| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Back To Guam |
| 2004-01-13 |
| The Air Force wants to return to the Cold War-era practice of basing fighter jets and other strike and support planes on Guam, the Pacific island that is in ready striking distance of the Korean peninsula, the Air Force’s top officer in the region said Tuesday. While no final decisions have been made to add air power in the Pacific, the Air Force has made the case for basing a variety of aircraft on Guam, a U.S. territory that generally welcomes an expanded military presence, he told reporters in a wide-ranging interview. Jobs = $$$$ Aircraft and other U.S. offensive forces that had been based on Guam during the Cold War were withdrawn during the 1990s defense budget cuts and drawdown of U.S. military capabilities worldwide. A few years ago the Air Force began building up the infrastructure on Andersen Air Force Base, the main air base on Guam, including stockpiling large amounts of munitions. Most of the base buildings were totally rebuilt after the 1998 typhoon. In 2002, the Navy based two attack submarines at Guam, the USS San Francisco and the USS City of Corpus Christi, and it plans to add a third this year. The Navy also is considering basing an aircraft carrier there. Begert mentioned basing a fighter wing on Guam as well as air refueling aircraft, the new unmanned Global Hawk spy plane, and long-range bombers like the B-2 stealth bomber, for which special air-conditioned hangars were positioned there last year before the start of the Iraq war. These are "very attractive kinds of options that in today’s world, with the importance of Asia in this century, all make good sense," he said. Begert noted that last spring the Air Force deployed B-1 and B-52 long-range bombers to Guam temporarily. Begert also pointed out that Guam is about 1,500 miles from the Korean peninsula and a similar distance from the Taiwan Straits, which is a potential flashpoint for conflict with communist China. Another big plus is that we own it, don’t have to get permission before we go up aside someone’s head. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #12 Old Patriot, I could be wrong but I think the Micronesia Trust Territory has gone its own way. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-13 10:04:24 PM |
| #11 Was it Guam where God's own bomber got the BUFF monicker? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-13 8:38:52 PM |
| #10 That said, I would LOVE to see the US presence return to the Philippines, Hell, OP wants to see another landing on Leyte. :> |
| Posted by: Mr..V. Braun 2004-1-13 7:34:18 PM |
| #9 Problem is, Guam's a small place. We need to spread out. Guam has about as much as it can hold with one airbase, a naval port, and a small army contingent. We do have other options in the Pacific, and I thing we should use them. Truk, Palau, Micronesia, etc., are all former Trust Territory of the Pacific territories, currently under US protection. I don't think basing a wing or two of US fighters there would upset them terribly, especially with the additional hard currency it would provide. The problem is, these places are in a tropical climate, and that's not good for airframes, personal belongings, and most other manufactured things. That said, I would LOVE to see the US presence return to the Philippines, and for the US and Australia to set up a joint operating force in the western end of a liberated, democratic New Guinea. The other options would be "liberating" New Caledonia and French Polynesia from the French in retaliation for supporting Iraq against the United States. Of course, that might upset the French enough they might even declare an embargo against the US, or, even worse, keep forcing the idiotic pro-French |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-13 7:00:09 PM |
| #8 I would imagine the thinking behind basing a fighter wing there would be 1)It's a couple thousand miles closer than being based at Nellis,Mountain Home,Hill,etc.That's several dozen aerial refuelings that don't have to be made,as well as time saved getting you close to active theatre. 2)You don't have to worry about increasingly scarce a/c being caught on ground by NK sudden attack. 3)You can dogfight to your hearts content w/out noise restrictions or intruding civil a/c. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-13 6:45:05 PM |
| #7 Good for tankers maybe... but fighers? Jeez that's a big ass ocean. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-13 5:47:06 PM |
| #6 I agree 100% with this idea. Pull the troops out of South Korea and Okinawa and build up Guam as the forward positioned base. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-13 3:14:01 PM |
| #5 YS - B-2 and B-1 speeds are listed as "high sub-sonic", that's around 500 mph, so 3 hours is about right. B-2 has a un-refueled range of 6,000 miles, so that's a piece of cake. Anon - Yes on the snakes, they've pretty much cleaned out all the birds. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-13 2:08:09 PM |
| #4 Is it still infested with those god-awful tree snakes ? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-13 1:58:03 PM |
| #3 Has anyone forwarded this to the NKors and SKors? I don't think our troops in Korea would mind terribly if they were stationed somewhere warmer. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-1-13 1:53:02 PM |
| #2 Bitch to get to. My husband dove Truk this past summer. They do need the money. I'd prefer him to go back there than the Philippines, which they're discussing now. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-1-13 1:52:11 PM |
| #1 how far is that in flying hrs to these places? Does 2.5-3.5 hrs sound right? |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-1-13 1:41:12 PM |