Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT- Tank Madness
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Howell
Apr 28, 2013, 11:29:53 AM4/28/13
to
While sequestration rages on in news headlines, Congress is at war with the
Army. Army officials have repeatedly said No Tanks to this expansion.
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray
Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past
week.
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an
extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
http://tinyurl.com/bw6hrhy
Whatever sequestration takes, congress will give back, as they are the
scorpions and we are the frogs.
--
Frank Howell
Army. Army officials have repeatedly said No Tanks to this expansion.
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray
Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past
week.
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an
extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
http://tinyurl.com/bw6hrhy
Whatever sequestration takes, congress will give back, as they are the
scorpions and we are the frogs.
--
Frank Howell
Jan Orme
Apr 28, 2013, 9:27:06 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 28, 8:29 am, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While sequestration rages on in news headlines, Congress is at war with the
> Army. Army officials have repeatedly said No Tanks to this expansion.
>
> "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray
> Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past
> week.
>
> Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an
> extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.http://tinyurl.com/bw6hrhy
> While sequestration rages on in news headlines, Congress is at war with the
> Army. Army officials have repeatedly said No Tanks to this expansion.
>
> "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray
> Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past
> week.
>
> Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an
>
> Whatever sequestration takes, congress will give back, as they are the
> scorpions and we are the frogs.
>
> --
> Frank Howell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Whatever sequestration takes, congress will give back, as they are the
> scorpions and we are the frogs.
>
> --
> Frank Howell
Does Congress or Government Bureaucracy give a damn? Nope!
Another day and same buncha pols.
Pray for Term Limits, Frank.
Jan
Hank
Apr 29, 2013, 6:16:52 AM4/29/13
to
Hank
nothermark
Apr 29, 2013, 7:24:33 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:16:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
They are saying we have enough tanks. The problem in a nutshell is
that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
is to switch to something else.
wrote:
that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
is to switch to something else.
D-R
Apr 29, 2013, 10:22:42 AM4/29/13
to
On 4/29/2013 3:16 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>
While I agree with Hank that there may be things we do not know it
>
> I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>
would seem that the military would be more knowledgeable about what
might be needed to fight a war than some politician. A lot of
government procurement seems to be related to where/who makes it
rather than what is needed.
--
AJ - up in the Arizona mountains
Mike Hendrix at dot
Apr 29, 2013, 12:29:24 PM4/29/13
to
That is NOT the way it is for everything DOD needs but it sure is for
many of the items..... especially BIG ticket items. In turn the folks
that get those contracts take good care of the Congress Critters and
Senators who make the funds available for their success.
DOD is a open Pork Barrel that is wallowed in by both sides.
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
Hank
Apr 29, 2013, 5:32:12 PM4/29/13
to
On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:24:33 AM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:
> >I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>
> >
>
> >Hank
>
>
>
> They are saying we have enough tanks. The problem in a nutshell is
>
> that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
>
> big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
>
> state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
>
> vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
>
> anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
>
> is to switch to something else.
While some parts are probably sub-assemblies from other states, I think Lima Ohio is the only place where they produce the Abrams.
> >I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>
> >
>
> >Hank
>
>
>
> They are saying we have enough tanks. The problem in a nutshell is
>
> that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
>
> big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
>
> state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
>
> vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
>
> anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
>
> is to switch to something else.
Hank
nothermark
Apr 29, 2013, 5:55:16 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
I'll bet there are parts from 40 states or so.
OTOH Lima should be able to handle heavy equipment! ;-)
wrote:
OTOH Lima should be able to handle heavy equipment! ;-)
nothermark
Apr 29, 2013, 6:12:13 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
Interesting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html
wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html
Bruce S
Apr 29, 2013, 8:00:25 PM4/29/13
to
information in that article is what started this discussion.
--
Bruce
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."
nothermark
Apr 29, 2013, 10:16:35 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:00:25 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's a good article for laying out the problem...
wrote:
Frank Howell
Apr 29, 2013, 10:15:58 PM4/29/13
to
If a politican is really good at what he does and give good governance to
his or her constituents, why wouldn't they want to re-elect that person?
The other problem is that by the time one term is completed most new
congresspeoples are just getting up to speed and are developing the skills
needed to do that job.
Kinda reminds me of Viet Nam in a oblique way. Most of the soldiers were
draftees and if they went to Viet Nam, the most they would stay is 12
months.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Apr 29, 2013, 10:40:48 PM4/29/13
to
Hee hee. I have always found term limits to be a double edged sword.
If a politican is really good at what he or she does and gives good
governance to
his or her constituents, why wouldn't they want to re-elect that person?
The other problem is that by the time one term is completed most new
congresspeoples are just getting up to speed and are developing the skills
needed to do that job. And then there are the Blagojeviches of the world.
his or her constituents, why wouldn't they want to re-elect that person?
The other problem is that by the time one term is completed most new
congresspeoples are just getting up to speed and are developing the skills
Kinda reminds me of Viet Nam in a oblique way. Most of the soldiers were
months before rotating home. These for the most part were 18 to 23 years of
age who like myself did not have a lot of skills at first and maybe just
maybe towards the end we aquired some real skills only to be replaced by new
soldiers to repeat the process. But at least they saw the light and we now
have a professional military thats paided what they should be for a
demanding job instead of being in a time warp and creating an army from
impressed men who by and large were not impressed.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Apr 29, 2013, 11:03:45 PM4/29/13
to
being
kinda naive." makes me ponder. What kind of viewpoint would one need to
become wise? That's a rhetorical.
What consideration do you give to: "If we had our choice, we would use that
money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told
The Associated Press this past week. Why wouldn't he know how many tanks
would be needed under many battle scenarios instead of a congressman?
I think the intent of the article was to show that challenges that we face
when trying to cut budgets. It appears that it's the city of Lima OH well
being that is driving this controversy just the way Base Closures did a few
years ago. I think it got so bad, that the only way you could close some
bases would be to nukeum.
So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it militarily
speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities economically
thriving.
At least that's my take.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Apr 29, 2013, 11:06:13 PM4/29/13
to
--
Frank Howell
Kenn Smith
Apr 30, 2013, 12:16:11 AM4/30/13
to
The real question is about the potential use of the Main Battle Tank
(MBT). The MiA2 Abrhams MBT is the biggest, baddest MBT in the world.
It was useful in Iraq but is essentially useless in Afghanistan where
most of the fighting is in mountainous terrain not suited for tanks.
I think that the days of massed tank battles are gone and unlikely to
return. I don't see us getting into another was with a north African
nation (Egype? Saudia Arabia?) where the terrain and oppostiton
equipmtnet would lead to massed tank battles.
In the motor pools on Fort Hood there are rows upon rows of Abhrams
lined up, possibly enough on this one installation to prosecute about
any war we are likely to get into. I'm with General Odierono, enough
is enough and there are better ways to spend the money.
But the tanks aren't the only problem. The Air Force must keep obsolete
heavy lift aircrate (the C5A) in the inventory although they want to
retire them - old and frightfully expensive to maintain. They also want
to shut down acquisition of the C130 but political pressure keeps buying
more of them every year. The Herky Bird has been agreat multiuse
platform for years - cargo and troop hauling, gunship, weather flights -
but, agian, the USAF says enough is enough but congress continues to
ignore the expressed needs of the military in favor of protecting its
districts - same reason DoD can't get congressional approval for another
round of BRAC's.
(MBT). The MiA2 Abrhams MBT is the biggest, baddest MBT in the world.
It was useful in Iraq but is essentially useless in Afghanistan where
most of the fighting is in mountainous terrain not suited for tanks.
I think that the days of massed tank battles are gone and unlikely to
return. I don't see us getting into another was with a north African
nation (Egype? Saudia Arabia?) where the terrain and oppostiton
equipmtnet would lead to massed tank battles.
In the motor pools on Fort Hood there are rows upon rows of Abhrams
lined up, possibly enough on this one installation to prosecute about
any war we are likely to get into. I'm with General Odierono, enough
is enough and there are better ways to spend the money.
But the tanks aren't the only problem. The Air Force must keep obsolete
heavy lift aircrate (the C5A) in the inventory although they want to
retire them - old and frightfully expensive to maintain. They also want
to shut down acquisition of the C130 but political pressure keeps buying
more of them every year. The Herky Bird has been agreat multiuse
platform for years - cargo and troop hauling, gunship, weather flights -
but, agian, the USAF says enough is enough but congress continues to
ignore the expressed needs of the military in favor of protecting its
districts - same reason DoD can't get congressional approval for another
round of BRAC's.
jerryosage
Apr 30, 2013, 1:09:35 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:06:13 -0700, "Frank Howell"
<fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>>
>> It's a good article for laying out the problem...
>
>Well that's what I thought when I originally posted it.
Look on the bright side, he finally got around to reading it...
<fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>>
>> It's a good article for laying out the problem...
>
>Well that's what I thought when I originally posted it.
Jan Orme
Apr 30, 2013, 1:51:21 AM4/30/13
to
Right...........BUT......when was the last time they didn't learn to
get in the pockets of obvious
bribes for votes? And.....how in California it was the only way we
cou;d get Willie Brown out of Sacramento.
Jan
nothermark
Apr 30, 2013, 6:44:54 AM4/30/13
to
original message I would not have needed to repost it. I already
understand the problem.
Bob Hatch
Apr 30, 2013, 9:42:56 AM4/30/13
to
Any proof that 40 states are involved?
--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.
nothermark
Apr 30, 2013, 10:14:36 AM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:42:56 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:
>On 4/29/2013 2:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:24:33 AM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are saying we have enough tanks. The problem in a nutshell is
>>>>
>>>> that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
>>>>
>>>> big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
>>>>
>>>> state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
>>>>
>>>> vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
>>>>
>>>> anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
>>>>
>>>> is to switch to something else.
>>>
>>> While some parts are probably sub-assemblies from other states, I think Lima Ohio is the only place where they produce the Abrams.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>
>> I'll bet there are parts from 40 states or so.
>>
>> OTOH Lima should be able to handle heavy equipment! ;-)
>>
>
>Oh, so not virtually every state.
Ever been through Lima Ohio?
>
>Any proof that 40 states are involved?
No so far. OTOH it is not an unreasonable claim considering how
spread out General Dynamics is let alone their sub contractor network.
It might be all 50 depending how fine grain you want to look. You
know, Alaskan gold and Montana copper going into connector pins
stamped out in Pennsylvania assembled into cables in West Virginia
covered with plastic from Delaware/Maryland connecting Radio's made in
NY, etc.
wrote:
>On 4/29/2013 2:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:24:33 AM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I am confused over this dilema. I think there are other factors that aren't being brought to the public. What we don't know can hurt us. While we may not be using the tanks at the present time, how many tanks do we need in reserve in the case we go to war in Syria, Iran, N.Korea and such? How long will it take to restart tank building if we shut it completely down? There are other questions, but I think you get my point. To have a solid viewpoint on this subject is being kinda naive.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are saying we have enough tanks. The problem in a nutshell is
>>>>
>>>> that the military and big contrators got smart and split contracts for
>>>>
>>>> big items like tanks around all over the country. Virtually every
>>>>
>>>> state has a piece of the tank so every congressrat has a reason to
>>>>
>>>> vote to build more as it's jobs back home. Same with airplanes and
>>>>
>>>> anything else they can figure out. The only way to shut off the tanks
>>>>
>>>> is to switch to something else.
>>>
>>> While some parts are probably sub-assemblies from other states, I think Lima Ohio is the only place where they produce the Abrams.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>
>> I'll bet there are parts from 40 states or so.
>>
>> OTOH Lima should be able to handle heavy equipment! ;-)
>>
>
>Oh, so not virtually every state.
>
>Any proof that 40 states are involved?
spread out General Dynamics is let alone their sub contractor network.
It might be all 50 depending how fine grain you want to look. You
know, Alaskan gold and Montana copper going into connector pins
stamped out in Pennsylvania assembled into cables in West Virginia
covered with plastic from Delaware/Maryland connecting Radio's made in
NY, etc.
MaxD
Apr 30, 2013, 10:32:35 AM4/30/13
to
How many reps or senators actually do any research on any of the laws
they pass?
jerryosage
Apr 30, 2013, 11:36:48 AM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:44:54 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
Perhaps you should start doing that and set a good example. Check
back over your posts, you hardly ever clip...
wrote:
back over your posts, you hardly ever clip...
Bruce S
Apr 30, 2013, 12:58:35 PM4/30/13
to
have posted the link a second time either. And if you limited yourself
to responding only to those threads where you understand the discussion
thus far, you would cut back to almost no posting at all.
nothermark
Apr 30, 2013, 1:21:12 PM4/30/13
to
In general leave the first comment and the one you are replying too.
Everything in between gets optional.
nothermark
Apr 30, 2013, 1:33:41 PM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:58:35 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 4/30/2013 3:44 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:09:35 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:06:13 -0700, "Frank Howell"
>>> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a good article for laying out the problem...
>>>>
>>>> Well that's what I thought when I originally posted it.
>>>
>>> Look on the bright side, he finally got around to reading it...
>>
>> If folks would learn to clip clip the garbage but leave in the
>> original message I would not have needed to repost it. I already
>> understand the problem.
>
>If you would learn to read the thread before responding, you would not
>have posted the link a second time either. And if you limited yourself
>to responding only to those threads where you understand the discussion
>thus far, you would cut back to almost no posting at all.
I'm keeping you on your toes trying to keep me in line. ;-))
wrote:
>On 4/30/2013 3:44 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:09:35 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:06:13 -0700, "Frank Howell"
>>> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a good article for laying out the problem...
>>>>
>>>> Well that's what I thought when I originally posted it.
>>>
>>> Look on the bright side, he finally got around to reading it...
>>
>> If folks would learn to clip clip the garbage but leave in the
>> original message I would not have needed to repost it. I already
>> understand the problem.
>
>If you would learn to read the thread before responding, you would not
>have posted the link a second time either. And if you limited yourself
>to responding only to those threads where you understand the discussion
>thus far, you would cut back to almost no posting at all.
Owen McKenzie
Apr 30, 2013, 3:16:33 PM4/30/13
to
On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>
> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it militarily
> speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities economically
> thriving.
>
While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
>
> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it militarily
> speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities economically
> thriving.
>
business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from St. Lucia West Indies
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
-- William G. McAdoo
Frank Howell
Apr 30, 2013, 6:24:53 PM4/30/13
to
Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>
>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>> economically thriving.
>>
>
> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>
>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>> economically thriving.
>>
>
> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
and town would take, does not make it easy.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Apr 30, 2013, 6:30:08 PM4/30/13
to
represents the town. 700 jobs is to big ignore and any future election, his
competitors will surly let the public know his effectivness on this matter.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Apr 30, 2013, 6:33:15 PM4/30/13
to
complex.)
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
Apr 30, 2013, 6:57:29 PM4/30/13
to
DOD contracts. When models changed or DOD was on a tight
budget, major layoffs occurredand they lost a lot of talented
people. Now they avoid DOD contracts and focus on farm and
construction machinery. There are ups and downs but not the
"feast or famine" roller coasterthey experienced with DOD.
LZ
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 1, 2013, 9:12:43 AM5/1/13
to
Seriously, you are correct. The work and "base knowledge" is done by
staff that is more or less permanent. All the Congress critter does
is sit in the seat and locate who has the deep pockets. Then they
listen to those deep pocket.
A congress critter "getting up to speed" is more or less a joke. The
commander of an aircraft carrier is replaced every two years.
Virtually every military base in America has a Commanding Officer that
is replaced every two years.
Congress Critters are like toilet paper, they need to be changed after
the first time.
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 1, 2013, 9:40:47 AM5/1/13
to
But, But, But, the congress critter from that district has "SENIORITY"
on the armed services committee which is a direct link to the Pork
Barrel. No congressional district is going to throw out a Congress
Critter with "SENIORITY" on the armed services committee for a new one
that may not even get appointed to the armed services committee. That
is why those old fogies have a life time gig. Seniority provides them
a secure place at the trough of public money.
nothermark
May 1, 2013, 10:00:14 AM5/1/13
to
geographical spread involved. The number of prime contractors has
dropped to a handfull so competition is questionable once they get a
contract. OTOH they all figured out that if they spread the component
parts around the country they get more congress critters wanting the
jobs. That is why GD for example is still running the old GE plant in
Syracuse, NY. The 700 final assembly jobs are only the tip of the
iceberg. The real job number is much higher due to all the sub
assemblies supplied from somewhere else.
jerryosage
May 1, 2013, 11:26:29 AM5/1/13
to
>While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
>more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>and town would take, does not make it easy.
But. And this is a big But. If your guy doesn't vote for the deal
>more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>and town would take, does not make it easy.
his NO vote will be remembered by every congress person that has a
stake in that program. By him voting NO on their Pork, he may have
lost a dozen votes on his next Pork Project for his district.
Since his Pork will more than offset his district's small share of of
the Tanks, voting YES is a win-win for him and his district.
Jerry O.
Bruce S
May 1, 2013, 12:46:53 PM5/1/13
to
On 5/1/2013 7:00 AM, nothermark wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:24:53 -0700, "Frank Howell"
> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>>>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>>>> economically thriving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
>>> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
>>> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
>>
>> While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
>> more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>> it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>> and town would take, does not make it easy.
>
> What you are ignoring is the scope of the sub contracting and the
> geographical spread involved.
Even more important than that is vote trading on unrelated issues. The
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:24:53 -0700, "Frank Howell"
> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>>>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>>>> economically thriving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
>>> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
>>> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
>>
>> While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
>> more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>> it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>> and town would take, does not make it easy.
>
> What you are ignoring is the scope of the sub contracting and the
> geographical spread involved.
congressbozo from Lima talks to his counterpart from Iowa and they agree
that Lima will vote for farm subsidies and Iowa will vote for tanks.
(And so on, and so on, and so on, till every piece of pork gets passed,
no matter how egregious it is.)
nothermark
May 1, 2013, 1:11:18 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 09:46:53 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 5/1/2013 7:00 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:24:53 -0700, "Frank Howell"
>> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>>>>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>>>>> economically thriving.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
>>>> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
>>>> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
>>>
>>> While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
>>> more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>>> it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>>> and town would take, does not make it easy.
>>
>> What you are ignoring is the scope of the sub contracting and the
>> geographical spread involved.
>
>Even more important than that is vote trading on unrelated issues. The
>congressbozo from Lima talks to his counterpart from Iowa and they agree
>that Lima will vote for farm subsidies and Iowa will vote for tanks.
>(And so on, and so on, and so on, till every piece of pork gets passed,
>no matter how egregious it is.)
Why vote trade when there is a plant in Iowa making some parts???
wrote:
>On 5/1/2013 7:00 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:24:53 -0700, "Frank Howell"
>> <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2013 11:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question is, do we have a big military because we need it
>>>>> militarily speaking or do we have a big military to keep communities
>>>>> economically thriving.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with Bruce's contention that if we get the gov't out of
>>>> business we remove the incentive on the part of business to "take care
>>>> of congress critters", how do we deal with that problem?
>>>
>>> While I would expect the congressional representives of Lima OH to vote for
>>> more tanks, I wouldn't expect my congress people to also vote more tanks. So
>>> it should be doable, but no doubt the hit that the sub-contractors and labor
>>> and town would take, does not make it easy.
>>
>> What you are ignoring is the scope of the sub contracting and the
>> geographical spread involved.
>
>Even more important than that is vote trading on unrelated issues. The
>congressbozo from Lima talks to his counterpart from Iowa and they agree
>that Lima will vote for farm subsidies and Iowa will vote for tanks.
>(And so on, and so on, and so on, till every piece of pork gets passed,
>no matter how egregious it is.)
George Anthony
May 1, 2013, 3:58:17 PM5/1/13
to
"Jerry Osage" wrote in message
news:f8c2o8l1a6k94u43m...@4ax.com...
Frank Howell
May 1, 2013, 5:35:12 PM5/1/13
to
Did it work at one time with more restraint or has there been major changes
from past procedures?
--
Frank Howell
jerryosage
May 1, 2013, 5:59:38 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:35:12 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
Probably more restraint at one time. Then deficit spending came
along. Now it is past the point of no return - we will never
eliminate the deficit or even stop it from growing.
If we were actually paying for it we might get upset, but since half
is with borrowed money we see no downside. And money to their large
campaign contributors usually results in jobs, more tax revenue,etc,
so...
We want our fair share of the pork much more than we want to stop Pork
altogether. As long as the Feds has a credit card with no limits and
can print money we want more free stuff. And many see it as free,
they don't see the deficit as a problem since we can just print more
money to pay off loans...
Jerry O..
along. Now it is past the point of no return - we will never
eliminate the deficit or even stop it from growing.
If we were actually paying for it we might get upset, but since half
is with borrowed money we see no downside. And money to their large
campaign contributors usually results in jobs, more tax revenue,etc,
so...
We want our fair share of the pork much more than we want to stop Pork
altogether. As long as the Feds has a credit card with no limits and
can print money we want more free stuff. And many see it as free,
they don't see the deficit as a problem since we can just print more
money to pay off loans...
Jerry O..
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 1, 2013, 6:15:37 PM5/1/13
to
Frank, Congress Critters stick together like a bunch of skin heads or
Hells Angels. They all vote for each others PORK no matter how
egregious because they want that congress critter to vote for their
pork, no matter how egregious.
Normal folks refer to that as "you scratch my back, I will scratch
yours". And the further up the Congress Critter is on the Armed
Services Committee the more weight he pulls. Lesser Congress Critters
better not even think about not supporting the "Big Dogs" PORK or they
will not even get a shot at the crumbs.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 1, 2013, 6:33:24 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:00:14 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
-----------------------
nothermark is right about this. Companies spread the contracts
around to as many congressional districts as possible.
That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
different places as possible for strategic reasons. However, it takes
BIG BUCKS to maintain and operate all those bases. At the end of the
Cold War, when the DOD budget was in free fall the only way to
maintain a "fighting force" was to reduce that footprint
(consolidate). However, that was really hard because all those bases
were in different Congressional Districts and none of the Congress
Critters were going to vote for their base to be closed and the
function moved to another Congressional District.
Today the large companies use the same technique to assure
Congressional Votes. That is why they spread the sub-contracts to as
many congressional districts as possible.
wrote:
nothermark is right about this. Companies spread the contracts
around to as many congressional districts as possible.
That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
different places as possible for strategic reasons. However, it takes
BIG BUCKS to maintain and operate all those bases. At the end of the
Cold War, when the DOD budget was in free fall the only way to
maintain a "fighting force" was to reduce that footprint
(consolidate). However, that was really hard because all those bases
were in different Congressional Districts and none of the Congress
Critters were going to vote for their base to be closed and the
function moved to another Congressional District.
Today the large companies use the same technique to assure
Congressional Votes. That is why they spread the sub-contracts to as
many congressional districts as possible.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 1, 2013, 6:38:58 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:11:18 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
nothermark, Congress Critters do not have to "vote trade" when parts
are made in another Congress Critters district. In that instance the
Iowa Congress Critter becomes an ally of the Lima, OH Congress Critter
and helps lobby other Congress Critters to vote for the PORK.
Virtually ALL of the sub-component manufacturers Congress Critters
will join the Lima, Ohio Congress Critter.
However, the "vote-trade" will be used by each of that cadre of
Congress Critters backing the project. The arm twisting and trading
will be enormous.
And folks that is how sausages is made, and why the Federal Budget is
so out of control.
wrote:
are made in another Congress Critters district. In that instance the
Iowa Congress Critter becomes an ally of the Lima, OH Congress Critter
and helps lobby other Congress Critters to vote for the PORK.
Virtually ALL of the sub-component manufacturers Congress Critters
will join the Lima, Ohio Congress Critter.
However, the "vote-trade" will be used by each of that cadre of
Congress Critters backing the project. The arm twisting and trading
will be enormous.
And folks that is how sausages is made, and why the Federal Budget is
so out of control.
Ralph E Lindberg
May 1, 2013, 7:12:08 PM5/1/13
to
In article <lg53o8tmbf80ovlmu...@4ax.com>,
consisted of a PX, a clinic and the office. The OIC was a Capt. The only
thing that kept it open was that Congress wouldn't let the Army close it.
> That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
> mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
> different places as possible for strategic reasons.
Oh ya, like a Navy basic training camp in Northern Idaho (now a State
Park).
With Umatilla closing (2015) I don't think Oregon will have one single
Army/Navy/Air-Force base left.
DoD is talking about another BRAC, the problem is all the low-hanging
fruit has been picked. What bases left today, that might be "closeable"
have costs entangled with the closing that would negate the cost-savings
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
> That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
> years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
> congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
> funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
> the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
>
At the start of the first BRAC cycle there was one Army post that
>
> That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
> years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
> congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
> funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
> the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
>
consisted of a PX, a clinic and the office. The OIC was a Capt. The only
thing that kept it open was that Congress wouldn't let the Army close it.
> That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
> mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
> different places as possible for strategic reasons.
Park).
With Umatilla closing (2015) I don't think Oregon will have one single
Army/Navy/Air-Force base left.
DoD is talking about another BRAC, the problem is all the low-hanging
fruit has been picked. What bases left today, that might be "closeable"
have costs entangled with the closing that would negate the cost-savings
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
nothermark
May 1, 2013, 8:01:57 PM5/1/13
to
just be sticking to that point of view.
>
>However, the "vote-trade" will be used by each of that cadre of
>Congress Critters backing the project. The arm twisting and trading
>will be enormous.
every congressrat knows what contracts are in it's district.
I'm trying to remember the what and why of the timing. As I recall
somewhere after Vietnam ran down the defense industry started into a
couple of rounds of consolidation. I'm sure the Clinton cuts were
also involved with more consolidation. The result was a significant
reduction in the number of prime contractors but an increase in the
geopraphical spread specifically to include as many districts as
possible. The basis for doing it was to cut off the folks trying to
shrink the military budget.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 2, 2013, 1:49:03 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:12:08 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <lg53o8tmbf80ovlmu...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
>> years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
>> congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
>> funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
>> the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
>>
> At the start of the first BRAC cycle there was one Army post that
>consisted of a PX, a clinic and the office. The OIC was a Capt. The only
>thing that kept it open was that Congress wouldn't let the Army close it.
>
>> That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
>> mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
>> different places as possible for strategic reasons.
>
> Oh ya, like a Navy basic training camp in Northern Idaho (now a State
>Park).
Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <lg53o8tmbf80ovlmu...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That is a technique that the Army & Navy used to their advantage for
>> years. The Army and Navy would open as many small bases in as many
>> congressional districts as possible, thus securing their annual
>> funding...... whatever, the Navy/Army needed. I am not sure how much
>> the Air Force did this but the Navy did it with a vengeance.
>>
> At the start of the first BRAC cycle there was one Army post that
>consisted of a PX, a clinic and the office. The OIC was a Capt. The only
>thing that kept it open was that Congress wouldn't let the Army close it.
>
>> That was also done at a time when Pearl Harbor was fresh on everyone's
>> mind. Military planners wanted to place their assets in as many
>> different places as possible for strategic reasons.
>
> Oh ya, like a Navy basic training camp in Northern Idaho (now a State
>Park).
do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
base.
> With Umatilla closing (2015) I don't think Oregon will have one single
>Army/Navy/Air-Force base left.
>
> DoD is talking about another BRAC, the problem is all the low-hanging
>fruit has been picked. What bases left today, that might be "closeable"
Ralph, there is still a LOT of low hanging fruit. The Navy had a good
many "training" bases that they would eagerly close if Congress would
just let them. While there can be significant shut down costs
associated with some bases....... generally because of environmental
issues, some will be really easy and cheap to close. The ongoing cost
of continuing to operate bases that are not really needed is
staggering.
nothermark
May 2, 2013, 8:09:59 AM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 00:49:03 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
This one is probably from before your time:
http://navy.memorieshop.com/Adair/Training-Center.html
now another state park.
http://navy.memorieshop.com/Adair/Training-Center.html
now another state park.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 2, 2013, 4:47:20 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:09:59 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>>Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>>do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>>of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>>base.
>>
nothermark, you are right that was before my time, at least I do not
remember it.
wrote:
>>Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>>do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>>of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>>base.
>>
>>mike
>
>
>This one is probably from before your time:
>
>http://navy.memorieshop.com/Adair/Training-Center.html
>
>now another state park.
-----------------------------
>
>
>This one is probably from before your time:
>
>http://navy.memorieshop.com/Adair/Training-Center.html
>
>now another state park.
nothermark, you are right that was before my time, at least I do not
remember it.
nothermark
May 2, 2013, 5:03:50 PM5/2/13
to
small boat handling location. After WWII the Navy gave it to the Air
Force to use to train pilots during Korea. Somewhere in there they
built a SAC base across the street. It had one of the nuclear bomb
storage facilities until the cold war ended. All of it was eventually
handed over to the state.
From what I can tell the first round of base closing stripped the
northern states of all but a couple of cold weather training bases.
That got a lot of stuff going back to the Revolutionary War. That is
why I think a second round will be very interesting. I am sure there
is low hanging fruit but most of it is in Blue states... ;-)
Ralph E Lindberg
May 2, 2013, 7:20:50 PM5/2/13
to
In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
1946(ish)
Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
> base.
>
A little before your time, Farragut Naval Training Station closed in
>
> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
> base.
>
1946(ish)
Ralph E Lindberg
May 2, 2013, 7:23:54 PM5/2/13
to
In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
> base.
>
PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>
> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
> base.
>
they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
nothermark
May 2, 2013, 7:41:10 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:23:54 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> base.
>>
>PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
What state is the Lake Seneca facility in?
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> base.
>>
>PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
Frank Howell
May 2, 2013, 7:47:09 PM5/2/13
to
time we owned all of our debt, but now with much of the debt held by foreign
countries, the biggest danger to our economy is if interest rates increase
even a modest amount, the cost will be enormous.
While many people believe that the US is immune to these problems, the
national debt could be our Damocles Sword hanging over us. The way I see it,
the 17 trillion we owe, represents deferred taxes. The only way to pay back
that debt is by taxation or the liquidation of assets. Me thinks another
generation is going to get stiffed and pay the piper 'cause most of us will
die before we pay it! :-)
Another aspect is once currency gets to the trillions, then the word
exponential comes to mind as a trillion is a very large number. One trillion
seconds is 31688 years, so even paying it back at the rate 100 dollars a
second would take about 300 years. A million dollars in one thousand dollar
bills is 4 inches high, a billion is 358 ft high, but a trillion is 67 miles
high. So that would make our debt in terms of 1000 dollar bills only 1139
miles high! Mind boggling!
Yes life in the US is good, but a good part of it is an illusion, as we are
now living not only on our present income, but also the next generations
income as it is unlikely that the baby boomers will pay it. Could the saying
"Pass the buck" ever be more appropriate?
Just like SS, when you were working, you paid the previous generation's SS
and now the present workers pay our SS, but as a bonus, the next generation
will not only pay their SS recipients, they get to pay for two wars, meds
for seniors, a stimulus and what ever else 17 trillion+ bought. The
Ultimate Ponzi scheme.
If anyone else has a different take on this, let 'er rip.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
May 2, 2013, 8:01:14 PM5/2/13
to
our nuke arsenal to blackmail the rest of the world. Forgive us
our IOUs or get wiped out.
LZ
MaxD
May 2, 2013, 8:12:43 PM5/2/13
to
On 5/2/2013 5:23 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> base.
>>
> PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
> they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
> Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
> really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>
Is the Nuclear reactor facility near Idaho Falls still open?
> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> base.
>>
> PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
> they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
> Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
> really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>
One of my sons trained there. (later assigned to USS San Francisco)
Ralph E Lindberg
May 2, 2013, 11:29:18 PM5/2/13
to
Ralph E Lindberg
May 2, 2013, 11:30:39 PM5/2/13
to
In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
LA.
don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
LA.
jerryosage
May 3, 2013, 12:58:12 AM5/3/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:47:09 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<SNIP>
>Just like SS, when you were working, you paid the previous generation's SS
>and now the present workers pay our SS, but as a bonus, the next generation
>will not only pay their SS recipients, they get to pay for two wars, meds
>for seniors, a stimulus and what ever else 17 trillion+ bought. The
>Ultimate Ponzi scheme.
>
>If anyone else has a different take on this, let 'er rip.
Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme. The sad thing is that we bought into it
willingly. We understand debt and how it works, What we didn't
understand was the big numbers and were more than happy to believe
that our representatives was looking out for us.
It isn't as if we see it as our debt, it belongs to the government, so
it is ok to borrow and spend it on us. They do, after most is skimmed
off as administrative expenses.
We hear some voices crying in the wilderness, so to speak, just as we
did before the housing bubble burst. The people trying to raise the
alarm were not heeded then and won't be heeded now. We are going to
ride this horse into the ground just like we did with the housing
bubble. When the debt becomes unsustainable, and this bubble bursts
it will make the housing bubble seem like a child's soap bubble
bursting in Golden Gate Park.
I don't think that I will live long enough to see it burst, and for
that I am thankful.
Jerry O.
wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>Yes life in the US is good, but a good part of it is an illusion, as we are
>now living not only on our present income, but also the next generations
>income as it is unlikely that the baby boomers will pay it. Could the saying
>"Pass the buck" ever be more appropriate?
>
It is an illusion that it is sustainable forever,
>Yes life in the US is good, but a good part of it is an illusion, as we are
>now living not only on our present income, but also the next generations
>income as it is unlikely that the baby boomers will pay it. Could the saying
>"Pass the buck" ever be more appropriate?
>
>Just like SS, when you were working, you paid the previous generation's SS
>and now the present workers pay our SS, but as a bonus, the next generation
>will not only pay their SS recipients, they get to pay for two wars, meds
>for seniors, a stimulus and what ever else 17 trillion+ bought. The
>Ultimate Ponzi scheme.
>
>If anyone else has a different take on this, let 'er rip.
willingly. We understand debt and how it works, What we didn't
understand was the big numbers and were more than happy to believe
that our representatives was looking out for us.
It isn't as if we see it as our debt, it belongs to the government, so
it is ok to borrow and spend it on us. They do, after most is skimmed
off as administrative expenses.
We hear some voices crying in the wilderness, so to speak, just as we
did before the housing bubble burst. The people trying to raise the
alarm were not heeded then and won't be heeded now. We are going to
ride this horse into the ground just like we did with the housing
bubble. When the debt becomes unsustainable, and this bubble bursts
it will make the housing bubble seem like a child's soap bubble
bursting in Golden Gate Park.
I don't think that I will live long enough to see it burst, and for
that I am thankful.
Jerry O.
Hank
May 3, 2013, 5:32:04 AM5/3/13
to
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 7:20:50 PM UTC-4, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>
> > do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>
> > of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>
> > base.
>
> >
>
> A little before your time, Farragut Naval Training Station closed in
>
> 1946(ish)
>
Damn the torpedos! I served aboard the USS Farragut from 65 to 68. Full speed ahead!
> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>
> > do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>
> > of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>
> > base.
>
> >
>
> A little before your time, Farragut Naval Training Station closed in
>
> 1946(ish)
>
Hank
nothermark
May 3, 2013, 7:12:51 AM5/3/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:29:18 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
through Dresden last summer and noticed a couple of signs for the
facility and have seen the barges but did not know what they were or
if the facility was still active. It was a pleasant surprise to see
they are. From what I see on their web page I guess they are fairly
safe as long as we use sonar. ;-) Their web page is very
interesting.
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <dbu5o8lapcgoptqus...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:23:54 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> >> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> >> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> >> base.
>> >>
>> >PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>> >they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>> >Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>> >really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>>
>> What state is the Lake Seneca facility in?
>
>Up-state New York, on Lake Seneca
Thanks. Around here it is Seneca Lake. That is why I asked. I drove
>In article <dbu5o8lapcgoptqus...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:23:54 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>> >> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>> >> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>> >> base.
>> >>
>> >PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>> >they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>> >Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>> >really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>>
>> What state is the Lake Seneca facility in?
>
>Up-state New York, on Lake Seneca
through Dresden last summer and noticed a couple of signs for the
facility and have seen the barges but did not know what they were or
if the facility was still active. It was a pleasant surprise to see
they are. From what I see on their web page I guess they are fairly
safe as long as we use sonar. ;-) Their web page is very
interesting.
nothermark
May 3, 2013, 7:20:37 AM5/3/13
to
boomers will probably break the system.
Ralph E Lindberg
May 3, 2013, 10:32:37 AM5/3/13
to
In article <8u47o8hdmh56htnon...@4ax.com>,
Yp, haven't talked to them in nearly three years. Good bunch of guys.
Their primary task is measuring prototype ship sonar. They use the lake
because there is no thermal layer and the lake seldom freezes
Their primary task is measuring prototype ship sonar. They use the lake
because there is no thermal layer and the lake seldom freezes
MaxD
May 3, 2013, 10:53:14 AM5/3/13
to
On 5/2/2013 9:30 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
> MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 5:23 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>>>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>>>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>>>> base.
>>>>
>>> PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>>> they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>>> Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>>> really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>>>
>>
>> Is the Nuclear reactor facility near Idaho Falls still open?
>> One of my sons trained there. (later assigned to USS San Francisco)
>
> If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
> don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
> LA.
>
Thanks.
> In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
> MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 5:23 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <u5v3o81nhmd651oob...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralph, do you recall the name of that Navy training base in Idaho? I
>>>> do not recall it off the top of my head and at one time I funded ALL
>>>> of the Navy's Training Bases.... at least the "Base Ops" part of the
>>>> base.
>>>>
>>> PS the Navy kept a small facility there, they have scale sub models and
>>> they test them. They also are open to other under-water testing there.
>>> Back when I worked it was one of the places we might go when we needed
>>> really quiet water (that and the Lake Seneca facility)
>>>
>>
>> Is the Nuclear reactor facility near Idaho Falls still open?
>> One of my sons trained there. (later assigned to USS San Francisco)
>
> If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
> don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
> LA.
>
I have caps, a T-shirt and coffee cup from the San Francisco. ;-)
nothermark
May 3, 2013, 12:01:34 PM5/3/13
to
On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:32:37 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <8u47o8hdmh56htnon...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:29:18 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Up-state New York, on Lake Seneca
>>
>> Thanks. Around here it is Seneca Lake. That is why I asked. I drove
>> through Dresden last summer and noticed a couple of signs for the
>> facility and have seen the barges but did not know what they were or
>> if the facility was still active. It was a pleasant surprise to see
>> they are. From what I see on their web page I guess they are fairly
>> safe as long as we use sonar. ;-) Their web page is very
>> interesting.
>
>Yp, haven't talked to them in nearly three years. Good bunch of guys.
>Their primary task is measuring prototype ship sonar. They use the lake
>because there is no thermal layer and the lake seldom freezes
Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
>In article <8u47o8hdmh56htnon...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:29:18 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Up-state New York, on Lake Seneca
>>
>> Thanks. Around here it is Seneca Lake. That is why I asked. I drove
>> through Dresden last summer and noticed a couple of signs for the
>> facility and have seen the barges but did not know what they were or
>> if the facility was still active. It was a pleasant surprise to see
>> they are. From what I see on their web page I guess they are fairly
>> safe as long as we use sonar. ;-) Their web page is very
>> interesting.
>
>Yp, haven't talked to them in nearly three years. Good bunch of guys.
>Their primary task is measuring prototype ship sonar. They use the lake
>because there is no thermal layer and the lake seldom freezes
them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
Frank Howell
May 3, 2013, 5:53:26 PM5/3/13
to
and pay everyone, regardless of it's worth.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
May 3, 2013, 6:48:38 PM5/3/13
to
totally wiped out.
Best to invest in guns and ammo and use them as collateral or
bartering material.
LZ
Frank Howell
May 3, 2013, 9:03:42 PM5/3/13
to
heard this talk about economic Armageddon for decades from you rabble
rousers, but nothing ever happens!" or variations of such statements and
they are right, as so far, nothing has ever happened to match any of these
dire predictions.
But, as far as I know Quanitive Easing is only used when conventional means
no longer work. And Quanitive Easing has targeted long term bonds in order
to lower the long term interest rates, which clearly indicates they know the
danger that rising interest rates pose. How does this end? Who knows?
--
Frank Howell
D-R
May 3, 2013, 9:18:41 PM5/3/13
to
On 5/3/2013 6:03 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
> But, as far as I know Quanitive Easing is only used when conventional means
> no longer work. And Quanitive Easing has targeted long term bonds in order
> to lower the long term interest rates, which clearly indicates they know the
> danger that rising interest rates pose. How does this end? Who knows?
>
Conventional methods no longer work because we have run out of money
> But, as far as I know Quanitive Easing is only used when conventional means
> no longer work. And Quanitive Easing has targeted long term bonds in order
> to lower the long term interest rates, which clearly indicates they know the
> danger that rising interest rates pose. How does this end? Who knows?
>
and the only answer is inflation. The lower interest rates allow us to
barrow money from ourselves cheaply. Think about that we are borrowing
money from ourselves that we do not really have for low rates so we get
to print more ... problem solved -- this year.
--
AJ - up in the Arizona mountains
nothermark
May 3, 2013, 10:09:07 PM5/3/13
to
crash...
Ralph E Lindberg
May 5, 2013, 12:35:02 AM5/5/13
to
In article <5183cf55$0$44650$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com>,
MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 9:30 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >
> On 5/2/2013 9:30 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >
> > If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
> > don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
> > LA.
> >
>
> Thanks.
> I have caps, a T-shirt and coffee cup from the San Francisco. ;-)
Was he on it when it had it's little "accident"
> > don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
> > LA.
> >
>
> Thanks.
> I have caps, a T-shirt and coffee cup from the San Francisco. ;-)
Ralph E Lindberg
May 5, 2013, 12:36:08 AM5/5/13
to
In article <dmn7o8dvp46jj4ia9...@4ax.com>,
so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
Currently no military there. Most of my visits were fall/winter/spring
>
> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
nothermark
May 5, 2013, 11:25:46 AM5/5/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 21:36:08 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <dmn7o8dvp46jj4ia9...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
>> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
>> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
>> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
>
>Currently no military there. Most of my visits were fall/winter/spring
>so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
Warm coat probably was though. ;-) As I recall they have a lot of
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <dmn7o8dvp46jj4ia9...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
>> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
>> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
>> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
>
>Currently no military there. Most of my visits were fall/winter/spring
>so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
wind with the lake and the steep hill sides. The place next door was
a customer of mine when I was doing computer work.
Just curios. If I'm not prying too much were you administrative or
science side on the SONAR?
MaxD
May 5, 2013, 12:07:20 PM5/5/13
to
On 5/4/2013 10:35 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <5183cf55$0$44650$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com>,
> MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 9:30 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
>
>>>
>>> If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
>>> don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
>>> LA.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> I have caps, a T-shirt and coffee cup from the San Francisco. ;-)
>
> Was he on it when it had it's little "accident"
>
No, he served 4 years but it was before the seamount incident.
> In article <5183cf55$0$44650$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com>,
> MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 9:30 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <518300f7$0$1753$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,
>
>>>
>>> If the Navy is still using reactors that are there, yes. So maybe...I
>>> don't recall if the prototype for the LA class is there, San Fran is an
>>> LA.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> I have caps, a T-shirt and coffee cup from the San Francisco. ;-)
>
> Was he on it when it had it's little "accident"
>
Ralph E Lindberg
May 6, 2013, 10:00:20 AM5/6/13
to
In article <j9uco89f6etlr16vv...@4ax.com>,
Oh, no sound and sonar were my "thing". I was technical project manager
and senior engineer on several interesting "things"
and senior engineer on several interesting "things"
nothermark
May 6, 2013, 11:07:21 AM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 07:00:20 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
crazy. ;-)
That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
the best times I had were doing real technical work.
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <j9uco89f6etlr16vv...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 21:36:08 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dmn7o8dvp46jj4ia9...@4ax.com>,
>> > nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
>> >> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
>> >> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
>> >> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
>> >
>> >Currently no military there. Most of my visits were fall/winter/spring
>> >so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
>>
>> Warm coat probably was though. ;-) As I recall they have a lot of
>> wind with the lake and the steep hill sides. The place next door was
>> a customer of mine when I was doing computer work.
>>
>> Just curios. If I'm not prying too much were you administrative or
>> science side on the SONAR?
>
>Oh, no sound and sonar were my "thing". I was technical project manager
>and senior engineer on several interesting "things"
Cool. That must have been a lot of fun when it was not driving you
>In article <j9uco89f6etlr16vv...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 21:36:08 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
>> <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dmn7o8dvp46jj4ia9...@4ax.com>,
>> > nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also one of the deepest lakes in the country. If you still talked to
>> >> them I would give you information about an excellent Ice Cream stand
>> >> on the highway where you turn to get to the village. ;-) If that is
>> >> a duty station and not civilian employee's folks could do a lot worse.
>> >
>> >Currently no military there. Most of my visits were fall/winter/spring
>> >so Ice Cream was not high on the agenda
>>
>> Warm coat probably was though. ;-) As I recall they have a lot of
>> wind with the lake and the steep hill sides. The place next door was
>> a customer of mine when I was doing computer work.
>>
>> Just curios. If I'm not prying too much were you administrative or
>> science side on the SONAR?
>
>Oh, no sound and sonar were my "thing". I was technical project manager
>and senior engineer on several interesting "things"
crazy. ;-)
That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
the best times I had were doing real technical work.
Ralph E Lindberg
May 6, 2013, 1:50:01 PM5/6/13
to
In article <qchfo85om7vm2uf43...@4ax.com>,
Biologic's messed with us good. Every so often I hear a news story
complaining about some "sound" that is disturbing people in a marina.
Someone always blames the Navy.
Usually the "followup" story states it was some fishes breeding season
and that was the noise they make attracting a mate.
nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
> Cool. That must have been a lot of fun when it was not driving you
> crazy. ;-)
>
> That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
> the best times I had were doing real technical work.
Yes, as my first mentor said "Think of Radar in a Hostile Environment"
>
>
> Cool. That must have been a lot of fun when it was not driving you
> crazy. ;-)
>
> That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
> the best times I had were doing real technical work.
Biologic's messed with us good. Every so often I hear a news story
complaining about some "sound" that is disturbing people in a marina.
Someone always blames the Navy.
Usually the "followup" story states it was some fishes breeding season
and that was the noise they make attracting a mate.
nothermark
May 6, 2013, 8:33:30 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 10:50:01 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <qchfo85om7vm2uf43...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cool. That must have been a lot of fun when it was not driving you
>> crazy. ;-)
>>
>> That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
>> the best times I had were doing real technical work.
>
>Yes, as my first mentor said "Think of Radar in a Hostile Environment"
>
>Biologic's messed with us good. Every so often I hear a news story
>complaining about some "sound" that is disturbing people in a marina.
>Someone always blames the Navy.
>Usually the "followup" story states it was some fishes breeding season
>and that was the noise they make attracting a mate.
Thanks, I get the picture. I have heard some of the whale recordings.
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <qchfo85om7vm2uf43...@4ax.com>,
> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cool. That must have been a lot of fun when it was not driving you
>> crazy. ;-)
>>
>> That was an area I never got into other than Navy basics way back but
>> the best times I had were doing real technical work.
>
>Yes, as my first mentor said "Think of Radar in a Hostile Environment"
>
>Biologic's messed with us good. Every so often I hear a news story
>complaining about some "sound" that is disturbing people in a marina.
>Someone always blames the Navy.
>Usually the "followup" story states it was some fishes breeding season
>and that was the noise they make attracting a mate.
0 new messages