usn ... black sea ops....
~^ beancounter ~^
theater? how do they come and go through the narrow chokepoints
w/out being detcted?....interesting area to try and operate
in...thanx.....
Jack Linthicum
William Black
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:010ac0cc-a016-4c15...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Shipping is limited by tonnage.
There is no possibility of passing undetected. All shipping needs to take a
pilot on-board.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Tiger
Basicaly that is a no go zone for the USN. A) due to treaties B)
Russia's private enclave. It be like having their ships off Cheaspeake
Bay. I would think there are too many eyes & ears arround the straits
get in undetected. Well until we get that cloaking device perfected.....
Dennis
Could you do anything through the Rhine-Danube Canal?
Dennis
dump...@hotmail.com
Even in the Soviet Union days, the USN did Black Sea ops. But
the Soviets didn't like it one bit:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DC143CF930A25751C0A96E948260
Jack Linthicum
It's called "testing the waters". The Treaty allows free passage of
ships below 15k tons, the best way to test that is to test it actively.
Fred J. McCall
:
Those ships couldn't have gotten into the Black Sea without Soviet
approval.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Jack Linthicum
> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> :On Aug 18, 11:14 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> :> > does the usn conduct black sea ops? if so, what types of assets are in
> :> > theater? how do they come and go through the narrow chokepoints
> :> > w/out being detcted?....interesting area to try and operate
> :> > in...thanx.....
> :>
> :> Basicaly that is a no go zone for the USN. A) due to treaties B)
> :> Russia's private enclave. It be like having their ships off Cheaspeake
> :> Bay. I would think there are too many eyes & ears arround the straits
> :> get in undetected. Well until we get that cloaking device perfected.....
> :
> :
> :Even in the Soviet Union days, the USN did Black Sea ops. But
> :the Soviets didn't like it one bit:
> :
> :
>
> Those ships couldn't have gotten into the Black Sea without Soviet
> approval.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
How about a cite for that incorrect statement, Freddo? Turkey
determines who gets in.
guy
> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> :On Aug 18, 11:14 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> :> > does the usn conduct black sea ops? if so, what types of assets are in
> :> > theater? how do they come and go through the narrow chokepoints
> :> > w/out being detcted?....interesting area to try and operate
> :> > in...thanx.....
> :>
> :> Basicaly that is a no go zone for the USN. A) due to treaties B)
> :> Russia's private enclave. It be like having their ships off Cheaspeake
> :> Bay. I would think there are too many eyes & ears arround the straits
> :> get in undetected. Well until we get that cloaking device perfected.....
> :
> :
> :Even in the Soviet Union days, the USN did Black Sea ops. But
> :the Soviets didn't like it one bit:
> :
> :
>
> Those ships couldn't have gotten into the Black Sea without Soviet
> approval.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
Why? RN ships did
classic signal Soviet warship to RN destroyer:-
"what are you doing in the Black Sea?"
reply:-
"18 knots"
Guy
Vincent
for no more than 21 days
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:
Dammit, we just went through all that.
Total tonnage of warships any non-Black Sea power may have in the
Black Sea at any one time is 8,000 tons. Two weeks notice must be
provided to the Turkish government prior to transit into the Black
Sea, they may not remain more than 3 weeks, and a full schedule of
their intended whereabouts must be provided, including the date when
they will transit out of the Black Sea.
See the Montreux Convention of 1936.
Jack Linthicum
10,000 tons, there are gun size limitations
The Regime of Straits in International Law
By Bing Bing Jia
http://books.google.com/books?id=FkJtP1YVf_8C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=ship+displacement+limit+black+sea+passage&source=web&ots=8aDxf7P6EB&sig=nUljXVDnppB4IKENXVGVpSReFhI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
page 112
but
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=150500&bolum=100
US, Turkey in bid to overcome Montreux hurdles in Georgia aid row
Turkish and US officials have been engaged in constant contact in a
bid to provide more assistance to Georgians without violating the 1936
Montreux Convention, according to which countries must notify Turkey
before sending warships through the straits.
As of Friday, McClatchy Newspapers quoted unnamed Pentagon officials
as saying they were increasingly dubious that any US Navy vessels
would join the aid operation, in large part because the US-based
hospital ships likely to go, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy,
would take weeks to arrive. They also complained that Turkey was
"sluggish and unresponsive" in granting them permission to sail
through the straits to the Black Sea. Nonetheless, both Turkish and US
officials firmly denied the existence of a formal request from Ankara
to allow two US hospital ships to sail through the Turkish straits to
Georgia.
"A number of actions for transporting aid assistance to Georgia are
being considered, and a lot of them are already happening," US Embassy
press attaché Kathryn Schalow, when approached by Today's Zaman,
noted.
"We are talking with Turkish officials, and they are also very
concerned about the situation of the Georgians. We are currently in
cooperation with Turkish officials, and we are also considering more
ways of cooperation," Schalow said.
"As far as I know, we have not made a formal decision about sending
those two ships," she added, underlining that "a formal request" for
their passage to the Black Sea via the Dardanelles and Bosporus
straits had not yet been made.
For their part, Turkish officials involved in the issue also denied
the existence of any such formal request by the US side.
"We have been in coordination with all those willing parties,
countries, for transportation of humanitarian assistance to the
Georgians. We have been very helpful concerning all kinds of requests
for either plane or ship passage," the same Turkish officials,
speaking on condition of anonymity, told Today's Zaman.
"It is an international and multi-party convention. It is not up to
Turkey to make exceptions according to the conjuncture of whether it
is a humanitarian situation," the same officials said when asked about
Ankara's probable response if -- hypothetically -- the US asks Turkey
to make an exception concerning regulations of the Montreux Convention
due to the humanitarian disaster in Georgia following nearly seven
days of combat between Georgian forces and elements of the Russian
Army.
US officials involved in the issue told Today's Zaman that as of
yesterday, the total US Agency for International Development (USAID)
and State humanitarian assistance to Georgia had exceeded $3.7
million. "We intend to be delivering more, and we are doing it by
listening to the Georgian government," the US officials told Today's
Zaman.
"The United States is in the process of making other arrangements for
aid to the Georgians, which may involve dispatching a smaller coast
guard ship which complies with the regulations of the Montreux
Convention," the same US officials, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, told Today's Zaman.
Today's Zaman separately learned from reliable sources that a US coast
guard ship in Baltimore was in the process of being dispatched. The
Montreux Convention was ratified by Turkey, Great Britain, France, the
USSR, Bulgaria, Greece, Germany, Yugoslavia and Japan (with
reservations). While the United States is not signatory to the
convention, it has historically always complied with its provisions.
During peacetime, light surface vessels (defined as warships
displacing more than 100 tons but not above 10,000 tons) of all powers
may transit the straits after giving prior notice to Turkey as
required by the convention. Turkey may waive the notification
requirement if the warships were transiting for the purpose of
providing humanitarian assistance.
The convention applies specific individual and aggregate tonnage and
numbers limits. These limitations effectively preclude the transit of
capital ships and submarines of non-Black Sea powers through the
straits, unless exempted under Article 17. Article 17 of the
Convention permits a naval force of any tonnage or composition to pay
a courtesy visit of limited duration to a port in the straits, at the
invitation of the Turkish government. In such instances, the tonnage
and numbers limitations of the convention do not apply. Warships of
non-Black Sea powers may not remain in the Black Sea for longer than
21 days.
18 August 2008, Monday
EMİNE KART ANKARA
~^ beancounter ~^
dott.Piergiorgio
[snip]
hmmmm.... I'm wrong or I can feel a possible Italian Involvment in this
warship & humanitarian relief issue ?
there are the three San Giorgios whose are all fitted for relief
(especially the San Giusto), "montreux-complaint", being of 8.000 tons,
and immedately available (they're based in Brindisi)
But I guess that the brasses here will really balk at the idea, because
they are hard pushing for a *real* LPH of 20.000 tons, and they have no
intenton of giving reasons in favor of small-tonnage ships.
and there's also the dwarf here, whose has the worst "me too" attitude
of italian politicos......
I guess that all three will have sooner an "engine failure" or "urgent
drydock work" ;)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
frank
wrote:
> interesting info everyone....thank you.......
Read The Puzzle Palace.
~^ beancounter ~^
yea, i checked it out on amazon...looks interesting....thanx.....
frank
wrote:
> " The Puzzle Palace "
>
> yea, i checked it out on amazon...looks interesting....thanx.....
>
> On Aug 19, 8:57 pm, frank <dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 11:26 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > interesting info everyone....thank you.......
>
> > Read The Puzzle Palace.
He has a second book out, a bit old, year or two, haven't read it.
been reading on the Scorpion loss. Don't know if its all true, but
that should be required reading. There are two books out on the loss.
All Hands Down is the one currently in the book stores.
Interestingly, there's also a book out The Mutiny supposedly based on
the true events which led to the novel Hunt for the Red October. When
the novel came out, lots of the sub guys were yelling security breach.
For a first novel, wasn't bad.
A bit more perspective on the events in Georgia.
William Black
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:43b7ed70-c9ad-44a7...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Read The Puzzle Palace.
------------------
That must be 20 years out of date by now...
Hal Murray
>Read The Puzzle Palace.
>That must be 20 years out of date by now...
What's better?
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Jack Linthicum
The problem is the breaking of codes went so mechanical in the 1960s
that it lost its glamour. If Walker hadn't stolen the key cards and
the Pueblo hadn't been captured the Soviets would have had to rely on
seduced Marine guards for any information.
frank
wrote:
More than a few traitors. One of the first things intelligence
agencies ask for is can you get codes and all that stuff if you offer
to defect or be an agent in place. They like the agent in place bit.
Amazing how some of the lowest, rankest, personnel have access to the
most secretive information. Code clerks, admin clerks.
Stupidity doesn't hurt either. I remember a civil servant who required
that the group working on the ACM, Advanvced Cruise Missile keep a
copy of every flight test on microfiche. Stuff was in a safe, they
used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
few months. They used to hate doing that. Some was never looked at
again once it was sent to the customer. But this silly servant wanted
to keep it, so they did. Would have been a damn treasure trove.
You do realize this stuff is secret? There isn't a lot out there. For
a reason.
There is a book on contracting in CIA, looks interesting when I
flipped through it, its on my bookshelf somewhere, Spies for Hire, Tim
Shorrock, lessee, All Hands Down, Kenneth Sewell, MacArthur's
Undercover War, William Bruer (B&N had it for $6), Standard Operating
Procedure, Philip Gourevitch, Wilfull Blindness, Arthur McCarthy.
Go read the Puzzle Palace, its a seminal work as they say in
academia....
Jack Linthicum
Only one book for the apprentice spy: CIA SpyMaster by Clarence
Ashley. Bio of George Kisevalter, THE spymaster.
I also collected the sby books I have that I can find, We Come Unseen
by Jim Ring (GB), Rising Tide by Gary Weir and Walter Boyne (USSR),
Spy Sub novel by Roger Dunham, and Silent War John Pina Craven.
Fred J. McCall
:
:More than a few traitors. One of the first things intelligence
:agencies ask for is can you get codes and all that stuff if you offer
:to defect or be an agent in place.
Oh, don't be silly. No competent handler is going to do that straight
out of the gate.
:
:They like the agent in place bit.
:Amazing how some of the lowest, rankest, personnel have access to the
:most secretive information. Code clerks, admin clerks.
:
Well, DOH! Why would you think 'need to know' would correspond to
rank?
:
:Stupidity doesn't hurt either. I remember a civil servant who required
:that the group working on the ACM, Advanvced Cruise Missile keep a
:copy of every flight test on microfiche.
:
Really? Shall I ask them if they still have it?
:
:Stuff was in a safe, they
:used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
:few months. They used to hate doing that.
:
I imagine so, since I can't think of a classification that would
require inventory that frequently.
:
:Some was never looked at
:again once it was sent to the customer. But this silly servant wanted
:to keep it, so they did. Would have been a damn treasure trove.
:
Where do you get the idea that "a civil servant" determines
arbitrarily by fiat that something like this must occur? Stuff like
this isn't determined arbitrarily, you know. It's all written into
the contract up front. If it's not in there, you don't have to do it.
Jack Linthicum
I presume you have done this recruiting thing so much you have
forgotten the original purpose. The game I have seen played requires
the recruit to provide bona fides, like key lists or settings.
We will have to sit Fred down in a nice secure area not visited by the
brass and watch the little empires that grow up.
frank
wrote:
Well it used to be the first thing the CIA asked was is Russia going
to launch a nuclear war or do you know if they are planning to launch
a nuclear war any time soon. Kinda dorky. Going for codes, classified
papers, stuff like that makes much more sense. OK, tell us when we can
drive the van up and get stuff out the back door... which I presume
somebody did when East Germany fell.
Yeah, silly servants can tell people to do stupid things. Especially
if they write the contract reviews. Don't know if they still have that
damn safe full of stuff. Hopefully they got to shred it all. And you
have to document that too. This person was a real bitch, never should
have been promoted to management, but that's the Feds for you. We
always said it was the Peter Principle in spades, then again, Capt.
Murphy was at Edwards.
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 23, 4:40 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
:>
:
Yep, but you usually start them off with small stuff. Most folks balk
at committing major treason cold.
:
:Well it used to be the first thing the CIA asked was is Russia going
:to launch a nuclear war or do you know if they are planning to launch
:a nuclear war any time soon.
:
Cite?
:
:Yeah, silly servants can tell people to do stupid things. Especially
:if they write the contract reviews.
:
You really sound like you haven't a clue how this stuff works.
Jack Linthicum
Fred, you have failed every question on this test, would you like to
try for permanent removal of your clearance?
Andrew Swallow
> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
> :
> :More than a few traitors. One of the first things intelligence
> :agencies ask for is can you get codes and all that stuff if you offer
> :to defect or be an agent in place.
> :
>
> Oh, don't be silly. No competent handler is going to do that straight
> out of the gate.
>
> :
> :They like the agent in place bit.
> :Amazing how some of the lowest, rankest, personnel have access to the
> :most secretive information. Code clerks, admin clerks.
> :
>
> Well, DOH! Why would you think 'need to know' would correspond to
> rank?
>
> :
> :Stupidity doesn't hurt either. I remember a civil servant who required
> :that the group working on the ACM, Advanvced Cruise Missile keep a
> :copy of every flight test on microfiche.
> :
>
> Really? Shall I ask them if they still have it?
>
> :
> :Stuff was in a safe, they
> :used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
> :few months. They used to hate doing that.
> :
>
> I imagine so, since I can't think of a classification that would
> require inventory that frequently.
>
Top Secret can. Been there done that.
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5f21b4df34lophhrr...@4ax.com...
> :> I presume you have done this recruiting thing so much you have
> :> forgotten the original purpose. The game I have seen played requires
> :> the recruit to provide bona fides, like key lists or settings.
> :>
> :
>
> Yep, but you usually start them off with small stuff. Most folks balk
> at committing major treason cold.
The only one we really know about is Walker, and he walked into the Soviet
embassy with a key card in his pocket...
frank
wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:5f21b4df34lophhrr...@4ax.com...
No a lot of the cases are written up, not sure what everybody brought,
but rule of thumb is bring something to prove you know something of
interest. Key card by Walker was a sure winner though.
Big thing now is if its somebody trying to get you to expose your
agents and operations, so walkins are a bit dicey. There have been
cases where they were blown off.
Usually they want you to stay in place, but sometimes, its get me the
hell out of Dodge, I'll talk in Virginia. Some of the sudden calls
back to Moscow ended up with defections.
Funny, at the end of the Cold War, our security officer, and for once
was a real decent guy, ex AF, not sure what he was, but he took it
really seriously. Said with the fall of the Wall, there were tons of
agents identified and we should expect a lot of trials in the US.
Never happened, always wondered what the hell happened. They got out,
we didn't do anything, just one of those cases where the silence was
deafening.
Had a base guy above him, he did all the bad cop stuff, open the safe,
find this record, show me your audits, whats the paperwork on this
item, you got this from these guys, where is it. Show me your logs.
All that. Pain but if you had your shit together, wasn't a bad deal.
He used to tell us stuff not to do, one guy had a ton of safes he was
responsible for. Don't know why, I tried to have as little as
possible. Anyway. Did the open this safe bit. Then some other safe,
then another one. Guy looked at his watch. Had the safe combos in his
digital wrist watch. Big no no.
Another one was how you got into an area. Usual button lock you see in
hospitals, TV, movies. Usually 3 or 4 numbers. He sat there and
watched guys go in. They'd walk up, look at the ceiling like they were
thinking, then go in. Being evil and nasty, he thought he was on to
something. Happened a few more times, ok, lets have a meeting. He
walked over to the door, looked up, holes in ceiling tiles were
marked, you know one down, two over, whatever. That was the combo.
That guy pretty much had a thankless job but I respected him for it.
There were all these procedures for a reason and i never could get the
people who'd just blow them off. Of screw up big time, take something
off base to the hotel they were staying at when they were TDY.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
:> :
:> :Stuff was in a safe, they
:> :used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
:> :few months. They used to hate doing that.
:> :
:>
:> I imagine so, since I can't think of a classification that would
:> require inventory that frequently.
:>
:
:Top Secret can. Been there done that.
:
Not inventoried that frequently. If it's locked in a safe and the
holder doesn't change, you don't have to do that. The worst it's ever
been is for DOE TS, which 20+ years ago was required to be inventoried
every 6 months. That went to an annual inventory 20 years ago.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:5f21b4df34lophhrr...@4ax.com...
:
:> :> I presume you have done this recruiting thing so much you have
:> :> forgotten the original purpose. The game I have seen played requires
:> :> the recruit to provide bona fides, like key lists or settings.
:> :>
:> :
:>
:> Yep, but you usually start them off with small stuff. Most folks balk
:> at committing major treason cold.
:
:The only one we really know about is Walker, and he walked into the Soviet
:embassy with a key card in his pocket...
:
MICE...
Andrew Swallow
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :Stuff was in a safe, they
> :> :used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
> :> :few months. They used to hate doing that.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I imagine so, since I can't think of a classification that would
> :> require inventory that frequently.
> :>
> :
> :Top Secret can. Been there done that.
> :
>
> Not inventoried that frequently. If it's locked in a safe and the
> holder doesn't change, you don't have to do that. The worst it's ever
> been is for DOE TS, which 20+ years ago was required to be inventoried
> every 6 months. That went to an annual inventory 20 years ago.
>
Andrew Swallow
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
Only if you're really, really stoned and your time sense is screwed
up.
For most folks 6 months is 'biannual' and 'every few months' is 60-90
days or so.
Now look at the dates for ACM. The requirement for inventory would
have been annual.
As usual, 'frank' is on his ass.
Andrew Swallow
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Stuff was in a safe, they
> :> :> :used to have to go through and certify it was all in the save every
> :> :> :few months. They used to hate doing that.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> I imagine so, since I can't think of a classification that would
> :> :> require inventory that frequently.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Top Secret can. Been there done that.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Not inventoried that frequently. If it's locked in a safe and the
> :> holder doesn't change, you don't have to do that. The worst it's ever
> :> been is for DOE TS, which 20+ years ago was required to be inventoried
> :> every 6 months. That went to an annual inventory 20 years ago.
> :>
> :
> :Approximately 6 months is every few months.
> :
>
> Only if you're really, really stoned and your time sense is screwed
> up.
>
> For most folks 6 months is 'biannual' and 'every few months' is 60-90
> days or so.
>
Or they were using an old rule book.
John Dallman
<a631532f-958c-437d...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
dhssres...@netscape.net (frank) wrote:
> That guy pretty much had a thankless job but I respected him for it.
> There were all these procedures for a reason and i never could get the
> people who'd just blow them off. Of screw up big time, take something
> off base to the hotel they were staying at when they were TDY.
Very much like the people who nowadays put important information on
laptops or other portables, and lose them. Well, yes, of course you lost
it. The mistake was in ever putting it on the portable, losable device
in the first place.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
Kirk
news:889d3261-a1c5-4d77...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 11:14 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > does the usn conduct black sea ops? if so, what types of assets are in
> > theater? how do they come and go through the narrow chokepoints
> > w/out being detcted?....interesting area to try and operate
> > in...thanx.....
>
> Basicaly that is a no go zone for the USN. A) due to treaties B)
> Russia's private enclave. It be like having their ships off Cheaspeake
> Bay. I would think there are too many eyes & ears arround the straits
> get in undetected. Well until we get that cloaking device perfected.....
Even in the Soviet Union days, the USN did Black Sea ops. But
the Soviets didn't like it one bit:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DC143CF930A25751C0A96E948260
It's kinda cool, that you guys are talking about this. I was on one of
those ships (USS Yorktown) when the collision happened. Thankfully, it was
the only naval incident I was ever involved in.
-- Kirk
"Whoa. Even the Army has humvees now."
- Bart Simpson
Jack Linthicum
> <dumpst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:889d3261-a1c5-4d77...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 11:14 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > > does the usn conduct black sea ops? if so, what types of assets are in
> > > theater? how do they come and go through the narrow chokepoints
> > > w/out being detcted?....interesting area to try and operate
> > > in...thanx.....
>
> > Basicaly that is a no go zone for the USN. A) due to treaties B)
> > Russia's private enclave. It be like having their ships off Cheaspeake
> > Bay. I would think there are too many eyes & ears arround the straits
> > get in undetected. Well until we get that cloaking device perfected.....
>
> Even in the Soviet Union days, the USN did Black Sea ops. But
> the Soviets didn't like it one bit:
>
>
> It's kinda cool, that you guys are talking about this. I was on one of
> those ships (USS Yorktown) when the collision happened. Thankfully, it was
> the only naval incident I was ever involved in.
>
> -- Kirk
>
> "Whoa. Even the Army has humvees now."
>
> - Bart Simpson
Yeah, I had a friend who rode one of those Pueblo things. I told him
about the bumping (1967) and he kind of laughed it off. Until he got
bumped. Eighteen knots flying signals that they are conducting
underwater operations, banging into the side and bouncing off. Never
bump the glump.