did Putin not state he would treat the airbase and port as part of Russian soil? And of course Russia would only go to war if the US suddenly attacks Russian soil or personnell directly. It wouldn’t be for attacking a random Syrian airbase on Syrian soil.

            I understand the volatility of the NK/SK situation very well and they are indeed at war still. But that doesn’t mean it’s likely Russia and China will (want to) get involved.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Of course Russia possesses strategic smarts, but did Putin not state he would treat the airbase and port as part of Russian soil?”

            Of course he did, there are Russian soldiers, Russian citizens and Russian equipment there and he’s there at the invitation of the Syrian state.

            Do you think the USA would defend their bases in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia as ‘part of American soil’ or leave the defence of these bases up to the Saudi’s and Afghans?

            “But that doesn’t mean it’s likely Russia and China will (want to) get involved.”

            I don’t think the ‘want’ to get involved but what does ‘want’ have to do with it? There are other reasons for using military force other than ‘want’ in fact the only nation that I see in the world that ‘wants’ war seems to be the USA and allies.

            The big problem with the USA is that you not only don’t fear war but you glorify war and that becomes China and Russia’s problem as well like it or not.

          • Gryphonne

            Well then, does that not prove the statement that Russia would go to war over Syria? That I did not mention the specific circumstances under which this happens, does not make it less true in that case.

            Which is why “want” is encased in brackets :)

            However, I agree to disagree, I just don’t see how Russia and China would risk their economies to have a war over NK. Likewise, even the US would not be stupid enough to conduct war with NK if Russia and China would say it would be a red line for them. The superpowers gain absolutely *nothing* by having war with each other, let alone over NK.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Well then, does that not prove the statement that Russia would go to war over Syria?”

            All it says is Russia would respond with force if attacked in Syria. Nothing more, nothing less. What nation with Russia’s capabilities to defend itself would stand by and let their forces be attacked?

          • Gryphonne

            And this is why I said that only Syria would be something Russia would go to war over. Russia has no such interests that I know of in NK.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Russia has no such interests that I know of in NK.”

            Look at a map. Russia shares a border with NK. When the US carriers are in striking distance of NK they are also in striking distance of Vladivostok and the considerable number of Russian naval and other milatary bases in the Pacific.

            At the Same time:
            NATO are massing combat brigades on Russia’s borders In the Baltic
            NATO are patrolling the Black sea with nuclear capable assets.
            F-35 have been transferred to Europe
            Missile defence batteries are going live in Poland and Romania
            the USA just struck Syria with cruise missiles in response to what is obvious to anyone who know anything about chemical weapons a false flag

            remember these carrier groups are armed with nuclear weapons.

            To put it in perspective imagine in the USA if Russia massed combat brigades, advanced aircraft designed to infiltrate defended airspace by stealth and missile defences on the Canadian borders.

            Patrolled your 12 mile limit on both the pacific and Atlantic oceans with nuclear missile capable destroyers and then sent 3 carrier groups into the Gulf of Mexico as a show of force against Mexico.

            Oh yea I left out the nuclear armed B-52, B-2 patrols 24/7/365 in the arctic.

            Then on top of this you have the constant vilification of Russia in the MSM over the last few years.

            THAT is the danger here not anything at all to do with NK.

          • Gryphonne

            – Russian adventures into Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.
            – Nuclear bombers patrolling.
            – Russian SSBN and SSN activity up dramatically.
            – Russia shares 17km of border with North Korea. It is whoppingly laughable compared to borders it shares with actual NATO states.

            – Nato numbers are “hundreds or thousands” in the baltic states. Wiped away by Russia in the event of a war within hours.
            – Russia patrols the entire Northern Atlantic with nuclear capable weapons and even close to US shorelines.
            – F-35s are of.. questionable capability.
            – The handful of missiles does nothing but agitate Russia and presents 0 strategic advantage against their vast nuclear arsenal.

            I’m not going to argue who started what, when, but neither Russia nor US are sacred. And of course action warrants reaction, but all these things do not translate into some apocalyptic scenario over NK.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            “Russian adventures into Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.”

            Who fired the first shot in South Ossetia (Georgia)?
            Who is actually fighting in the Donbass? Ukrainian rebels or Russians?
            Do you think for a minute the Crimea would ever return to the Ukraine? Where is the resistance movement. The Ukrainians themselves have reported a grand total 22 political prisoners and the total number of military and civilian deaths from this “invasion” was 2. On top of that half the Ukrainian naval servicemen immediately defected to Russia. In US MSM accounts you never hear about resistance, or living conditions in the Crimea because there was no resistance, there is no resistance, the Russians were welcome and there were no casualties. Good luck ever convincing Crimeans to go back to the Ukraine.

            “Nato numbers are “hundreds or thousands” in the baltic states. Wiped away by Russia in the event of a war within hours.”

            What are they there for then? tethered goats?

            “Russia patrols the entire Northern Atlantic with nuclear capable weapons and even close to US shorelines.”

            Yes but not in a way that provokes an armed response. You don’t have Russian vessels practicing attack drills making a run at your naval bases like US ships have been doing at Kalingrad. For fuck sake the MSM nearly went ballistic when a few Russian ships passed through the British channel, imagine if they turned and made a a close run by a British naval base then launched aircraft at the 12 mile limit or practiced ASW warfare like the US navy does.

            “F-35s are of.. questionable capability”
            Not according to the US military they aren’t.

            “The handful of missiles does nothing but agitate Russia and presents 0 strategic advantage against their vast nuclear arsenal.”

            This system is Aegis ashore. It’s the radar system, which they say can look deep into Russia and the fact that the system uses concealed launch boxes. Aegis system can be armed with a variety of missiles including nuclear armed missiles. No one knows for sure what missiles are in those boxes

            “I’m not going to argue who started what, when, but neither Russia nor US are sacred.”

            This is what Americans don’t understand. Russian ARE scared of war. Russians are prepared for war, Russians have fought an existential war the USA in recent memory has not and if you were a student of Russian history THAT should scare you. The USA’s experience of WW2 was completely different from Russias. The war in Russia was NOT fought under the Geneva convention, it was a war of annialation.
            Before the final solution there was the hunger plan in which 30 million Slavs and jews were to be starved to death in the winter of 41- 42.

            Vladimir Putin declared he considers the Trump administration incapable of entering an agreement. That’s extremely strong language for Russian statecraft and means you can’t be trusted at your word. in other words they are expecting an attack by the USA and they are no longer talking but preparing for war.

          • Gryphonne

            Ok, so the US is pure evil and Russia is afraid and the most logical actor in everything. Also, a lot of scaremongering on advertised capabilities of systems that do not even possess that capability. If you can’t construct a proper two sided narrative drawing conclusions out of thin air and hyperboles that reach the stars, then I don’t need to take you seriously.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Do you understand that the US secretary of State knowingly lied in front of the UN in 2003 in order to convince the world that their invasion of Iraq was just?

            Do you realize that waging aggressive war is the most heinous war crime in international law? Even worse than genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

            It’s not like you can claim you country made a mistake and even though the perpetrators got off unpunished the world should forgive you this behavior goes back to the Spanish American war and continues to this day.

            I like Americans. I’ve worked in the USA a lot and I have more friends down there than at home. I’ve always found the Americans I’ve met to be friendly, kind and generous but for fucks sake your country’s foreign policy is reprehensible.

            Russia is Russia, they don’t pretend to be a guiding light for democracy or the indispensable nation. They have authoritarian tendencies in their choice of governments but the majority of Russians agree with that as is their right.

            The USA pretends to be a nation above all others but you are really among the most anti democratic war mongers history has ever known. On the surface you are only slightly anti democratic… at least at home, on the surface ( 2 party system??) but your country regularly overthrows democratically elected governments whose economic policies or way of life you don’t agree with or simply if a country doesn’t sell out to US based corporations. Wall street bankers perpetrated a fraud in 2008 that nearly collapsed the world economy and what did you do? You not only bailed them out and let them take big bonuses out of the bailout but you didn’t change the banking regulations that allowed them to defraud the world in the first place.

            You my friend, as a seemingly progressive that defends this regime are a blind coward as reprehensible as the Germans who claimed they had no idea what the nazis were up to.

          • IH8Lies

            Maybe not a big assumption as you have to look who shares borders with NK.
            As for do I think it’s easy to conduct war, the answer is no. but Russia and China do possess the capability to destroy the carrier groups, if you think these groups are invincible you are sadly mistaken.
            It has been shown that the Russians have the ability to shut down US navy vessels, the Chinese have had subs pop up during US maneuvers and US never knew they were there till they appeared on the surface.
            The carrier killer missile works on paper and tests etc but is unproven in war.

      • Blaine

        That’s the rub, Seoul would get destroyed in an outright confrontation.

        Another fact is China will not stand by while the US conducts a major military operation on their border. They do have the capability to target carrier groups and will not get another opportunity like this one where they might be able to blame it all on NK.

        I have no idea what concessions or other knuckling under Trump expects from NK or China, but when he doesn’t get them what will he have left to do?

        NK could set off a blast on their own side of the DMZ and the fallout would blanket parts of SK. While an attack by USA would be one-sided it would also be madness.

        • Bill Wilson

          The Red Chinese have been fed up with NK for quite some time so wouldn’t mind seeing Kim getting knocked off. Kim’s daddy didn’t trust the Chinese so would only visit Peking riding inside his armored train that had to operated by his handpicked crew with no stops in either direction. Kim thought that was a wise idea and tried to continue the practice. Think the Chinese let him do that a few times before telling him to take a plane like everyone else.

          • Blaine

            The question is, would China stand by and do nothing in the event of a large scale US conventional attack, no matter their relationship with NK?

            Perhaps initially…

          • Bill Wilson

            China reportedly has recently positioned 150,000 troops at their border with NK. I doubt if those are there to assist Kim in repelling an US land invasion or to hold the north while Kim’s zombie army rushes down into the nuked south. I suspect they’re there to serve as a warning to Kim that they could rush in to take control of much of the country if he does anything real stupid, like firing ballistic missiles with conventional warheads at SK.

          • Blaine

            Or they might just be border control and China is prepared to let NK be crushed by a conventional strike, but nothing more. The US is in no position to occupy NK and none of the other countries in the region would want to be saddled with the expense of doing so either.

            Only China is in a position to take over administrative duties but would they? And would China not benefit from the US losing material and prestige in an exchange with NK, especially if that material included a carrier group or two.

            IDK, the situation is way to volatile for me to speculate – I don’t understand any of the deeper currents flowing there.

  • Russell A Wilson

    Seems to me the Carl Vinson is lost at sea. It was supposed arrive off the korean coast two days ago. I guess Trump has been over ridden again by his own Generals or is running away with his tail between his legs. North Korea has shown to the rest of the world why it needs Nuclear missiles for its defense.

  • dmorista

    The USS Ronald Reagan is the carrier that sailed through the radioactive plume from the Fukushima disaster, in the days immediately following the start of that event. Sailors reported a metallic taste in their mouths and hundreds were later sickened and big lawsuits resulted. The ship sat around for a few months while the navy decided what to do with it. Some in the navy suggested that it be taken out into the deep ocean and sunk. Eventually they decided to “clean it up”, I have no idea what happened to the clean-up crews.

    • Bill Wilson

      You’re full of shit. Nothing like that ever happened.

      • dmorista

        You are the one who is full of it here are just 4 of hundreds of articles about what happened. If you know how to read you can enlighten yourself, otherwise see if you can get someone to read them to you.

        “16 US ships that aided in Operation Tomodachi still contaminated with radiation”, Stars and Stripes, MATTHEW M. BURKE March 13, 2016, at

        06 Feb 2014, Peter Lee, “Contamination of USS Ronald Reagan During Fukushima Response Underreported” International Policy Digest at

        “5 Years After Fukushima Accident, 16 Navy Ships Still Contaminated”, in the “U.S. Patriot Tactical”, Mar 22, 2016, at

        “Documents Show the Navy Knew Fukushima Dangerously Contaminated the USS Reagan”, Feb 26, 2014, at

        • Brad Isherwood

          http://enenews.com/
          https://archive.org/download/Rense.20170417/Rense.20170417.3of3.mp3

          Dana Durnford – Radiation over/on America

          The controled media gate keep the extinction level event occuring from Fukushima.
          3 Reactors with over 20 years of spent fuel stored in pool in building roof tier…about 6-8 Reactors Worth in each building.
          All 3 spent fuel pools went up in the explosions…..then the reactors melted thru containment,
          All the water played on these is highly radionic …causing steam…draining into
          The Pacific. …becomes death rain.
          Over US in 3 days. ….45 days by ocean current……continuall

          • dmorista

            Yes, certainly the most disastrous industrial accident in human history, and an event that is far from over. BTW American reactors of the same design (there are 23 of them) have spent fuel pools that are several times larger than those at Fukushima. And the failure of these reactors, was caused by the failure of the backup power system (criminally located in the basements of buildings in an area known to suffer from Tsunamis and without even snorkels); a year later two reactors in the U.S., located in the Missouri River, were nearly flooded and only high sandbag walls kept the water out. Whether their back up generators would have worked after a flood is uncertain.

          • Brad Isherwood

            Yes….if US got hit by EMP,….these many nuclear reactors have back up power
            For only a few days…..then it’s Fukushima, Chernobyl x Over 50
            We might have just killed ourselves via nuclear industry and MIC.
            From Down Ranger outcomes US above surface nuclear tests to late 40,s
            Nuclear sites. …the US public have been dosed continually for decades.
            The health industry feeds off of the myriad immune system failures, ..
            Ka Ching!.. $$

          • dreamjoehill

            Read you comment on truthout regarding Alex Jones. Couldn’t respond there as I’m banned :(

            Pretty good analysis. Jones also did some good work around exposing the Bohemian Grove and Bilderberg Group. He also exposed the fact that the Aurora Batman, the movie theater killer worked for a college receiving financing from Darpa, as did the killer’s father. Both father and son were into developing computer human interface that would allow a computer to project images into a human mind.

          • dmorista

            Yes, and back in those days I thought of Alex Jones as the kind of right-winger that the left probably needed to cooperate with in opposing the imperialist wars that the left, by itself, seems powerless to stop; you know the Rand Paul sort of libertarians, but they are such a bunch of snakes that I have given up on that. He used to have Webster Tarpley on for interviews as well. Later I heard he embarrassed himself with some crazed ranting and raving outside of a Bilderberger meeting while competent hard-working left leaning independent journalists were quietly probing to dig up more information (I think I heard about that on “The Politics Show” with Tony Gosling a couple of years ago). He always went off on fairly insane monologues about the 2nd amendment.

            Jones started out on a small weak AM station in Austin,Texas that couldn’t even broadcast to the whole city, just North Austin. Right wing media types who can talk to the “common man/woman” are plucked up by the billionaire noise machine and supported.

            You should establish a new moniker and comment again on TruthOut, your input is sorely missed.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            …even if the backup generators flooded, the reactors and generators could keep up, powering themselves and the grid. No problem. If the site had all reactors shut down and the diesels flooded, power from the grid would keep things cool. If the grid was out, generators could be trucked in … the damage that Japan’s earthquake and tsunami wreaked, prevented all of those alternatives from cooling the Fukushima reactors.

      • slorter

        How do you know Bill?

    • Rexx Vernon Shelton

      The $1 billion lawsuit filed by the sailors against Tokyo Electric Power. Not the Navy:

      Many of the sailors are already suffering devastating health impacts, but are being stonewalled by Tepco and the Navy.

      The Reagan had joined several other U.S. ships in Operation Tomodachi (“Friendship”) to aid victims of the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami.

      http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2300846/the_us_navy_knew_fukushimas_hard_rain_on_uss_ronald_reagan.html

  • Brad Isherwood

    South Korea has a Presidential election on May 9, after the impeachment and dismissal of incumbent Park Geun-hye.

    China has significant investments in South Korea.
    US ,Japan, have interests on numerous levels.
    Trump may be beating the war drums to continue present status of all things Empire in
    South Korea.
    During Teddy Roosevelt 1907-1909 Great White Fleet …..Korea was brought into US sphere of influence Via Japan.
    Korean leaders were told any political issues regarding The US would be sent thru
    Japanese political channels.
    Lots of abuse and betrayal in this history. ….
    Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam experienced the game to.

  • william serrahn

    The Donald wanted to make a stand against NK but found that nearly the entire U.S. Navy was awol with nearly all of her big expensive carrier groups unavailable or in home port. Had to reroute those sailors in the CV task group from their expectations of meeting compliant Aussie girls to NK because the Reagan was laid up in it’s home port in Japan. I can just hear Trump having a hissy fit with his admirals over the situation.