Hawai’i has highest concentration of nuclear submarines

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100207/NEWS01/2070354?source=rss_localnews

Posted on: Sunday, February 7, 2010

Hawaii-based ‘silent service’ on never-ending training regime

ABOARD THE USS SANTA FE — Riding 60 feet under the ocean surface in a 6,900-ton nuclear submarine that’s longer than a football field, there is almost no sense of movement and very little noise.

The only sound is an occasional chirp over a speaker, signaling nearby marine life. The quiet is broken with a series of orders spoken in rapid-fire fashion:

“Chief of the watch, man battle stations!”

An alarm sounds.

“There is a hostile orange destroyer.” “Orange” signifies potential enemy.

“Make tubes 2 and 4 ready in all respects.”

More than a dozen crew members on the Los Angeles-class submarine are in the cramped 16-by-20-foot control room, a space dominated by twin periscopes, consoles, floor-to-ceiling electronics and airplane-like yokes to steer the vessel.

Eight more sailors are jammed into an adjacent sonar room.

The Santa Fe’s captain, Cmdr. David Adams, a 25-year veteran of the Navy who spent time in Afghanistan in charge of a provincial reconstruction team several years ago, runs one of the periscopes up and down several times in quick succession to observe the suspect vessel.

After a series of directions are given in staccato brevity, Adams gives the order: “Shoot tube 2.”

With that, there is a slight thud and whoosh as water is jetted out of the torpedo tube.

In actual combat, a MK-48 torpedo would have been fired, carrying 665 pounds of high explosives — enough to break the back of a destroyer or cruiser.

The training by the Santa Fe 12 miles south of Pearl Harbor is an aspect of the Navy the public rarely sees, but the “silent service” has continued to be a dominant force in Pearl Harbor — and in the Pacific — since World War II.

The 17 nuclear attack submarines based here — soon to be 18 — are the Navy’s greatest concentration anywhere, surpassing the number of more familiar surface ships in Pearl Harbor by six.

At the same time, the overall number of U.S. submarines in service continues to fall, raising concern by some that the U.S. is losing a submarine arms race in the Pacific to the Chinese, and creating instability in the process.

A total of 224 Navy personnel are on the U.S. Pacific Fleet submarine force staff, there are 2,716 submariners assigned to squadrons here, and each of the 17 subs contributes $17 million annually to the local economy, officials said.

strategic base

The subs are here because Hawai’i’s location 2,400 miles out in the Pacific gives them a head start on missions to the western Pacific to train with allies, and to keep an eye on ships and subs in a region that includes the world’s six largest armies — those of China, the U.S., India, North Korea, Russia and South Korea.

The region also includes the shipping lanes of the Malacca Strait joining the Pacific and Indian oceans and through which passes one-quarter of the world’s traded goods.

“The majority of our work is done forward-deployed,” said Capt. Lindsay Hankins, chief of staff for the Pacific Fleet submarine force. “When you are trying to operate ships, there is a cost in doing that. Having them closer to the area in which you are operating them — in other words the western Pacific — makes it easier for us to get them there.”

The Pentagon was concerned enough about changing dynamics in the region that in its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, it upset the 50/50 balance of attack submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific and ordered that 60 percent be based off the West Coast.

The Navy now has 52 attack submarines, with 30 of those in the Pacific. Most are Los Angeles-class boats, a class first deployed in 1976.

Five of the Navy’s subs are from the new Virginia class, including the Hawaii and Texas at Pearl Harbor. A third Virginia-class sub, the North Carolina, is due in Hawai’i this summer.

In the Pacific, the Navy has subs in Hawai’i, Guam, San Diego and Bangor, Wash.

Attack submarines seek out other subs and ships, and can also launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, while Ohio-class submarines, or “boomers,” carry 24 nuclear ballistic missiles.

Total U.S. sub numbers have dropped over the years, from 141 in 1971, to 115 in 1992 and 66 today.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, last week said that unless the U.S. reverses the decline of its submarine fleet, U.S. military superiority in the Pacific “will continue to wane, severely limiting the Navy’s ability to operate in the region.”

demand surging

Adams, the Santa Fe’s commander, said the demand by combatant commanders in the Pacific and Middle East for submarines has increased two- or threefold over the past 10 years.

Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and author, said submarines mostly conduct surveillance. A Los Angeles-class submarine periscope has 18x magnification, and can watch airport or shipping activities.

Some subs practice by watching air operations at the Marine Corps base at Kane’ohe Bay.

“They are important,” Polmar said. “They are important because they can go into areas where either for political or military reasons, we can’t send a surface ship.”

But he also thinks the U.S. has as many subs as it needs, and there are other areas the nation should invest more money in — such as amphibious ships to carry jump jets and Marines.

Multiple Pearl Harbor submarines enter and leave Pearl Harbor each month for training or six-month deployments on missions that are classified.

The subs have impressive capabilities. During recent training, when the Santa Fe was running on the surface at 15 knots (17 mph) and Adams spotted two humpback whales ahead, he gave an order and the 360-foot sub came to a stop within 100 yards.

Sonar operators can pick out dolphins swimming in front of the bow. Ships can be identified by the sound of diesel engines and propellers.

“We can pick up the Star of Honolulu because it’s the only thing out there with four screws,” said sonar technician J.R. O’Donnell, 32, of Danville, Ill.

The Santa Fe, commissioned in 1994, also practiced “angles and dangles” — ascending and descending at steep angles. The sub dove from about 200 feet to 600 feet and back multiple times in about a minute and half, at 25 degrees and 20 knots.

“We’re going pretty slow. That’s nothing,” said Fire Control Technician Seaman James Collier, 21. The Navy only will say the subs are capable of diving to 800 feet and can reach 25 knots. The actual capabilities are much greater.

close quarters

Life aboard for the crew of up to 143 means close quarters — in narrow passages, at meals and with berthing. There are five “heads,” or restrooms, six showers and one washer and dryer aboard.

The crew sometimes has to “hot rack,” meaning three sailors rotating in shifts for every two bunks.

Culinary Specialist 1st Class Salvador Rico, 37, was supervising lunch of steak and cheese sandwiches with grilled onions and grilled chicken in a 12-by-10-foot galley, or kitchen. He feeds about 120 people at every meal.

“The sailors, being the customers, they let you know right away — the food is good, or the food is bad,” said Rico, of San Antonio.

Attack subs can go 60 to 90 days at sea before they need to be resupplied with food, officials said. That means little sunlight. Inside lights are brightened or darkened to mimic what’s going on outside.

At sea, crew members wear blue coveralls known as “poopy suits” and their own personal choice in gym shoes.

All submariners have to volunteer for the duty and get a psychological evaluation for fitness. But they are paid more than surface sailors, Navy officials said.

“It’s something that you kind of get used to,” said Collier, of Chillicothe, Ohio. “You feel cramped up at your house, you can just start walking. Here, you don’t have that option.”

There are a few pieces of exercise equipment and some weights, but in general, you have to get along.

“The only thing that keeps you sane are your friends,” Collier said. “As close as we are physically to each other, we become a close-knit family. I’d say more than anywhere in the military, this is more like a family.”

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

• • •

• • •

“Close but distant neighbors” – Pearl Harbor and Hickam merge

My understanding is that the merger will place Hickam under the Navy.   Sitting on Restoration Advisory Board that advise on the clean up of military sites for both Hickam and Pearl Harbor has been very instructive. The culture of the two organizations are quite distinct.  I have found the Navy to be much more closed and resistant to questions and challenges.  The Air Force RAB has been more accommodating with information and public input into the choices made.   It is unclear what will happen with the clean up projects currently under the Air Force.

>><<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013001314.html

Pearl Harbor merging with Hickam Air Force Base

By AUDREY McAVOY

The Associated Press

Saturday, January 30, 2010; 1:01 PM

HONOLULU — Most Americans have heard of the naval base at Pearl Harbor. Some are also aware of the air base next door called Hickam, where Japanese planes destroyed U.S. bombers during the 1941 aerial attack.

On Sunday, the two historic sites will cease to be separate bases, merging into Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. They will be among 26 installations across the country that are combining to form 12 joint bases as the military strives to become more efficient.

Commanders are bringing together two very distinct military service cultures – while making sure one doesn’t dominate or overwhelm the other. The large role the Japanese attack has in the national memory gives them an especially solemn responsibility to preserve and protect the historic sites within their grounds, military officials said.

“We are caretakers in this effort for the sake of all who came before us and actually died on our fields,” said Col. Giovanni Tuck, commander of the 15th Airlift Wing and the Air Force’s leader in the merger. “We just need to make sure we do this right by them.”

Pearl Harbor and Hickam have been close but distant neighbors for decades. They’re right next to one another on the southern edge of Oahu, but each have their own schools, golf courses, bowling alleys, churches and other facilities.

A chain-link fence divides the two properties – even though the only people they’re keeping out are other military personnel. In 1975, the Navy even built a sentry post from where guards screened those crossing between the bases. On Sunday, sailors and airmen will take down part the fence in a symbolic ceremony.

The bases encompass multiple historic landmarks.

There’s the old barracks at Hickam that still displays holes from machine gun bullets Japanese airmen fired during the attack. The building now houses the Air Force’s headquarters for the Pacific region. It’s not far from a distinctive water storage tower, called the Freedom Tower, that Japanese pilots avoided shooting at because they thought it was a religious shrine.

In Pearl Harbor, the USS Arizona and the remains of more than 1,000 sailors and Marines lie where the battleship sank on Dec. 7, 1941.

The base’s century-old shipyard is where workers completed one of the fastest repair jobs in history: in a few days in 1942 they patched up the USS Yorktown after the aircraft carrier had been severely damaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Their quick work gave the U.S. the firepower it needed to defeat the Japanese at the Battle of Midway and begin the push across the Pacific.

“We’re turning the page in both of these historic organizations,” said Capt. Richard W. Kitchens, the Navy commander leading the joint base effort. “We’re joining them and changing their names. That’s not something we should take lightly.”

The decision to join the two bases dates to 2005, when an independent panel on military bases recommended they merge. The commission recommended similar unions across the country to save money and create a more efficient military. In some cases, many of these bases aren’t next door neighbors. In Alaska, for example, Elmendorf Air Force Base and the Army’s Fort Richardson are combining.

About 4,500 of the military and civilians working on the two bases – less than 10 percent of a total workforce numbering 50,000 – have jobs in departments that will be combining. The new base doesn’t plan any layoffs. It would only eliminate positions by not replacing employees who retire or quit.

The base will likely even see a net increase of some 5,500 personnel over in coming years as the Navy shifts new Virginia-class submarines to Hawaii and the Air Force brings in F-22 fighter jets and the Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft.

Pearl Harbor warships dressed up for Christmas

Something is wrong with this picture.  Boatloads of visitors viewing warships decorated for Christmas.   How militarized are we?

>><<

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091218/BREAKING01/91218028/Free+Pearl+Harbor+boat+tours+offered

Friday, December 18, 2009

Free Pearl Harbor boat tours offered

Advertiser Staff

The U.S. Navy and National Park Service said they will be offering free evening boat tours of Pearl Harbor that are open to the public tonight through Sunday.

The tours will leave from and return to the USS Arizona Memorial Visitor Center on a first-come, first-served basis from 6 p.m. through 8:15 p.m.

The 30-minute tours will feature Christmas music and the boats will pass through the harbor where the ships are decorated for the Christmas season. People will get to see warships and submarines up close while aboard a 150-passenger tour boat.

Tickets and parking are available starting at 5:15 p.m. at the USS Arizona Memorial Visitor Center, which is located off of Kamehameha Highway near Richardson Field and Aloha Stadium.

Due to security measures, handbags, purses, packs and other items that can conceal weapons are not allowed in the visitor center or aboard the tour boats. Do not leave valuables in your car.

Wearing a light jacket or sweater is also recommended.

The tours are a joint community service endeavor with the U.S. Navy, National Park Service and volunteer support from the Pearl City Lions Club.

More information at www.nps.gov/valr/parknews/holiday-lights-tours-2009.htm.

“Absence of proof doesn’t prove safety” – ATSDR coming under fire

The NYT article discusses the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control Registry pattern of flawed and irresponsible investigation into the health hazard of environmental contamination.  After coming under strong criticism from government auditors, the ATSDR reversed its conclusions of “no threat” to public health in two contaminated military sites: Camp Lejeune and Vieques.   ATSDR is guilty of the same types of dismissive and sloppy science in several cases in Hawai’i: Lualualei, Pearl Harbor, and Depleted Uranium at Schofield and Pohakuloa.   They should reevaluate the studies done in those cases.

>><<

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/science/earth/30agency.html?_r=2

Reversal Haunts Federal Health Agency

By MIREYA NAVARRO

Published: November 29, 2009

Earlier this month, a federal health agency backed away from its earlier findings that decades of explosive detonations by the Navy on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques posed no health hazards to residents.

It was the second time this year that the agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, changed its mind in a highly publicized case. Last April the agency, charged with analyzing public health risks from environmental contamination, rescinded its conclusion that contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, N.C., posed no increased risk of cancer to adults.

Now the agency, part of the Health and Human Services Department, is facing tough scrutiny from Congress and the threat of reform legislation, with some lawmakers accusing it of cursory evaluations that often get the science wrong and ignore independent studies and community complaints.

A report last March by the staff of the House Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight found that the agency produced “deeply flawed” scientific reports. The Government Accountability Office, the Congressional investigative arm, is looking into how the agency reviews and validates its public health assessments in an evaluation expected to be completed by next spring.

“It seems to have gotten into their culture to do quick and dirty studies and to be too willing to say there are no public health consequences,” said Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina and the subcommittee chairman. “People should be able to count on the government to tell them the truth.”

Created in 1980 as part of the legislation establishing the Superfund program, which administers the cleanup of the nation’s worst contaminated sites, the toxic substances agency evaluates the health risks at Superfund sites and carries out consultations in other cases of contamination. Its findings, based on available research and its own investigations, often determine the kind of treatment and compensation victims receive from polluters and the government.

But critics say that the agency, which works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has never recovered from problems identified in previous G.A.O. investigations in the 1980s and 1990s that found that it was inadequately staffed and that its health assessments were “seriously deficient.”

In a case that particularly shock some members of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, the agency ruled in 2007 that trailers housing victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita posed no health risks, despite containing high levels of formaldehyde.

The evaluation was conducted at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which faced litigation from families complaining that fumes from the trailers were making them sick. The toxic substances agency later revised its findings, and FEMA acknowledged at a news conference that the formaldehyde levels were high enough to endanger trailer occupants’ health.

A spokesman for the toxic substances agency said Dr. Howard Frumkin, the agency’s director since 2005, was traveling out of the country and unavailable for comment. But in written answers to a reporter’s questions, agency officials said the agency had “a strong record of adhering to proven science to advance public health” and a commitment to revising previous findings in light of new technology and scientific discoveries.

Agency officials said they were currently reviewing conclusions in other cases but refused to name them or specify how many cases were being reviewed.

At a Congressional hearing on the agency in March, Dr. Frumkin said he recognized the need for improvement and had opened a national conversation with environmental and public health groups to examine the agency’s approach to chemical exposures.

He said that understaffing was an issue — the agency carries out about 400 health assessments and consultations each year with a staff of about 300 people and an annual budget of $74 million — but that a bigger challenge was that “definitive answers sometimes do not exist.”

In Vieques, a Superfund site, the toxic substances agency concluded in 2003 that the levels of heavy metals and explosive compounds found in the soil, groundwater, air and fish did not pose a health risk.

But after meeting with residents of Vieques and scientists who had done research on the island, the agency reversed course, saying it had identified gaps in environmental data that could be important in determining health effects and calling for additional monitoring.

In Camp Lejeune, another Superfund site, the toxic substances agency acknowledged that it had failed to account for high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, in its findings a decade earlier and said it would investigate further. Former residents have filed claims for billions of dollars in damages over cancer, birth defects and other health problems for which they blame years of exposure to a water supply contaminated by an off-base dry cleaning business and other sources.

Some experts faulted the agency as equating the lack of proof with safe conditions.

“The absence of proof doesn’t prove safety, and that’s where I think they are off base,” said John Wargo, a professor of environmental risk analysis at Yale University who was consulted by the agency regarding Vieques and who recommended rescinding the conclusion of no hazard in that case.

Lawmakers like Mr. Miller also accuse the agency of acting out of political expediency in some cases, like that of the FEMA trailers. Mr. Miller said that one solution would be to require more peer review of the agency’s findings but that he would prefer that Obama administration officials undertook improvements without the need of legislation.

In the meantime, he and other members of Congress have called on Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to help victims now and have introduced bills to require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide health care to them while the studies continue.

In Vieques, where local studies show unusually high rates of cancer, hypertension and other illnesses, most of the nearly 10,000 residents have sued in federal court to seek compensation and health benefits from the Navy.

Robert Rabin, a community activist on the island, welcomed this month’s announcement as a potential turning point. Mr. Rabin called the agency “a serious obstacle” to communities’ efforts to make the federal government pay for health damages and medical services.

Residents were now “cautiously optimistic” that their health claims might be settled, Mr. Rabin said.

Navy officer removed from command of USS Chafee

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091125/BREAKING01/91125046/Hawaii-based+Navy+officer+removed+from+command+of+USS+Chafee

Updated at 12:59 p.m., Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Hawaii-based Navy officer removed from command of USS Chafee

By William Cole

Advertiser Military Writer

A Hawaii-based Navy officer who was scheduled to take command of the guided missile destroyer USS Chafee last Friday was instead removed from command and has been assigned to a desk job, officials said.

Capt. Richard L. Clemmons Jr., commander of Destroyer Squadron 31, requested last Friday that the former executive officer of the Chafee, Cmdr. Larry Gonzales, be “detached for cause,” according to a Navy release sent out today.

Gonzales’ removal occurred on the same day he was supposed to take command of the Chafee, which is home ported in Pearl Harbor.

Navy Region Hawaii, the command based at Pearl Harbor, said in the release that “based on findings from a (command) investigation, the chain of command has lost confidence in Gonzales’s ability to lead and command.”

The Navy did not explain the reasons for the removal.

The incumbent commanding officer, Cmdr. Heedong Choi, will retain command of the Chafee until arrival of his relief and change of command, anticipated in early spring.

Gonzales’ relief as executive officer is already aboard the Chafee. Gonzales is being temporarily reassigned to a shore command pending further administrative actions, the Navy said.

According to the Naval Inspector General’s office, “detachment for cause” is the administrative removal of an officer from his or her current duty assignment before the planned rotation date.

The need for such an action arises “when an officer’s performance or conduct detracts from accomplishing the command mission and the officer’s continuance in the billet can only negatively impact the command,” according to the Inspector General’s office.

A detachment for cause is one of the strongest administrative measures used in the case of officers. An approved detachment is filed in the officer’s official record and has a serious effect on the officer’s future naval career, particularly with regard to promotion, duty assignment, selection for schools, and special assignment.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

“Transient nuisance odor” hits West Loch and Waipahu Intermediate School, sends 7 to hospital

Emergency responders could not determine the cause of the gas smell that sickened students at Waipahu Intermediate School.  The smell was reported from several areas near Pearl Harbor.

>><<

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20091113_Gas_smell_disrupts_Waipahu_school_day.html

Gas smell disrupts Waipahu school day

Responding fire crews discover no odor or source in the area

By Star-Bulletin staff

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Nov 13, 2009

City ambulance crews took seven people from Waipahu Intermediate School to Hawaii Medical Center West yesterday following complaints of a strong smell of gas.

Three ambulances were sent to the school after 11 a.m. The patients included two students under the age of 13 and five adults, according to Emergency Medical Services spokesman Bryan Cheplic

The patients all complained of nausea, dizziness and lightheadedness, Cheplic said. They were taken to the hospital in stable condition, Cheplic said

Another ambulance was sent to a residence on nearby Pupumomi Street because of similar complaints. One resident was treated and released, Cheplic said.

The Honolulu Fire Department sent two fire hazardous material crews, three engines and two battalion chiefs to Waipahu Intermediate, Pupumomi Street and Honowai Elementary, also in Waipahu, at about the same time after several people complained about the gas smell

Firefighters investigated along with the Gas Co. and federal firefighters but could not find any gas in the air or any source of the smell, said Honolulu fire Capt. Terry Seelig.

A Navy spokesman said federal firefighters responded to a call about a gaseous smell in West Loch at about 11 a.m. but could not pinpoint a source. No one reported injuries in that call.

Seelig described the incident as a “transient nuisance odor” that may have drifted into the area and disturbed people.

No one needed medical attention at Honowai Elementary, he said.

Will removing U.S. bases from Japan diminish the utility of Pearl Harbor?

Written from the perspective of a U.S. naval strategist, this editorial in the Taipei Times argues that Pearl Harbor continues to be vital as a U.S. naval base.  The author, James Holmes gives a concise explanation of how Admiral Mahan’s military theory led to the invasion and occupation of Hawai’i, shaping U.S. policy to the present.   He describes the military importance of Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (the true name of the inlet occupied by Pearl Harbor).   He unabashedly describes the U.S. in the Pacific as an “empire”.

He got a few things wrong in his history of Hawai’i.  After two attempts, the U.S. ultimately failed to secure a formal treaty of annexation.   President Cleveland rejected the first treaty in 1895. Opposition from Hawaiian nationals helped to defeat the second treaty of annexation in 1897.  All the U.S. got was a joint resolution claiming to annex Hawai’i.   In typical imperial fashion, he arrogantly disregards the sovereignty and rights of Hawai’i and treats the nations and peoples of the Pacific as pawns in a grand chess match.

What is most interesting is his argument that without secure bases in Japan, the military importance of Hawai’i to the U.S. would diminish:

Today, there’s just Japan to anchor the far terminus of the US base network. If the US were denied access to Japanese bases, Hawaii would lose much of its importance for the first time in over a century.

This is all the more reason to support the anti-bases movement in Japan and Okinawa.  It’s way overdue for the Pacific to become once again Ka Moana Nui (The Great Ocean) that connects the peoples of the Pacific, rather than an “American Lake” where the Pacific is held hostage to military strategy and empire.

>><<

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/11/2003458162

Why Pearl Harbor is still essential

By James Holmes

Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009

The strategic value of Hawaii was evident a quarter-century ago, when I visited Pearl Harbor as a midshipman in the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. The US Navy was building up toward 600 ships; its Pacific Fleet had an overbearing Soviet Far East Fleet to contend with.

The navy could do none of this without island bases connecting the US to maritime Asia, no matter how many gee-whiz warships and aircraft it built.

Islands like Hawaii support the exercise of US sea power far from US shores. In turn, US sea power underwrites free navigation for commercial shipping in Asia, assuring that goods traveling by sea reach their users unmolested. That’s why, when I returned to Pearl Harbor late last month, the base had lost neither its bustle nor its sense of purpose — although land campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq now obscure the navy’s day-to-day upkeep of the global system.

Still, Hawaii’s strategic importance now depends more on deft alliance diplomacy than it did in the 1980s, when the US military still enjoyed unfettered access to Philippine bases at the juncture of the East China and South China seas. Today, there’s just Japan to anchor the far terminus of the US base network. If the US were denied access to Japanese bases, Hawaii would lose much of its importance for the first time in over a century.

Many things drew foreigners to the Hawaiian archipelago in the decades after 1778, when Captain James Cook dropped anchor off Kauai. New England missionaries came starting in 1820, intent on saving souls. Planters followed later in the 19th century, hoping to make their fortunes raising crops in the rich volcanic soil. But in geopolitics, as in real estate, it’s all about location, location, location. Geography prompted the US to annex the islands and, ultimately, admit them to statehood.

Writing in 1893, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, the US’ Copernicus or “evangelist” of sea power, offered a sharp analysis of the Hawaiian chain’s geopolitical worth. Unlike their sail-driven forebears, steamships could defy winds and currents, but they also demanded fuel in bulk.

Mahan said that a US with commercial interests in Asia must forge a “chain” of island bases to support the transpacific voyages of steam-propelled merchantmen and their protectors, armored warships.

He said “the Hawaiian group possesses unique importance” among the candidates for Pacific bases, “not from its intrinsic commercial value, but from its favorable position for maritime and military control.”

The open sea resembled a featureless plain, with few important geographic assets. The rarer these features, the more valuable. If there was only one island or archipelago, it held matchless strategic value.

Hawaii met that description. It occupied the center of a circle whose radius equaled the distance from San Francisco to Honolulu, some 3,860km. It sat midway between the US west coast and Asia’s “second island chain,” which runs from northern Japan southward through New Guinea.

British vessels transiting between Canada and New Zealand or Australia routinely called at Honolulu, which lay along their course.

Public works would soon amplify Hawaii’s importance for US maritime power. Once engineers finished digging a canal across the Central American Isthmus, a new sea route would spring into being. Ships steaming from Atlantic seaports to China or Japan would transit through the Caribbean Sea rather than circumnavigating South America. They too would pass near Hawaii, making Honolulu an ideal way station.

In keeping with Mahanian logic, US strategists like Theodore Roosevelt coveted sole possession of the archipelago. Rival sea powers Japan, Britain and Germany had voiced interest in acquiring some or all of the islands. Potential foes, it appeared, could obtain bases off the US west coast. This would not do. Washington must extend US rule to Hawaii to foreclose this latent naval threat.

However compelling Mahan’s brief for acquiring the islands, his appeals remained abstract until 1898. Anti-imperialist president Grover Cleveland scotched an annexation bid in 1893, before the Spanish-American War concentrated minds.

The US became a Pacific power overnight after wresting the Philippines from Spain. The US needed an island bridge to its new Pacific empire. Accordingly, Congress annexed Hawaii at the behest of president William McKinley.

Now, as then, Mahan’s logic is irresistible. Pearl Harbor will remain essential as long as the US remains an Asian sea power — a status the US has no intention of surrendering. But unless Washington manages its alliance with Tokyo wisely, Hawaii could become a bridge to nowhere.

James Holmes is an associate professor at the US Naval War College.

Pearl Harbor sub commander relieved of command

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091030/BREAKING01/91030084/Commander+of+Pearl+Harbor+sub+relieved+of+command

Updated at 9:08 p.m., Friday, October 30, 2009

Commander of Pearl Harbor sub relieved of command

By William Cole

Advertiser Military Writer

The commander of the nuclear attack submarine USS La Jolla based at Pearl Harbor was relieved of his post today “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command,” the U.S. Pacific Fleet submarine force said.

Cmdr. Doug Sampson, who has been in command of the Los Angeles-class submarine since October of 2007, was relieved of command by the commodore of Submarine Squadron One, Capt. Stanley Robertson, the Navy said.

“This action was deemed necessary due to the failure of Cmdr. Sampson to meet the high Navy standards necessary to remain in command,” the Pacific Fleet submarine force said in a statement.

Such a removal is usually a career-ender in the Navy.

Lt. Cmdr. David Benham, a spokesman for the Pearl Harbor-based Pacific Fleet submarine force, said he could not go into a lot of specifics on the submarine skipper’s removal. Those issues are under investigation, he said.

“The issues, I would say concern some of the in-port planning, the operations and the administration, which fell short of the high Navy standards,” Benham said.

Benham said Sampson’s “leadership of the crew was inadequate, and that caused the loss of confidence that led to his relief today.”

Benham said the actions did not immediately endanger anyone. The 360-foot-long, 9,600-ton submarine is in the Pearl Harbor shipyard for about 10 months of maintenance.

“Neither the crew nor the public was ever in any danger in relation to the events that led to Cmdr. Sampson’s removal,” Benham said.

Another official said the removal relates to required documentation of inspections and testing.

The Pacific Fleet submarine force said administrative action also “has been taken or is being considered” for other crew members of USS La Jolla, but the number of crew members under scrutiny was not specified.

Sampson will be temporarily assigned to Submarine Squadron One, the Navy said. Cmdr. Erik Burian, who previously held command of the Pearl Harbor-based sub USS Los Angeles, has taken command of USS La Jolla.

Sampson could not be reached for comment.

Benham said the La Jolla, commissioned in 1981, is in the shipyard for what’s known as a “pre-inactivation restricted availability.” The shipyard in January said the La Jolla was expected that month. The repairs were expected to take 10 months.

Benham said the maintenance work preserves a sub’s ability to conduct future operations until it is decommissioned. No date has been set for that decommissioning, he said.

Sampson enlisted in the Navy in 1984, according to his official biography. He graduated from Auburn University, attended Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island, and received his commission in November 1989.

Sampson reported to his first submarine, USS Pogy in his hometown of San Diego in June 1991. He was the engineer officer on the submarine USS Florida in 1997, and was executive officer on board USS Pasadena in Pearl Harbor in January 2003.

In October of 2008, La Jolla returned from a six-month western Pacific deployment, visiting Guam, Japan and Singapore.

The submarine, which has a crew of about 140, can be armed with Mark 48 torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Pearl Harbor has 17 submarines, with an 18th, the USS Texas, on its way to Hawai’i.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Carrier USS Ronald Reagan arrives for Pearl Harbor visit tomorrow

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091012/BREAKING01/91012026/Carrier+USS+Ronald+Reagan+arrives+for+Pearl+Harbor+visit+tomorrow

Updated at 11:25 a.m., Monday, October 12, 2009

Carrier USS Ronald Reagan arrives for Pearl Harbor visit tomorrow

Advertiser Staff and Wire Reports

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan will arrive tomorrow at Pearl Harbor for a brief port visit, the Navy said.

The Reagan carrier strike group left the Middle East in September.

Its aircraft flew missions into Afghanistan. The strike group conducted counter-piracy operations off of Somalia and the Horn of Africa and “maritime security operations” protecting Iraqi infrastructure in the North Arabian Gulf.

Carrier Air Wing 14 provided 30 percent of all air support to ground troops in Afghanistan since July 6, flying more than 1,500 sorties.

The Nimitz carrier strike group relieved the Reagan on Sept. 18 in the Gulf of Oman, and launched its first sorties in support of Afghanistan.

The Reagan left San Diego on its fourth deployment in late May with the cruiser Chancellorsville, frigate Thach and destroyers Decatur, Howard and Gridley.

The Reagan, whose sailors are 21 years old on average, the Chancellorsville and the Gridley anchored near the resort area of Phuket, Thailand on Sept. 22.

USS Ronald Reagan stats:

• Its top speed is in excess of 30 knots.

• The carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling.

• Aboard the carrier are more than 80 combat aircraft.

• Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet.

• The carrier towers 20 stories above the waterline and is 1,092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall.

• Flight deck covers 4.5 acres, and the ship has four bronze propellers, each 21 feet across and weighing 66,200 pounds.

• The carrier is home to about 6,000 personnel.

Military Bases Hickam and Pearl Harbor Merge

Military Bases Hickam and Pearl Harbor Merge

Written by KGMB9 News – news@kgmb9.com

August 26, 2009 06:58 PM

The military has signed a deal to combine the neighboring bases of Hickam and Pearl Harbor.

Hickam will keep it’s mission as an Air Force facility, but the new joint base will be under the control of the Navy.

They’ll combine 46 functions in order to make them more efficient.

Everything from maintenance, and emergency services, to housing, food and legal support.

This is one of 12 such deals mandated by congress.

The Navy says the new joint-base will be fully operational by october 2010.

Source: http://kgmb9.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20568&Itemid=40