Navy removes top nuclear weapons facility officer

Navy removes top nuclear weapons facility officer

hosted.ap.org< br />

BANGOR, Wash. (AP) -- The Navy dismissed the commanding officer of a Washington state-based nuclear weapons facility Friday, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to lead, the Pentagon said.

Capt. Timothy J. Block, who headed the Navy's Bangor operation arming Trident submarines with nuclear warheads, was relieved of duty on by Rear Adm. Stephen E. Johnson, the Navy's director of strategic systems programs, according to the Kitsap Sun.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This has my curiousities peaked. I want to know what this man was standing down from. Obviously if they said his ability to lead was in question, one would think this has to do with standing down from orders.

This is an incredible story to come out at times like these. With all of the fear that is going around about a false flag, now we have this, what seems to be an officer standing down from orders.

This kinda freaks me out. I really want to know what happened.

hosted.ap.org< br /> (visit the link for the full news article)

Whilst investigation the matter further, I came upon the identity of the man responsible for the firing:

Rear Admiral Stephen E. Johnson
Director, Strategic Systems Programs

'Prior to assuming his present duties, Johnson served as the Director, Undersea Technology, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 073) and as Commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Center. As such, he was responsible for the Navy's full-spectrum research, development, test and evaluation, engineering and fleet support center for submarines, autonomous underwater systems, and offensive and defensive weapons systems associated with undersea warfare.'

www.navy.mil...



[edit on 21-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Has the other nuclear arsenal commanders been replaced? How old was the commander? Anyone know why they removed him?

Failure to lead could mean a lot of things.

The soldiers he was in charge of did horribly on a PT test.

Soldiers were in trouble alot.

A lot of soldiers complained about his leadership.

He couldn't pass a PT test.

He had problems understanding orders.

Those are just a few of a long list that could have been the issue. The first one happened to a commander I once had. The battalion he was in charge of did horrible over all on a PT test and he was relieved.

reply to post by jd140


He could have voiced his refusal to 'go along' with what whatever they had planned.

That would get him replaced in a hurry - replaced by someone who will 'go along' with the plan.

Of course, this is all speculation and cannot be proven

reply to post by Exuberant1


You are right.

But as it has something to do with nuclear weapons, I doubt anything that sinister happened.

Now if he winds up dead by mysterious circumstances and a nuclear event takes place then its safe to assume that was what happened.

Block is the second facility commander in recent years to be relieved of duty for "a loss of confidence." Capt. Keith Lyles was dismissed after failing a nuclear weapons inspection om 2003.

what about the possibility of insubordination?

My theory is that anyone who works with nukes will come to understand their true and devastating power.

Any command in the Navy dealing with nuclear power or nuclear weapons is extremely high profile and political.

With all due respect, there is no reason to jump to a conclusion that his firing was for anything but underperformance. With all the heat the Air Force took, I can definitely see them relieving a captain if his duties weren't carried out to the highest level of professionalism. The article mentioned someone else in his job was fired in the past for failing an inspection. I don't see why that might not be the case again. They wouldn't want to publicize something like that.

If there ever was a plot to detonate a nuke in a false flag operation, the weapon would not be a known weapon stolen from the US military aresenal. It would be too easy to trace.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn if some US intelligence agencies already have untraceable WMD in their inventories.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by Schaden]

Seems the week before Rear Adm. Douglas J. McAneny was complaining about culture of alcohol use? Could have something to do with it.

www.navy.mil...

Pacific Submarine Commander Gives Sailors Insight on State of Force
Story Number: NNS090812-01
Release Date: 8/12/2009 5:24:00 AM


By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Chantel M. Clayton, Navy Public Affairs Support Element West, Det. Northwest

SILVERDALE, Wash. (NNS) -- The commander of Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet conducted an all-hands call for submarine Sailors on Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bangor Aug. 10.

Rear Adm. Douglas J. McAneny met with submariners at NBK Bangor's Fleet Theater, where he talked about the status of the submarine fleet and thanked Sailors for their service.

"What I've been doing in the last few months is traveling to all the homeports in the Pacific Fleet and doing similar events like this," said McAneny. "The mission here in Bangor, the Sailors that are on the submarines here, the wide range of actions that occur here day in and day out that keep our ships at sea are being done at a high level, and it's noticed all the way up the chain of command up to the president of the United States. For that you should be very proud of what you do and what you're supporting for our Navy and for our nation each and every day."

McAneny discussed matters important to submariners, to include the number of various platforms of submarines in the fleet, mission readiness and retention, to include selective reenlistment bonuses (SRB).

"The submarine career electronics field is undermanned. There's no question that there will be SRBs in that career field," said McAneny. "There will also be SRBs for nuclear trained operators and in a lot of other rates as well."

McAneny also stressed the importance of Sailors' behavior while off duty. He stressed that what a Sailor does off duty directly impacts his job, his shipmates and in the long term, the entire submarine force.

"I'm interested in every single Sailor in the submarine force completing their enlistment or his career safely. I want everyone to be successful, yet we have some problems with alcohol. We've been working very hard on this with some great results."

He also asked for Sailors to help change the Navy's culture of alcohol use and stressed that he cannot solve this problem alone.

"This is the group of people that will solve the problem for the submarine force," said McAneny. "I do believe that we can consume alcohol and do it responsibly, and I depend on you day in and day out to try to get the job done, knowing that it's going to take time."

McAneny expressed his appreciation for all the Sailors' work.

"Across the submarine force, our Sailors are doing a terrific job. I want you to understand that the leadership of the submarine force is committed to your success. I want every Sailor in the submarine force to be successful. No one signed up for this, hoping to be a failure. Keep up the great work and good luck to all of you. Your hard work and effort is appreciated all the way up the chain of command."

The all-hands call was part of McAneny's weeklong visit to the Pacific Northwest. He also had an opportunity to meet Sailors while touring the submarines in the area.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by JBA2848]

Yeah, that is pretty strange that a top commander would be fired and not just quietly reassigned. Makes you wonder.

Looking forward to more information - if it becomes available.

Originally posted by Schaden

With all due respect, there is no reason to jump to a conclusion that his firing was for anything but underperformance.

Let's all tow the line on a conspiracy website... Yeah, Okay

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Let's all tow the line on a conspiracy website... Yeah, Okay

Deny ignorance. The theory this guy was fired because he wouldn't go along with a false flag operation is pretty much baseless. Nuclear line officers are fired all the time for "loss of confidence".

Originally posted by Schaden

The theory this guy was fired because he wouldn't go along with a false flag operation is pretty much baseless.

Well duh, that theory is only two hours old.

Give it time.

reply to post by Exuberant1




If this thread lasts til tomorrow it will explode with conspiracy theories. I predict this time tomorrow it will be 6 pages long.

If it survives that long.

Wasn't the Air Forces nuclear command undergoing a bit of this last year or two years ago , when the air force inadvertently was flying planes that had nuclear warheads on missiles and they were thought to be conventional warheads. Or something like that.

This is one of my fears with the increasing of stupidity out there....

That we're going to fall behind in our knowledge and ability to do the complex things that we have done in the past


That we have inherited a very complex and technologically brittle world, in an age where Leftists are educating people to be completely irrational.

I guess you could connect him by last name to Spc. Kamisha Block and the mystery behind the attempted cover up of muder and rape. They originally said it was friendly fire.

forums.military.com...

The cause of Spc. Kamisha Block’s death initially was called friendly fire, but an Army report says she was murdered.
Jerry and Jane Block repeat it over and over: The U.S. Army failed their daughter.

After Kamisha Block, 20, of Vidor died last August in Iraq, her family was told she was a victim of friendly fire, shot in the chest in a non-combat incident.

A few days after the Army notified the family, they told the Blocks some of the truth - Spc. Block had been murdered.

It took the family another six months to find out the details of her slaying, including the real name of the man who shot her.

"It's been hard to move on, because we feel justice has not been done. They failed her, and they certainly haven't treated us fairly," Jane Block said from her Vidor home.

reply to post by JBA2848


They have the same last name.

How exactly does that connect them?

reply to post by jd140


Seems people only want a conspiracy. I was only trying to see if there was more to it when I noticed the article from the week before about complaints of alcohol abuse. But if they want conspiracy and make crap up fill free to run with the rape and murder of a relative being uncovered and TPTB fire him for getting to close. Makes a good story but there would be no truth. But the way threads go anymore dont seem anybody wants the truth.

reply to post by JBA2848


lol I get it.

Someone will run with it I bet.