away from HF for military purposes. But, <strong>the</strong> vulnerability of satellites has ledto renewed interest, particularly in connection with new technology, that is,“sounders,” solid-state transmitters and microprocessors which can allow forshifting frequencies in response to environmental changes. That interest isunderscored by <strong>the</strong> fact that HF uses <strong>the</strong> ionosphere for transmission, a mediumdifficult to permanently interrupt. Finally, in <strong>the</strong> context of military anxietiesabout nuclear “black-out” caused by nuclear blasts <strong>during</strong> war, mobile or proliferatedHF systems are considered one of <strong>the</strong> more robust types of communications.30Among <strong>the</strong> HF systems used <strong>during</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Cold</strong> <strong>War</strong> were SAC’s GiantTalk/Scope Signal III for strategic bombers, <strong>the</strong> air/ground/air Global Commandand Control System network, <strong>the</strong> Mystic Star Presidential/VIP network and <strong>the</strong>Defense Communications System (DCS) “entry sites.”Very-low frequency (VLF) and low frequency (LF) are also considered relativelyreliable in a nuclear environment and can penetrate sea water as well.31Hence, for <strong>the</strong> U.S., a key system was GWEN (Ground Wave EmergencySystem), a grid of unmanned relay stations with LF transmitters and receivershardened to withstand electromagnetic pulse (EMP).32 When fully proliferated, itused a system of “automatic diverse routing” so as to maximize imperviousnessto interference even by a full-scale nuclear attack. Yet ano<strong>the</strong>r robust systemwas “meteor burst communications,” using billions of ionized meteor trails toreflect very-high frequency (VHF) signals.33 This system would apparentlybenefit from <strong>the</strong> increased ionization caused by nuclear war.114 <strong>Bases</strong> <strong>during</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Cold</strong> <strong>War</strong>İ 2007 Robert E. HarkavyAs an example of what was involved, we may look at some of <strong>the</strong> earlierglobal networks utilized by <strong>the</strong> U.S. for communicating with underwater submarines.Throughout most of <strong>the</strong> 1970s, <strong>the</strong> U.S. had eight Omega VLF facilitieslocated overseas. Some of <strong>the</strong>se were phased out beginning in <strong>the</strong> late 1970s andsome were retained, despite <strong>the</strong>ir obsolescence, as backup systems. They werelocated at: Reunion (Mafate), operated by <strong>the</strong> French Navy; Trinidad andTobago; Liberia (Paynesword); Australia (Woodside); Argentina (Golfo Nuevo,Trelev): Japan (Tsushima Island); and Norway (Bratland).34Then <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong> far larger global network of LORAN-D/C radionavigationsystems, which were also utilized in connection with aircraft navigation.And as a sub-set, this fur<strong>the</strong>r involved <strong>the</strong> Clarinet Pilgrim system in <strong>the</strong>Pacific, a shore-to-submarine network (four sites in Japan and one on YapIsland) that worked by superimposing data on <strong>the</strong> waves transmitted byLORAN-C. Some of <strong>the</strong>se were operated by <strong>the</strong> U.S. Coast Guard, to a degreereflective of <strong>the</strong> mixed civilian and military navigation aid functions of <strong>the</strong>LORAN network (still earlier <strong>the</strong>re were some systems designated as LORAN-A). And, as in <strong>the</strong> case of Omega, some were jointly operated with host-nationpersonnel. Among <strong>the</strong> numerous LORAN-C/D transmitters and monitoring stationsoverseas (<strong>the</strong>re were many o<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>the</strong> U.S., including Alaska andHawaii) were those shown in <strong>the</strong> table.In <strong>the</strong> latter part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Cold</strong> <strong>War</strong>, as a replacement for Omega and LORAN-C, <strong>the</strong> U.S. installed its new satellite-based NAVSTAR global positioningsystem for submarines, which among o<strong>the</strong>r things, apparently involved <strong>the</strong> capabilityto provide SLBMs with corrective guidance after <strong>the</strong>y surfaced.NAVSTAR’s control segment consisted of five monitor stations to “trackpassively all satellites in view and accumulate ranging data from <strong>the</strong> navigationsignals.” That information was transmitted to <strong>the</strong> NAVSTAR Master ControlStation at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The o<strong>the</strong>r stations used fortracking, telemetry, control and passive monitoring were at Ascension, DiegoGarcia, Kwajalein and Guam, notably all islands controlled by <strong>the</strong> U.S. or<strong>the</strong> U.K.Whereas most communications with submarines are conducted along <strong>the</strong> LFspectrum, combatants will usually use HF (<strong>the</strong> corresponding intelligence interceptionfacilities are HF direction finders, that is HF/DF). The U.S. had a considerablenumber of naval HF transmitters and receivers scattered about <strong>the</strong>globe, most of <strong>the</strong>m near major naval facilities or near bodies of water heavilytraversed by U.S. fleet units. They included those shown in Table 4.Regarding SAC “fail-safe” systems, involving “positive control,” meaning<strong>the</strong> bombers went ahead in a crisis only if given “executive instructions,” <strong>the</strong>rewas a global system of HF communications called “Giant Talk/Scope SignalPage 22
III,” 14 stations giving flexible approach routes towards <strong>the</strong> USSR by B-52s oro<strong>the</strong>r aircraft with standoff ALCMs. These are shown in Table 5.The Air Force also had its AFSATCOM UHF network devoted particularly tostrategic nuclear-related purposes. That utilized several foreign facilities, at<strong>Bases</strong> <strong>during</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Cold</strong> <strong>War</strong> 115İ 2007 Robert E. Harkavy116 <strong>Bases</strong> <strong>during</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Cold</strong> <strong>War</strong>Table 3 Location of known Loran-C/D transmitters and monitoring stations overseasCountryLocationBermudaWitney’s BayCanadaCape Race (Newfoundland), Fox Harbor(Labrador), Montagu (Prince Edward Island), PortHandy (British Columbia), St. Anthony (NewBrunswick), Sandspit (British Columbia),Williams Lake (British Columbia)DenmarkEjde (Faeroe Islands)GreenlandAngissoqIcelandKeflavik, SandurItalyCrotone, Lampedusa, Sellia MarinaJapanGesaski (Okinawa), Iwo Jima, Marcus Island,Tokachibuto (Hokkaido), Yokota AFBJohnson Atoll (U.S. owned)NorwayJan Mayen IslandSouth KoreaChangsanSpainEstartitTurkeyKargabarunU.K.Sullum Voe (Shetland Islands)FR GermanySyltMicronesiaYap IslandGuam (U.S. owned)Anderson AFBSource: SIPRI data, Harkavy, <strong>Bases</strong> Abroad, p. 161.Table 4 U.S. overseas HF receivers and transmittersCountryLocationBermudaSouth HamptonDiego GarciaGreeceNea Makri and Kato SouliGuamBarrigada and FinnegayanIcelandGrindavik and SandgerdhiItalyNaples (a master station) and LicolaJapanIruma, Kamiseya, and TotsukaPanamaSummitPhilippinesCapas Tarlac and St. MiguelPortugal (Azores)Cinco Pincos (Terceira) and Vila NovaPuerto RicoSebana Seca, Isabella, and AguadaSpainGuardemar del Segura and RotaU.K.Edzell and ThursoSource: SIPRI Data.İ 2007 Robert E. HarkavyPage 23
- Page 2 and 3: This provided the U.S. access to a
- Page 4 and 5: ecame a hot issue within Japan, and
- Page 6 and 7: SpainRotaMajor naval base; also air
- Page 8 and 9: eturn to the link here with aircraf
- Page 10 and 11: which were in Fairbanks (Alaska), T
- Page 13: Molesworth), Belgium (Florennes), t
- Page 19 and 20: wire retaliation strike plan. The n
- Page 21 and 22: Ocean surface surveillance47The U.S
- Page 23 and 24: each site, providing variable cover
- Page 25 and 26: Pinetree LineCanadaBroughton Island
- Page 27 and 28: that is, the Limited Test Ban Treat
- Page 29 and 30: Missile Crisis.68At another level,
- Page 31 and 32: Access for Soviet surface ships.Per
- Page 33 and 34: nel in Libya, whose air force compr
- Page 35 and 36: systems (an exception, of course wa
- Page 37 and 38: Madagascar). There was also a signi
- Page 39 and 40: Aden, Bahrain, Malta, Mauritius, Si