Talk:United States nuclear weapons in Japan

Contested edits

• this edit with the summary: "first para is an unproven assertion ; second para is about Downfall, which doesn't appear in the rest of the article; third para is a random factoid which shouldn't be in the lead)"

These concerns are nonsensical. The entire article and the sources are about covert bases for US nukes. The concern of an unproven assertion is ridiculous given the obvious quotes and sources plainly visible. 2nd par is about the battle of Okinawa during WWII and the southern islands relationship to the atomic bombing. The battle of OKI and the End of WWII is mentioned in the body, just below the lead. @user:Buckshot06 :A14:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• this edit with the summary: "Remove F-100 incident; no clear evidence was on Okinawa; remove B-52 incident in North Carolina"

The section is about alleged incidents. The assumption is that it was on Okinawa but there is no evidence or source to say it wasn't and there is no clarifying denial nor comment from DOD to date. I've restored a small bit of the NC B-52 crash that supports the two inadvertent US air defense nuke-armed air-defense missile launches. The known nuke incidents do not seem to include them. @user:Buckshot06 14:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• this edit with the summary: "remove this sentence; can't find 'air defense interceptors' in any of the refs"

Didn't you just remove that very source it in your previous edit where you "Removed F-100 incident"?? @user:Buckshot06:C 14:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• this edit (technically a move) with the summary: "This is evacuation of the bases, not sovereignty - moving)"

The quotes was on forces and weapons and the administration of Okinawa by the US Gov. vs relations and possible reversion (sovereignty). Evacuation of bases could (in theory) be forced after sovereignty.

• the move with this edit summary: "estimate better fits here"

There is no reason to break up the quote from one source into two quotes from two sources. Though I could be mistaken and it may actually fit better elsewhere. Should we keep it together if we move it? 16:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Henoko/ Schwab/ Hansen/ nuke depot/ and relocation plan

• this edit with summary: "sources do not state."

I believe you are wrong. Relocation_of_Marine_Corps_Air_Station_Futenma#Plan_secretly_formulated_in_1960s

Plan to build base off Nago in 1960s got OK by U.S. top brass, document reveals The Japan Times (April 4, 2016)- I've reached my viewing limit.

U.S eyed Okinawa for huge offshore base in mid-1960s (June 4, 2001) The Japan Times; retrieved: December 12, 2016. That source link may be temporarily broken but here is the archive url: [1] "It suggested building an offshore landfill facility with a 3,000-meter runway, a large military port and an integrated ammunition bunker capable of storing nuclear weapons." Johnvr4 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC) @user:Buckshot06 :B 14:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Buckshot06, Why are we doing this again? diff Do you not grasp that base at Henoko = Camp Schwab?

In the last few days you have made edits removing reference to Camp Schwab as well as edits inserting this text:

"The United States Government also requires the standby retention and activation in time of great emergency of existing nuclear storage locations in Okinawa: Kadena, Naha, Henoko, and the Nike Hercules units..."

Why are you doing this? Your edit summaries don't explain it. The lack of discussion and even more new contested edits while I've been waiting for you to repair your previous edit (explained in the Faulty edit RS vs. undue weight section below) is frustrating. You've been warned about an edit war and this isn't helping matters. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Nick-D for WP:NOTNOTHERE conduct / content check. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if my response is delayed; I've just seen this. It's always better to keep discussion in one section of a talkpage at a time; if you continue adding responses to different sections of the same talkpage something may be missed. Now, the 1960s base proposal. *The Sources Do Not State!!* You've added two primary newspaper sources, fine. Neither mentions the words 'Camp Schwab'. We run with WP:V here, and I am *strictly* paring you back to the details mentioned in the sources you cite. You appear to have a tendency to add material that isn't actually in the cited sources -- evident all the way back to the 2013 deletion debate. If you're going to add primary-source material so heavily, you need to stick quite closely to the sources and not infer or WP:SYNTH from them. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The message about this problem edit was there since the 18th and you were pinged by me right in this message on the 19th. [2]

If you continue to have WP conversations about me without informing me as you has done at least twice recently then I'll miss discussions too.

Since you continue to refuse to listen, while making contested edits and not answering my questions, which part of "I've reached my viewing limit" for these sources did you not understand?

Do you not grasp that base at Henoko = Camp Schwab?

Do you not grasp that there is an agreement to bring nukes back to the base at Henoko in times of emergency?

Do you intend to waste the time of every editor on Wikipedia who looks at this with a plethora of additional time-wasting nonsense and misdirection about your ignorance and inability to acknowledge the very simple fact that The base at Henoko is called Camp Schwab.

Is this really something that you intend to dispute or can't verify? It is an obvious fact that I felt was highly unlikely to be challenged by any reasonable editor. In the event an editor believes that challenging that fact is a good idea they may look here: https://www.mccsokinawa.com/schwab/

Stick close to the source? What a ridiculous thing to say here. I thought I provided the quote from the source and any editor can see the diffs links to see me "sticking close to the source." Johnvr4 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"According to accounts published after Okinawa’s reversion to Japan in 1972, nuclear weapons were stored in the northern Okinawan village of Henoko at an Army ordnance depot adjacent to the Marines’ Camp Schwab. The depot was constructed in 1959, becoming the Army’s 137th Ordnance Company (Special Weapons) and was turned over to the Marines as Camp Henoko (Ordnance Ammunition Depot) following reversion in 1972. The camp is located only a few hundred yards from the proposed site of the replacement base for the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, which is located in the middle of densely populated Ginowan City"[3] @Buckshot06

Johnvr4 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We were talking, I believe, about the proposed new base, the extension of the peninsula. That base, if it was built, might have been included into Camp Schwab, or not. They might have created a new base & base name. Without sources linking the cancelled 1960s proposal to Camp Schwab, you cannot link it to Camp Schwab, unless there's a source saying the new base was going to be part of the existing Camp Schwab!! Please stick to the sources and stop overusing WP:PRIMARYSOURCES to claim things that we need, according to the rules, secondary or tertiary sources for!! Buckshot06 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I think the forest we are not seeing through the trees is that 1. The nuke depot was built, but 2. runways and port were not. 3. The depot was stocked with nukes and was staffed, and it is still there now. 4. It would be reactivated with nukes if needed.[4] Is this source not suitable?[5]

The proposed replacement helo base would be near the Camp Henoko Ammo depot (mostly underground) which the sources call moving Futenma to Camp Schwab. All or most the bases on the island are adjacent or connected or annexes or sub-bases of each other. The names and borders and missions have changed over the years. For example "Chibana" is part of Kadena (USAF) and is now called something else. At Henoko, we have USMC Shawab/Hansen and Camp Henoko ammo depot or Hansen depot. For some clarification: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/henoko.htm

It is all very nuanced or would need to be and one can do a lot of extensive research for days or weeks with sometimes contradictory sources, or they can just save themselves and everyone else a huge headache and call it Camp Schwab as do the majority of sources that mention the base there and realize that in almost every source it is the base controversy that is the focus (that is what the base is notable for). It is on a peninsula and I'm not sure about the Oura Bay/Henoko Bay disinction or which on is a National Heritage site or proposed site/ or status of numerous lawsuits etc. I am warning you to take an aspirin in advance!

Camp Hansen Ordnance Ammunition Depot does needs mention as well as the replacement base. Every source presents it that way. If you really want to get to the bottom of the relationship between these locations, we can do that but I strongly advise against going down that road or at least waiting until bigger issues are ironed out. 17:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Johnvr4. I appreciate you explaining this at length. But again, WP:V requires that statements are verifiable, especially when dealing with such important issues as nuclear weapons. We need to make sure that everything written is able to be tied back to sources, and is understandable. I suggest you rewrite and move the section, talking about the building of the thing that was actually built - the nuclear storage depot - and place it in chronological order, with appropriate references, at whatever date it was actually created. Then you've introduced (Camp Schwab?) into the article in a verified way that links it to nuclear weapons. Then you can add a two-sentence thing about the runway/port expansion being proposed, naming the geographical location, and saying that this would have placed the proposed runway/port expansion next to or adjacent to what was at the time Camp Schwab. Just remember, if I cannot work this out, being able to discuss it with you on the talkpage, your intended readers will probably have little clue. You want to make it crystal clear to them, surely? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okinawa Island # U.S._military presence makes some distinction between major bases" but I'm not clear on what that distinction might be referring to.

Camp Hansen. Well... That article clarifies that it's a major base and muddies completely almost everything else.

I thought the Okinawa’s Henoko was a “storage location” for nuclear weapons: published accounts article was good for accurately doing what I had proposed (in not getting crazy with it). Do you think it is adequate or do that? This problem is the likely the very reason the secret nuclear agreements say "Base at Henoko,"...otherwise they might still be negotiating it. Perhaps we could say something along the lines of:

Nuclear weapons were stored at the then-named Camp Henoko, constructed in the village of Henoko in 1959. The depot is adjacent to Camp Schwab and has been renamed Camp Hansen Ordnance Ammunition Depot.[citing Okinawa’s Henoko was a “storage location” for nuclear weapons: published accounts]

Proposals for expansion of the facility, some dating to the late-1960s, are declassified approvals for an expanded special ammunition storage area to house nuclear weapons, a port, and runways that were only revealed in 2016. (Leased or Base or both??) Land adjacent to the depot has been reserved for the planned relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma.[citing Plan to build base off Nago in 1960s got OK by U.S. top brass, document reveals The Japan Times (April 4, 2016) and U.S eyed Okinawa for huge offshore base in mid-1960s (June 4, 2001)]  ? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Try In 1959, Camp Henoko was constructed in the village of Henoko, adjacent to Camp Schwab.[FN] It was used to store nuclear weapons [FN your source]. In 19XX, it was renamed Camp Hansen Ordnance Ammunition Depot.[FN for year of renaming]. Those sentences would go in the chronological order of the section about installation etc.

Then, chronologically, same overall section. In 196(8?), the DOD proposed to build [whatever the two sources say]. [FN two sources]. The proposed site is adjacent to [Schwab/Henoko]. The plans, revealed in 2016, were never implemented.[FN two sources] You see the second sentence is separate, not trying to claim the sources say something other than what they do. If you wish to introduce Futenma into the same paragraph the Futenma relocation will have to be tied to nuclear weapons in some way. Otherwise it's more appropriate in an article about the district in question, which would discuss all the sites in relation to each other. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've explained, there is no way I want to get into the the dates of renaming bases or ever-changing organizational schemes of each of those bases ever since the late 1950's.

Your proposal was confusing even to me which we want to avoid for the reader. "Special ammunition storage area" Special weapons are what nuclear weapons were called in official documentation back then and is right in that source (see my insertion in proposed text). The '1960s expansion never implemented' is important to tie it to the nuke depot and that it was a long standing goal and a controversy ever since construction. Futenma move is the latest plan for expansion (and the bigger controversy being combined with the expansion plus the nukes) (quote from one of the two second sources does all of that and is above). The secret agreements do not specify which base at Henoko would receive weapons and I see no reason that WP editors need try to do that either. An attempt or a resulting answer would only be our suspicion or OR or POV.

Was there any phrase in my proposal that you felt was not seen in the source?

"Bases in relation to each other"... please check: Base/facility nomenclature in 1971: [6]

• "Henoko Ammunition Storage Depot" (was Army, then turned over to USMC)
• "Henoko Navy(al?) Ammunition Storage Facilities" (USMC Camp Henoko?) Johnvr4 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

After reversion... Faulty edit RS vs. undue weight

• diff edit

A cited statement was removed from lead and contested contradictory and uncited text was inserted. The text might need to be something like staged in Japan but

The part with "until 1972" (and also the last Removal section text that I started) is disputed by a source that we need to discuss or the text needs to be very highly nuanced.

No nukes after 72/1973 is contradicted by at least one reliable source (ref name=umbrella) Japan Under the US Nuclear Umbrella Hans Kristensen, Global Problem Solving nuke policy Supporting Documents, (July 21, 1999): "With the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty in 1972, Japan stated that all nuclear weapons related functions on the island must cease. Despite this position, U.S. forces on Okinawa were maintained on nuclear alert as part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) for several years after the reversion of the island, and some forces even increased their nuclear alert role in the 1970s."

WWII material is WP:RSUW especially given the A-bomb base at Tinian with new bases built at Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the two reliable sources added that present additional bases in WWII era and require that section. see: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Lead

The F-100 interceptors (and the Genies) is also WP:RSUW and discussed here [[User_talk:Johnvr4#talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie. Good grief It's just a few words!

20 launch site locations... First, the sentence was moved around in these edits and got separated from its source and now it has been removed completely...and needs to be put back in and the citation restored.

The suspected nuke accident is also WP:RSUW and discussed at Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands# Original research? / synthesis? removed, failure to WP:BRD?.

I am going to make these necessary edits to undo these changes to discuss in the various sections. Please participate in the discussion(s). Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am still waiting and have not made this edit. @user:Nick-D for WP:NOTNOTHERE conduct / content check. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph you cite above, "With the reversion of Okinawa" etc forms para 6 of Kristensen's article. The very next para, para 7, begins "Although nuclear weapons were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s" which I believe substantiates the generally held belief at the time. Thus nuclear weapons were removed in 1972, it seems, though forces on Okinawa (possibly the 18 TFW) may have been held at some level of nuclear alert state for other reasons -- possibly ready to employ nuclear weapons which would have arrived during transition-to-war. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they never left in 1972 or perhaps they were brought back after- I haven't looked for clarification. From Kristensen, some "were removed in 1972" and some were removed from Okinawa in the lateearly 1970s.

Though here: “Secret” 1965 Memo Reveals Plans to Keep U.S. Bases and Nuclear Weapons Options in Okinawa After Reversion Johnvr4 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

"*this edit with the summary: "first para is an unproven assertion ; second para is about Downfall, which doesn't appear in the rest of the article; third para is a random factoid which shouldn't be in the lead)"

These concerns are nonsensical. The entire article and the sources are about covert bases for US nukes. The concern of an unproven assertion is ridiculous given the obvious quotes and sources plainly visible. 2nd par is about the battle of Okinawa during WWII and the southern islands relationship to the atomic bombing. The battle of OKI and the End of WWII is mentioned in the body, just below the lede."

The unproven bold statement in the lead is that the reason the islands were retained under US sovereignty was to store nuclear weapons. None of your sources prove this was the only or prime objective - there were other reasons as well. The other two paragraphs are about subjects (Downfall and Bockscar's landing) which do not appear in the rest of the article!! The intro *summarizes* the article, it should not introduce subjects which are not referred to again!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The bold in the lead was removed by another editor.

The first and second sentence in the next article section mention "After the Battle of Okinawa" and "following WWII." If you feel that restatement or more mention within in the body is required then please add it to the article.

Unproven lead? The plain restatment in the lead is right from the text body and plainly visible. I think you meant our sources which has (among other confirmations), "That is why nuclear war planners wanted hideouts on Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima."

The Marianas and Okinawa during WWII need mention for comprehensive coverage of US weapons in J-south-islands. Just get it in there somewhere and quit removing it because it is required. I started with it in the lead and how it relates in the body.

We may need to include all of Japan and rename the article to US Nuclear Weapons in Japan as that source has:

"Misawa and Itazuki airbases (and possibly at Atsugi, Iwakuni, Johnson, and Komaki airbases as well), and nuclear-armed U.S. Navy ships stationed in Sasebo and Yokosuka".

If that is case, the atomic attacks and post war ship and sub transit need additional mention and more weight. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A new B-29 base and facility to launch atomic bombs was being built in Okinawa to be complete in September 1945. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research? / synthesis? removed, failure to WP:BRD?

This section cannot be left in the article, by it's own words it's inapplicable.

On January 18, 1959, a F-100 Super Sabre in ground alert configuration and armed with a nuclear air-to-air missile caught fire at an unnamed U.S. pacific air base. The fire was reportedly quickly put out and there was apparently no danger to the nuclear weapon.[23] The Center for Defense Information reported that it is known that nuclear armed F-100 aircraft in the Pacific were based at Okinawa, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Thailand at that time.[23] More than 50 years later, the specific location of this potential nuclear accident has never been disclosed by the United States government.[9]

My bold for emphasis. Please abide by WP:BRD and stop edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

BRd requires discussion. This is my "several-eth" discussion on this material. Of course it is applicable to a section about suspected nuke incidents on or about Okinawa or pacific islands! It is an undisputed fact that the specific location of this potential accident has never been disclosed by DOD and that the suspected locations are stated in the previous source "(#23)" which I've added to the article to cite the last sentence for support. I think that was part of the concern.

Okinawa (or other possibilities) are the suspected locations. That the location of that accident-despite an exclusion to the neither confirm nor deny US policy (re Iceland vs the J-islands) has never been disclosed is right within the prior source too. And there is not one source anywhere that will dispute it that I am aware of.

Last, I know it was not purposely done but editors, please refrain from removing a source and then complaining that something is not in a source or requesting one to be added and when it is, removing the material. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss. Not Bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, ignore what's said in discussion. I didn't mention sourcing issues. The content is not applicable because it specifically points out the aircraft crash only has a 1/5 chance of being in Japan. It is your synthesis of two sources which conclude that it was. At the very least it's a WP:UNDUE issue. (Hohum ^@) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There are D D D Discussions about this subject taking place elsewhere on other talk pages. (I'll scare up some links ) such as these:

Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, User_talk:Buckshot06# U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands, User_talk:Mark_Arsten# Operation_Red_Hat_again, User_talk:Mark_Arsten# Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat, User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19# Operation_Red_Hat, User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19# Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat, User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22# Draft_review, Johnvr4 (talk). 14:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

From our reliable source, (please stop deleting it) very clearly:

• There is a controversy over that accident and over nuke accidents in general.
• Whether nukes were present in Japan is another controversy
• There is a controversy over DOD disclosure of nuke locations.
• Okinawa (among the other possibilities) is part of this controversy.

Not only is that content acceptable, it is required and necessary in a comprehensive WP article on this subject.

It is not even remotely synthesis to present the material as it is directly from our apparently authoritative and reliable sources on the accident subject.

Last, it is not my anything because if I was forced to offer an opinion on the suspected location, I would choose Thailand (just because the world knows the US had nukes in the other locations).

My take is that currently the DOD can't set US foreign policy (Red Hat may have had an impact on that 'rule') i believe that the State dept would have to be involved but now the host country must allow the disclosure.

Syn could come if the "2 armed missiles launched by inadvertence" implied that Okinawa or ft meade were the only choices. It is there two show two armed anti-air missiles launched somewhere but they aren't on the nuke accident list. There's no proof they were talking about these two locations and that was never the implication (a s. Korean NIKE accident was mentioned in the draft but was taken out). Johnvr4 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not required, it is vague and undue weight. The other examples cover the sames issues already. (Hohum ^@) 14:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added link to previous discussions above in the event you missed it.

It is clearly and obviously required and there are solid WP policies that provide undeniable guidance to support the inclusion of that material. WP:RSUW Johnvr4 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSUW appears irrelevant to this issue. Clearly we cannot agree, so I encourage a third opinion - although it's already clear you don't have consensus for this text as it's already been reverted by another editor. (Hohum ^@) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your view that Reliable sources and undue weight is irrelevant here. It seems very highly relevant to this issue and to this very content dispute and you should know that I'm right in the middle of the edit to undo the content removal for the reasons described.

I've made a section to discuss my reasons as the most recent content-removing edit does not withstand scrutiny and did not address a single one of the concerns brought forward since the last time it was removed and put back.

I very much agree that we need another editors views.

Please set up the request for comment. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A required change is not edit warring. The editor removing material was warned about it and being consistent with our sources. I did not make the repair edit yesterday as I said I would. I gave the other editor a chance to repair his edit. My concerns were expressed in discussion- repeatedly and prior to that edit and never addressed in it and then more problems were inserted by that editor. I explained with strong arguments why material needs to be in there and cited a WP policy that requires due weight inclusion. The argument that due/weight and RS issues are irrelevant to this issue or discussion seems to fall completely flat. The discussion about the edit was ignored it needs to be rectified as described here. Please open a rfc as suggested if we can't agree whether should be removed or not. I'm not good at it. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen to the other editor, please, Johnvr4: there is no consensus to include this statement, which lacks some WP:Verifiability. Please stop flogging this dead horse. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I listened and concerns that this material is WP:UNDUE or fails WP:Verifiability (or any other part of it) are meritless.

See: WP:RSUW & WP:ALLEGED for guidance. The opinions and the supporting arguments put forth are being challenged because they are not consistent with WP policy.

• Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, ... when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.

This is WP:not a vote and the so-called "horse" is still kicking. Please explain to us how the polices you've mentioned support an argument to exclude and then help me Request additional comments because I've only done it once (and not well).

My argument for inclusion is based on WP policy and my edits to restore the passages reflect that. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your changes are not *required*. They are against consensus. It has already been clearly explained why the quoted text above is inappropriate. (Hohum ^@) 16:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear that you've looked at "WP:VAGUE" or WP:ALLEGED, WP:CONLIMITED or not a WP:Not a vote at all.

If I can sum up the various concerns about that passage in a nut shell:

Hohum's policy concern (to support EXclusion) is WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:VAGUE (WP:Words to watch)

Buckshot's policy concern (to support EXclusion) is WP:Verifiability and WP:CONSENSUS

JohnV4's (my) policy concern (to support INclusion) is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight and WP:Alleged (WP:Words to watch) and WP:CONLEVEL

Have I accurately and correctly captured the clear explanation and entire counter-arguments that I was provided after the apparent edit war over this content? Johnvr4 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You have summed up my point incorrectly. Throwing a load of irrelevant or incorrectly interpreted guidelines and hoping one will stick isn't going to work. From asking: "Did the F-100 incident take place in Japan?" We already know the answer is not "Yes", and is at best "don't know". That fails a significant test for inclusion; being relevant. I am reminded of last time you significantly edited an article and simply would not listen to other editors. This is heading the same way. (Hohum ^@) 19:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, by all means, correct my inaccuracy so that we may continue requesting comment.(asked twice).

The policies I've cited supporting inclusion are very relevant while the load of policies for exclusion are those of irrelevance and incorrect interpretation.

I'm listening and I hear you just fine. I just Do Not understand why certain editors are battling over such simple things that are explained quite clearly our sources and in WP policy. The veiled accusation of disruptive editing is offensive as the suggestion that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is unfounded. I am not even sure what you are reminded of nor does it matter.

• From reliable sources, It is a fact that this incident happened.
• Our source(s) states that that one of the few possible locations for the incident was Okinawa but 58 years later, the DoD won't confirm or deny the setting of the incident.
• There has been an accusation or suspicion from our reliable sources that would be widely-interpreted as violation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which as you know, the 1967 Three Non-Nuclear Principles, adopted in 1971, came from the Okinawan reversion negotiations.
• There is a special sensitivity in Okinawa on US-related anything but especially WMDs, and planes with safety problems that might endanger civilians, and especially any F-100s that catch fire in 1959 incidents on Okinawa in planes that often armed with nukes over the island is a great big deal there and all of those issues support inclusion. 1959 Okinawa F-100 crash

Which of your points or WP policy guidance for this material do you believe that I missing or not listening to or not understanding? Please be very clear. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already been clear. It is unknown if the event even happened in Japan, therefore it shouldn't be in the article. The other examples already in the article cover the same aspects, and are sourced as happening in Japan, so there is definitely no need for this one to be included with an uncertain location. (Hohum ^@) 19:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What policy concerns (in any) did you have? I summed up your policy concerns that you described in your above comments and you said that I got it wrong. Can you clarify any policy concerns you have and can you clearly summarize them so we can continue with a Rfc. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in rules lawyering with you. The article is about things that actually happened in Japan, not things that a source (of whatever quality) say might have happened there. Keep rereading this until you understand it. It doesn't need to be explained again. (Hohum ^@) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you simply engage in some courtesy and clearly explain your policy concerns with the material as discussion requires or show editors where you have already clearly explained the policy-based concerns you have by mentioning the talk sections where this was discussed and relevant parts of the WP policies that apply?

I listened and tried to sum up your concerns- which you said I got all wrong. I can see that you have some type of concern however it is not clear and from previous edits, it appears they do not appear to be based on any WP policy that supports your position.

I have repeatedly requested clarification of your concern and you have ignored those requests as well as three separate request to please help me open some type of request for comment. You've repeatedly declined to provide any of that to continue discussion.

Therefore, in the absence of any further reasonable articulation of a WP policy-based concern, there is nothing further to comment on, the discussion can be over and the edit made to include the material. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't have WP:CONSENSUS as multiple editors have reverted the text in question. Adding the material again will clearly be contentious, and could be interpreted as edit warring.

I suppose I could use the same tactic as you. Just assume I say "Could you clarify your point more please?" anytime you say anything. (Hohum ^@) 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is based solely upon the merit of the arguments put forth and this process is WP:not a vote. One needs to have logical policy-based support for their arguments in supporting their edits.

From my perspective, User:Hohum has opened this very section entitled: Original research / synthesis removed, failure to BRD that concern the alleged F-100 pacific base nuclear bomb accident which may or may not have been Okinawa.

Our source is Center for Defense Information (1981). U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: Danger in our Midst (PDF). The Defense Monitor. X (5). pp.6-7.

• The information came from a reliable source so a concern that this material is original research is entirely without merit.
• The information came from one source (see the current version) so any concern that this material is synthesis is also utterly meritless.
• The last complaint in the section title was that WP:BRD was not being followed.
• Links to numerous discussions about the material, which have taken place elsewhere were provided, talk page discussion and content alterations are made in between my edits.
• WP:BRD:"Cycle." requires an understanding of the opposing editors concerns. The process requires you to explain exactly what you feel to be the perceived issue is and your continued refusal to clarify those concerns thwarts BRD and other several WP policies.

What you appear to have is WP:CONLEVEL because each of the two editors removed it provided different reasons for their concern. Now there is the simple fact that you are attempting to weigh WP:ALLEGED against the odds of culpability and can't point to any policy that supports doing that! Yes, we can easily determine the odds that the location mention was Japan because our source is highly reliable however The ODDS are irrelevant to WP:Due weight. Because the information has WP:verifiability and our source has WP:reliability, the WP:weight of what is WP:alleged is determined by WP:RSUW.

Again: "JohnV4's (my) policy concern (to support INclusion) is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight and WP:Alleged (WP:Words to watch) and WP:CONLEVEL."

My position(s) have been stated, and restated--repeatedly, and then summarized--twice and can also be read above...

Put simply, the material is only viewed as contentious because it was in the article and was removed with the lack of solid policy support.

Which part of what I've said above are you unclear on? I will elaborate anywhere needed.

However, At this point I feel that editors are simply way past attempting to understand your concern(s). Your assumed suggestion to WP:disrupt any further discussion (if 'discussion' is what you are calling the thing you are doing here) with endless or perpetual "responses of, "Could you clarify your point more please?" anytime I say anything.

The additional threat to accuse editors of edit warring who don't support (or can't understand) your alleged concerns in not advised. I've talked a ton about the past and proposed edits and I've waited for days to get additional clarification from you. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Nick-D for WP:NOTNOTHERE conduct / content check. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of...

Instead of all this editing and counter-editing can we just bust out the 'ol google and see if you can find a reliable source, or a better source, or a source that has a different opinion, instead of this constant aimless content challenging. Just ask a question before editing and we can understand each other a lot better. I thought that I was solving a problem by separating and moving the draft material from my sand box as each of you has requested me to do more than once. This does not have to be painful so lets find a better way to approach this and improving WP together. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not suggested anything regarding this material and your sandbox. Most of the issues don't seem to be about *sourcing*, they are about relevance, undue weight, and interpretation of the sources. (Hohum ^@) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This wasn't directed at you Hohum and was left in the spirit of let us find a better way to improve the material going forward with less Boldness and Reverting and more Discussion... and avoid meritless and time-consuming complaints about a lack of sources to support some aspect of the material.

Explanation: There was a request to break up draft material in my sandbox covering WMDS in Japan into smaller articles and this entry is one of them. As soon as I created this article, another editor proposed moving it and immediately created mirror content without any further discussion: Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction# End_stages_of_World_War_II, Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction# U.S._weapons_of_mass_destruction_in_Japan

Many of the deletions removed from this article for so-called relevance (end of WWII for example) are apparently only relevant to another editors attempt to mirror it. So, I need help understanding how nearly the exact same content is only relevant over there and not right here??

I think this Title should be changed to Nuclear weapons in Japan. How do we make that happen? There is a lot of mainland Japan nuke material in our sources that should not be excluded by the restrictive title. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is called Japan and weapons of mass destruction, where this content fits better. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Buckshot06, It does not seem to go there at all and likely won't ever fit with all WMDs in Japan which I've explained. I've asked to split Japan and weapons of mass destruction. Consider the previous size of my sandbox draft as discussed and all of the various topics it had in it. My sandbox draft was a fraction of the enormous amount of content an article with all WMDs related to Japan would cover. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Nick-D for WP:NOTNOTHERE conduct / content check. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Air defense interceptors/Genie

I've reviewed every source you propose for the paragraph below, and still cannot find any mention of air defence interceptors. Which of the four sources you cite has this wording?

In the event of mass air penetration by an enemy attacking Okinawa, air defense interceptors stood ready to scramble with nuclear warhead tipped missiles that were kept on alert status. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, thanks for the message. since i did not see it after a quick look, "Genie" (was probably just a statement of fact but possible syn as it was a very simple process of elimination20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC) ) ~the nukes that F-100 & F-106 carried.

"Interceptor is mentioned here (#16 on p.6-7). it would be "#4 CDI" in your message and I had just added it to the entry (probably just as you left your note). I also added some more support for other contested material which I hope is now sufficient. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with using that CDI source (apart from listing four refs, three of which don't support the sentence). 1) we're not certain that the base in question was Okinawa (which is why me and Hohum keep removing that other paragraph). 2) You've converted 'could carry nuclear-armed missiles' into *did* carry nuclear-armed missiles. The CDI source says that the interceptors 'could' carry nuclear-armed AAMs. Your phrasing in the article has always been along the lines of 'nuclear-armed interceptors *stood* ready for scrambling' -- implying that they *did* carry the weapons. You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to be certain about Okinawa as the section is titled suspected! and that is why I'll keep putting it back in...

I did not convert could to did. Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now.

Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!

"Alert" (armed, fueled, sitting on apron, with a pilot sitting in the seat or nearby) and the nuke bunkers and hangers for the alert interceptors are still at Naha airport. ::::Johnvr4 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources. Nothing says that nuclear-armed interceptors were sitting alert at Naha; that's why I talked about could vs did from the CDI source. I've gone as far as I can by finding the squadrons and the aircraft involved (16th and 82nd FISs) and putting a sentence in. 'Suspected' simply does not cut it on Wikipedia; if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be here.

What's your personal involvement with this? I'm intrigued; how do you know the hangers are still there - or were there in the first place? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone traveling to the Naha airport can see it of can look on goolge earth and see it in plain sight or they could use their device to verify Naha Air Base was the interceptor base back then and that the Japanese are still there on alert. Or to it could be used to look at one of the cited sources that says F-100 and nukes on Okinawa... Apparently you are the only one who cant do that. Still!

You've stated a few times that, "I have reviewed the sources" and that the support is not in there~ nonsense!

I've repeatedly warned you that you really must review those sources before making that assertion again. Your assertions now imply a certain lack credibility and your lack of competence with this material and reading the verifiable sources supporting it is painfully obvious.

I took out Naha but I could put it back and add Kadeda and South Korea too! I guess I'll just have to put those all quotes in here so other every other editor can see what happened with these totally false assertions and all those faulty edits based on them for the rest of forever. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"US military went on full alert deploying F-100 fighters armed with nuclear weapons from Kadena AB on Okinawa to Kunsan, South Korea as well as preparing for strikes against Mainland China from all bases."

"With this in mind, in 1954 the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972 (see accompanying stories)."

"1950s and 60s F-100 Super Sabre served as primary interceptor...could carry nuclear capable air-to-air missiles. Was carrying one on Jan 18, 1959 at one of four Pacific bases (&Okinawa etc.)....on a reveted hardstand...ground alert configuration...weapon on left wing"

"In 1954, the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972." Johnvr4 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these Johnvr4. Clearly 'interceptor' isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, which are not tied definitively to Okinawa, and substitute 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a temp edit to say I found 2 refs for found genie and will modify and update in morning. One ref is called "umbrella" I think Johnvr4 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC).

"Contingency plans existed in 1967 for deployment of the Genie air-to-air missile to Japan. Although the Genie missile is dual-capable, the documents clearly identify the missiles that would be deployed under these contingencies as nuclear missiles. This represents the first association of nuclear-armed Genie missiles with Japanese deployment. The details of the contingencies under which the missiles would be deployed remain classified." This source talks all about alert status --even after 1972 in Japan!

"The Genie in wartime would carry a nuclear warhead... Forty-one Hoosier-based airmen are, knocking "enemy planes" out of the Skies above the Gulf of Mexico with explosive accuracy to prove they are defenders from sneak air attacks. The 41 career airmen, members of the 319th Interceptor Squadron F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Star Fighters and F-10O Super Sabers. Fliers of these planes came to the meet from such distant USAF bases as Naha AFB, Okinawa..."

For "interceptor" please see interceptor aircraft, scrambling (military), Ground-controlled interception, North American F-100 Super Sabre, F-106, F-104, or 319th Fighter Interceptor Training Squadron all of which use the word interceptor without any of the qualms or issues you are having with using it.

I have moved I'm going to move this discussion to the subject talk page. Other editors had complained that reverts are taking place without discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) *Moved from my talk page. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For "Genie" see: Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) and consider: "In April 1956, for example, he authorized Air Defense Command to use Genie air-to-air and Nike Hercules surface-to-air missiles during a surprise attack.[13]".

In the last section of this article I've added the SIOP's (that includes the "Genie", and "air-defense", "F-100," "interceptor", "nuclear alert", etc.) relationship to Okinawa. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For all of this in one place see Aerospace Defense Command# Interceptor Aircraft and subsection # Interceptor gunnery training- which has the list of sites that match exactly the nuke sites in mainland Japan. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "The first of the Century Series supersonic interceptors" "ADC also supported overseas training at Johnson AB, Japan (6th TTS). From Johnson AB... Naha AB, Okinawa and Itazuke AB, Misawa AB and Yokota AB, all in Japan for training of the interceptor squadrons assigned to those bases"17:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@user:Nick-D for WP:NOTNOTHERE conduct / content check. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by User:Buckshot06 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

---

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands → U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan – US nuclear weapons were not only based in the Japanese islands but also in several mainland Japan locations as well as several other locations in Asia. A reliable source has the following text: "Misawa and Itazuki airbases (and possibly at Atsugi, Iwakuni, Johnson, and Komaki airbases as well), and nuclear-armed U.S. Navy ships stationed in Sasebo and Yokosuka". Johnvr4 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, since this page has only existed a short time, we could hold off on renaming it, in case you change your mind again. (Hohum ^@) 21:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Japan and weapons of mass destruction. Both pages are virtually on the same subject, and both are under our size limits. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained, They are not virtually the same subject and the only reason that they seem to have the same content is because editor Buckshot06 put it there without any discussion when this page had only existed a few hours. Then he removed sections from it with bizarre explanations and inserted material such as, the the a-bombs bases built after WWII at Okinawa (also Iwo Jima) launched to A-bomb attacks. Material was moved from here because of a viewpoint that such material belongs only there and not here. Therefore they are not virtually the same articles even from your own viewpoints.

US nukes in Japan is a only a very small part of WMDs and Japan and there is literally no way Japan and WMDs is going to be able to stay under a size limit with all of the subjects that it would encompass. I tried it in my sandbox and it was several editors opinions (including the two above) that it was too large and did not work. Remember?. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because much of the material in your sandbox doesn't deal with Japan and WMDs, and the remainder needs dePOV-ing (you do tend to write from one specific viewpoint) and through editing in order to be coherent and present one single subject. Continue editing and adding to Japan and weapons of mass destruction - it's the standard base article for this issue, mirrored across every other country that is involved with NBC - and once it gets over the size limit, it can start spawning sub-articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just about the entire sandbox draft is WMDs in Japan! Why would you make such an absurd observation. Any POV concern should not be with me. As you know, I edit fairly directly from our sources and in the event that there is an issue with sourcing, it is more than likely at times too directly rather than my POV. I've been adding to that article already and it is pretty clear that a summary pointing to a stand alone article is needed already. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this move proposal as per MOS:U.S. No opinion on the merge proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops MOS:U.S. was not intended to be modified. proposed name should read: U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan. I goofed. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title appears to be more accurate and more WP:CONCISE as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This move has been made. Can an administrator please close this request? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lists of types, units, delivery systems

I propose creating a list of types of weapons, units and delivery systems in Japan that we can add to as we encounter them. Sources have the full spectrum of U.S. arsenal so to a list may be too big to recreate here. (Alter as necessary) Johnvr4 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stationed units assigned nuclear weapons

• Army 137th Ordnance Company (Special Weapons)

Nuclear weapon delivery systems in Japan

• Atomic Annie

Ships

• Nuclear Submarine
• Aircraft Carrier (not sure how much further detail is warranted)

Planes

• North American F-100 Super Sabre

Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV

I write to give you the opportunity to clarify this edit. Why are you calling this source dubious when you youself introduced it and cited it repeatedly, previously? Why is the paragraph I summarised now suddenly dubious? What are you writing in your edit summary about Neither Confirm Nor Deny when the issue at hand is actually the reason for weapons withdrawal from Japan (and Taiwan and the Philippines)? Please avoid introducing an anti-United States Department of Defense point of view into the article; this is forbidden by our WP:FIVEPILLARS. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is good however it is your use of it to reach dubious conclusions that is concerning. Your conclusion about the Terrorists and Removed in 1972 is disputed by that source and others and my concern is already explained in the edit summary and at the talk page. The edit summary is: "source: "The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning"

It you want to edit that page, then you need to watch the talk page and participate in discussion there. As you well know, the section that addresses that particular editing is here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Faulty_edit_RS_vs._undue_weight

Quote:

"The paragraph you cite above, "With the reversion of Okinawa" etc forms para 6 of Kristensen's article. The very next para, para 7, begins "Although nuclear weapons were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s" which I believe substantiates the generally held belief at the time. Thus nuclear weapons were removed in 1972, it seems, though forces on Okinawa (possibly the 18 TFW) may have been held at some level of nuclear alert state for other reasons -- possibly ready to employ nuclear weapons which would have arrived during transition-to-war. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Perhaps they never left in 1972 or perhaps they were brought back after- I haven't looked for clarification. From Kristensen, some "were removed in 1972" and some were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s. [“Secret” 1965 Memo Reveals Plans to Keep U.S. Bases and Nuclear Weapons Options in Okinawa After Reversion] Johnvr4 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What anti-DoD position(s) are you accusing me of introducing exactly?

"If you think for one second that you are going to edit about controversial issues in Okinawa without presenting the majority and minority viewpoints in our sources then you are going to have much larger problems. So, I insist that you fully elaborate on your alleged concern and the appropriate WP:FIVEPILLARS policy that you believe is relevant to that concern! Johnvr4 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And concerns about vulnerability to terrorist attack were apparently a primary issue. Stop removing mention of that from the article!! Kristensen says this, and you've not introduced any other section of Kristensen that says he contradicts himself, or any other source that terrorist attacks were not a concern. This was clearly not all about sovereignty. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, again, a 1965 memo does not prove that weapons were retained on the island after 1972: you need a separate good source, and Kristensen examined all the available sources and concluded they were removed circa 1972!! Another source you found yourself said that Japan was asked to fund complete withdrawal of the weapons c.1972!! It's like saying that the U.S. plan to retain four large bases in Iraq c.2009-10 shows that the bases (Balad etc) were retained after OND finished, when in fact everything left the country!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I told you there might be contradictory reliable sources. Didn't I? And I have NO IDEA what your anti-DoD accusation entails but it sounds ridiculous on the face of it.

Understand that I am not disputing that Kristensen talks about terrorists. But, Kristensen later offers more information about "terrorist threat" and you apparently stopped reading the source too early. Per my edit summary(S), I (for now) am disputing your interpretation of what Kritensen is saying about terrorists versus the reason for removal. There is no doubt Kristensen mentions terrorists and that guards weren't set up for them. The interpretation I got from that source was that the threat was related to the neither confirm nor deny policy which itself was related to plausibly deniable to all nations including the host country to allow transit even after reversion which itself was related to nukes in Japan in the 1950s (J-sovereignty). The US would rely on secret agreements they already had in their possession. Like I explained, we need to explore this further and talk about it -But please let's do it on the article's talk page. (*note: The nuke removal and the gas removal were negotiated at same time, Japan was made to pay. Some Gas was stolen from a depot in Okinawa).

That is my concern, previously expressed- repeatedly, your removal of tags and reinsertion of the material without a new look at the source as I requested or further discussion (again) is edit warring. Lets move the conversation to the talk page and explore it there. I thought we made good effort yesterday. Please don't ruin it. I suggest proposing edits and expressing your concerns clearly.

I think we'll get a lot more done by discussing proposed edits. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a place for this material if you choose to pursue it. Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction# Terrorism_and_Japan Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you've read the valuable advice BrownHairedGirl wrote at her talkpage. Your writing is non-neutral and based on OR (PRIMARYSOURCES), and your conduct is frankly somewhat worse than bad. When you are fighting to keep allegations in a section amply stuffed of U.S. military misjudgement and errors, which speak for themselves, you're too close to the subject. If I could offer some advice, I'd step away from the computer, avoid editing for 48 hours, and consider whether you need to make your undoubtedly worthy contributions where you can write polemics (because there's lots of value in polemics on U.S. military misbehaviour, and you do live in a democracy. You might just change opinions, or, if you're very lucky, policy).

But if you wish to continue on this site, you need to take very serious account of her numbered advice, especially point 1 - which reflects how many times I have referred you to WP:OWN. Otherwise, though it might not be me (I'm frankly sick of trying to shepherd you) you will face administrator intervention again at some point, because what you're writing and how you're writing it breaches our rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it and thanked her. Perhaps you should read it again because you have utterly confused IS with WAS. User:Brownhairedgirl wrote of the original article deletion and conduct from 2013 when I was a rookie editor and did not understand a lot of policies (including the RSN). She stated that read nothing but the initial deletion and made no comment on the draft or anything of sort about new edits that you are blatantly mis-representing here. You sir are not only fighting over your POV, you are edit warring over highly dubious content because you continue to refuse to address my concerns just as you have with the issue I brought forth just above. Frankly I am tired the behavior too. Tired is not even the word for it. Make sure you address the my concern if you put that terrorist material back in the main space. I will take you to task over it.

Moved from My talk page. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving comment for Buckshot06:

Not only are you displaying a clear POV, but you just appear to have shown a significant problem understanding the subject (or source). I wrote a paragraph about the removal of the weapons from Okinawa, according to Kristensen, being in the early 1970s partially because of their vulnerability to terrorist attack. You removed the section with the edit summary about terrorist concerns actually being the source for the NCND policy. But what you seem to have failed to grasp is that the NCND discussion took place in 1958!! and, as Kristensen said, only over twenty years later did U.S. officials begin to feel that the terrorist threat was so high in East Asia that it became a factor in removing the weapons from Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Anything you write trying to link two events so tangentially related, over twenty years apart, will have to be much more strongly sourced that misreading of Kristensen!! Doing so off Kristensen only is forbidden under WP:SYNTH!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

But what you seem to have failed to grasp is that the NCND discussion that took place in 1958 was about Japanese Sovereignty!! Johnvr4 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kristensen writes that the decision to remove the weapons in the 1970s, kept secret until Japan was asked to pay for the removal operation, was partially due to concerns about terrorist attack. 1958 decisions on a public relations fig-leaf, in my strong view, had *nothing to do* with a change in the perceived level of threat from terrorists so significant that the weapons were partially removed because of it. Again, you're advancing an argument and causal links that *I*, debating with you on the talkpage and elsewhere, with the ability to question you on, cannot follow. And I have advanced degrees, so would be generally expected to be able to follow complex arguments. So hardly any casual reader is going to have a hope!! Part of your problem is that you don't put across your arguments clearly, often. You haven't justified why the 1958 NCND discussions are germaine to pressure decades later to remove the weapons, because the whole removal operation was intended to be *secret*, not in the public eye where NCND might vaguely matter!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Per Kristensen, the 1958 decision on NCND was about J-sovereignty. "The new [NCND] policy soon became an important factor in the U.S approach to the security treaty negotiations with Japan."

You raised the concern of MY POV and now you're are justifying these edits with your "strong views" and "advanced degrees"... For the Last time. Look at the source!! You will find that the alleged terrorist threat was a claim of the DoD (were you've misused this source) and was unfounded as Kristensen has the sites found secure (perhaps not set up for coordinated attack) and the claim came later. If you used that advanced degree to find other perhaps newer or more complete sources, what you would find in those other sources, (like the ones you said didn't belong in my draft) are that following the Goldsboro B-52 crash, a review of whether it was possible for an accidental/ unauthorized nuclear detonation in US nuke systems. It was found that certain tactical systems, the NIKE, the Demo Packs, The ASW weapons lacked safety adequate safety design and were susceptible to a point that they created undue risk and were being withdrawn. I'm really very sorry that you choose edit war and escalate and not to listen to advice to carefully read that source and we now need to explore what Kristensen actually says about these pesky terrorists and the US weapon withdrawal in 1972 vs. the edit war over what you say he says. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the terrorist claim text with this text which very different from your strong views about what Kristensen says:

When Japan asserted that nuclear weapons must be removed after reversion, they were withdrawn from sites in Okinawa during the early 1970s.[9] Kristensen writes that criticisms following a 1969 Far East visit by a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee prompted the JCS in 1974, to order a study of the forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons at bases in East Asia. The study found the number of sites could be reduced because they had had more weapons than required as well as that response teams at sites with nuclear weapons were unprepared for a coordinated attack and might be perceived as vulnerable to "terrorists."[9] Following the JCS order, the Department of Defense began withdrawing U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Taiwan in 1974, and from the Philippines in 1976.[9] Kristensen puts forth the DoD claim that the withdrawal of forward-deployed weapons was 'not simply' due to the sovereignty-return negotiations.[9]

The senate study gave site advice in 1970 but the Japan terrorist threat re:Japan appears to be with protestors and visiting ships rather than land sites. We shall continue exploring that source. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Before we continue, let us briefly cover the "terrorist" perception. The DoD claimed they removed nukes from the region for terror. But I'm not sure from Japan because of terror is to be had from that source. There were potential vulnerabilities. To the extent increasing concerns on terror was a legitimate reason or even the perceived reason, or the cause for removal IDK. Except for a few pot shots at sentry posts or protest fight or a small riot now and then, Japan did not remotely have any terrorist problems back then (did it?). One could argue that the hot war with the communists in Vietnam was complete after a certain point so any perceived threat from enemy sappers during a war (which there was) would, upon a cease in hostilities, turn into a perceived threat from a terrorists during peacetime. There was a threat from numerous cases of sappers in S. Korea but nukes were not removed from there until 1991. The was also the actual threat from "terrorists" on military cargo shipping in the VN war region. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Confusion of 1958-59 public disclosure policy (NCND) with terrorist cause of 1970s withdrawal of J-nuclear weapons

Not only are you displaying a clear POV, but you just appear to have shown a significant problem understanding the subject (or source). I wrote a paragraph about the removal of the weapons from Okinawa, according to Kristensen, being in the early 1970s partially because of their vulnerability to terrorist attack. You removed the section with the partial summary about terrorist concerns actually being the source for the NCND policy. But what you seem to have failed to grasp is that the NCND discussion took place in 1958!! and, as Kristensen said, only over twenty years later did U.S. officials begin to feel that the terrorist threat was so high in East Asia that it became a factor in removing the weapons from Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Anything you write trying to link two events so tangentially related, over twenty years apart, will have to be much more strongly sourced that misreading of Kristensen!! Doing so off Kristensen only is forbidden under WP:SYNTH!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will post more quotes that show your misuse that source if necessaryso just hold tight. What you put to the main space was what Kristensen said was a DoD claim that came later. Apparently after the J-removal. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you've misquoted Kristensen above RE: removal late 1970's, creating confusion, which is at least one of our issues. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As I have noted above, the NCND from the late 1950s, came about over J-sovereignty.

These quotes from our Kristensen source seem highly relevant to disprove your POV interpretations as well as repeated insertions of dubious material that you have been edit warring to keep: (bold for emphasis)

"The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning, as was later claimed by U.S. officials. The new policy soon became an important factor in the U.S approach to the security treaty negotiations with Japan."

"Beyond the willingness of the Japanese and U.S. governments to “turn a blind eye” to the violation of Japan’s nuclear ban, it was the Neither Confirm Nor Deny policy that more than anything made the deceit possible. While officially intended to protect the ship against terrorists and complicate enemy military planning, the policy really served as a smoke-screen under which U.S. Navy warships could get access to foreign ports regardless of the nuclear policy of the host country. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: There was a nuclear weapon threat study done by DoD in 1957 and in 1958 by RAND corp. There are a few decent sources that show the acceptable threats to nukes from terrorism (<.05%/year) were exceeded by 20 times. However, there are some apples and oranges as all of the sources present that statistic against the acceptable risk of accidental detonation (< or = hurricanes/ natural disasters in US) or against the chance of a nuclear war (includes one caused by an unintended explosion) were both risks that were astronomically higher.

New Analysis on Old Reports of Nuclear Risk (several links in this)

What Are Acceptable Nuclear Risks?

The Odds for nuclear Armageddon

Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety

The Lugar Survey On Proliferation Threats and Responses (pp. 15-17)

IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT Feature:How risky is nuclear optimism?

ACCEPTABLE PREMATURE PROBABILITIES FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS (DoD 1957)

On the Risk of an Accidental or Unauthorized Nuclear Detonation (RAND 1958)

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes I've been meaning to come back to you on this. For much of the time you've been expanding this article, the focus was squarely on Okinawa. MGM-13 Mace, gravity bombs, B-52 weapons storage, etc. Very little mention of visiting ships. I was talking about the threat of terrorist/attack seizure of the stored weapons (for example at Chibana Ammo Depot, for which we desperately need an article on) on land, being part of the cause why Kristensen found in the declassified documents partially why the U.S. decided to withdraw the weapons circa 1972. NCND does have a massive part to play re visiting ships (you can guess why I know if you've checked my userpage, I'm a New Zealander :) but for the purposes of terrorists going after stored weapons on land being part of DOD's withdrawal calculations re Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines, it's a red herring. As we discussed, a public-relations policy designed to smooth diplomatic issues could have little to do with decision, intended to be kept secret, to withdraw the tactical nuclear weapons. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Publicly-released surveys done in the late 1950s might have had very little to do with senior DOD leaders' views on acceptable risks of leaving nuclear warheads stored anywhere at the time. To try and draw links with these publicly-releaseable 1950s calculations and senior DOD leaders' classified, real, views of acceptable risks for leaving nuclear weapons stored in land bases in the three Asian countries in the early 1970s, fifteen years later, is frankly very very unwise.

Now, in the absence of any visible intent by you to respect our rules on WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, WP:SYNTH, WP:Assume Good Faith, and WP:CONSENSUS, I'm going to pull much further back from further talkpage interactions with you from now; I find you extremely difficult to deal with. Three editors have tried repeatedly to explain to you that your POV and style are causing problems, and it's causing angst that frankly I don't need/want right now. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the visiting ships part, I was just waiting for the article title change to include all of Japan. I've added a little bit so far but there will be protestors in Japan related to a threat perception.

I think the large majority of the terrorist aspect, with respect to removal Japan Nukes, is a red herring and I didn't want to include it at all.

"Publicly released reports from the 1950s"...That the authoritative experts just recently could not even obtain for their published reviews of the primary docs.

For the seizure of the stored weapons risk concern...As you can see, at 20 times above the acceptable risk of .05%/yr., that risk was still only a 1% chance per year so it was hardly the only reason for any withdrawal. Compared to the risk of an unintended detonation or compared to the risk of a nuclear war in general, (from those sources) terrorist threats were barely registering but the risk was still more than policy makers felt was acceptable. see AEC core custodians and the the invention and implementation/expansion of the Permissive Action Link after these studies and also PAL conversion w/ respect to Europe (1962 National Security Action Memorandum number 160) vs in Asia-1974 not complete until 1976 (following us nuke withdrawal from 3 countries.) So, a terror threat+PAL implementation by the US in Asia might really be a factor on withdrawal in mid-1970s (plus PALs for nukes on land vs. Naval nukes). I really didn't get that far into it ).

Permissive Action Link: "The complete conversion to PAL systems was relatively slow. In 1974, U.S. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found that a variety of tactical nuclear weapons were still not fitted with Permissive Action Links, even though the technology had been available for some time.[9] It took another two years until all the tactical nuclear weapons were fully equipped with PALs" *Thomas C. Reed: At the Abyss: An Insider’s History of the Cold War. Presidio Press, New York 2005, ISBN 978-0-89141-837-5.

I'm not sure I understood your entire comment but it seemed to be a POV assertion that did not pan out when one tried to verify it in a source. You were the editor who first made the terrorist assertion and kept inserting it and also removing all tags when I questioned it or wanted it discussed. I am sure the diffs and edit summaries won't be required.

I didn't really understand the second part of your comment or your thinking here but the angst you refer to I felt as well (since late December 2016) and I felt it was directly caused the non-verification of material in sources.

I intended in my response to very nicely provide you with some sources that could maybe support this terrorist reason that you tried to put into the article several times. If you don't want the sources, or aren't going to read them, or don't care, or are going to quit raising concerns and assertions about it, then that is very okay with me.

We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors.

I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My question is: "What were the relative weights of importance of the various factors causing DOD leaders to pull TNW out of Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines in the early 1970s?" (Perceived) vulnerability to terrorist attack is clearly mentioned in the sources, and so is the Japanese sovereignty question, applicable to Okinawa. We need records of discussions, probably involving the Secretary of Defense, about why the decision to withdraw warheads from these three places were made, sometime after 1970. Those would be the sources that might shed some immediate light on the matter. Studies from decades earlier that the SecDef probably didn't even ever hear about the existence of (they would have been using more recent, still classified estimates, probably) are frankly not a good guide for trying to make guesses about decision-making fifteen years later.

When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to explore the various weights and reasons for the withdrawals but I think you will have better luck with those answers for Philippines and Taiwan than you will for Okinawa and Japan. Acceptable risk of terrorist detonation was .05%/year, actual Terrorist risk was 1%/yr, "According to a formula, the Army suggested that the acceptable probability of a hydrogen bomb detonating within the United States should be 1 in 100,000 during the course of a year. The acceptable risk of an atomic bomb going off was set at 1 in 125"[7] (seems like a terrorist threat of detonation was within the yearly acceptable risk of an unauthorized detonation with a nuclear yield). Again, please look at a source and you will not need to speculate to justify your edits and concerns. "SECDEF probably didn't know about the studies"?? Whaaat?

Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

pp. 159-ish onward of Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety goes into to the components, custodians, accident possibility (or probability), tactical urgency, PALs, Sealed cores, and the Genie as the first sealed pit weapon in the stockpile.

Note that -accidents, with Genies even those accidents not solidly proven to be in Japan- were relevant to withdrawal!

See quote about press release of Genie and non-existent risk detonation from fire; worry about safety of Genie; 94 accidents (87+7) between 1950 and 1957; in 1957 a new set of acceptable probabilities for accidental detonation...etc. " Johnvr4 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)