Did Battleships Ever Carry Nuclear Weapons? 

Went on a harbor cruise in San Diego when the Iowas were still in commission. Don't remember which one it was but as we cruised by at a few hundred yards distance the narrator said "The Navy will never confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on a vessel or installation but please note the several Marines stationed at various places on the deck. Note they're all armed with rifles. There's a reason they're out there in a friendly port."

Remember , "the Navy can neither confirm nor deny". Just because there were Marines onboard with M16s does not mean that nuclear weapons were onboard , it could mean the Navy wanted someone to think that nuclear weapons were onboard. The Navy can manipulate the rumor mill however it wants.

I was on the MARINE USS MISSOURI at the end of service in 80s, we had glow in the dark missiles. 4 launchers were full.

There was a time in the 1950s where the superpowers were actively looking into putting nuclear armament and/or propulsion into pretty much EVERYTHING. So when it comes to capabilities, very little would surprise me on this one.

The W23 nuclear warhead which was used by the 11" Atomic Annie gun had a maximum yield of about 14 kilotons, about the same as those dropped on Japan. The later warheads for 155mm and 203mm (8") artillery had higher yields. The 8" may have had a yield of up to 40kt. Although I trained as a Nuclear and Chemical Targeting Officer at Ft. Sill in the 1980s I don't recall specific numbers but the yields could be adjusted by how much fissle material was inserted when the rounds were assembled. The blast and radiation radius of even a 40 kt detonation would be much less than the about 20 mile range of a 16" gun, probably around no more than 5 miles. The 50% casualty radius of a 1kt detonation is only about 300 meters. That means that 50% of people, usually figured as half in the open and half protected somehow, will become immediate casualties. That does not count radiation caused cancer, etc. later in life. So, firing a single round or a full nuclear broadside at near maximum range would NOT be a suicide mission for an Iowa class BB, particularly if the crew was behind any steel, not even the armored citadel. Also, there is a significant and fairly complicated process to determine the optimum target effect for nuclear weapons including collateral damage. If one 14 kt warhead will eliminate your target it is wasteful to use 2 or 9. All you are doing is making the rubble bounce. Also, you don't want to damage other things like bridges or roads that your forces may need. There may also be targeting constraints to avoid damage to civilian populations or cultural assets. One way to tell if the Iowas were nuclear armed is if any of the fire control officers were trained and certified in the use on nuclear weapons.

Having the capability to carry and fire a weapon and actually having one on board are very different things. I believe that a Marine security detachment was not unusual on a battleship or even a cruiser. Having Marines on board routinely would make it more difficult for an enemy to determine whether the ship had nukes. In any event, the deployment of these weapons is highly classified, and I doubt there is any way to find out the answer. I do remember drills about decontaminating a ship fouled with nuclear residue that involved thoroughly washing the ship with water. But we all know that a lot of that was window dressing because it would have been difficult to decontaminate a vessel. A side note: I had a mentor who, during World War II, was working on developing Radar. At the time the WORD was highly classified, the technology even more so. He was on the team developing the Army's version of Radar. At some point he detected a signal that could only have been sent by another Radar unit. A short time later he was visited by a Navy officer (He was a sergeant.) asking about what was going on. They had detected signals from the system he was working on. The Navy and the Army were both developing radar and did not know about the other service's project!

Katies had the same physics package as the 280-mm "Atomic Annie" artillery piece, but in the 16" shell. The yield was 15 KT, which was Hiroshima. Having Katies on board does make sense before the decommissioning... As for targets, amphibious operations up until Vietnam were intended to have nuclear fire support. Dropping two or three Katies on or inland of a beach where Marines would come ashore a couple days later makes sense-given the doctrine of the day, that is. As for TLAM-N? The weapons were either theater strike weapons, or meant to be held in reserve after an initial strategic use (counterforce, say) to see if the Soviets wanted another round...

I was stationed on an AD in San Diego, in late 68-70. We had nuclear replacement warheads for ASROC weapons to swap out conventional ones for destroyers. I maintained the security system. No marine guards. The alarm monitoring panels were in the main electrical switchboard. Watchstanders were issued loaded .45’s and if you weren’t on the access list you could be shot. I had to sign an NDA for 10 years to get discharged.

Before it goes further than 8:29, I was in an 8" SP Artillery company (battery) in the reserves in the early '90's. We had a "Special Weapons" vehicle, though never had any Special Weapons, and knew of, but never trained with, powder charges required for the Special Weapons. (And let's not forget Atomic Annie) If they had these "Special Weapons" for 8" tactical projectiles, I have no doubt that 16" projectiles were developed for Special Weapons delivery.

If the available information on the W23 is accurate a yield of 15 - 20 kt was expected. If an air burst occured at an altitude of 500 meters, calculations show you'd be extremely inconvenienced at 10 km. A shot 20 miles (32km) away would give a once in a lifetime show and a sunburn.

I have a family friend who was part of the Marine detachment in the 80s on Missouri who claimed to have guarded nuclear tomahawks.

I toured USS Iowa, there was a poster displaying the various shells fired out of the guns, the " Kate" shells and nuclear tomahawk cruise missiles, the Navy would neither confirm or deny that they were on the ships.

Ryan, I think you greatly overstated the effects radius of a 15-20 kiloton device. At 20 miles away, other than the flash (which obviously you would have all crew below decks) and any subsequent fallout (which you could take into account from local weather), there would be no effect at all, especially on a battleship. The maximum effects of blast damage at Hiroshima, on very light structures, occurred at about 5-6 miles from ground zero. That said, I've always wondered why, since the warhead was sized for the Army's 11-inch shell, they didn't develop a 16-inch sabot round to launch an 11-inch shell to a range of probably 35-40 miles.

USS South Carolina CGN 37 had a weapon system named ASROC which has a Nuclear option . We only carried Marines during one time frame and they stood door guard duty on the SESS space. You could tell by the way security was handled at the weapons station if Nukes were being handled. The weapons station marines brought out all of their shiny toys when special weapons were being handled. The coast guard also had a close in presence during those times.Shipboard security didnt change. You had to certify the ship and systems in order to be qualified to handle nukes. Security was a huge portion of that certification. So a roving security guard or guards is established to inspect the various doors and launchers and the alarm systems. Even with special access , I never knew first hand if Nukes were present. I was part of the Special Weapons security force on both cruisers. When the magazine doors are opened except during war time conditions, a security force is dispatched . A buffer zone to keep people from wandering into the sensitive areas and an exclusion zone for the area immediately outside the magazine door. The people inside the door were armed with sidearms and teamed up in pairs. If two people are required to do the tasking then 4 people were sent in with equal knowledge of performing the tasking. All armed. as far as a weapons change out in the gulf. We got our missiles changed out twice on the Princeton CG59. They loaded us with the standard SM2s and Tomahawks after the yards. We had those for about 15 days before they sent us back to the weapons station for a change out. We deployed and stopped again inside the gulf for yet another change out . There is always a new version of things that go bang.

I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of Nuclear weapons on any U.S. Naval ship or installation.

And since you asked at the end.... I think they where able to and weather they did or not makes no difference to me at all. Given the number of American weapons and reactors that have been dropped or crushed without exploding or causing a disaster I would happily live near them.

On smaller ships like I was on (DDG), of course the standard answer was ALWAYS "...Can neither confirm nor deny...", but even without Marines onboard, I can say that yes we did. In Charleston, loading or unloading munitions was a pretty smooth operation all day, that is until that "Special train" came down the tracks onto the pier, led and trailed by a company of Marines. All of a sudden, anyone who was previously allowed to be out on deck was confined to their workspace for an hour or so until the train left. When sailing into a foreign port for a visit, that did not allow nuclear weapons, the Navy merely said "Nope, don't have any of those on that ship!", which was of course true. That is until you assembled all of the parts that ARE on board that ship, then we did. Splitting hairs, but we aren't letting such things get in the way. And lets not pretend that the host country didn't know or understand that idea either, it was all just a mere formality with government. The concept of firing nuclear tipped projectiles was tried during the '50's and typically found not to be viable in practice. Meaning that after the round was fired, even with a low yield blast, the possibility of exposing the ship to the products of the blast were too great, tipping the 'Risk v. Reward' scale towards the former. Better delivery systems were being built during that era which made the program you speak of almost obsolete before it even made it to the fleet.

If I remember correctly, you put out a video on a 16" nuclear shell that was never officially on the ship. Add that to the tomahawk, and it is pretty likely that they put nukes on the ship. They'd never admit it, but they probably did put nukes on board.

Robert Sumrall's "Iowa-class Battleships" from NAVINST Press says that the Mk23s were carried aboard both Iowa and Wisconsin (according to former crew speaking off-record) during the 50s, but New Jersey only carried a drill projectile. They were also trained in handling them around the reinforced, protected magazine area. Missouri was not equipped for the shells. As to the Mk80s on the TLAM-Ns, we can only speculate. If you were going to send a "special" inland, I think you would want a lower-profile platform than a battleship. During a tour I took of Wisconsin, there was a pair of separated keylocks in CEC that it was STRONGLY suggested were for special weapons use.

I’m convinced that both Missouri and Wisconsin were armed with TLAM-Ns for the 1991 Gulf War. Neither ship launched 32 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets, it was 27 or 28 missiles fired. I suspect that three or four nuclear tipped missiles were loaded in the event that Saddam ordered chemical weapons attacks on US forces, and the Pentagon wanted a quick response option available.

Memories - was a lifeguard in Long Beach when I'd do a workout paddle around the ship offshore, when it was unloading weapons in Seal Beach Weapons Station, a marine would follow me from the railing as I paddle around the ship. I was on a paddleboard.

Also, for a vessel to be "Allowed" to carry nukes, she had to have a magazine to hold the weapons in.

I think you made a pretty good case for the operational deployment of both the 16" shell and the Tomahawk missile nuclear variants aboard the BBs. I can offer a bit of clarification on the matter of the Air Force's efforts to monopolize nuclear weapons in the early Cold War. It wasn't really so much a budget issue or shortfall that was the problem. The issue was actually fissile material production capacity. The USAF sought to prioritize production to support the massive weapons it anticipated acquiring with the development of high yield thermonuclear weapons. This effort by the Air Force saw it come into direct conflict with the Navy, where it won funding for its B-36 fleet and the Navy took a hit on its planned supercarrier project. This part was clearly about money, but this was only one aspect of things. Along with the conflict that saw the USAF arguing to put its needs for strategic weapons before the Army and Navy requirements for tactical nukes was another conflict, hidden from the public and most of the nuclear bureaucracy, in fact. The AEC was still led on the science side into the early 50s by J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had shepherded the Manhattan Project to a satisfactory conclusion. Oppie advised the Air Force as it set-up the Atomic Energy Detection System (AEDS), which came into operation in time to detect the first Soviet test in 1949. Oppie came into conflict with the Air Force at virtually the same time as he also chaired the AEC's Scientific Advisory Committee. It published the initial report from Project GABRIEL, which asked the fundamental question, if you needed to plan on a first strike, of how much yield could be dropped on the USSR before it posed a danger to Americans? The main threat posed would be from fallout. Essentially, the answer proved to be 60 megatons. With fission weapons with yields ranging from those dropped on Japan upwards to the low 100 kt range and a 200+ list of targets, the Air Force would not exceed the 60 Mt limit. But what the Air Force wanted now that the Soviets had fission weapons were thermonuclear weapons. The first one we tested was 10 Mt, the second 15 Mt. Doing the math, scientific opinion seemed to suggest that the Air Force might be limited to just 4 to 6 of the hydrogen bomb it wanted most. That doesn't get you very far down a 200 target list. The scientific concern was also that development of a thermonuclear weapon, once tested, posed the problem that its design features would be given away by its fallout, just as we'd already proven could be done to Soviet tests. Unhappy with this advice, which the Air Force lobbied Truman to ignore, the service's falling out with Oppie accelerated, eventually resulting in the hearing that withdrew his Q clearance one day before it otherwise would've expired. Despite this seeming victory, the results of testing from 54 to 58 largely confirmed the findings of GABRIEL, resulting in a much more limited panoply of thermonuclear weapons with lower yields due to the fallout problem, this obviating a significant part of what had been the Air Force's anticipated need for fissile material. During this same period, the AEC's scientists, attempting to resolve the problem posed by the Air Force's monopolistic attitude toward fissile material, pushed forward an accelerated plan to expand fissile material production. Long after Oppie was forced out in disgrace and most of the rest of the committee he led was marginalized or replaced when Ike appointed Lewis Strauss to head the AEC, their efforts resulted in more than enough fissile material to meet all the three major service's needs for tactical weapons, solving the problem with an end run around the Air Force and coincidentally leading to the early retirement of the B-36, no longer needed to lift the largest of the weapons. The internal conflict did largely delay the development and introduction of many of these lower yield weapons until after mid-decade in the 50s, which is why developments like the 16" nuclear shell came along later in the decade, rather than as part of the initial response to Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons. Sorry this is a bit long, but it's the short version. I elaborate on this situation in more detail in my dissertation, available as a free download at hdl.handle.net/2142/90554 . While it focuses on the the Air Force's nuclear intelligence program (AFOAT-1/AFTAC) it also engages with the effects of this intel on strategic planning and thus strays into things like fissile material production and the conflict that the Air Force's perceived need for strategic weapons created vs the Army and Navy's requirements for tactical weapons.

I think the navy did it especially with tomahawk missile because the Iowas were the first ships and the only ships at the time to have the capabilities to house tomahawk missiles. I’ve heard the Missouri and Wisconsin had theirs removed before taking part in desert storm.

We've all seen that documentary where the ships chef prevents terrorists from stealing nukes with a submarine...

I served on the USS Iowa in the 80's, worked in CIC. Sometimes I still write backwards to mess with my family. I can neither confirm or deny we had nuclear weapons onboard.

I was just watching Kindergarten Cop last night and almost jumped through the roof when I saw an Iowa class battleship in one of the scenes passing by in the background

Watching the tube during DESERT STORM. The Captain of one of the Iowa's was giving a news conference while steaming in the Gulf. Question came up, asking the skipper if he had any nukes. The answer was the standard "Neither confirm nor deny". Next question: "If you do have nuclear weapons, how long would it take to change over to them?" Without missing a beat, skipper responds "about two minutes!" Says a lot!

I was stationed on a Cruiser and this I can tell you "I can neither confirm, nor deny!"

Ryan I would imagine that if the vessel could deploy nuclear ordinance that there would be provisions for decoding EAMs. Perhaps you should ask a radio man or a weapons officer if they had the means to authenticate EAM messages on the ship. If the answer is yes, then it's almost a certainty that New Jersey could employ nuclear ordinance.

I was on the USS Mississippi during Desert Shield/Storm. In the crazy run up to deploying, I got to watch the USS Wisconsin offloading tomahawk missiles under heavy guard. We did the same thing.

Can you imagine the checks that must go into shooting a nuclear training round? "Ok Jim, are you SURE we have a training round loaded?" "I think, let me go make sure I don't have live nuclear ordinance loaded into the gun. brb" Lol!

I remember back in the late 80's I was stationed at NAS Oceana there was a news article about the Wisconsin (I think) having a group civilians taking a tour when a priest took out a container of blood and a hammer when they went past a armored box launcher and went at it. There was no report of damage and he was quickly subdued.

We know that the 16 inch guns could fire nuclear rounds. The only real question is whether or not they were carried. The way we know that it was possible is thanks to the United States Army. I am not sure exactly when the project was carried out, but the Army took a naval 16" gun and actually designed a "portable " gun for the express purpose of delivering nuclear weapons. The gun is on display, I believe, at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

The men that absolutely know will absolutely never tell.

I was on a frigate in the early 80s. We were always told if asked that we were nuclear capable. If so the only nukes we would carry( if at all) was nuclear ASROCs.

The Missouri carried nuclear tipped tomahawks In Under Siege

I was on a Spruance destroyer during my service in the Navy and cruised with the Missouri. We pulled into Syndey and had anti-nuclear protestors meet us. One guy was stupid enough to paddle in front of the Missouri in a kayak. Fortunately for him, the police pulled him out of the way before the Missouri ran him over. Since the battleships had the armored box launchers, they probably were nuclear capable.

Super interesting. I'd like to see a show exploring the question "could a single torpedo sink the NJ?"

Even back in the early eighties when I was on a cruiser we had nukes. No Marines were on board we guarded our own. On the larger decks they always have a mar det. Just to stand around and tie up the chow line.

Love this channel! lets give Ryan thanks for all he does

Having grown up in the 50's and 60's, I easily remember our constant fear of nuclear war or a nuclear accident. Every additional nuclear delivery method was another opportunity for an accidental detonation. As bad as things can sometimes seem today, the knowledge that my children and grandchildren have not known that fear is truly a blessing.

I just looked up the blast yields of the of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" Bombs. They both had blast yields of 15-21 kilotons. I also looked up the blast yields of of the 16 inch nuclear shells. They also apparently had yields of 15-20 kilotons. So, it seems each 16 inch W23 shell had about the same blast yield as the bombs dropped on Japan.

In the 1960’s I was attached to a Guided missile destroyer, a DDG. And on this ship we had an ASROC missile launcher, which was a rocket launched Anti Submarine torpedo system. In addition we had a Tarter Missile launcher. While the Tarter system did not require a full time armed guard, the ASROC system did. So, It was common knowledge that at least SOME of the ASROC missiles could be Nuclear equipped. So, when we stood guard at the ASROC station, we stood with a fully loaded firearm, and no where else on the ship. So, what do you think was going on there? (by the way, DDG's did not have a Marine detachment, but we, as Petty Officer Sailors were fully trained in that kind of close combat).

Gunners mate 3rd, USS Shasta AE-33 plank-owner 72-75. I know we carried them, all the time. They were the safest weapons we carried. The most dangerous thing we carried were 16” powder bags, bringing them back to the States from PI, 40’s vintage and highly unstable. We didn’t even put them in the cargo holds. Wooden stations built around them on the O1 level with a yellow line painted around the entire structure. Cross the line, you get shot. Simple blunt Order. Marines bringing Nukes to the Ship were a pain in the ass. Our Gunnery Officer wouldn’t allow them to interfere with us, Special Weapons Detail. I respected him for that. Vietnam Vet USN….sometimes it’s best to remain calm, cool, and collected!

The Navy used the W-23 warhead (artillery shell), nicknamed "Katie", on Iowa-class battleships. There were only 50 of these warheads made in the late 1950s (production started in 10/56) with the warheads retired in October 1962. All of the W-23 warheads for use in the 16-inch naval guns were based on common components developed for an 11-inch artillery shell, the W-19, that was developed for the Army's 280 mm "Atomic Annie" cannon. The warhead design is a "gun-type" enriched U-235 device, similar in design to the "Little Boy" A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima (the Mk-1 bomb, with a 15-18 kiloton yield). The W-19 was developed from the earlier W-9 warhead, the first "atomic artillery" shell, designed for the "Atomic Annie". The W-9 was rated for 15 kilotons of yield, while the later W-19 and W-23 were rated between 15 and 20 kilotons of yield. These atomic artillery shells used mechanical time delay fuses and were intended for airburst use. The W-9 was retired in 5/57 and was recycled into atomic demolition explosives that were retired in 1963. The W-19 was retired in 1963, the last of the atomic artillery shells to be discontinued.

Those shells yeild points to tactical, so I would assume they where more for either firing into a Soviet ship formation, or possibly a Soviet naval station. I don't see them being used vs cities

It's awesome how far this channel has come in the quality of content produced. The cuts, audio and visual quality, and especially Ryan's presenting style are, and I emphasize this most sincerely, *professional*, and when compared to the content y'all were putting out 2.5 years ago, especially so. Outstanding, interesting, entertaining stuff you guys make. Please if you have the time, remake some of the older videos, especially about the turrets/gunhouses with the same quality you do your modern stuff. BZ thanks for doing what you do BB NJ staff!

Don't know about the battleships, but my Leahy class cruiser sure did in the 80's. I was guarding them 4 hours once a day underway.

So I was on a tour of USS Salem 10 years ago, and they were talking about just starting to find evidence of the Des Moines class heavy cruisers being armed with a prototype Atomic tipped artillery Shell program, was any similar system ever developed for the Iowa Class Battleships

In the 80s my parents took me to see USS Iowa when she visited NYC. A protester pleaded with my Mother “How can you take your children on to your a ship that has nuclear weapons?!” My mother replied in her Brooklyn accent, “What do you want us to shoot back with lady? Spitballs?” and she pushed her way past.

In the 1980s, the battleships had a 2-man Marine roving patrol set topside in the vicinity of the Armored Box Launchers, 24/7/365 at sea and in port, regardless whether nuclear Tomahawks were actually present. That was the primary reason for the company of Marines to be assigned to the ship. They had to check in with the Officer of the Deck at least once every 30 minutes. If they failed to check in, a Security Alert was announced, and an armed security team scrambled to the ABL area. Setting the roving patrol full-time ensured there was no outward clue whether nuclear weapons were onboard; most of the crew did not know, and probably only a handful of senior officers on the ship knew whether nuke missiles were loaded.

"9 gun nuclear broadside" is such a terrifying concept.

I remember seeing protesters on the news; they had dropped off the side of the Astoria-Megler bridge on ropes and appeared to be grabbing at the antennas as the ship passed below. I was pretty young and wasn't sure what I thought one way or the other about the potential for nuclear weapons, but I figured the ship had enough of a horsepower advantage to manage the situation.

Excellent subject, made going down memory lane like being there again, thx

It’s safe to say that at least one launcher had the W80 warheads which were 150 kilotons

If Katie had a 20 mile blast diameter and you can shoot them 20 miles that gives you a nice buffer of 10 miles. I also think that when they came up with this Korea was still quite fresh. It could flare up and then the Iowas would be in a target rich environment.

I throughly enjoyed this episode. Very interesting topic and breakdown...

Seeing these various decommissioned USN destroyers and such used as targets in SINKEX exercises, and sinking to the deep after being all shot up, complete with armored box launchers still sitting on the deck, drives me batty! A ship museum could have used those!

Another great video from the battleship. Thanks

"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. " - Tony Stark, with one of the most fitting quotes for post-WW nuclear craze

I’m sure the BB’s were outfitted to deploy with atomic ordnance. You’ve pointed out all the evidence. I was assigned to a P-3 Orion VP squadron in the early seventies. They would occasionally have very high security training (ground) operations involved in the movement and loading of nuclear depth charges into the aircraft. Only select members of the squadron were involved. All other personnel had to stay away, for that day, from their normal work locations. Very high pucker-factor training procedures.

Fascinating!

Visited NJ this past friday! Got the engine room tour and turret tour by your staff.

4:30 I recognize that guy! Goes by the name of Sweepy McMuzzlington. He's been on every sketchy gun range ever.

I’m so glad you brought up that movie.

While recommissioning Iowa in 1986, we found a hand-pumped on a shell deck, probably in T2 which appeared to allow a projectile to be tilted. We were told it was part of the nuclear 16" projectile program and to remove it. It was removed and disposed of as junk. We then went to the USS Alabama where our people were allowed to remove lashings to restore the capacity to restore 30 additional projectiles on that deck. I was the Weapons Department Head 1986-1989.

My gut says the warheads/shells were made, the modifications to the ships were made, but much like the never-used Davy Crockett, the military came to their senses (rare, I know) and never actually put them to sea for use. At most, I think it's possible that they were loaded aboard and unloaded once or twice to ensure it was all possible, but even then, it was probably still dummies. Development during the early nuclear age was more reckless than actual deployment, and that's saying something given the number of incidents and accidents involving nukes in the Cold War. I personally think everything, right down to having Marines guarding the areas and having a red box and launch keys, was prep to load them at a moment's notice without having to suddenly have new routines and equipment but that the Navy knew it wasn't a fantastic idea. Yes, I know this seems pretty optimistic to think the military had that level of prudence.

AS34 Canopus had a MarDet guarding the FBM missile storage silos amidships.

Even on an FF back in the 80's, we would get cryptographers and marines on board when we deployed to the Med. The whole "can neither confirm nor deny" was a "wink wink, nudge nudge, of course we've got nukes" fig leaf.

Excellent video, Ryan. I know we carried nukes, but we were never allowed to admit it, especially in Japan.

My ship was berthed at one of the carrier piers in Norfolk, opposite and to landward of Wisky, not too long before her decomm. One day our weather decks were secured. I dont revall the reasons given, just that nobody was allowed outside the ship for any reason. Being young and inquisitive, myself and a friend went up on our 04 level, army crawled to the edge, and peeked. A big Marine detatchment rolled up. There were Humvees with manned .50s, belts loaded. Probably 75 or more Marines formed a perimeter around the pier, facing out, rifles at the ready, heads on swivels, looking quite serious. It was an impressive show of force. Our veiw was blocked, but a couple flatbed trucks were loaded with big, covered boxes from Wisky, and then the detatchment surrounded and accompanied the trucks off the pier, to destinations unknown. Later my Chief (who'd already been over to Wisky doing that whole Chief thing of trading stuff, swiping random tools and parts from a decommimg ship, etc with her CPOs) admonished us for our stunt of being outside the ship, and suggested that we'd of likely been shot if seen, and that the Marines took TLAM-N security pretty seriously. While I have no actual, specific facts to share, Im going to hypothesize (and the consensus on board agreed) that they were NOT guarding anything conventional.

A couple of points I want to make. Firstly if New Jersey did carry nuclear warheads in the 80's, the US government would be wise not to reveal that especially if she went into foreign ports. Sydney Harbour is a no go zone for nuclear powered ships and if the Australian government found out that indeed New Jersey or any other US ship entered Sydney Harbour with nuclear warheads, there would a diplomatic crisis. The second point I would make is in regards to marines stationed on New Jersey. They may have been stationed on her and her sister ships for protecting such new technology, that is the Tomahawk missile system as it was such new technology it was vital not to get in the hands of the Russian's.

You should do a movie review/breakdown of Under Siege, Hollywood vs. Reality !

This dovetails with my visit to the New Jersey in Long Beach back in the 90's. While onboard I noticed all the Marine Guards at the rear of the Battleship in the hatchways were holding their M16's ready to fire with their hands on the triggers

We were always taught in the RN that if ever asked if our ships carried nuclear weapons, just to say, 'I can neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons'.

Been waiting for the Katie shells in World of Warships. They’d be fun for April fools day.

Lots of ships are, or were, capable of carrying nukes. The Standard ER missile could be, and was, used to attack surface targets, and it had a nuclear version. There were also nuclear variants of ASROC.

I don't know what made you think the blast radius was 20nmi, I know my sources aren't necessarily better, but according to the nukemap website, the total blast radius for a 20kt nuclear warhead like the W23 is around 3.2nmi. The actual fireball is just below 1000ft wide, and the "radiation radius" is said to be at around 0.6nmi. To have a nuclear blast of 20nmi, you would need a 10 megaton warhead, such as the ones on the W53, and as far as I know, this was only available for ICBMs and very large bombs. The actual effective range for a SURFACE detonation of a 20kt nuclear warhead is around 1,800ft wide. In a late 1950s naval engagement between two battleships, nuclear shells would negate the inaccuracies of slinging shells at 15nmi. I highly doubt any nuclear warheads below megatons would ever be used on cities, because they're simply too weak. W23 warheads of New Jersey were barely strong enough to destroy a port.

I mean I get public paranoia, or concern with anything nuclear, (for the US, especially after Three Mile Island). But protesting by getting close to a huge battleship like the Iowas is stupid and dangerous. Cheers to the security forces and the sailors for their excellent seamanship that prevented any incidents.

Bob Kay, another song was Emerson Lake and Palmer's Karn Evil 9 Part 2, where a phrase goes " Guardians of a New Clear Dawn. " The vocalist is British. That accent makes clear what the real word is.

I'm so glad Ryan pronounces it correctly!

"9 Gun Nuclear Broadside" Jesus that is a terrifying image

The B61 and B61-12 for Tomahawk cruise missiles, I don't if they were on board but the capability sure is there.

Going to disagree on the "Single salvo of 9 nuclear rounds" theory. I'm not sure what dispersion on the 16 inch guns was, but probably not enough to make three (or nine) nuclear rounds landing close together do anything. Also, nukes are sort of fragile things and the first one going off has a high likelihood of damaging the other two in flight and causing them to fail. The Air Force put a LOT of thinking about this into their nuclear war planning so that the first weapon to hit a given target didn't damage the second and third weapons programmed for that target. In this era, battleships were still hard things to kill as precision anti-ship missiles were still on the drawing board and nuclear weapons had a CEP measured in miles. From that stand point I suspect they would have been programmed as a second strike weapon, but that is just a guess.

Even if the W23 produced a 20kt yield the ship would still be able to safely hit targets at 10nm. Blast overpressure of 1psi would only extend out about 6km. The primary danger would be sailing into the fallout plume. The 1946 Able test at Bikini was a 23kt device detonated at 500ft above an array of ships at anchor. Less than half the ships within 1000yds were sunk, although most had severe damage. The ex-IJN battleship Nagato was within 1000yds and only suffered moderate damage. The underwater Baker test sunk half of the ships within 1000yds. The underwater test badly contaminated many more ships than the airburst test.

I talked to a sailer stationed on jersey in the 80s. He told me the story about marines guarding nukes.

If you were doing weps load and there were about 100 marines guarding the rail cars delivering the weapons…you were getting nukes. Was on the nuclear weapons handling team and in the PRP aboard my ship for ASROC’s and the pier was quite crowded when we were taking on missiles, torpedoes, shells, etc. busy, busy, busy 😀

Various surface warships may or may not have nuclear weapons capability, Tomahawk missiles were not the only nuclear capable weapons systems deployed aboard warships prior to the reactivation of the Iowa class BBs. Marines guarding nuke magazines was just one of several jobs detailed to our great buddies wearing the globe and anchor!

I’d love to see a video with a sailor who worked in that room doing a description of things that happened right where Ryan is standing.

Do the nuclear shells count? 😎

Learned it on the he chunky v. “I cannot confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons onboard the USScarl Vinson “

I was stationed in Izmir Turkey one of battleship’s did a port of call. They were not allowed in to the port like CVN’s. They would stay out in international water ways with their escorts. They would ferry parts of crews into the port for a three day drunk fest. We were told to stay away from the bars around the port and be home before night fall.

I enjoyed Ryan coming around the corner while.talking to the camera like Robert Stack.

I was on the Chicago (CG-11) and we had nukes and marines. Great bunch of guys.

Red safe would likely have been in both Captain and XO cabin, each of them having half of the code books, and one of the keys to authorise launch. Probably removed with the missiles when they were decommed, or the missiles were removed, so as to keep the authority keys with the missiles.

My absolutely amateur appraisal -- Having ten rounds of nukes would be redundancy, but itd also be for having to deal with multiple surface fleets. If you have the warning, load a nuke round in the aft turret, turn the ship (and escorting fleet presumably) so your stern is to the enemy fleet, fire and run like hell. At max range you'd avoid the worst of the blast, and if the weather is cooperative, be upwind of it as well. If the enemy fleet is to a beam (side), then a hard over, over the shoulder shot would be the call. The design and yield versus the max range and the maneuverability of the platform firing it indicates these would be less for land bombardment and more for counter fleet use; though coasts which an Iowa could get close enough to could certainly be on the menu. Of course, nowadays, SSGNs do that role with far less risk to the crews firing the thing.

I think you’re drastically overestimating the effects of a 20 kiloton air burst from 20 miles away. You’re certainly not losing the crew to radiation exposure in days unless you fired directly upwind and the crew stood outside during a subsequent hot rain.

The US Army 8” howitzer was also nuclear capable and I helped guard a warhead storage site in West Germany in the 80’s. In fact, the “Green Party” activists tried to create an incident by getting close to the site. We ended up detaining them and the Polizei took them away.

Absolutely…They loaded them at NAS North Island where the nuclear weapon storage facility. However, DoD policy is to “neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard”. We had nukes on the CV, which is why they had a MARDET onboard. Same reasons that NAS North Island had a Marine Barracks aboard the station.