DOCSLIB.ORG

Cold War Historical Context for Fort Richardson, Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cold War Historical Context for Fort Richardson, Alaska COLD WAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT 1951–1991 FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA united states army alaska March 2003 CEMML TPS 02-5 The Early Electrification of Anchorage 1 Cold War Historical Context 1951-1991 Fort Richardson, Alaska United States Army Alaska Karen Waddell, MA Prepared by: Center for the Environmental Management of Military Lands Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 90523-1490 Prepared for: Natural Resources Branch U.S. Army Alaska Fort Richardson, AK 99505-6500 March 2003 CEMML TPS 02-5 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................3 1.2 Purpose of Study......................................................................................................................3 1.3 Previous Work .........................................................................................................................3 1.4 Methodology............................................................................................................................4 1.4.1 Historical Context as an Evaluation Tool.....................................................................4 1.4.2 Historical Context as a Planning Tool..........................................................................4 1.4.3 U.S. Army Cold War Standards ...................................................................................5 1.4.4 Background Research and Literature Review ..............................................................7 1.5 Timeline...................................................................................................................................8 1.6 Location ...................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................11 FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA – EARLY YEARS THROUGH THE 1940s....................11 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................11 2.2 Fort Richardson in World War II...........................................................................................12 2.3 Post-World War II to 1950 ....................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................15 FORT RICHARDSON DEVELOPS – 1950s ............................................................................15 3.1 World Situation in the 1950s .................................................................................................15 3.2 Elmendorf Field and Fort Richardson Divide into Two Installations....................................15 3.3 Fort Richardson’s Missions in the 1950s...............................................................................17 3.3.1 Training Activities and Support .................................................................................18 3.3.2 Operational, Ground Air Defense...............................................................................18 3.4 Fort Richardson, Anchorage, and Alaska in the 1950s..........................................................19 3.4.1 Community Relations.................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Transportation.............................................................................................................19 3.4.3 Natural Resources.......................................................................................................19 3.4.4 Statehood ....................................................................................................................20 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................21 THE COLD WAR HEATS UP AROUND THE WORLD – 1960s .........................................21 4.1 World Situation in the 1960s .................................................................................................21 4.2 Fort Richardson’s Missions in the 1960s...............................................................................23 4.2.1 Base Operations..........................................................................................................23 4.2.2 Training Activities and Support .................................................................................23 4.2.3 Natural Disaster Assistance........................................................................................25 4.2.4 Recreation...................................................................................................................26 4.2.5 Medical.......................................................................................................................26 4.3 Fort Richardson, Anchorage, and Alaska in the 1960s..........................................................26 CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................27 FORT RICHARDSON EVOLVES – 1970s...............................................................................27 5.1 World Situation in the 1970s .................................................................................................27 iii 5.2 Fort Richardson’s Missions in the 1970s...............................................................................27 5.2.1 Base Operations..........................................................................................................27 5.2.2 Air Defense.................................................................................................................29 5.2.3 Training Activities and Support .................................................................................29 5.2.4 Downsizing and Realignment.....................................................................................30 5.2.5 Draft Expires ..............................................................................................................31 5.2.6 Ground Defense..........................................................................................................31 5.3 Fort Richardson, Anchorage, and Alaska in the 1970s..........................................................31 5.3.1 Oil Development ........................................................................................................31 5.3.2 Transportation.............................................................................................................31 5.3.3 Historic Event at Elmendorf AFB ..............................................................................32 CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................33 THE WALL COMES TUMBLING DOWN – 1980s................................................................33 6.1 World Situation in the 1980s .................................................................................................33 6.2 Fort Richardson’s Missions in the 1980s...............................................................................35 6.2.1 Training Activities and Support .................................................................................35 6.3 Alaska and Anchorage in the 1980s.......................................................................................36 6.3.1 Oil Development ........................................................................................................36 6.3.2 National Guard ...........................................................................................................36 6.3.3 Transportation.............................................................................................................37 CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................39 THE COLD WAR ENDS – 1990s...............................................................................................39 7.1 World Situation in the Early 1990s........................................................................................39 7.2 Fort Richardson’s Missions in the Early 1990s .....................................................................39 7.2.1 Ground Defense..........................................................................................................39 7.2.2 Training Activities and Support .................................................................................40 7.3 Fort Richardson, Anchorage, and Alaska in the Early 1990s ................................................40 CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................................41 COLD WAR THEMES AND PROPERTY TYPES
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Third Army: Directing Traffic at the Crossroads of Two Wars
    Responsible Iraq Drawdown— Rapid Afghanistan Buildup Third Army: Directing Traffic At the Crossroads of Two Wars ach morning, shortly after sunrise and following the last strains of “Reveille,” the theme song from the movie “Patton” echoes across Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, harkening back to Third Army’s iconic leader and World War II heritage. The camp is home to Third Army’s E forward headquarters, and it is the sustainment nexus for America’s combat efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Third Army simultaneously is orchestrating the Iraq drawdown and rein- forcement of the war in Afghanistan while supporting and supplying the 18 ARMY I February 2010 Text and Photographs By Dennis Steele Senior Staff Writer First-generation mine resistant am- bush protected (MRAP) vehicles withdrawn from Iraq await shipment to Army training centers at a Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, holding yard. February 2010 I ARMY 19 Soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) go through a final round of training at a Third Army facility in Kuwait before heading into Iraq. day-to-day operations of both. The scale and complexity of Third Army’s sustainment operation is astronomical. If U.S. military personnel deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom eat it, shoot it, drive it, sleep in it or draw electrical power from it, Third Army/U.S. Army Central had a role in getting it to them, along with thousands of other items and re- pair parts needed for combat. The pace is unrelenting—in Afghanistan, it is ac- celerating—and the stakes are always high. To bolster U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base (Afb)
    ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Contract Details Contract Type: Energy Efficiency; Energy Savings Performance Contract; Guaranteed Energy Savings; Natural Gas Facility Size: Nearly 800 buildings; Over 9.3 million sq. feet Energy Project Size: Elmendorf Air Force Base, located in Anchorage, Alaska, comprises nearly 800 facilities and spans 9.3 million square feet of multi-use space. Ameresco $48.8 million implemented an ESPC, which included supplying the base with natural gas and decentralizing the heating system. Energy Savings: Customer Benefits (CHPP) with a modern and high-efficiency system. Over 1 million MMBtu The Elmendorf Air Force Base entered a partnership Ameresco’s insightful and thorough review of the with Ameresco to design and implement an energy project concept indicated the infrastructure to support savings performance contract (ESPC). The project the CHPP was failing and too expensive to repair. After Capacity: utilized locally available natural gas as an energy additional discussions concerning security and 5.6 MW component. Ameresco took into consideration the Elmendorf’s future growth projections, converting the setting and brief construction time frame for on-time CHPP to a decentralized heating system with the project completion. Elmendorf achieved its sustain- capability to receive their full electricity requirements ability goals and reduced energy use without redundantly from the local utility became the project’s compromising its mission. This project alone made new direction. Elmendorf’s energy reduction goals and has had a Summary major impact on the Air Force’s goals with annual Thorough consideration to provide the Ameresco developed the new project scope, managed a energy savings of over 1 million MMBtu.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBCOMMITTEE on ARTICLES VI, VII, & VIII AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 10:00 A.M. ROOM E1.030 I. II. Charge #17: Review Histori
    TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARTICLES VI, VII, & VIII LARRY GONZALES, CHAIR AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 10:00 A.M. ROOM E1.030 I. CALL TO ORDER II. CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS III. INVITED TESTIMONY Charge #17: Review historic funding levels and methods of financing for the state parks system. Study recent legislative enactments including the General Appropriations Act(84R), HB 158 (84R), and SB 1366 (84R) to determine the effect of the significant increase in funding, specifically capital program funding, on parks across the state. LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD • Michael Wales, Analyst • Mark Wiles, Manager, Natural Resources & Judiciary Team TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT • Carter Smith, Executive Director • Brent Leisure, State Park Division Director • Jessica Davisson, Infrastructure Division Director IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY V. FINAL COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT Overview of State Park System Funding PRESENTED TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARTICLES VI, VIII, AND VIII LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF MAY 2016 Overview of State Park System Funding The Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) state parks system consists of 95 State Historic Sites, State Natural Areas, and State Parks, of which 91 are open to the public. State park-related appropriations fund operating the sites, the maintenance and capital improvements of state park infrastructure, associated administrative functions, providing grants to local parks and other entities for recreation opportunities, and advertising and publications related to the parks system. ● Total state parks-related appropriations for the 2016-17 biennium totals $375.9 million in All Funds, an increase of $83.6 million, or 28.6 percent , above the 2014-15 actual funding level.
    [Show full text]
  • Kodiaks Welcome Ice Dogs Staff Sgt
    FREE RECYCLED an edition of the Recycled material is used in the making of our ALASKA POST newsprint The Interior Military News Connection Vol. 7, No. 42 Fort Wainwright, Alaska October 21, 2016 Kodiaks welcome Ice Dogs Staff Sgt. Christina in a positive effort to build J. Turnipseed healthy relationships be- 1st Stryker Brigade tween 1st SBCT (Arctic Soldiers of the 70th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team host members of the Wolves) and members of Combat Team PAO Fairbanks Ice Dogs Hockey Club at Fort Wainwright Oct. 12. The Ice Dogs spent the morning with Soldiers Fairbanks community. doing CrossFit, eating in the Wolves Den Inn Dinning Facility and witnessing a dry run combined arms breach The 70th Brigade Engi- “We’re just trying to demonstration. (Photo by Sgt. Corey Confer, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team PAO) neer Battalion (Kodiaks), develop a pairing program 1st Stryker Brigade Com- with a lot of the local in- UAF (University of Alas- Lair exercise gym at appreciated the challeng- “I like it,” said Marva. bat Team welcomed the stitutions,” said Lt. Col. ka) and working with the around 6 a.m. with Cross- ing PT session. “I like that they told us Fairbanks Ice Dogs Hock- Anthony Barbina, 70th Ice Dogs. This is one of Fit led by 1st Sgt. Alex Julius Marva, one of the they do it every morning. ey Club to Fort Wain- BEB commander. “1st the events.” Archillaburgos, the Head- club members here in Fair- It was a good workout.” wright Oct. 12. Brigade Arctic Wolves The early morning ad- quarters and Headquarters banks from Finland, com- Nick Rogers of the Ice The Engineers and the has been working with venture started on Fort first sergeant.
    [Show full text]
  • Kip Tokuda Civil Liberties Program
    Kip Tokuda Civil Liberties Program 1. Purpose: The Kip Tokuda competitive grant program supports the intent of RCW 28A.300.405 to do one or both of the following: 1) educate the public regarding the history and lessons of the World War II exclusion, removal, and detention of persons of Japanese ancestry through the development, coordination, and distribution of new educational materials and the development of curriculum materials to complement and augment resources currently available on this subject matter; and 2) develop videos, plays, presentations, speaker bureaus, and exhibitions for presentation to elementary schools, secondary schools, community colleges, and other interested parties. 2. Description of services provided: Grants were provided to the following individuals and organizations: Bainbridge Island Japanese American Community (BIJAC): BIJAC offered workshops featuring four oral history documentary films of the Japanese American WWII experience and accompanying curricula aligning with OSPI-developed Assessments for use in distance-learning lessons during the COVID- 19 pandemic, and developed online interactive activities to use with the oral history films in online workshops. Erin Shigaki: In the first phase of the grant Erin used the funds to revise the design of three wall murals about the Japanese American exclusion and detention located in what was the historic Japantown or Nihonmachi in Seattle, WA. The first and second locations are in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District in “Nihonmachi Alley” and the third location is the side of the Densho building located on Jackson Street. Erin spent time working with a fabricator regarding material options and installation. Densho (JALP): From January to June, the content staff completed articles on a range of confinement sites administered by the War Relocation Authority (WRA), the Wartime Civil Control Administration (WCCA), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 12 NOV 07 Crossed Sabers:Crossed Sabers Jan 20.Qxd.Qxd
    Iraqi Army “Junior Hero” Red Legs Vie to be Best Iraqi Emergency Visits School Field Artillery Crew in Top Responders Work Gun Competition Together Page 7 Page 16 Page 20 Volume I, Issue 25 Telling the MND-Baghdad Story Monday, Oct. 12, 2007 Photo by Maj. Michael J. Indovina Troops of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 18th Military Police Brigade await the departure on their flight, a Air Force aircraft into Baghdad International Airport. Brigade Arrives in Iraq By Sgt. Daniel D. Blottenberger 18th Military Police Brigade Public Affairs CAMP VICTORY, Iraq— In eager silence Soldiers of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 18th Military Police Brigade walked through manmade paths aligned with barriers on their way from Baghdad International Airport to Camp Victory here. Soldiers from the 18th Military Police Brigade deployed from Mannheim Germany, recently completed their final stage of in pro- cessing and training into the Middle Eastern theater in Kuwait, and arrived here in Iraq to their final destination for its upcoming 15 month deployment mission. The final training and in-processing in Kuwait focused on tasks specific for this area of operation. (Photo by Cpl. Nathan Hoskins, 1st ACB, 1st Cav. Div. Public Affairs) “From the stories I’ve heard, I expected the area to be in chaos with bombs going off everywhere, but once I got here I found that doing my job as a personnel clerk was not much different from ‘Witch Doctors’ Begin Journey Home what I am used to doing elsewhere,” said Spc. Anthony Henderson, With 15 months of medical evacuation missions behind them, Soldiers from Company C, 2nd a native of Memphis, Tenn., and a human resources specialist with “Lobo” Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, load the unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter 2 (PDF)
    SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 Post Office Box 111800 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Phone: 907-465-5066 Fax: 907-465-5070 www.dec.state.ak.us October 20, 2008 Elin Miller, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Mail Code: RA-140 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 Dear Ms. Miller: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed your th August 18 letter regarding EPA’s PM2.5 designations for Alaska and the nonattainment boundaries for the communities of Fairbanks and Juneau. We have carefully considered the available data and analyses. ADEC believes the available scientific evidence does not support EPA’s boundary recommendations which substantially expand upon those recommended by us. ADEC believes public health will be protected and the applicable legal requirements met by taking the actions described in this letter, which include a proposed nonattainment boundary for the Fairbanks area that is larger than originally proposed by ADEC, but smaller than proposed by EPA. For Juneau, we are requesting EPA revisit certain assumptions and include data from 2008 before making a final decision on whether a nonattainment designation is warranted, and if so, the appropriate boundaries of the nonattainment area. Protecting public health is a goal we share with EPA. As you are already aware, we are proactively and expeditiously working with the local governments to address identified PM2.5 concerns in Fairbanks and Juneau. To this end, ADEC does not believe EPA’s proposed boundaries will ultimately assist in protecting public health.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security
    Order Code RL31339 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security Updated March 29, 2006 Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security Summary Operation Iraqi Freedom succeeded in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but Iraq remains violent and unstable because of Sunni Arab resentment and a related insurgency, as well as growing sectarian violence. According to its November 30, 2005, “Strategy for Victory,” the Bush Administration indicates that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq until the country is able to provide for its own security and does not serve as a host for radical Islamic terrorists. The Administration believes that, over the longer term, Iraq will become a model for reform throughout the Middle East and a partner in the global war on terrorism. However, mounting casualties and costs — and growing sectarian conflict — have intensified a debate within the United States over the wisdom of the invasion and whether to wind down U.S. involvement without completely accomplishing U.S. goals. The Bush Administration asserts that U.S. policy in Iraq is showing important successes, demonstrated by two elections (January and December 2005) that chose an interim and then a full-term National Assembly, a referendum that adopted a permanent constitution (October 15, 2005), progress in building Iraq’s security forces, and economic growth. While continuing to build, equip, and train Iraqi security units, the Administration has been working to include more Sunni Arabs in the power structure, particularly the security institutions; Sunnis were dominant during the regime of Saddam Hussein but now feel marginalized by the newly dominant Shiite Arabs and Kurds.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking the Economic Effects of Military Base Closures: Three Cases
    Tracking the Economic Effects of Military Base Closures: Three Cases Christopher Preble* Abstract In October 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis urged Congress to grant him authority to reduce the department’s overhead. Even if the military were to grow back to the levels seen when the United States was actively fighting wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq (in 2012), the DoD had concluded that it would still be carrying nearly 20 percent excess base capacity. Congress, however, refused to grant Mattis’s request – just as it had rejected similar pleas from four previous Secretaries of Defense. Instead, the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) included language requiring DoD to complete another infrastructure review, effectively delaying any possible future round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) until 2021, at the earliest. Congressional leaders have denied DoD the authority to close unneeded bases, in part, due to concern that such actions would do irreparable harm to local economies – and despite that fact that empirical studies show that most areas do eventually recover lost jobs after a nearby base closes. This paper will go beyond the numbers to explore how three communities have adapted to military base closures – Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Fort Ord in Northern California; and Forts McPherson and Gillem in and near Atlanta, Georgia. * Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. The author wishes to thank Jonathan (J.E.) Allen for his assistance with the research and writing of this paper, and James Knupp for research help.
    [Show full text]