Air show crash in Ukraine
Edward G. Nilges
> "Chris Douglas" <cdou...@NOSPAMaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:e_A09.50$Yd.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > "Beate and Geoff" <BeateU...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:ahul58$8o9$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > > "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:29A09.12684$s8.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > German TV said that the current theory is that one of the engines failed
> at
> > > the wrong moment. This is not confirmed and the German TV programme also
> > > said that this was only a theory.
> > >
> > > MfG
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> >
As opposed to technical failures, we can say that the problem is these
"shows" in the first place.
A fatal disaster at Ramstein AFB in 1985 and now this show that these
are spectacles meant to manufacture consent to overspending on the
military and the concomitant deprivation of ordinary people world-wide
the opportunity for meaningful work and access to humane provisions
for health and welfare.
Ukrainians, deprived of their share by gangsters in the uncontrolled
end of thug Communism, flocked unthinkingly to this show bringing
small children and were slaughtered by irresponsible manoeuvres that
pilots know should not be executed in populated areas in peacetime.
The Ukrainian brass, like the US brass, overrule the common sense of
the pilots and force them to provide spectacles, treating pilots like
trained apes.
Records of these accidents are maintained, if at all, apart from
normal records of flight safety and as a result questions are not
asked.
I was trying to run at Chicago's lakefront during Chicago's stunt show
in 1995. During my run, I called out these documented facts to the
crowds. I think people need to organize against these shows and this
tragic, and unnecessary, loss of life.
> > From the video (Fox News and MSNBC have been airing two different angles),
> > it looked to me like the pilot simply attempted a loop at too low an
> > altitude and clipped the ground, while also flying dangerously close to
> the
> > crowd (it looked somewhat like an accident I witnessed several years ago
> in
> > Texas in which the pilot of a small stunt plane died making a similar
> > mistake).
> >
> > Of course, that's just an amateur's impression. I'm sure those more
> > knowledgeable will advance better-grounded theories.
> >
> > --CMD
>
> Those more knowledgeable know not to offer "better grounded theories" until
> the fire is out!
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/Certificated Flight Instructor
> Retired
Insofar as you fighter pilots care for your own families and children,
I suggest you refuse the next order to show off your skills like a
trained ape.
You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
EC
Steve Hix
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<gBB09.10049$Ky3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "Chris Douglas" <cdou...@NOSPAMaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:e_A09.50$Yd.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "shows" in the first place.
Here goes Nilges on his patented anti-military rant #6.
> A fatal disaster at Ramstein AFB in 1985 and now this show that these
> are spectacles meant to manufacture consent to overspending on the
> military and the concomitant deprivation of ordinary people world-wide
> the opportunity for meaningful work and access to humane provisions
> for health and welfare.
Right. They serve no other purpose than to keep the masses down.
Wonder why airshows are so popular to watch, worldwide?
> [snip]
>
> I was trying to run at Chicago's lakefront during Chicago's stunt show
> in 1995. During my run, I called out these documented facts to the
> crowds.
A little half-time entertainment, perhaps?
> I think people need to organize against these shows and this
> tragic, and unnecessary, loss of life.
Could it be that there is no such organization against airshows because
most people disagree with you?
If we encourage him, perhaps Nilges will resurrect his old rant about
how computer-aided music tools (the old Miracle keyboard) are a sinister
plot against non-Western musics and by extension non-Western peoples
and cultures. (It led him, apparently effortlessly, to expound on the
wonderful, pacifist restraint of the Intifada in the face of armed
Israelis, etc. etc. etc.)
It least it was entertaining, if more than a little surreal.
John Keeney
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com...
>
> As opposed to technical failures, we can say that the problem is these
> "shows" in the first place.
You can say anything you like, it just doesn't make it so.
Though you could probably make a case for the safety regulations
in place at this show.
> A fatal disaster at Ramstein AFB in 1985 and now this show that these
> are spectacles meant to manufacture consent to overspending on the
> military and the concomitant deprivation of ordinary people world-wide
> the opportunity for meaningful work and access to humane provisions
> for health and welfare.
It's all the world wide military industrial complex conspiracies fault.
> Ukrainians, deprived of their share by gangsters in the uncontrolled
> end of thug Communism, flocked unthinkingly to this show bringing
> small children and were slaughtered by irresponsible manoeuvres that
> pilots know should not be executed in populated areas in peacetime.
Nope, make that the fault of the Russian gangsters.
> The Ukrainian brass, like the US brass, overrule the common sense of
> the pilots and force them to provide spectacles, treating pilots like
> trained apes.
Wait a minute, now it's the fault of the heads of the Ukrainian
armed services.
While I know I'm going to regret this: just what is your supporting
argument for the US chain of command ordering pilots to perform
at air shows in an unsafe manner?
> Records of these accidents are maintained, if at all, apart from
> normal records of flight safety and as a result questions are not
> asked.
You mean with this big an attitude you haven't *checked* to
see if records are maintained? So, our first reaction that you're
blowing it out your ___ is correct then.
> I was trying to run at Chicago's lakefront during Chicago's stunt show
> in 1995. During my run, I called out these documented facts to the
> crowds. I think people need to organize against these shows and this
> tragic, and unnecessary, loss of life.
Since the records aren't kept how did you "document" these "facts"
you were screaming out? Wait, check that, you don't know if records
are kept; that still leaves the question of how you documented'em.
[snip]
>
> Insofar as you fighter pilots care for your own families and children,
> I suggest you refuse the next order to show off your skills like a
> trained ape.
Rigggghhhhht, that would be like getting a lion not to eat the
meat just because the zoo goers might see.
> You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
> crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
> civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
> their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
Overall, I must say that is an impressive message.
Eight paragraphs, seven of which have a single sentence.
Peter Twydell
Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<gBB09.10049
>$Ky3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> "Chris Douglas" <cdou...@NOSPAMaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:e_A09.50$Yd.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "Beate and Geoff" <BeateU...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> > news:ahul58$8o9$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > > "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > > news:29A09.12684$s8.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > >
>> > > German TV said that the current theory is that one of the engines failed
>> at
>> > > the wrong moment. This is not confirmed and the German TV programme also
>> > > said that this was only a theory.
>> > >
>> > > MfG
>> > >
>> > > Geoff.
>> > >
>> >
>
>As opposed to technical failures, we can say that the problem is these
>"shows" in the first place.
>
>A fatal disaster at Ramstein AFB in 1985 and now this show that these
>are spectacles meant to manufacture consent to overspending on the
>military and the concomitant deprivation of ordinary people world-wide
>the opportunity for meaningful work and access to humane provisions
>for health and welfare.
>
understood "concomitant". Not sure I do now.
Should I apologise to somebody somewhere for encouraging these obviously
disgraceful goings-on? How about the people helped by organisations such
as RAFA who getb the profits from gate money?
So the Shuttleworth Collection at Old Warden and the DH Moth Club are
part of this disgusting conspiracy (they DO have military aircraft at
their shows)?
<snip ranting>
>You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
>crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
>civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
>their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
Do pilots ever do that? It's very noble if they do, but I'm not
convinced (yet) that a pilot barely able to control a crippled aircraft
has such thoughts uppermost in his mind. Difficult to ask the question
afterwards.
--
Peter
Ying Tong Iddle I Po
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Twydell" <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SvWv$IAxz5...@ntlworld.com...
> In article <f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> >
> When I first went to an airshow over 40 years ago, I wouldn't have
> understood "concomitant". Not sure I do now.
>
> Should I apologise to somebody somewhere for encouraging these obviously
> disgraceful goings-on? How about the people helped by organisations such
> as RAFA who getb the profits from gate money?
>
> So the Shuttleworth Collection at Old Warden and the DH Moth Club are
> part of this disgusting conspiracy (they DO have military aircraft at
> their shows)?
>
The annual airshow in aid of children in need at Gransden
is obviously part of the conspiracy, those tiger moths were
built for the RAF after all.
Keith
Unknown
>In article <f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
>Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
>>You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
>>crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
>>civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
>>their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
>
>Do pilots ever do that? It's very noble if they do, but I'm not
>convinced (yet) that a pilot barely able to control a crippled aircraft
>has such thoughts uppermost in his mind. Difficult to ask the question
>afterwards.
>--
>Peter
>
Well of course they do...hell, what self respecting pilot
wouldn't worry about all those lil tads inside that humungous big
concrete block schoolhouse with the huge steel girder frame and
try like hell to avoid hurting those little kids inside by trying
to make it to that big open flat daisy covered park
instead?...gee...
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
"Old age is no place for sissies" -Bette Davis.
Edward G. Nilges
> Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> >Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >>You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
> >>crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
> >>civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
> >>their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
> >
> >Do pilots ever do that? It's very noble if they do, but I'm not
> >convinced (yet) that a pilot barely able to control a crippled aircraft
> >has such thoughts uppermost in his mind. Difficult to ask the question
> >afterwards.
> >--
> >Peter
> >
>
The Ukrainian pilots ejected and I do not blame them. By the time
they bailed, their crafts were too low to be aerodynamic.
What I claimed was that in view of pilots, who when their planes are
still aerodynamic, struggle to avoid populated areas, the Ukie brass
at the level of Genl. Strelnikov (the commander of the Ukie Air Farce)
were criminally irresponsible to put the exhibition on in the first
place.
Their behavior in this regard was what sociologist Diane Vaughn (in an
analysis of the American Challenger disaster) calls "normalized
deviance", since placing INTRINSICALLY dangerous hardware on exhibit
in front of an audience with large numbers of kids would be a
non-starter, IF military brass world-wide hadn't convinced itself that
public relations are more important than the kids.
In 2001, a United States submarine sank a Japanese fishing boat in a
similar PR exercise carried on for the benefit of wealthy men.
I think an ordinary fighter pilot below flag rank could probably just
salute an officer giving him an order to participate in one of these
shows, and Just Say No. He might stay at a low rank but he'd probably
be retained because of his skills, and on early retirement could get a
nice job as a passenger pilot. There's really no excuse for ordinary
fly boys, apart from long-term oxygen deprivation and alcohol abuse,
to allow themselves to endanger kids by being flying trained apes.
> Well of course they do...hell, what self respecting pilot
> wouldn't worry about all those lil tads inside that humungous big
> concrete block schoolhouse with the huge steel girder frame and
> try like hell to avoid hurting those little kids inside by trying
> to make it to that big open flat daisy covered park
> instead?...gee...
You present one possible human reaction as a non-starter. Well,
perhaps I've watched too many American movies about what nice guy
fighter jocks are, as well as read the exploits of Lily Litvak, the
Rose of Stalingrad. Perhaps fighter pilots really have desensitized
themselves to the women and kids on the ground, and perhaps this is
why they can lay waste to cities on command.
Perhaps there has been a moral decline from the RAF men who wouldn't
think of endangering English kids, and even from the Argentine jockeys
of the Falklands nonsense, and perhaps it is on exhibit here.
Fine. But if you place yourself at this level, remember that there is
no reason for criticising the Ayrab who uses Microsoft Flight
Simulator to figure out how to turn a 757 into a smart bomb. Who's
the terrorist?
Edward G. Nilges
> Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > As opposed to technical failures, we can say that the problem is these
> > "shows" in the first place.
>
> You can say anything you like, it just doesn't make it so.
> Though you could probably make a case for the safety regulations
> in place at this show.
The shows are intrinsically unsafe. For the women and kids to see the
stunts, they have to be at a close distance. Yet when training in the
USA, our Air Force uses waste lands. They must necessarily violate
this rule for air shows, and this means there is no safe air show,
unless it uses old and slow aircraft exclusively, which remain
aerodynamic at low attitude and can be steered.
>
> > A fatal disaster at Ramstein AFB in 1985 and now this show that these
> > are spectacles meant to manufacture consent to overspending on the
> > military and the concomitant deprivation of ordinary people world-wide
> > the opportunity for meaningful work and access to humane provisions
> > for health and welfare.
>
> It's all the world wide military industrial complex conspiracies fault.
You said it, not me.
>
> > Ukrainians, deprived of their share by gangsters in the uncontrolled
> > end of thug Communism, flocked unthinkingly to this show bringing
> > small children and were slaughtered by irresponsible manoeuvres that
> > pilots know should not be executed in populated areas in peacetime.
>
> Nope, make that the fault of the Russian gangsters.
You said it, not me. Hells bells, you only have to go to a bar in
Chicago or Moscow to realize that a personality does exist which can
indeed value PR over life.
>
> > The Ukrainian brass, like the US brass, overrule the common sense of
> > the pilots and force them to provide spectacles, treating pilots like
> > trained apes.
>
> Wait a minute, now it's the fault of the heads of the Ukrainian
> armed services.
> While I know I'm going to regret this: just what is your supporting
> argument for the US chain of command ordering pilots to perform
> at air shows in an unsafe manner?
>
They do it all the time: it's a major part of US military PR.
> > Records of these accidents are maintained, if at all, apart from
> > normal records of flight safety and as a result questions are not
> > asked.
>
> You mean with this big an attitude you haven't *checked* to
> see if records are maintained? So, our first reaction that you're
> blowing it out your ___ is correct then.
>
My source is a well-researched article for Chicago's Weekly Reader
from 1998.
> > I was trying to run at Chicago's lakefront during Chicago's stunt show
> > in 1995. During my run, I called out these documented facts to the
> > crowds. I think people need to organize against these shows and this
> > tragic, and unnecessary, loss of life.
>
> Since the records aren't kept how did you "document" these "facts"
> you were screaming out? Wait, check that, you don't know if records
> are kept; that still leaves the question of how you documented'em.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Insofar as you fighter pilots care for your own families and children,
> > I suggest you refuse the next order to show off your skills like a
> > trained ape.
>
> Rigggghhhhht, that would be like getting a lion not to eat the
> meat just because the zoo goers might see.
>
Don't get me started on zoos. You want to naturalize them, but there
may be something cruel and unnatural about penning a lion up in the
first place.
The urge to take the kids to see something dangerous comes from a zone
of boredom and satiety. It is said that the kiddies will like the
show of force, which neatly erases kids who might be terrified out of
their wits.
> > You should honor the countless fighter pilots who, during wartime,
> > crashed their planes into unpopulated areas rather than endanger
> > civilians, as well as the fighter pilots of Britain's RAF who used
> > their skills to defend and not destroy women and kids.
>
> Overall, I must say that is an impressive message.
> Eight paragraphs, seven of which have a single sentence.
Yeah, it's pretty slick I daresay.
Steve Hix
>
> stunts, they have to be at a close distance. Yet when training in the
> USA, our Air Force uses waste lands.
Neighbors would tend to complain about daily practice as they
work up their routines. A one- or two-day airshow, on the other
hand, would be acceptable to a lot more people.
> They must necessarily violate
> this rule for air shows, and this means there is no safe air show,
You clearly have not the slightest idea about which you are talking.
> unless it uses old and slow aircraft exclusively, which remain
> aerodynamic at low attitude and can be steered.
Clearly, sans clue you are.
Keith Willshaw
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com...
> "John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:<3d439...@news.iglou.com>...
> > Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > As opposed to technical failures, we can say that the problem is these
> > > "shows" in the first place.
> >
> > You can say anything you like, it just doesn't make it so.
> > Though you could probably make a case for the safety regulations
> > in place at this show.
>
> The shows are intrinsically unsafe. For the women and kids to see the
> stunts, they have to be at a close distance. Yet when training in the
> USA, our Air Force uses waste lands. They must necessarily violate
> this rule for air shows, and this means there is no safe air show,
> unless it uses old and slow aircraft exclusively, which remain
> aerodynamic at low attitude and can be steered.
>
Bullshit.
The regulations put in place after the Ramstein crash
have made airshows extremely safe and there have
been very few incidents in which spectators have
been injured.
Statistically other mass events such as motor racing
and Baseball are more dangerous.
USAF aircraft fly over populated areas every day as
do thousands of civil aircraft
Keith
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > The shows are intrinsically unsafe. For the women and kids to see the
> > stunts, they have to be at a close distance. Yet when training in the
> > USA, our Air Force uses waste lands.
>
> Neighbors would tend to complain about daily practice as they
> work up their routines. A one- or two-day airshow, on the other
> hand, would be acceptable to a lot more people.
Especially after Sep 11, the noise level will alarm people
unnecessarily. What I am saying is that military public-relations
cannot supersede even the false alarm of an "oversensitive" person
(such as a mother with a sick baby.)
To believe that it does is a logical and emotional error. For after
the Second World War, in Russia (including at the time the Ukrainian
SSR) and in the USA, the military had warranted prestige and as a
result a free pass for a lot of funding and activities. This was
because in both countries, the military sacrificed itself to defend
the homeland.
But since the military seems to be ineffective against terrorists,
this free pass needs to be re-examined, especially when it's a
free-pass, not to enhanced pilot training (which would be necessary)
but to the self-promotion of the military.
The logic is using an outdated set of premises. The emotional error
is simple blindness to the fact that some of us are less impressed
with stunts than the real courage of actual pilots in war time, which
is best celebrated in books and movies.
>
> > They must necessarily violate
> > this rule for air shows, and this means there is no safe air show,
>
> You clearly have not the slightest idea about which you are talking.
Why? I make a claim at variance with the claim of a brass who, as I
have shown, puts on shows not for readiness but in self-interest.
Sure, if these shows did not endanger the public, there'd be no
problem.
I think your problem with my claim is that world-wide, societies have
become so militarized that to re-think the brass' decisions becomes at
best griping and at best hot air.
But can you give me a bona fide MILITARY justification for putting on
air shows?
Peter Kemp
Nilges) wrote:
>But can you give me a bona fide MILITARY justification for putting on
>air shows?
Air shows sell aircraft. More aircraft means cheaper unit cost (am I
going too fast for you?).
Cheaper aircraft means more money for spares, support, salaries and
all the other things.
And as for airshows needing to be banned because they once disturbed
your run, please realise you're not the only person on this planet.
What next, kill all the sparrows because one once pooped on your car?
Perhaps we could exterminate all the Germans because you find some of
their humour offensive?
Peter Kemp
Pete
> air shows?
> >
Demonstration, to the public who pays for these things, where their money is
going.
Sharing the love of flying with those of a like mind.
Bringing into the public mindset some of the military people and equipment,
rather than just have the military being this 'thing' that no one ever sees.
Recruitment.
I was at the Dayton Airshow recently. Plenty of smiles and satisfaction,
ohhs and ahhs on the faces of the crowd. Young and old alike. The
performances by the USAF jets (F-15, A-10, Thunderbirds)were by far the most
well received.
Airshows are generally performed at airports. Anyone who would be within
earshot of the days flying events is already in earshot of everyday flying.
No unexpected loud noises. Besides, these things are quite well advertised.
Kind of hard to live close enough to hear, and not know about it in advance.
If you personally feel that airshows and flying demonstrations are too
unsafe, simply don't go. Hundreds of thousands each year disagree with you.
Pete
Why not rail against other, far more deadly everyday pursuits? More people
die each and every day driving around than did at Ramstein or Lviv.
More people die jogging each year than do at airshows.
Michael Kube-McDowell
Nilges) wrote:
I don't think you grok the airshow audience. I prescribe a week of
sensitization by immersion, at the EAA fly-in at Oshkosh.
>>
>> > They must necessarily violate
>> > this rule for air shows, and this means there is no safe air show,
>>
>> You clearly have not the slightest idea about which you are talking.
>
>Why? I make a claim at variance with the claim of a brass who, as I
>have shown, puts on shows not for readiness but in self-interest.
>Sure, if these shows did not endanger the public, there'd be no
>problem.
>
>I think your problem with my claim is that world-wide, societies have
>become so militarized that to re-think the brass' decisions becomes at
>best griping and at best hot air.
>
>But can you give me a bona fide MILITARY justification for putting on
>air shows?
You're either being careless with language or operating under a
misapprehension. The military in the US does not "put on" most
airshows--the exceptions are the free events which take place on
AF/ANG/AFRS bases (such as Selfridge in Michigan and Grissom in
Indiana). Most air shows are civilian events put on by aviation
buffs--often the hosting organization is made up of volunteers and
incorporated as a nonprofit group.
The US military does make aircraft available to air shows--as ground
displays, in fly-pasts, and in demonstrations (including but not
limited to the elite demonstration teams such as the Blue Angels)--but
the air show mix includes professsional performers such as Patty
Wagstaff and Jimmy Franklin, touring warbirds such as those operated
by the CAF, the Collins Foundation, and various museums, and privately
owned aircraft of all types.
While it's true that the presence of a flight demonstration team
boosts attendance, and there are "heavy metal" aviation fans who come
out mostly just to see and hear the high-performance military birds,
you would be making a serious error if you thought that that there was
nothing more to it than that. Look at how many events (and how many
different kinds of events) are on the aviation calendar:
http://www.aero-pix.com/schedule/sched2002dt.htm
K-Mac
--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
SF and other bad habits: http://k-mac.home.att.net
Preview VECTORS at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm
Edward G. Nilges
What part of "front organization" don't you understand?
Absent military support, airshows would actually be SAFE, because
individual hobbyists, for the most part, can't afford modern craft.
They'd be truly engaging and fun as well, for doing stunts with a
Sopwith Camel or even a Jap Zero takes skill. Not that stunts in a
modern fighter don't take skill: they do. But the difference is that
the audience isn't alienated from the skill since they could
conceivably do it themselves.
Modern air shows, in a completely unsafe fashion, place on display a
gulf between a military-industrial complex world-wide which the
audience nonetheless has to pay for in regressive taxation.
Military air shows exhibit a contempt for ordinary people which is
also on display in the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan.
>
> K-Mac
Edward G. Nilges
> On 30 Jul 2002 17:22:47 -0700, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
> >But can you give me a bona fide MILITARY justification for putting on
> >air shows?
>
> Air shows sell aircraft. More aircraft means cheaper unit cost (am I
> going too fast for you?).
What's the MILITARY justification for more aircraft?
If it's true that we live in a "new world order" in which free trade
prevents war, then why does the Ukraine need the hardware? It parted
amicably enough from Russia.
Terrorism? Excuse me, how do fighter jets prevent, rather than cause,
terrorism, by enraging the victims of civilian bombing?
Corporations "rightsize." Why not the military?
And, it's probably untrue that "more" implies "cheaper unit cost."
Cheaper unit cost POSSIBLY for the manufacturer, who doesn't have to
pass it on to the government. Indeed, if the aircraft is state of the
art and one of a kind, it is in the manufacturer to keep the unit
PRICE high relative to the cost.
Furthermore, how many little kids are in the market for REAL fighter
jets?
> Cheaper aircraft means more money for spares, support, salaries and
> all the other things.
>
> And as for airshows needing to be banned because they once disturbed
> your run, please realise you're not the only person on this planet.
>
No, but the planet is minus 70 Ukrainian women and kids.
> What next, kill all the sparrows because one once pooped on your car?
> Perhaps we could exterminate all the Germans because you find some of
> their humour offensive?
No, what's next is the eradication of useless military budgets.
>
> Peter Kemp
Chris McMartin
> Absent military support, airshows would actually be SAFE, because
> individual hobbyists, for the most part, can't afford modern craft.
Yet individual hobbyists aren't the typical reason John Q. Public attends.
There are subgroups of airshow audiences who like warbirds, subgroups who
like homebuilts, etc. but the big draws are the folks like Patty Wagstaff,
Sean Tucker, et al. not to mention the military demo teams (not just the
Thunderbirds/Blue Angels but the individual weapons system demo teams [A-10,
F-18, etc]).
> They'd be truly engaging and fun as well, for doing stunts with a
> Sopwith Camel or even a Jap Zero takes skill. Not that stunts in a
> modern fighter don't take skill: they do. But the difference is that
> the audience isn't alienated from the skill since they could
> conceivably do it themselves.
They conceivably CAN do it themselves. One of the primary benefits of a
military presence at an airshow is its recruiting power. What little kid
hasn't witnessed a modern fighter demo and aspired to one day do the same
thing? It's like "career day" at the elementary school, only on a much
larger scale.
> Military air shows exhibit a contempt for ordinary people which is
> also on display in the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan.
And yet of whom is the military composed? "Ordinary people."
Chris
--
http://www.mcmartinville.com
Last Update 02 July 2002
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
Now you just sound like a troll, or someone with ideological
poisoning.
You don't seem to understand the first thing about the romance of
flight, or even the simpler appeal of fast, loud, powerful machines.
You clearly do not understand the people who attend or the people who
organize civilian air shows.
>Absent military support, airshows would actually be SAFE, because
>individual hobbyists, for the most part, can't afford modern craft.
>They'd be truly engaging and fun as well, for doing stunts with a
>Sopwith Camel or even a Jap Zero takes skill. Not that stunts in a
>modern fighter don't take skill: they do. But the difference is that
>the audience isn't alienated from the skill since they could
>conceivably do it themselves.
You also don't know very much about aircraft, do you?
Do you realliy believe a 60-year-old Corsair or B-29 or Helldiver (to
pick just three) maintained and flown by hobbyists is both
intrinsically easier to fly and safer than a 15-year-old Su-27 or
20-year-old F-15 maintained and flown by professionals? I think you're
confusing the pilot-fitness demands of high-performance aircraft with
qualities of the aircraft themselves.
Here's a clue for you: there were over 300 fatal accidents last year
in general aviation in the US. Do you know how many fatals there were
in commercial aviation? In military aviation? Check the numbers.
You're in for a surprise. Those slow, simple, easy-to-handle aircraft
flown by amateurs are a lot more dangerous than the fast, complex,
high-performance aircraft flown by professionals.
>Modern air shows, in a completely unsafe fashion, place on display a
>gulf between a military-industrial complex world-wide which the
>audience nonetheless has to pay for in regressive taxation.
>
>Military air shows exhibit a contempt for ordinary people which is
>also on display in the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan.
<tweet> That's a foul--two minutes for spurious rhetoric.
Matt Cook
This is a plus in my book. These are people who need to be
exterminated en masse. That they do it themselves, saves us
ammunition and the labor of digging their graves.
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > Absent military support, airshows would actually be SAFE, because
> > individual hobbyists, for the most part, can't afford modern craft.
>
> Yet individual hobbyists aren't the typical reason John Q. Public attends.
> There are subgroups of airshow audiences who like warbirds, subgroups who
> like homebuilts, etc. but the big draws are the folks like Patty Wagstaff,
> Sean Tucker, et al. not to mention the military demo teams (not just the
> Thunderbirds/Blue Angels but the individual weapons system demo teams [A-10,
> F-18, etc]).
>
> > They'd be truly engaging and fun as well, for doing stunts with a
> > Sopwith Camel or even a Jap Zero takes skill. Not that stunts in a
> > modern fighter don't take skill: they do. But the difference is that
> > the audience isn't alienated from the skill since they could
> > conceivably do it themselves.
>
> They conceivably CAN do it themselves. One of the primary benefits of a
> military presence at an airshow is its recruiting power. What little kid
> hasn't witnessed a modern fighter demo and aspired to one day do the same
> thing? It's like "career day" at the elementary school, only on a much
> larger scale.
Yes, indeed. What little kid doesn't aspire to claw with burning
hands at his canopy seconds before impact? What little kid doesn't
aspire to blowing up shantytowns located next to weapons factories?
>
> > Military air shows exhibit a contempt for ordinary people which is
> > also on display in the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan.
>
> And yet of whom is the military composed? "Ordinary people."
The problem with the flyboys is that for the most part you don't get
to be a Junior Birdman unless you're an officer, which makes the
oxygen-deprived a sort of centurion class which can then be used
against the ordinary slob.
>
> Chris
Chris McMartin
> > thing? It's like "career day" at the elementary school, only on a much
> > larger scale.
>
> Yes, indeed. What little kid doesn't aspire to claw with burning
> hands at his canopy seconds before impact? What little kid doesn't
> aspire to blowing up shantytowns located next to weapons factories?
From day one of aviation training, it is painfully obvious that the
profession of arms is a very high-risk activity. We routinely examine
mishap reports to learn from others' mistakes. Crab fishermen in Alaska
have a very risky job, but it doesn't keep people away either. I don't know
if you've ever served in the military, but the reasons for serving vary from
person to person. Usually, it isn't for the money, and despite your
assertion, it isn't to "blow up shantytowns" or die in a fireball.
> > And yet of whom is the military composed? "Ordinary people."
>
> The problem with the flyboys is that for the most part you don't get
> to be a Junior Birdman unless you're an officer, which makes the
> oxygen-deprived a sort of centurion class which can then be used
> against the ordinary slob.
I suppose "oxygen-deprived" is intended to be a (weak) jab at military
aviators, as if we fly unpressurized and/or without supplemental oxygen.
You also (incorrectly) assume that aviators think they're better than
everyone else. While this is true for an obnoxious minority, your sample
size must be very small.
Just about ANYONE can be an officer if they work hard enough. In fact, the
politicians of late try to make the military a "cross-section of American
society" when in fact we should be looking for the "cream of the crop." But
I digress.
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.0208...@posting.google.com...
> > > thing? It's like "career day" at the elementary school, only on a much
> > > larger scale.
> >
> > Yes, indeed. What little kid doesn't aspire to claw with burning
> > hands at his canopy seconds before impact? What little kid doesn't
> > aspire to blowing up shantytowns located next to weapons factories?
>
> From day one of aviation training, it is painfully obvious that the
> profession of arms is a very high-risk activity. We routinely examine
> mishap reports to learn from others' mistakes. Crab fishermen in Alaska
> have a very risky job, but it doesn't keep people away either. I don't know
> if you've ever served in the military, but the reasons for serving vary from
> person to person. Usually, it isn't for the money, and despite your
> assertion, it isn't to "blow up shantytowns" or die in a fireball.
The fact that it IS high-risk means it's Job One to reduce the risk.
This is done in the US military by engineering, as much as possible
given the mission, for pilot safety. However, air shows represent an
exception to Job One because, given the incidents last week, Ramstein
1985 and elsewhere, they subject innocent bystanders to injury and
death, for no overriding reason.
The problem with air shows is the same mistake made by NASA in
Challenger. It's to allow a public relations stunt to supersede the
initial dedication to safety. In Challenger, Morton Thiokol engineers
were pressured into approving the launch because the Reagan
administration was engaged in the public relations stunt of proving
"it's morning in America." In air shows, the public is exposed to
risk because of the military's desire to keep the peace dividend for
itself.
Edward G. Nilges
> "gswork" <gsw...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:81f33a98.02080...@posting.google.com...> news:<HPP39.252344$q53.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...> > > news:f5dda427.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The fact that it IS high-risk means it's Job One to reduce the risk.
> > > > This is done in the US military by engineering, as much as possible
> > > > given the mission, for pilot safety. However, air shows represent an
> > > > exception to Job One because, given the incidents last week, Ramstein
> > > > 1985 and elsewhere, they subject innocent bystanders to injury and
> > > > death, for no overriding reason.
> > >
> numbers
> > > if you can find attendance listings for airshows vs. number of people
> killed
> > > in airshow crashes. Then run some numbers for other incidents such as
> > > airliner crashes and even automobile crashes.
> >
> > Bad comparison though, people driving / flying from A to B are not
> > doing so to be entertained and are generally not enticed into doing so
> > with the promise of entertainment, nor is the event of driving
> > directly staged or organised along the lines of a calculated risk.
> >
> > A better comparison would be with other events in which machines or
> > animals are paraded for the public's entertainment - Indy car, horse
> > racing, boat races and so forth. In those cases I suspect the risk of
> > death is similarly low.
> >
> > The question then; should all such events be banned as risking,
> > unnecesarily, death or injury to civilians?
> >
>
> Only if you propose to ban ALL such activities
>
> Millions of people attend airshows each year. They know and accept
> that there is a small but finite risk as a result of this activity just
> as skiing , cycling and rollerskating carry risks.
Not in any legal sense. They sign no waivers.
The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
safety.
The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
accident.
>
> Many activities such as mountain climbing , hiking , skydiving
> and playing contact sports are much riskier but its is not suggested
> that these activities should be banned.
Nor as a hiker and climber would I want to see them banned. The
problem is tat nearly all hikers and climbers make a conscious choice
whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
unnecessary risk. The air show audiences are more like movie theater
audiences in this regard. You may regard them as expendable, but in
spite of the fact that I think they are Yahoos, I do not.
Chris McMartin
> > Millions of people attend airshows each year. They know and accept
> > that there is a small but finite risk as a result of this activity just
> > as skiing , cycling and rollerskating carry risks.
>
> Not in any legal sense. They sign no waivers.
>
> The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
> in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
> safety.
Is this akin to the lady who sued the manufacturer of the smoke detector?
She took the batteries out of the device to power her "boom box." Her house
subsequently burnt down. She sued because there was no warning label on the
detector saying it wouldn't work without batteries!
It seems we try harder and harder to legislate ourselves away from having to
use common sense, because it's growing LESS common.
> The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
> accident.
Nor do they need to be. Nobody tells me of the possibility of getting
struck by lightning every time there's a storm, either. I'm waiting for
someone to get struck and then sue a TV weatherman.
> whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
>
> We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
> unnecessary risk.
But they are. What if a fire breaks out? Not everyone will "exit in an
orderly fashion" like you or I presumably would. Someone's gonna get
trampled/smothered. Now, I'm not constantly thinking about that when I go
see "Goldmember," but nevertheless it's always a possibility--just like the
remote likelihood of an airshow crash. A large theater chain probably has
deep pockets too, just like the government (whose "deep pockets" are OUR
pockets), for the litigious.
Keith Willshaw
>
Nor do they when entering a grocery store , boarding a bus
or playing a game of soccer in the park.
>
> The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
> in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
> safety.
>
I cant speak to US law but in the UK adults are expected to
inform themselves to some degree.
>
> The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
> accident.
>
On the contrary the air show programmes I have all
have significant sections in them explaining the safety
rules in place. The commentators make a point of
asking people to stay in designated areas and behind the
tapes that delineate the safe zones.
> >
> > Many activities such as mountain climbing , hiking , skydiving
> > and playing contact sports are much riskier but its is not suggested
> > that these activities should be banned.
>
> Nor as a hiker and climber would I want to see them banned. The
> problem is tat nearly all hikers and climbers make a conscious choice
> whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
>
They made a conscious choice to be spectators
> We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
> unnecessary risk. The air show audiences are more like movie theater
> audiences in this regard. You may regard them as expendable, but in
> spite of the fact that I think they are Yahoos, I do not.
>
But movie theater audiences DO take a small but finite risk.
Theaters have burned down, rows of seats have collapsed
and people die of heart attacks in movie theatres every year
In point of fact I doubt there is ANY difference in the statistical
risk of attending an air show in the US or UK and a movie
theater
Keith
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Not in any legal sense. They sign no waivers.
> >
>
> Nor do they when entering a grocery store , boarding a bus
> or playing a game of soccer in the park.
That's the point. Being in the audience at an air show is being in
the same legal space as boarding a bus and the audience is therefore
entitled NOT to be exposed to unreasonable risk. By "unreasonable
risk" I include risks for no good reason, and military public
relations is an insufficient reason for the clearly enhanced risk,
even if it is statistically small.
Here's an analogy. Suppose a "performance artist" wanted (in the
manner of the Mark Pauline's performance arts group Survival Research
Laboratories in San Francisco, in the 1980s) wanted to stage a
"happening" critical of industrial technology.
In so doing, let us say that this group unleashed several
flame-throwing automated robots in an arena separate from the
audience, but, owing to a bug in the code, one of the robots reduced
the audience to Crispy Critters.
The performance artist would of course be up on serious criminal
charges: at least manslaughter if not murder one. That charge would
be based on his subjecting his audience to an unreasonable risk.
[As it happened, Mark Pauline had his audience members sign waivers,
and a buddy of mine programmed his flame-throwing bots.]
What I am asking is why the military is not subject to this and why we
do not equate the military with ultraviolent performance artists.
>
> >
> > The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
> > in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
> > safety.
> >
>
> I cant speak to US law but in the UK adults are expected to
> inform themselves to some degree.
>
Well, you still have more remnants of the Nanny State and it's a good
thing too. I demur from the casual disregard for safety and welfare
of children that is on tap at auto races and air shows.
What about the Ukranian kids? They had no protection against the
uninformed consent of their parents, who may have dragged them to the
air show just to have something to do, and 99% of whom did not know of
the Ramstein accident.
> >
> > The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
> > accident.
> >
>
> On the contrary the air show programmes I have all
> have significant sections in them explaining the safety
> rules in place. The commentators make a point of
> asking people to stay in designated areas and behind the
> tapes that delineate the safe zones.
>
But they do not inform them that the risk exists in the "safe" zones.
Bricks with fins ignore yellow tape.
> > >
> > > Many activities such as mountain climbing , hiking , skydiving
> > > and playing contact sports are much riskier but its is not suggested
> > > that these activities should be banned.
> >
> > Nor as a hiker and climber would I want to see them banned. The
> > problem is tat nearly all hikers and climbers make a conscious choice
> > whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
> >
>
> They made a conscious choice to be spectators
>
When I decided to climb in Yosemite, I was aware of the risks, indeed
the awareness was embedded in my training. I knew, for example, that
extreme thunderstorms can occur later in the day at altitude and there
is often no protection against lighning. My training in things like
assuming a crouch that passed the charge through my body and not my
head communicated the risk repeatedly.
Note that even if the Ukraine spectators signed a waiver, which they
did not, a waiver would not have communicated the risk. The Ukraine
spectators were kept fully ignorant of the risk, in part because in
1985, the predecessor state (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic)
probably did not tell its people about Ramstein, unless there was
propaganda benefit to be obtained. And today, with Ukraine wanting to
join the West, it is even less likely that Ukrainians were aware of
the risk.
> > We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
> > unnecessary risk. The air show audiences are more like movie theater
> > audiences in this regard. You may regard them as expendable, but in
> > spite of the fact that I think they are Yahoos, I do not.
> >
>
> But movie theater audiences DO take a small but finite risk.
> Theaters have burned down, rows of seats have collapsed
> and people die of heart attacks in movie theatres every year
The difference is in the response.
Although you could still smoke in movie theaters in the UK in 1971,
even at that time, smoking was completely prohibited in all movie
theaters in the States, because early in the 20th century, several
people were killed in a horrific fire in Chicago's Iroquois theater.
The RESPONSE to the Iroquois fire was to pass laws against movie
theaters allowing smoking.
The RESPONSE to heart attacks caused by sidestream smoking is a
growing ban on smoking in the US, which I understand is growing in the
UK, albeit behind the US. Most recently, New York's mayor Bloomberg
is calling for an end to smoking in New York's restaurants and even
its bars.
[I don't agree with this because I believe that coding a death as
tobacco related is a decision that gets other factors (notably
workplace stress and industrial pollution) off the hook. I believe
from personal experience that smoking exacerbates the consequences of
an unhealthy lifestyle, especially insufficient exercise (I smoked
before and after the London Marathon.) My view is that industry needs
inactive but healthy people for the types of jobs created and this is
the reason for anti-smoking hysteria.]
But independent of my views about the New York ban, note that we can
RESPOND to theater fires and sidestream smoking perceived as a cause
of death with legislation, but when it comes to military public
relations, we cannot.
>
> In point of fact I doubt there is ANY difference in the statistical
> risk of attending an air show in the US or UK and a movie
> theater
I am not so much concerned with the statistical risk as the meaning of
a military air show. Basically, it is a Fascist spectacle that shows
a Fascist contempt for the mass audience while expecting the mass
audience to support the *ubermenschen* doing the stunts.
>
> Keith
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > > Millions of people attend airshows each year. They know and accept
> > > that there is a small but finite risk as a result of this activity just
> > > as skiing , cycling and rollerskating carry risks.
> >
> > Not in any legal sense. They sign no waivers.
> >
> > The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
> > in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
> > safety.
>
> Is this akin to the lady who sued the manufacturer of the smoke detector?
> She took the batteries out of the device to power her "boom box." Her house
> subsequently burnt down. She sued because there was no warning label on the
> detector saying it wouldn't work without batteries!
>
> It seems we try harder and harder to legislate ourselves away from having to
> use common sense, because it's growing LESS common.
These anecdotes are wearisome, for they don't represent reality, and
they sacrifice a victim or "butt" (usually a woman coded as bad with
machines) to a male view.
The reality was probably someone suddenly homeless (for that's what
happens when your house burns down, details at eleven) who as a result
of her homelessness probably owed thousands of dollars to a relative
or friend who paid perhaps a motel bill.
This individual, having exhausted the limited resources of her friends
or family, and having in our society no place to go, probably went to
a small law firm, like Erin Brockovich. Her attorney then probably
designed a legal offensive, based on the law requiring the landlord
and not the tenant to maintain smoke detectors.
In most of these laws, the tenant is completely held harmless for the
workability of the smoke detector, and this is why your landlord wakes
you up at ten in the morning to check your smoke detector.
The lady may not have won, and most victories of this nature are
reversed on technicalities on appeal by judges who review only the
texts about the case and as a result are ignorant of the realities.
The law does not expect the ordinary person to be clear on the concept
of batteries in the formal legal sense in this issue. Indeed, the
lady may have thought that the batteries backed up the AC power
source. The point is that it is the landlord's job to provide working
smoke detectors.
Therefore spare me lectures about common sense. Part of common sense
includes knowing street law and simple compassion.
>
> > The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
> > accident.
>
> Nor do they need to be. Nobody tells me of the possibility of getting
> struck by lightning every time there's a storm, either. I'm waiting for
> someone to get struck and then sue a TV weatherman.
What's interesting in the case of military air shows is that ONE sort
of personality is foregrounded, and the other erased.
Consider two personalities. One is my wife when the kids were little.
She hated unnecessary street noises when the kids were napping, and
would send me out to confront construction workers to ask them if
their jackhammers were necesssary. I would then, like Crusader
Rabbit, sally out of the house to confront the guys and sometimes even
was able to get them to work elsewhere.
I can well imagine her reaction to low-flying jets, were we to live in
Chicago's Wrigleyville at the time of the air show (which starts two
days from now.)
Another personality to consider is a little kid who is terrified of
the noise and whose father does not, like most fathers, exhort him to
be a man and suck it up, but instead takes him away from the air show
and instead to a Teletubbies movie.
Both of these personality types have LESS control over their
environment, in a militarized society (such as the US, Israel, and the
Palestinian territories) than a man, or woman, who sucks it up and who
reconciles himself to air shows, or, in Palestinian territories, to
the sacrifice of male relatives to the intifada.
When I exposed myself to danger in the Caribbean or the mountains, I
endangered no one else. The problem with air shows is that they
expose other people to noise and risk without their consent, informed
or otherwise.
>
> > whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
> >
> > We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
> > unnecessary risk.
>
> But they are. What if a fire breaks out? Not everyone will "exit in an
> orderly fashion" like you or I presumably would. Someone's gonna get
> trampled/smothered. Now, I'm not constantly thinking about that when I go
> see "Goldmember," but nevertheless it's always a possibility--just like the
> remote likelihood of an airshow crash. A large theater chain probably has
> deep pockets too, just like the government (whose "deep pockets" are OUR
> pockets), for the litigious.
Read the business section. Most large theater chains overbuilt in the
1990s and are on the edge of bankruptcy. Were a fire to break out in
a multiplex this could very well bankrupt the chain. Not that I'd
lose any sleep over it: it just shows that litigation per se is not a
way to get rich quick (read A Civil Action, the real-life story, made
into a movie with John Travolta, about a Boston PI attorney who went
completely broke pursuing W. R. Grace and Beatrice.)
Pete
> a military air show. Basically, it is a Fascist spectacle that shows
> a Fascist contempt for the mass audience while expecting the mass
> audience to support the *ubermenschen* doing the stunts.
>
Eddie...why don't you just come out and admit that you do not like the
military, what it stands for, anyone associated with it, nor any industry
that provides equipment to it.
And also admit that many people DO enjoy airshows, large and small. Young
and old alike. And accept the tiny risk associated with attending such
airshows.
While you're at it, admit to yourself that you engage in an activity
probably each and every day, that kills many, many more people than do
airshows. Several orders of magnitude higher. Whether through their own
stupidity, or through the idiocy of others. I doubt the 6 year old killed
today signed an informed waiver before mommy strapped him in the back of the
rolling explosive storage tank.
And while you're in this orgy of removing all self deinial, why don't you
admit to yourself that many, many more people die from simply taking a
shower each day than do at airshows. I doubt if any of them signed a waiver
before getting wet.
Pete
jeez dude..give it a rest.
Edward G. Nilges
> > The fact that it IS high-risk means it's Job One to reduce the risk.
> > This is done in the US military by engineering, as much as possible
> > given the mission, for pilot safety. However, air shows represent an
> > exception to Job One because, given the incidents last week, Ramstein
> > 1985 and elsewhere, they subject innocent bystanders to injury and
> > death, for no overriding reason.
>
> if you can find attendance listings for airshows vs. number of people killed
> in airshow crashes. Then run some numbers for other incidents such as
> that many people. Certainly a spectator's risk of getting hit by an
> airplane increases (perhaps by quite a bit) by attending an airshow as
> opposed to just being outdoors in general, but an increase from (made up
> numbers following for purposes of argument) 1 in a billion to 2 in a billion
> just isn't a significant risk for the rational person. Same goes for people
> who are afraid to fly due to possibility of crashing--given the statistics,
> the fear is unwarranted. However, that's tough to explain if you happen to
> BE that 1-in-a-billion person!
Actually, I am very good at math. I wasn't talking about the
mathematical probability of being killed at an air show which I
concede is very small.
Instead, I was talking about MEANING.
It MEANS something that while Mayor Bloomberg in New York City is able
to seriously propose banning smoking in all NYC bars and restaurants
based on the effect of sidestream smoke on bar and restaurant workers,
in the same society, one cannot just declare that, given that the sole
purpose of military airshows is military PR, it poses excessive risk
in view of the narrowness and selfishness of its purpose.
The foregoing paragraph followed the rules of grammar. However, it is
excluded from large zones of American discourse, and discourse in the
developed world, by the semantical rule: thou shalt not sound like a
Sixties person.
This is a person who seriously questions social priorities in the
developed world, despite the fact that in the current world
depression, it is increasingly clear to millions of ordinary slobs
that paying for a military that provides security for the president of
Iran, or a military that demolishes houses in the West Bank, is just
nuts.
Part of the problem is the replacement of perfectly coherent discourse
of MEANING by mathematical discussions of the probability of getting
killed.
Years ago, the American magazine Playboy (which used to carry
high-quality fiction and commentary) ran an article about fear of
flying. It pointed out something perfectly sensible, which is that IF
you are a passenger on a plane going down, or a plane highjacked by
suicidal terrorists, all of a sudden the mathematics become
irrevelant. You are completely in the zone of meaning, which for many
people is the zone of prayer (as in "Oh God get me outa here" through
"thy will be done.")
In like manner, you darenot use math in speaking to a bereaved
Ukranian mom who just wanted to get the kids out of the house. Her
question might very well be, even if it made sense for my grandfather
to die at Kursk for what was then the *rodina*, the socialist
motherland, even if this made sense, what sense does it make for my
kid to be burnt to death in the name of military public relations?
Indeed, if you want math, here's the math. The senselessness of a
death at Kursk is in a power series with the senselessness of a death
at a goddamn air show. Where s is lack of sense, KD is a death at
Kursk, and AD is a death at a goddamn air show,
ADs >= KDs ** k where k is large, goddamnit
>
> I've staffed 4 airshows. In the USAF, we perform risk assessments for
> airshows. Probability of accidents/things going wrong are weighed against
> benefits provided to the public (I already gave you one of our primary
> overriding reasons in a previous post--that argument is done), and
Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
> mitigating factors are considered such as good weather, aircrew experience,
> etc. If a particular event is calculated to carry too great a risk, the
> routine is modified or canceled altogether.
>
> I can't speak for how risk is managed in other countries (or even in the
> civilian sector, though I suspect they have their own analyses).
I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
cannot watch war shows.
I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
fire.
There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
at Pearl Harbor.
Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
of lives.
Today, operations research is used to sneak in priorities (such as
military PR) without discussion.
>
> > "it's morning in America." In air shows, the public is exposed to
> > risk because of the military's desire to keep the peace dividend for
> > itself.
>
> "Peace dividend" is another often-used phrase which has no real meaning.
> Just because our "main" adversary is no longer the threat it once was
> doesn't mean there are a lot of people out there who still want nothing else
> than to see America fall.
Indeed there are, but eradicating this threat is (even according to VB
Cheney) not possible. That is, Cheney says that another terrorist
attack is a near-certainty. This raises a question: why fund a
massive defense establishment that cannot perform the stated mission,
of protecting the US "homeland?"
Even in operations research terms this is nutz.
Gee, maybe it's being funded in order to let some fatcats buy third
homes. Naw...
I do know that this year, the Chicago Air show is being funded by
Shell Oil. I think I shall go for a run in Lincoln Park this weekend.
Hope I don't get killed.
Chris McMartin
news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> includes knowing street law and simple compassion.
Part of common sense includes knowing that a multi-ton piece of machinery
hurtling through the air has a remote chance of hitting and killing you, and
if you don't like the sound of that you should minimize your exposure to
that scenario (i.e. don't go to airshows if you don't like them).
> When I exposed myself to danger in the Caribbean or the mountains, I
> endangered no one else. The problem with air shows is that they
> expose other people to noise and risk without their consent, informed
> or otherwise.
LOTS of things happen without people's consent. Congress votes themselves
pay raises, for example. No matter how bad a job my representative may be
doing, he or she gets the raise, and even if we show our disapproval by not
re-electing them, they have a hefty pension for life. I could put 19 years
into the military, yet if I get out, I have no pension, nor a 401(k) to
rollover into any other plan. That may seem like a raw deal, but I knew it
going into the career path. But I digress.
For your last sentence above, replace "air shows" with just about anything.
"People" would work well: "The problem with people is that they expose
other people to noise and risk without their consent, informed or
otherwise."
I won't spare you another anecdote. Back in the Cold War, someone (I won't
say "old lady" because you'll accuse me of stereotyping) called a local Army
base (near where I was last stationed) complaining of the noise generated by
the live-fire exercises. The public relations officer on duty asked the
lady what color stars were painted on the tanks. "White." "Good, they're
ours," he replied and hung up.
"That's the sound of freedom" is more than just a cliche' to some of us.
> Read the business section. Most large theater chains overbuilt in the
> 1990s and are on the edge of bankruptcy.
OK, bad example, but not my main point.
Dennis Jensen
> "Chris McMartin" <newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote in message
news:<HPP39.252344$q53.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
> Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
> of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
> that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
> Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
> boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
> ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
> fire.
>
> There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
> where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
> America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
> and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
> to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
> defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
> of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
> of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
> at Pearl Harbor.
>
What total bullshit! Name ONE reponsible historian that states that! In the
case that you mention, the fiction of the "defeat" of Britain, why not then
use the German invasion of the USSR as the begining of your ficticious
WW3-after all, the USSR did more than anyone else to defeat the Germans?
Having said that, how can you attempt to make the claim that Britain was
defeated? Did they surrender? Were they obeying German orders? Were they
occupied? Did Britain continue making its own decisions, whatever the German
wishes? Did they continue to resists, and have a government that was
independent and resisting? By what possible definition can you state that
Britain was defeated? You show a serious gap in your knowledge of WW2 with
this assertion.
> Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
> containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
> this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
> despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
> of lives.
>
Containment would have meant handing Europe to the USSR-did you stop to
consider that one? Now, how are you going to contain the USSR?
> Today, operations research is used to sneak in priorities (such as
> military PR) without discussion.
>
Suggest you learn what OR is actually all about, before you continue
pontificating in ignorance.
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE
Please direct all spam to:
pres...@whitehouse.gov
vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov
ab...@iprimus.com.au
ab...@cia.gov
ab...@fbi.gov
ab...@asio.gov.au
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au
lib...@liberal.org.au
Peter Twydell
Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
<snip stuff>
>Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
>enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
>but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
>would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
>
and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
uniforms behind the counters there.
>> mitigating factors are considered such as good weather, aircrew experience,
>> etc. If a particular event is calculated to carry too great a risk, the
>> routine is modified or canceled altogether.
>>
>> I can't speak for how risk is managed in other countries (or even in the
>> civilian sector, though I suspect they have their own analyses).
>
>I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
>shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
>cannot watch war shows.
>
Why not?
>I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
>Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
>of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
>that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
What's wrong with that? War is about killing people (that's one of the
factors that make it so unpleasant) , which means you lose somew of your
own too.
>
>Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
>boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
>ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
>fire.
>
I don't think OR was done at Bletchley Park. They had other things on
their minds.
>There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
>where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
>America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
>and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
>to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
>defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
>of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
>of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
>at Pearl Harbor.
>
I don't recall reading about our total defeat in 1940. OK, so we had to
leave France after the Germans had beaten the BEF, but Der Dicke and his
flyboys got a nasty shock over England from July to October. And the RN
was doing pretty well at Narvik.
>Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
>containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
>this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
>despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
>of lives.
>
I cannot see the logic of this at all.
>Today, operations research is used to sneak in priorities (such as
>military PR) without discussion.
>
>>
>> > "it's morning in America." In air shows, the public is exposed to
>> > risk because of the military's desire to keep the peace dividend for
>> > itself.
>>
>> "Peace dividend" is another often-used phrase which has no real meaning.
>> Just because our "main" adversary is no longer the threat it once was
>> doesn't mean there are a lot of people out there who still want nothing else
>> than to see America fall.
>
>Indeed there are, but eradicating this threat is (even according to VB
>Cheney) not possible. That is, Cheney says that another terrorist
>attack is a near-certainty. This raises a question: why fund a
>massive defense establishment that cannot perform the stated mission,
>of protecting the US "homeland?"
>
>Even in operations research terms this is nutz.
>
>Gee, maybe it's being funded in order to let some fatcats buy third
>homes. Naw...
>
>I do know that this year, the Chicago Air show is being funded by
>Shell Oil. I think I shall go for a run in Lincoln Park this weekend.
> Hope I don't get killed.
There's probably more chance of your getting mugged or hit by a car than
there would be of you r being hurt at an airshow.
What has made you so fanatically bitter and twisted about an essentially
harmless (yes, harmless) activity as airshows, and the military?
Motor racing probably kills more people every year on average, and is
totally pointless when viewed objectively. It certainly has less point
than military airshows. (I like motor racing, and live not too far from
where Graham Hill, one of my boyhood heroes, is buried)
--
Peter
Ying Tong Iddle I Po
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<1029307964.18395....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Not in any legal sense. They sign no waivers.
> > >
> >
> > Nor do they when entering a grocery store , boarding a bus
> > or playing a game of soccer in the park.
>
> That's the point. Being in the audience at an air show is being in
> the same legal space as boarding a bus and the audience is therefore
> entitled NOT to be exposed to unreasonable risk. By "unreasonable
> risk" I include risks for no good reason, and military public
> relations is an insufficient reason for the clearly enhanced risk,
> even if it is statistically small.
>
You are correct that they are entitled not to be expose to unreasonable
risk. That is why strict safety guidelines are imposed on all
who take part. You are incorrect in assuming that military hardware
provides an unacceptable risk.
Since you like analogies this is like declaring that people may board
a bus but that it should not move in order to minimis risk.
> Here's an analogy. Suppose a "performance artist" wanted (in the
> manner of the Mark Pauline's performance arts group Survival Research
> Laboratories in San Francisco, in the 1980s) wanted to stage a
> "happening" critical of industrial technology.
>
> In so doing, let us say that this group unleashed several
> flame-throwing automated robots in an arena separate from the
> audience, but, owing to a bug in the code, one of the robots reduced
> the audience to Crispy Critters.
>
In fact of course both in the US and UK there ARE public shows
involving flamethrowing robots i refer you to the shows
Robot Wars and Robotica
> The performance artist would of course be up on serious criminal
> charges: at least manslaughter if not murder one. That charge would
> be based on his subjecting his audience to an unreasonable risk.
>
> [As it happened, Mark Pauline had his audience members sign waivers,
> and a buddy of mine programmed his flame-throwing bots.]
>
> What I am asking is why the military is not subject to this and why we
> do not equate the military with ultraviolent performance artists.
>
Care to tell us the last time the US military attacked an airshow
crowd with napalm or are you just being very silly ?
> >
> > >
> > > The psychology that puts the risk on the customer may be popular but
> > > in actuality it flies in the face of legal doctrines including product
> > > safety.
> > >
> >
> > I cant speak to US law but in the UK adults are expected to
> > inform themselves to some degree.
> >
> Well, you still have more remnants of the Nanny State and it's a good
> thing too.
Actually thats a common misconception. In the UK people
are expected to take a measure of responsibility for their
actions. Dont buy hot coffee here and expect to sue McDonalds
if you scald yourself, you'd lose.
> I demur from the casual disregard for safety and welfare
> of children that is on tap at auto races and air shows.
>
In fact of course safety is a high priority as can easily be
shown statiscally. More kids are killed and injured each year
playing football than die at airshows. The risk of being
killed at an airshow is rather less than being struck by lightning
> What about the Ukranian kids? They had no protection against the
> uninformed consent of their parents, who may have dragged them to the
> air show just to have something to do, and 99% of whom did not know of
> the Ramstein accident.
>
In fact I'd agree that the Ukranian show was badly
run and the safety precations were inadequate just
as safety is not a high priority in much of the old Eastern bloc
>
> > >
> > > The people who attend air shows are not told of the possibility of
> > > accident.
> > >
> >
> > On the contrary the air show programmes I have all
> > have significant sections in them explaining the safety
> > rules in place. The commentators make a point of
> > asking people to stay in designated areas and behind the
> > tapes that delineate the safe zones.
> >
> But they do not inform them that the risk exists in the "safe" zones.
> Bricks with fins ignore yellow tape.
>
I learned that what goes upmust come down at the
age of 3 or so. Are Americans less intelligent ?
> > > >
> > > > Many activities such as mountain climbing , hiking , skydiving
> > > > and playing contact sports are much riskier but its is not suggested
> > > > that these activities should be banned.
> > >
> > > Nor as a hiker and climber would I want to see them banned. The
> > > problem is tat nearly all hikers and climbers make a conscious choice
> > > whereas the attendees of air shows regard themselves as spectators.
> > >
> >
> > They made a conscious choice to be spectators
> >
> When I decided to climb in Yosemite, I was aware of the risks, indeed
> the awareness was embedded in my training. I knew, for example, that
> extreme thunderstorms can occur later in the day at altitude and there
> is often no protection against lighning. My training in things like
> assuming a crouch that passed the charge through my body and not my
> head communicated the risk repeatedly.
>
> Note that even if the Ukraine spectators signed a waiver, which they
> did not, a waiver would not have communicated the risk. The Ukraine
> spectators were kept fully ignorant of the risk, in part because in
> 1985, the predecessor state (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic)
> probably did not tell its people about Ramstein, unless there was
> propaganda benefit to be obtained. And today, with Ukraine wanting to
> join the West, it is even less likely that Ukrainians were aware of
> the risk.
>
Nonsense
Human beings understand that things fall under the influence
of gravity,
> > > We wouldn't expect a movie theater audience to be put at small and/or
> > > unnecessary risk. The air show audiences are more like movie theater
> > > audiences in this regard. You may regard them as expendable, but in
> > > spite of the fact that I think they are Yahoos, I do not.
> > >
> >
> > But movie theater audiences DO take a small but finite risk.
> > Theaters have burned down, rows of seats have collapsed
> > and people die of heart attacks in movie theatres every year
>
> The difference is in the response.
>
> Although you could still smoke in movie theaters in the UK in 1971,
> even at that time, smoking was completely prohibited in all movie
> theaters in the States, because early in the 20th century, several
> people were killed in a horrific fire in Chicago's Iroquois theater.
>
> The RESPONSE to the Iroquois fire was to pass laws against movie
> theaters allowing smoking.
>
A sensible precaution analgous to the rules adopted at airshows
following the Ramstein crash
> The RESPONSE to heart attacks caused by sidestream smoking is a
> growing ban on smoking in the US, which I understand is growing in the
> UK, albeit behind the US. Most recently, New York's mayor Bloomberg
> is calling for an end to smoking in New York's restaurants and even
> its bars.
>
> [I don't agree with this because I believe that coding a death as
> tobacco related is a decision that gets other factors (notably
> workplace stress and industrial pollution) off the hook. I believe
> from personal experience that smoking exacerbates the consequences of
> an unhealthy lifestyle, especially insufficient exercise (I smoked
> before and after the London Marathon.) My view is that industry needs
> inactive but healthy people for the types of jobs created and this is
> the reason for anti-smoking hysteria.]
>
> But independent of my views about the New York ban, note that we can
> RESPOND to theater fires and sidestream smoking perceived as a cause
> of death with legislation, but when it comes to military public
> relations, we cannot.
>
But you didnt close down the theatres or ban military personnel
from using them which is what you propose re airshows.
> >
> > In point of fact I doubt there is ANY difference in the statistical
> > risk of attending an air show in the US or UK and a movie
> > theater
>
> I am not so much concerned with the statistical risk as the meaning of
> a military air show. Basically, it is a Fascist spectacle that shows
> a Fascist contempt for the mass audience while expecting the mass
> audience to support the *ubermenschen* doing the stunts.
>
FASCIST
Excuse me but the airshow I attend every year celebrates the
defeat of the Fascists in the Battle of Britain in 1940. It
ends in a moments silence for those who gave their lives
defeating facists
I am glad your true motivation is finally revealed however
and you can take your political correctness and shove it.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
>
> I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
> shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
> cannot watch war shows.
>
Pearl Harbor isnt war show its a love story with some highly inaccurate
war scenese
> I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
> Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
> of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
> that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
> Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
> boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
> ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
> fire.
>
There were no operations staff at Bletchley park. BP was a sigint
organisations. The ops staff were at Bentley Priory and Northwood
> There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
> where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
> America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
> and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
> to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
> defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
> of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
> of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
> at Pearl Harbor.
>
In fact this is inaccurate. OR showed clearly that the Luftwaffe
as defeated. After each months fighting the Luftwaffe had
fewer aircraft vailable and the RAF more.
Moreover British forces were to continue fighting the Axis
in the Mediterranean theatre , preventing a german attempt
to seize the oil fields in Iran and Iraq and kept open valuable
supply lines to Russia.
> Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
> containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
> this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
> despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
> of lives.
>
Incorrect. A policy of containment WAS ADOPTED in the form
of the blockade which would cut Germany off from oil and
other raw materials. It was that blockade the prevented Germany
building efficient jet engines for example as they had no nickel
or tungsten for high temperature alloys.
Unfortunately of course containment didnt stop the death camps.
> Today, operations research is used to sneak in priorities (such as
> military PR) without discussion.
>
> >
> > > "it's morning in America." In air shows, the public is exposed to
> > > risk because of the military's desire to keep the peace dividend for
> > > itself.
> >
> > "Peace dividend" is another often-used phrase which has no real meaning.
> > Just because our "main" adversary is no longer the threat it once was
> > doesn't mean there are a lot of people out there who still want nothing
else
> > than to see America fall.
>
> Indeed there are, but eradicating this threat is (even according to VB
> Cheney) not possible. That is, Cheney says that another terrorist
> attack is a near-certainty. This raises a question: why fund a
> massive defense establishment that cannot perform the stated mission,
> of protecting the US "homeland?"
>
> Even in operations research terms this is nutz.
>
> Gee, maybe it's being funded in order to let some fatcats buy third
> homes. Naw...
>
> I do know that this year, the Chicago Air show is being funded by
> Shell Oil. I think I shall go for a run in Lincoln Park this weekend.
> Hope I don't get killed.
Watch out for passing meteorites, thats your largest risk
with us being on the edge of the Perseids
Keith
Dennis Jensen
>
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > a military air show. Basically, it is a Fascist spectacle that shows
> > a Fascist contempt for the mass audience while expecting the mass
> > audience to support the *ubermenschen* doing the stunts.
> >
>
> FASCIST
>
> Excuse me but the airshow I attend every year celebrates the
> defeat of the Fascists in the Battle of Britain in 1940. It
> ends in a moments silence for those who gave their lives
> defeating facists
>
> I am glad your true motivation is finally revealed however
> and you can take your political correctness and shove it.
>
I have finally worked out who Edward Nilges is-clearly he is Marcia
Lowenstein in drag:) For those who don't know, go to google and look up
Marcia Lowenstein in the newsgroups section. "She" posted here around 1996.
Chris McMartin
> Actually, I am very good at math. I wasn't talking about the
> mathematical probability of being killed at an air show which I
> concede is very small.
And the intangible "entertainment value" is extremely high (except in your
case). :)
> It MEANS something that while Mayor Bloomberg in New York City is able
> to seriously propose banning smoking in all NYC bars and restaurants
> based on the effect of sidestream smoke on bar and restaurant workers,
Bad decision. Although I detest smoking, why should the government tell a
bar owner what his patrons can do? Let them smoke all they want--they won't
get MY business. I maintain we should preserve our rights to be stupid
(smoking), but having a right doesn't mean I myself am going to take
advantage of it.
> in the same society, one cannot just declare that, given that the sole
> purpose of military airshows is military PR, it poses excessive risk
> in view of the narrowness and selfishness of its purpose.
We've already established it does NOT pose excessive risk (your concession
above).
> This is a person who seriously questions social priorities in the
> developed world,
As well we all should. However, I think "social priorities" should not be
limited to "government priorities." If you're concerned that someone is
going hungry tonight, why not get more people to donate to soup kitchens
(time as well as money)?
Ideally, it is not government's job to redistribute wealth, although many
people exposed to the "entitlement politics" of the last few decades may
think so. It IS government's job (as outlined in the Constitution) to
"provide for the common defense."
>despite the fact that in the current world
> depression, it is increasingly clear to millions of ordinary slobs
> that paying for a military that provides security for the president of
> Iran, or a military that demolishes houses in the West Bank, is just
> nuts.
It's NOT clear. That's because the interactions between various countries
around the world are NOT as cut-and-dry as you'd have us believe. Seemingly
simple actions have far-reaching consequences, and THAT is the concept that
is becoming less and less clear to more and more people, both in their
personal affairs and in the political arena.
> flying. It pointed out something perfectly sensible, which is that IF
> you are a passenger on a plane going down, or a plane highjacked by
> suicidal terrorists, all of a sudden the mathematics become
> irrevelant.
So we agree. I said this a couple of weeks ago in this thread (paraphrased,
"statistics are meaningless if it's YOU who is the 'one in a million'").
> motherland, even if this made sense, what sense does it make for my
> kid to be burnt to death in the name of military public relations?
Of course it doesn't make sense. What sense would it make for my kid to be
killed by lightning at a Tiger Woods golf camp? You seem to be implying
intent to cause harm at an airshow, where such intent does not exist. If it
did, the risk we already said was negligible would be much higher, and less
people (or zero) would attend.
> Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
> enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense.
You are correct. The flaw lies in the assumption that we have no enemies.
> but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
> would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
Dogfights aren't won by ceremonial flybys. Airshow or not, these maneuvers
will be practiced.
You contradict yourself with the assertion that you're good at math. Each
airshow I staffed cost under $100,000 to put on--well under, as I recall;
I'm amazed at the display we could put on for such a shoestring budget.
Granted, some airshows cost more than others, but it would take thousands,
if not millions, of shows of the same scale (we had half a million in
attendance) to add up to these "billions of dollars for the civilian
economy" that would be freed.
Additionally, our airshows were free. Private vendors (part of the
"civilian economy") were allowed to come in and sell their wares and food.
Programs and posters were contracted to local civilian companies. When
on-base quarters filled up, airshow participants were lodged in contracted
facilities (hotels) in town. People attending from out-of-town also stayed
in hotels. I'd estimate that for every tax dollar spent, at least that
amount was pumped directly into the local economy.
> I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
> shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
> cannot watch war shows.
Then your relationship is in trouble! :)
> boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
> ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
> fire.
It's a harsh reality of war. People die. We've become accustomed to
overwhelming success in recent military action, with little to no losses on
"our" side; even today in Afghanistan it makes the news if even one soldier
dies. Regardless, in the joint missions I practiced just a few short years
ago, the Army used a PLANNING factor of 10% casualties (injured or dead)
before they even began fighting (combat airdrop--chute malfunctions,
aircraft shot down, etc). That doesn't even take into account losses at the
hand of the enemy!
> Indeed there are, but eradicating this threat is (even according to VB
> Cheney) not possible. That is, Cheney says that another terrorist
> attack is a near-certainty. This raises a question: why fund a
> massive defense establishment that cannot perform the stated mission,
> of protecting the US "homeland?"
You mean to say, "bad things are going to happen, so it's pointless to even
try defending ourselves?"
> Gee, maybe it's being funded in order to let some fatcats buy third
> homes. Naw...
A lot of government money earmarked for AIDS research serves the same
purpose. There's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in government. Don't be
fooled into thinking it's just the Defense Department!
> I do know that this year, the Chicago Air show is being funded by
> Shell Oil. I think I shall go for a run in Lincoln Park this weekend.
> Hope I don't get killed.
You should be hoping that EVERY day (taxis, muggers, etc), or do you just
run on airshow weekends and hope to get (un)lucky to prove a point?
Robert Briggs
> Regardless, in the joint missions I practiced just a few short years
> ago, the Army used a PLANNING factor of 10% casualties (injured or dead)
> before they even began fighting (combat airdrop--chute malfunctions,
> aircraft shot down, etc). That doesn't even take into account losses at
> the hand of the enemy!
There's something wrong there, Chris!
"Chute malfunctions": okay.
"Aircraft shot down ... [without] the hand of the enemy" ...
Chris McMartin
news:3D5D4C5C...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...
I meant the grunts being killed as a result of the aircraft being shot down,
while they were still Spam in a can, prior to their being under canopy and
able to fight back.
It's always best to be the lead in the formation. Lead wakes up the enemy,
2 flies overhead while he's setting up his MANPAD, 3 gets schwacked! :)
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
> <snip stuff>
> >Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
> >enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
> >but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
> >would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
> >
> This is a strange statement for some one with such a good grasp of logic
> and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
> the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
> cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
> personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
> uniforms behind the counters there.
The problem is that the tail wags the dog and that a society cannot be
sustained by its military. The history of Athens, as opposed to
Sparta, makes this clear.
And, as it happens, the military in the USA at least has failed
consistently to meet its economic promise of sustaining a healthy
civilian economy.
If one drives up to Waukegan, Illinois, past the Great Lakes Naval
Training Station, one drives through a ghost town, with the shells of
bars and laundromats that once catered to the swabbies. The owners of
these establishments could not rely on the market but instead relied
on training levels which were high only during WWII and the cold war.
Similarly, software engineers who choose defense careers all too often
find no call for Ada or Jovial in the real world.
Socialism, at least top-down, failed to deliver because, as Hayek
points out in The Road to Serfdom, it cannot plan the needs of the
market. Military socialism likewise has to (with ultimate
irrationality) plan for the existence of a definable enemy, whether
the Persians or the Commies and it loses its economic viability when
the enemy does the disservice of fading away.
And, in the military, the s*t flies downward. Flag rank officers
retire to Scottsdale whereas ordinary swabbies retire with peanuts and
Ada programmers retrain in Visual Basic.
>
> >> mitigating factors are considered such as good weather, aircrew experience,
> >> etc. If a particular event is calculated to carry too great a risk, the
> >> routine is modified or canceled altogether.
> >>
> >> I can't speak for how risk is managed in other countries (or even in the
> >> civilian sector, though I suspect they have their own analyses).
> >
> >I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
> >shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
> >cannot watch war shows.
> >
> Why not?
Because I like hippie women, that's why not.
>
> >I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
> >Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
> >of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
> >that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
>
> What's wrong with that? War is about killing people (that's one of the
> factors that make it so unpleasant) , which means you lose somew of your
> own too.
That's Clauswitz, but Frederick the Great was a first-rate general
whose strategy was based on maneuovre and minimizing casualties.
In Frederick's strategy, you marched always with an eye to base of
supply (for Frederick learned from tales of the Thirty Years War that
an army becomes a dangerous mob when it doesn't eat) and you offered
battle when you knew you had such overwhelming odds that (1) most of
the the other chaps would see your massed grenadiers and run back to
Mother and (2) only a few of the other chaps would fire and they'd
mostly miss.
A philosophical monarch, Frederick did indeed ask his men at
Hohenfriedburger, "do you want to live forever", to which the only
sensible reply would be "ja, mein Herr, very much, danke schon" :-)
but this was at the crisis, for the best laid plans, etc. His
philosophy was unlike that of Clauswitz in that he minimized force by
diplomatic and military surprise.
It is true that this surprise was moral. He amazed Maria Theresa by
invading Silesia when he had said he would not. But it was obviously
a strategy meant to amaze and stupefy and then (and only then) to
kill.
Today, however, we cut straight, not to the chase, but to the killing
zone. This has resulted in military barbarism including the use of
heavy weapons by the Yugoslavian army on little kids, not as
collateral damage but as grand strategy.
What I am saying is, of course, not that Fred the Great was a good
guy. Indeed, he was part of an historical process in which the
meaning of war devolved to a sort of industrial killing zone seen as
devoid of redemption in the trenches of WWI. Napoleon learned from
Fred that you win by understanding that the first rule is there are no
rules: Clauswitz wrote Naploeon's conclusions up: and then Sam Grant
went Boney one better by showing how you could use trench warfare (in
front of Richmond in 1865) to defeat Naploeon's tactics.
War, like philosophy, conceals under its appearance of a lack of
progress, of repeated barbarism an irreversible historical entropy
which is a devolutionary progress. For only the first philosopher did
"pure" philosophy; Heraclitus saw only water whereas all philosophers
since saw texts. Thus Kant could not have existed prior to Spinoza.
In like manner, warriors at least at the level of general staff are
burdened like philosophers with a baggage train of military history,
and the smartest ones from Frederick to DeGaulle make proper use of
the impedimenta. The smartest and most compassionate also go to war
with knowledge of what it might mean to kill and be killed.
This is my problem with the Chicago Air Show. Presenting child's toys
it hides the actual history by making an ersatz visual which replaces
texts, from Tolstoy to Siegfried Sassoon, which give a better
impression of what war means, from the meaningless death of an only
son in a raid on a retreating Russian baggage-train to the years of
senseless grieving for a brother did for by Haig.
> >
> >Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
> >boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
> >ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
> >fire.
> >
> I don't think OR was done at Bletchley Park. They had other things on
> their minds.
>
> >There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
> >where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
> >America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
> >and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
> >to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
> >defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
> >of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
> >of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
> >at Pearl Harbor.
> >
> I don't recall reading about our total defeat in 1940. OK, so we had to
> leave France after the Germans had beaten the BEF, but Der Dicke and his
> flyboys got a nasty shock over England from July to October. And the RN
> was doing pretty well at Narvik.
>
You fellows had that certifiable lunatic Winston in charge, bad luck
to you. I concede that Winston had a way with words (he was a journo
during the Boer mess) but I feel Castlereagh, in 1805, did a better
job than Winston in 1940.
For Churchill's bulldog resistance had to be conducted with a
nonexistent army and a Royal Navy in the process of being defeated by
the U-boats. In the interregnum he had to wait for an attack on the
US and on Russia. Indeed, he had to encourage both events which of
course got thousands of Americans, and millions of Russians, killed.
Whereas you fellows acted more sensibly in the period 1805..1815. You
sent Wellington (another loose cannon) to Spain and to Portugal, which
(despite Sharpey, the British TV hero of the Peninsular campaign) was
a sideshow, like our Vietnam, except you won.
Napoleon was eliminated by Continental forces, the first time, at
Leipzig in 1814 and you fellows only provided transport, carrying the
monster to St Helena. It was only after his return that you engaged
on the Continent outside of Spain.
This was on the whole a sensible course of action.
Winston's refusal to accept the decision of 1940, on the other hand,
may have prevented Hitler's removal by internal revolution or the
Soviet Union, and it got my uncle killed.
I rather sound like Pat Buchanan and this is unfortunate. However,
air shows, and Hollywood movies, present WWII as inevitable and the
only response to Hitler's persecution of the Jews, when in fact the
Allies refused to bomb the death camps and the British refused Jews
enough permits to emigrate to Israel during the war and right after.
The implicit narrative is unidirectional and from my point of view
overidentifies British and American interests. I don't think it does
your nation any good to consider itself a subsidiary, and I miss good
old anti-British sentiment here in the States, which survives only in
bad neighborhoods of south Boston.
> >Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
> >containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
> >this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
> >despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
> >of lives.
> >
> I cannot see the logic of this at all.
>
It is a logic of narratives. I don't accept the presentation of WWII
as a crusade, a black and white struggle. Hitler was evil but for the
most part Germans were in the dark as to how evil he was.
> >Today, operations research is used to sneak in priorities (such as
> >military PR) without discussion.
> >
> >>
> >> > "it's morning in America." In air shows, the public is exposed to
> >> > risk because of the military's desire to keep the peace dividend for
> >> > itself.
> >>
> >> "Peace dividend" is another often-used phrase which has no real meaning.
> >> Just because our "main" adversary is no longer the threat it once was
> >> doesn't mean there are a lot of people out there who still want nothing else
> >> than to see America fall.
> >
> >Indeed there are, but eradicating this threat is (even according to VB
> >Cheney) not possible. That is, Cheney says that another terrorist
> >attack is a near-certainty. This raises a question: why fund a
> >massive defense establishment that cannot perform the stated mission,
> >of protecting the US "homeland?"
> >
> >Even in operations research terms this is nutz.
> >
> >Gee, maybe it's being funded in order to let some fatcats buy third
> >homes. Naw...
> >
> >I do know that this year, the Chicago Air show is being funded by
> >Shell Oil. I think I shall go for a run in Lincoln Park this weekend.
> > Hope I don't get killed.
>
> There's probably more chance of your getting mugged or hit by a car than
> there would be of you r being hurt at an airshow.
>
> What has made you so fanatically bitter and twisted about an essentially
> harmless (yes, harmless) activity as airshows, and the military?
Strange I should strike you as a fanatic when for years ordinary Brits
and Americans have questioned the need for an enormous military.
And, we now know from the Ukraine and Ramstein that air shows are NOT
harmless.
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > "Chris McMartin" <newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote in message
> news:<HPP39.252344$q53.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>
> > I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
> > Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
> > of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
> > that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
> > Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
> > boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
> > ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
> > fire.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
> > where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
> > America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
> > and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
> > to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
> > defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
> > of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
> > of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
> > at Pearl Harbor.
> >
>
> What total bullshit! Name ONE reponsible historian that states that! In the
John Lukacs. If memory serves, John Keegan, the title of whose book
The Second World War implies one event but who admits that after
Dunkirk, the British were TKOd.
> case that you mention, the fiction of the "defeat" of Britain, why not then
> use the German invasion of the USSR as the begining of your ficticious
> WW3-after all, the USSR did more than anyone else to defeat the Germans?
> Having said that, how can you attempt to make the claim that Britain was
> defeated? Did they surrender? Were they obeying German orders? Were they
> occupied? Did Britain continue making its own decisions, whatever the German
> wishes? Did they continue to resists, and have a government that was
> independent and resisting? By what possible definition can you state that
> Britain was defeated? You show a serious gap in your knowledge of WW2 with
> this assertion.
>
Britain's geopolitical position is that of an aircraft carrier. When
it gets whacked on the Continent it can go back home to rest up.
This means that it doesn't have to surrender, and Winston knew this.
Unlike the Germans, the British had the geographical luxury, which
they used, of not having to surrender because they could not be
overrun as long as the Royal Navy controlled the sea.
All's fair in love and war.
However, in the late 1940s, the delayed reality of loss came home to
roost when Britain pulled out of Greece and Palestine because it
physically was unable to maintain troops in either place. The US
filled this vacuum but had to make this move a crusade against
Communism because here in the US, we have to be sold on such
adventures. This resulted in military dictatorship in Greece and a
fifty year war on Arabs, and ultimately blowback in the form of Sep
11.
Winston's solution mortgaged the future by failing to admit defeat.
It was in a way rather heroic UNLESS you were so unfortunate as to get
in the way.
It should therefore be told in the history books as it really was,
just another chapter of successful barbarism.
History is a boneyard.
Keith Willshaw
> Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<YP9tHiAA...@ntlworld.com>...
> > In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> > Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
> > <snip stuff>
> > >Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
> > >enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
> > >but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
> > >would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
> > >
> > This is a strange statement for some one with such a good grasp of logic
> > and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
> > the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
> > cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
> > personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
> > uniforms behind the counters there.
>
> The problem is that the tail wags the dog and that a society cannot be
> sustained by its military. The history of Athens, as opposed to
> Sparta, makes this clear.
>
The history of societies that neglected their military shows
that they face only destruction and defeat. Who speaks
of the glory of Etruria today ?
> And, as it happens, the military in the USA at least has failed
> consistently to meet its economic promise of sustaining a healthy
> civilian economy.
>
The military has made no such promises,nor is that its
function. Rather it has a duty to protect the nation and
allow its citizens that exercise of freedom and safety
that they expect. It has done so rather successfully.
Ask the people of France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark
or Poland what happens when you have insufficient
military forces to deter attack.
Keith
Peter Twydell
>@ntlworld.com>...
>> In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
>> Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
>> <snip stuff>
>> >Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
>> >enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
>> >but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
>> >would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
>> >
>> This is a strange statement for some one with such a good grasp of logic
>> and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
>> the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
>> cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
>> personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
>> uniforms behind the counters there.
>
>The problem is that the tail wags the dog and that a society cannot be
>sustained by its military. The history of Athens, as opposed to
>Sparta, makes this clear.
>
some unpleasant neighbour will march in and take over. Ask Belgium,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Tibet, etc.
>And, as it happens, the military in the USA at least has failed
>consistently to meet its economic promise of sustaining a healthy
>civilian economy.
>
The Pentagon runs your economy? I didn't realise that. I bet the
Treasury in Whitehall didn't know the chaps over the road at the MoD
were their real bosses.
You are taking local events and erroneously extrapolating them onto a
national scale. Local economies on a small scale can boom or bust
without having an effect on the overall national picture.
>If one drives up to Waukegan, Illinois, past the Great Lakes Naval
>Training Station, one drives through a ghost town, with the shells of
>bars and laundromats that once catered to the swabbies. The owners of
>these establishments could not rely on the market but instead relied
>on training levels which were high only during WWII and the cold war.
>
There are also plenty of towns all over the western world where once the
coal and steel industries flourished, too. The market changes.
>Similarly, software engineers who choose defense careers all too often
>find no call for Ada or Jovial in the real world.
>
Horses for courses. Retraining a programmer shouldn't be too difficult.
I was trained on COBOL and RPG (not RPG II) and taught myself Basic
Assembler, FORTRAN and BASIC, plus a couple of query languages.
Retraining a programmer isn't like teaching a car mechanic to be a
nurse.
>Socialism, at least top-down, failed to deliver because, as Hayek
>points out in The Road to Serfdom, it cannot plan the needs of the
>market. Military socialism likewise has to (with ultimate
>irrationality) plan for the existence of a definable enemy, whether
>the Persians or the Commies and it loses its economic viability when
>the enemy does the disservice of fading away.
>
"Military socialism" is a new one on me.
There's often an unexpected enemy lurking. The UK armed forces were
trained largely to counter the WarPac countries, but up popped
Indonesia, Argentina and Iraq. Not to mention Egypt, but that was Eden's
idea, and not a very good one at that.
>And, in the military, the s*t flies downward. Flag rank officers
>retire to Scottsdale whereas ordinary swabbies retire with peanuts and
>Ada programmers retrain in Visual Basic.
>
Genarsl officers will always retire with better pensions than the
squaddies. It works the same way in industry, or hadn't you noticed? The
CEO gets a pension may times that of the mail clerk. That's life. Stop
picking on the armed forces as a special case. Anyway, anyone who joins
up will be aware of the situation at the start.
>>
>> >> mitigating factors are considered such as good weather, aircrew
>experience,
>> >> etc. If a particular event is calculated to carry too great a risk, the
>> >> routine is modified or canceled altogether.
>> >>
>> >> I can't speak for how risk is managed in other countries (or even in the
>> >> civilian sector, though I suspect they have their own analyses).
>> >
>> >I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
>> >shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
>> >cannot watch war shows.
>> >
>> Why not?
>
>Because I like hippie women, that's why not.
Hairy and unshaven? :-) Surely a hippy woman would be certain to let
you do your own thing? My wife "lets" me watch good channels like
Discovery, Discovery Wings, the History Channel, etc., and I "let" her
watch crap like tennis and Neighbours. Give and take. I understand ( I
haven't seen it) that any resemblance between "Pearl Harbor" and a war
movie is negligible, especially if factualness is taken into account.
>>
>> >I was watching the scene where Ben Affleck gets shot down over the
>> >Channel and I reflected that behind the scenes, behind the sacrifice
>> >of the old-time paladins of the RAF, men were "rationally" deciding
>> >that they could sacrifice so many planes, so many men, per mission.
>>
>> What's wrong with that? War is about killing people (that's one of the
>> factors that make it so unpleasant) , which means you lose somew of your
>> own too.
>
>That's Clauswitz, but Frederick the Great was a first-rate general
>whose strategy was based on maneuovre and minimizing casualties.
>
What have they got to do with it?
>In Frederick's strategy, you marched always with an eye to base of
>supply (for Frederick learned from tales of the Thirty Years War that
>an army becomes a dangerous mob when it doesn't eat) and you offered
>battle when you knew you had such overwhelming odds that (1) most of
>the the other chaps would see your massed grenadiers and run back to
>Mother and (2) only a few of the other chaps would fire and they'd
>mostly miss.
>
>A philosophical monarch, Frederick did indeed ask his men at
>Hohenfriedburger, "do you want to live forever", to which the only
>sensible reply would be "ja, mein Herr, very much, danke schon" :-)
>but this was at the crisis, for the best laid plans, etc. His
>philosophy was unlike that of Clauswitz in that he minimized force by
>diplomatic and military surprise.
>
Very commendable, but the fact remains that people die, and that has to
be taken into account.
Air shows would be pretty dull if we were subjected to a boring
philosophical tirade of this kind as we went through the gates. Most
"military enthusiasts" are aware of the horrors and tribulations of war
without you stuffing them down their throats.
People go to air shows to enjoy seeing the aircraft on the ground and in
the air, and to admire the pilots' skill. It's also rewarding to talk to
the crews as well.
One can reflect on war at other times.
>
> >
>> >Likewise, in the North Atlantic, the first "operations research"
>> >boffins at Bletchley park were "rationally" deciding that so many
>> >ships could go down, their crews to suffer agonizing death by water or
>> >fire.
>> >
>> I don't think OR was done at Bletchley Park. They had other things on
>> their minds.
>>
>> >There is nothing wrong with operations research EXCEPT at the point
>> >where it expands to fill the space available and becomes (as it did in
>> >America's Vietnam adventure) a substitute for discussions of meaning
>> >and goals and values. In Britain in 1940, operations research seems
>> >to have become a way for Britain to evade the fact that it was
>> >defeated by Germany, for many responsible historians deny the reality
>> >of a single "Second World War" and say instead that the total defeat
>> >of France and Britain was followed by a Third World War that started
>> >at Pearl Harbor.
>> >
>> I don't recall reading about our total defeat in 1940. OK, so we had to
>> leave France after the Germans had beaten the BEF, but Der Dicke and his
>> flyboys got a nasty shock over England from July to October. And the RN
>> was doing pretty well at Narvik.
>>
>You fellows had that certifiable lunatic Winston in charge, bad luck
>to you. I concede that Winston had a way with words (he was a journo
>during the Boer mess) but I feel Castlereagh, in 1805, did a better
>job than Winston in 1940.
>
Where do you get the idea that WSC was a "certifiable lunatic"? If he
was, then it's a bloody good job he was. Can't comment about
Castlereagh.
>For Churchill's bulldog resistance had to be conducted with a
>nonexistent army and a Royal Navy in the process of being defeated by
>the U-boats. In the interregnum he had to wait for an attack on the
>US and on Russia. Indeed, he had to encourage both events which of
>course got thousands of Americans, and millions of Russians, killed.
>
Oh purleeze. How many RN ships were sunk by U-boats by 1940? I can only
think of HMS Royal Oak and HMS Courageous. The RN were busy sinking
Kriegsmarine destroyers by the bucketful in Narvik, plus the cruisers
Koenigsberg (sunk by FAA Skuas) and Hipper (rammed and sunk by HMS
Glowworm), and poor Langsdorff's pocket battleship Graf Spee. Not bad
for a navy "in the process of being defeated by the U-boats". HMS
Glorious was sunk by surface forces, namely the battleships Scharnhorst
and Gneisenau.
The army was hardly non-existent. Only the BEF, not the entire army,
retreated from France, and the losses were mainly in equipment.
>Whereas you fellows acted more sensibly in the period 1805..1815. You
>sent Wellington (another loose cannon) to Spain and to Portugal, which
>(despite Sharpey, the British TV hero of the Peninsular campaign) was
>a sideshow, like our Vietnam, except you won.
>
Wellington a loose cannon? What the hell is that hippy chick giving you
to smoke? He was one of the most thorough and meticulous generals there
has ever been. He planned carefully and exploited his opponents'
weaknesses in a decisive and effective manner. He might not have hit it
off with the authorities in the Horse Guards at times, but that's
usually not a bad thing.
>Napoleon was eliminated by Continental forces, the first time, at
>Leipzig in 1814 and you fellows only provided transport, carrying the
>monster to St Helena. It was only after his return that you engaged
>on the Continent outside of Spain.
>
So Waterloo was insignificant?
We had no reason to engage on the continent outside Spain. Do you regard
the Peninsular War as a sideshow then? While Boney was traipsing about
Europe causing havoc, Old Nosey was bleeding the French Peninsular army
dry. Wellington comprehensively defeated the French in Spain and entered
France. Napoleon was deposed and first taken to Elba, after which he
raised an army and marched on Brussels. He went to St. Helena after
Waterloo, not before.
Your grasp of facts is somewhat tenuous, so it's no wonder your
conclusions are so illogical.
>This was on the whole a sensible course of action.
>
>Winston's refusal to accept the decision of 1940, on the other hand,
>may have prevented Hitler's removal by internal revolution or the
>Soviet Union, and it got my uncle killed.
>
This is speculation run riot. Sorry your uncle was killed, but so were a
lot of other people. Hardly WSC's fault. I saw an interview with a
German woman, recorded in 1945. She looked at the devastation in her
home town and said "If only Churchill had surrendered in 1940, none of
this would have happened".
>I rather sound like Pat Buchanan and this is unfortunate. However,
>air shows, and Hollywood movies, present WWII as inevitable and the
>only response to Hitler's persecution of the Jews, when in fact the
>Allies refused to bomb the death camps and the British refused Jews
>enough permits to emigrate to Israel during the war and right after.
>The implicit narrative is unidirectional and from my point of view
>overidentifies British and American interests. I don't think it does
>your nation any good to consider itself a subsidiary, and I miss good
>old anti-British sentiment here in the States, which survives only in
>bad neighborhoods of south Boston.
>
Anti-British sentiment was a good thing in your opinion?
>> >Operations research precluded discussion of alternatives INCLUDING
>> >containment of Hitler despite the fact that the English used exactly
>> >this policy successfully from 1795 to 1815 against Napoleon and
>> >despite the fact that containment of Hitler would have saved millions
>> >of lives.
>> >
>> I cannot see the logic of this at all.
>>
>It is a logic of narratives. I don't accept the presentation of WWII
>as a crusade, a black and white struggle. Hitler was evil but for the
>most part Germans were in the dark as to how evil he was.
>
The citizens of the USSR thought the sun shone out of Stalin's arse,
too. That didn't stop him or Hitler managing to cause the deaths of some
45 million people, directly and indirectly. Just because you don't know
about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
An enormous military has nothing to do with air shows. The Hendon
Pageants were tremendously popular in the twenties and thirties at a
time when Britain's armed forces were tiny. They are tiny again now, and
air shows attract more people than ever.
>And, we now know from the Ukraine and Ramstein that air shows are NOT
>harmless.
>>
I said "essentially harmless", meaning they do no harm to society, and
are not in themselves a harmful activity. Accidents can occur at any
type of public event, even sports matches. Look at the various stadium
accidents over the years. Would you ban soccer matches because of Ibrox
or Hillsborough? No, you learn from mistakes and take steps to increase
safety and reduce known sources of danger to a minimum.
>> Motor racing probably kills more people every year on average, and is
>> totally pointless when viewed objectively. It certainly has less point
>> than military airshows. (I like motor racing, and live not too far from
>> where Graham Hill, one of my boyhood heroes, is buried)
No comment?
I shall be going to an air show tomorrow which will feature over eighty
aircraft, nearly all of which have seen military service. There might
even be one or two I have flown in. I shall be walking around them and
perhaps even chatting to the pilots. I'm sure that I, my wife, and
hundreds of other people will have a most enjoyable day.
OK, so it's not a military show as such, but it's still aircraft that
were once paid for by the government and flown by military units in
several countries.
Alisha's Addict
<keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Here's an analogy. Suppose a "performance artist" wanted (in the
>> manner of the Mark Pauline's performance arts group Survival Research
>> Laboratories in San Francisco, in the 1980s) wanted to stage a
>> "happening" critical of industrial technology.
>>
>> In so doing, let us say that this group unleashed several
>> flame-throwing automated robots in an arena separate from the
>> audience, but, owing to a bug in the code, one of the robots reduced
>> the audience to Crispy Critters.
>>
>
>In fact of course both in the US and UK there ARE public shows
>involving flamethrowing robots i refer you to the shows
>Robot Wars and Robotica
Very, very good example ... The organisers of Robotwars were seriously
peeved when one competitor replaced their disc blade with a hardened
steel one. The organisers had banned hardened steel blades because
they are likely to shatter. Guess what happened ... Yep. First time
the blade hit the other robot at speed, bits were flying everywhere
.. No one was hurt though. I think they had the arena surrounded by
toughened glass by then.
The robot that had the hardened steel blade was disqualified. What
Robotwars have done is tighten up the rules considerably so that some
weapon types are banned, including guns, electricity, spears, flamers
(for competitors) etc ...
>> Note that even if the Ukraine spectators signed a waiver, which they
>> did not, a waiver would not have communicated the risk. The Ukraine
>> spectators were kept fully ignorant of the risk, in part because in
>> 1985, the predecessor state (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic)
>> probably did not tell its people about Ramstein, unless there was
>> propaganda benefit to be obtained. And today, with Ukraine wanting to
>> join the West, it is even less likely that Ukrainians were aware of
>> the risk.
>>
>
>Nonsense
>
>Human beings understand that things fall under the influence
>of gravity,
Are you sure ? We're talking common people here :-) Not engineers or
people who know stuff ... We're talking people who believe that
aircraft never come down out of the sky and that landing is the
easiest bit of any flight because it's the slowest ... :-)
<grin> Never believe the guy next to you has brains. Be surprised when
they do ... (especially when driving :-)
Pete Lilleyman
pete.li...@blueyonder.co.invalid.uk
(please remove ".invalid" to reply direct)
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<YP9tHiAA...@ntlworld.com>...
> > > In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> > > Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
> > > <snip stuff>
> > > >Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
> > > >enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
> > > >but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
> > > >would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
> > > >
> > > This is a strange statement for some one with such a good grasp of logic
> > > and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
> > > the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
> > > cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
> > > personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
> > > uniforms behind the counters there.
> >
> > The problem is that the tail wags the dog and that a society cannot be
> > sustained by its military. The history of Athens, as opposed to
> > Sparta, makes this clear.
> >
>
> The history of societies that neglected their military shows
> that they face only destruction and defeat. Who speaks
> of the glory of Etruria today ?
This wasn't true of many ancient civilizations.
Rome was a militarized society yet it could not defend itself against
the barbarian incursions. Ireland of the Dark Ages preserved itself
without being militarized. Minoan civilization was not militarized
yet survived hundreds of years.
The lesson is that military preparedness may or may not preserve a
society against pressures that appear to be military but in actuality
are demographic as were the barbarian invasions. No matter Rome's
legions, for the invading barbarians were in turn given no choice by
other barbarians to the north and east.
>
> > And, as it happens, the military in the USA at least has failed
> > consistently to meet its economic promise of sustaining a healthy
> > civilian economy.
> >
>
> The military has made no such promises,nor is that its
> function. Rather it has a duty to protect the nation and
> allow its citizens that exercise of freedom and safety
> that they expect. It has done so rather successfully.
>
> Ask the people of France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark
> or Poland what happens when you have insufficient
> military forces to deter attack.
France in 1940 had sufficient forces in the wrong place. The problem
is, you can pour resources into a military enthusiastically preparing
for the last war.
As to the other countries you enumerate, their demographics relative
to Germany made sufficient force buildup to resist Germany completely
impossible, which is why Poland required a Franco-British alliance.
Had such entente not been forthcoming, the Poles would have had to
surrender.
Any nation has to decide on a goal which represents its willingness to
define and to meet a maximum threat. Currently and since WWII the
United States strategic doctrine has been to be able to replicate its
WWII performance and fight two conflicts at the same time.
This goal was adopted during the time when Russia and China
represented credible threats but cannot be even discussed today, for
it is a convenient way for the military industrial complex to survive.
It is destabilizing and it leads to blowback as at Sep 11, and it has
distorted and stunted the US civilian economy, tending as it is
towards cradle to grave mininum wage.
The goal needs to be redefined as homeland defense. This will over
time free up an enormous amount of resources for human needs.
>
> Keith
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
> >Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<YP9tHiAAzJX9EwGa
> >@ntlworld.com>...
> >> In article <f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com>, Edward G.
> >> Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> <snip stuff>
> >> >Gee, you'll have to run that one by me again. In the absence of an
> >> >enemy a large Air Farce makes no sense. Sorry to diss your rice bowl,
> >> >but if we reduce the Air Farce to ceremonial flybys (no stunts) this
> >> >would free up billions of dollars for the civilian economy.
> >> >
> >> This is a strange statement for some one with such a good grasp of logic
> >> and maths to make. Who do you think makes the aircraft and equipment in
> >> the first place? Not military personnel. Who runs the stores, bars,
> >> cinemas, sports stadia, restaurants, drug stores, etc. that military
> >> personnel and their families use off base? Not too many blue or OD
> >> uniforms behind the counters there.
> >
> >The problem is that the tail wags the dog and that a society cannot be
> >sustained by its military. The history of Athens, as opposed to
> >Sparta, makes this clear.
> >
> What do you mean by "sustained"? If you don't have a credible military,
> some unpleasant neighbour will march in and take over. Ask Belgium,
> Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Tibet, etc.
Not one of these countries was physically able to mount a credible
defense based on its demographics relative to the aggressor, which is
why each one fought (and lost, owing to the short-sightedness and
selfishness of the world as a community) the battle diplomatically.
Poland was able to bring Britain and France to mount a second front,
but the French made the mistake of the Maginot line and Britain's army
was too small. Furthermore they waged the war at the wrong place and
time. Poland failed to secure its east against Russia, which had
since the 18th century designs on Poland independent of Communist
goals.
Poland militarized to the extent the Israelis militarized over the
past fifty years including a draft and as much mechanization as it
could afford; the horse cavalry in popular histories existed, but the
Germans and the Russians also used cavalry (as did some American
troops recently in Afghanistan.) What it needed and of course did not
get was a steady infusion of American high tech weaponry, as does
Israel today.
To equate these countries with the US and to use them as an excuse for
a bloated military is to be ignorant of maps.
No, in your country, the recruiting sergeant gets him drunk and gives
him a shilling, promising a red coat and buxom wenches and many
opportunities to loot and pillage. He then gets shipped off to some
place where he gets blown half to bits and then is sent to the end of
the parish to beg. That's the drill, isn't it :-).
Seriously, that's life in the UK and US. Other countries have lower
ratios of CEO and brass hat pay to that of grunts and squaddies, and
in other countries the squaddies don't have to sit around de campfire
and growl "that's life."
I can well imagine a world in which the front line was paid more than
the general because of its exposure to shot and shell. To be a
commander you'd have to be like Plato's philosopher-king, or like
Frederick the Great who apart from Sans Souci lived simply in an old
grey coat. You'd have to want to be a commander.
> >>
> >> >> mitigating factors are considered such as good weather, aircrew
> experience,
> >> >> etc. If a particular event is calculated to carry too great a risk, the
> >> >> routine is modified or canceled altogether.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't speak for how risk is managed in other countries (or even in the
> >> >> civilian sector, though I suspect they have their own analyses).
> >> >
> >> >I was watching Pearl Harbor on my VCR for I am a guy and I watch war
> >> >shows. One of the problems in being in a relationship is that you
> >> >cannot watch war shows.
> >> >
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Because I like hippie women, that's why not.
>
> Hairy and unshaven? :-) Surely a hippy woman would be certain to let
> you do your own thing? My wife "lets" me watch good channels like
> Discovery, Discovery Wings, the History Channel, etc., and I "let" her
> watch crap like tennis and Neighbours. Give and take. I understand ( I
> haven't seen it) that any resemblance between "Pearl Harbor" and a war
> movie is negligible, especially if factualness is taken into account.
It's really bad. The Thin Red Line is much better.
Hey, maybe that's what I should do. Turn people away in droves...
> "military enthusiasts" are aware of the horrors and tribulations of war
> without you stuffing them down their throats.
Many are. The old staff of Simulations Publications in New York City
in the 1970s were, perhaps because in that distant time, military
gaming was hard work for both designer and player.
The designer had to carefully design the playing chits and with equal
diligence type the instructions, and then playtest the game
extensively. The players had to read the instructions carefully and
set up at times for hours.
Indeed, I stopped playing these kinds of simulations when my kids were
born as a total waste of time and because the kids would tear them
apart.
Today, Medal of Honor's very ease of set up may desensitize its
players to what is really happening. Whereas setting up a careful
German offensive in the latter half of Simulations Publications'
(relatively simple) WWI game, only to have a "black day" of your
German army teaches more about the folly of war, for the counters were
so simple, and so nonpictorial, that they did not represent
themselves, but reality. Whereas the figures in Medal of Honor seem
to represent only themselves.
Many people thought so in the 1930s. He hadn't done a very good job
during WWI as First Sea Lord and he was regarded as a scribbler. Now,
DeGaulle was regarded in the same light, but Churchill made several
serious mistakes during WWII, among them the Dieppe raid and the
Italian front. His "greatness" was in reality the greatness of
ordinary people and he contributed no innovative thinking as did
DeGaulle.
He also seems to have had quite a problem with the sauce and during
his final tenure as Prime Minister it impacted his judgement and
performance. He conducted much of his work in the early 1950s from
bed and failed to check the succession of a seriously ill man, Anthony
Eden, to the office. This resulted in Suez and the destruction of the
Empire.
>
> >For Churchill's bulldog resistance had to be conducted with a
> >nonexistent army and a Royal Navy in the process of being defeated by
> >the U-boats. In the interregnum he had to wait for an attack on the
> >US and on Russia. Indeed, he had to encourage both events which of
> >course got thousands of Americans, and millions of Russians, killed.
> >
> Oh purleeze. How many RN ships were sunk by U-boats by 1940? I can only
> think of HMS Royal Oak and HMS Courageous. The RN were busy sinking
> Kriegsmarine destroyers by the bucketful in Narvik, plus the cruisers
> Koenigsberg (sunk by FAA Skuas) and Hipper (rammed and sunk by HMS
> Glowworm), and poor Langsdorff's pocket battleship Graf Spee. Not bad
> for a navy "in the process of being defeated by the U-boats". HMS
> Glorious was sunk by surface forces, namely the battleships Scharnhorst
> and Gneisenau.
Thanks for the info, but the UBoats were winning as a consequence of
attacks, not on capital ships but on merchant ships. Were it not for
the US Navy, this fight might well have been lost and Britain starved
into submission.
> The army was hardly non-existent. Only the BEF, not the entire army,
> retreated from France, and the losses were mainly in equipment.
>
> >Whereas you fellows acted more sensibly in the period 1805..1815. You
> >sent Wellington (another loose cannon) to Spain and to Portugal, which
> >(despite Sharpey, the British TV hero of the Peninsular campaign) was
> >a sideshow, like our Vietnam, except you won.
> >
> Wellington a loose cannon? What the hell is that hippy chick giving you
> to smoke? He was one of the most thorough and meticulous generals there
> has ever been. He planned carefully and exploited his opponents'
> weaknesses in a decisive and effective manner. He might not have hit it
> off with the authorities in the Horse Guards at times, but that's
> usually not a bad thing.
I like old hooky as well as the next man, but view his rise as
luck...being in the right place at the right time, and also surviving
pot-shots and cannon-balls.
Sir John Moore, apart from a very fine poem, is unremembered except by
professionals, one of whom (Keegan, if memory serves) calls Sir John
the founder of the modern British Army. But Sir John had the bad luck
to fall at Corunna, and unlike Wolfe at Quebec, Benjamin West wasn't
hanging around the shop with a couple of Indians willing to look like
meditative Greeks in the conventions of the time.
[The moral must be, boot the poets and not the painters out of the
baggage train, and always keep the wenches: cf. the Sharpey series on
your "telly."]
A deconstructive, Froggy military history would not describe Wellie's
conduct at Waterloo as genius, so much as the deft application of the
old Prussian blue at the crisis. Forming square is not like inventing
calculus or even painting a picture.
Wellie was fortunate along with the mythical Sharpe to be remanded to
Spain and especially to Portugal, for ever since John of Gaunt, the
Portuguese and the British have had a special affection based for each
other, based if memory serves on the fact that Edward III (?) went on
Crusade to the Holy Land but only got as far as the Tagus. During a
drunken blowout at the King's castle (his name was something like
Pedro the Fat) Edward agreed that the local Moors needed sorting out
and did so. Ever after, the portogoosers just loved the limeys and
welcomed Wellie, Sharpie, and Sir John with open arms as did the
Spaniards. The Spaniards couldn't stand each other and were in the
process of tearing each other apart when the French showed up, and,
like most dysfunctional families, the Spaniards hated the interloper
even more.
Wellie survived this mess and learned a thing or two. He was
unleashed on Boney at the right time but even old Wellie said it were
a near run thing and have another drink on me in honor of these old
commanders.
>
> >Napoleon was eliminated by Continental forces, the first time, at
> >Leipzig in 1814 and you fellows only provided transport, carrying the
> >monster to St Helena. It was only after his return that you engaged
> >on the Continent outside of Spain.
> >
> So Waterloo was insignificant?
The barman at the internet cafe is saying "time, gentlemen."
Keith Willshaw
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.02081...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The history of societies that neglected their military shows
> > that they face only destruction and defeat. Who speaks
> > of the glory of Etruria today ?
>
> This wasn't true of many ancient civilizations.
>
Actually it was. The Romans subsumed or destroyed dozens
of cultures including those of Greece, Carthage, Gaul and Judea
> Rome was a militarized society yet it could not defend itself against
> the barbarian incursions. Ireland of the Dark Ages preserved itself
> without being militarized. Minoan civilization was not militarized
> yet survived hundreds of years.
>
The Romans fell for a number of complex reasons
among which was the increasing reluctance of their
citizenry to fight in their own defence and a consequent
reliance on mercenaries.
The Minoans were HIGHLY militarised levying tribute from
cultures across the Mediterranean as was reported in
Greek oral traditional history such as Theseus and the Minotaur.
The thalassocracy of Minos was fatally weakened by the
volcanic eruption of Thera and invasion by mainland Greeks
> The lesson is that military preparedness may or may not preserve a
> society against pressures that appear to be military but in actuality
> are demographic as were the barbarian invasions. No matter Rome's
> legions, for the invading barbarians were in turn given no choice by
> other barbarians to the north and east.
>
In fact of course the Eastern Empire which had not fatally
diluted its Legions with mercenaries recruited from the
invaders wouldlast another 1000 years
> >
> > > And, as it happens, the military in the USA at least has failed
> > > consistently to meet its economic promise of sustaining a healthy
> > > civilian economy.
> > >
> >
> > The military has made no such promises,nor is that its
> > function. Rather it has a duty to protect the nation and
> > allow its citizens that exercise of freedom and safety
> > that they expect. It has done so rather successfully.
> >
> > Ask the people of France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark
> > or Poland what happens when you have insufficient
> > military forces to deter attack.
>
> France in 1940 had sufficient forces in the wrong place. The problem
> is, you can pour resources into a military enthusiastically preparing
> for the last war.
>
Correct , which means constant vigilance is an essential
for independence and freedon
> As to the other countries you enumerate, their demographics relative
> to Germany made sufficient force buildup to resist Germany completely
> impossible, which is why Poland required a Franco-British alliance.
> Had such entente not been forthcoming, the Poles would have had to
> surrender.
>
Its an object lesson in military unpreparedness. Most of these
nations had been historically neutral and had small part time
armies which were overrun in days. Its an interesting reflection
that the 2 neutral countires with relatively large well equipped armies,
Sweden and Switzerland were not invaded.
> Any nation has to decide on a goal which represents its willingness to
> define and to meet a maximum threat. Currently and since WWII the
> United States strategic doctrine has been to be able to replicate its
> WWII performance and fight two conflicts at the same time.
>
Because the pre WW2 doctrine failed dismally
> This goal was adopted during the time when Russia and China
> represented credible threats but cannot be even discussed today, for
> it is a convenient way for the military industrial complex to survive.
> It is destabilizing and it leads to blowback as at Sep 11, and it has
> distorted and stunted the US civilian economy, tending as it is
> towards cradle to grave mininum wage.
>
> The goal needs to be redefined as homeland defense. This will over
> time free up an enormous amount of resources for human needs.
Fighting on your own soil is not a good idea
Ask the Russians
Keith
Chris McMartin
> > The goal needs to be redefined as homeland defense. This will over
> > time free up an enormous amount of resources for human needs.
>
> Fighting on your own soil is not a good idea
Neither is the isolationism implied by converting entirely to "homeland
defense."
After all the interesting twists and turns in this thread, it boils down to
the simple fact that Mr. Nilges doesn't like airshows, I and many others do,
and we're going off on all sorts of tangents to rationalize what is
essentially a personal preference.
Edward G. Nilges
Today, this is a popular thing to say when people lose arguments.
They appeal to a gaseous tolerance as a *deus ex machina*.
The problem, of course, is that your right to swimg your fist starts
where my nose begins, and, as I have showed, air shows create noise
pollution, pose hazards which though statistically small are out of
proportion to the public benefit, and promote an unthinking warlike
psychology which means that both Eastern European countries like the
Ukraine and the United States are behind the truly developed world in
metrics including infant mortality, and the life expectancy of
significant segments of the population.
Furthermore, air shows and their attendees are significantly
intolerant of opposing views and do not regard their patriotism as a
personal preference. Many of their attendees in North Carolina
probably support the clowns at the University of North Carolina who
oppose the assignment of the Koran to UNC frosh and many supported
Sen. Helms intolerance.
But to believe at any level that these discussions are a matter of
taste is to install at some level a nihilistic module even in the
psychology of people who regard themselves as Christians and as
patriots. This module is activated when they lose arguments with the
Other and takes the form of an appeal to a tolerance which they
themselves do not exercise.
The module ultimately becomes a sort of computer virus of the human
mind, for these Christian patrtiots can use it to excuse bad behavior
at various blow-outs and festivals and Lynch law, conveniently enough.
Chris McMartin
> > After all the interesting twists and turns in this thread, it boils down
to
> > the simple fact that Mr. Nilges doesn't like airshows, I and many others
do,
> > and we're going off on all sorts of tangents to rationalize what is
> > essentially a personal preference.
>
> Today, this is a popular thing to say when people lose arguments.
Who lost? I said you don't like airshows and I do. I said WE (myself
included) are going off on all sorts of tangents. Those tangents don't
change our overall viewpoints. With which part of this do you disagree?
> where my nose begins, and, as I have showed,
You haven't shown your following points. 2 of your 3 points are statements
of opinion, not fact.
>air shows create noise
> pollution,
OK. So does everyday air travel, cars, rock music, etc.
>pose hazards which though statistically small are out of
> proportion to the public benefit,
Opinion.
>and promote an unthinking warlike
> psychology
Whoa, very much opinion!
> Furthermore, air shows and their attendees are significantly
> intolerant of opposing views and do not regard their patriotism as a
> personal preference.
Unsubstantiated opinion. You could've at least made your point somewhat
believable by inserting "some" or even "many" before "air shows."
Many of their attendees in North Carolina
> probably support the clowns at the University of North Carolina who
> oppose the assignment of the Koran to UNC frosh
Why shouldn't I or anyone else oppose the assignment of the Koran (or the
Bible) at a state-funded school?
> patriots. This module is activated when they lose arguments with the
> Other and takes the form of an appeal to a tolerance which they
> themselves do not exercise.
Misuse (or misunderstanding) of the word 'tolerance.' I TOLERATE the fact
that you have stated your opinion, inasmuch as I think your opinions are
groundless. I TOLERATE your statements, but I don't have to AGREE with
them. I realize the feeling is mutual.
Edward G. Nilges
> "Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dda427.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > > After all the interesting twists and turns in this thread, it boils down
> to
> > > the simple fact that Mr. Nilges doesn't like airshows, I and many others
> do,
> > > and we're going off on all sorts of tangents to rationalize what is
> > > essentially a personal preference.
> >
> > Today, this is a popular thing to say when people lose arguments.
>
> Who lost? I said you don't like airshows and I do. I said WE (myself
> included) are going off on all sorts of tangents. Those tangents don't
> change our overall viewpoints. With which part of this do you disagree?
Not quite that simple. In actuality, and as I have shown, I am drawn
towards military affairs, I like and admire military men and women,
and I am interested in military aviation.
For example, I ran the Moffett Field NAS 10K run in 1985 and later
toured one of the Orion craft that does sub-chasing. Just last year I
toured the North Carolina which is moored in Wilmington. I was also
one of the first 20 or so finishers of the Marine Corps 10K based on
Treasure Island in the SF Bay.
I also watch war movies.
Therefore, my aversion for the Chicago air show is NOT a matter of
taste. It's instead a conclusion that brushes against a grain in
which (despite my inclinations) I conclude that in a logic informed by
feeling, air shows should not be conducted.
>
> > where my nose begins, and, as I have showed,
>
> You haven't shown your following points. 2 of your 3 points are statements
> of opinion, not fact.
An opinion that has been justified by argument you are pleased to call
a tangent becomes itself a fact.
>
> >air shows create noise
> > pollution,
>
> OK. So does everyday air travel, cars, rock music, etc.
You failed to see that the harmful effect is balanced in your example
by a benefit other than the meaningless benefit of PR to the very
sponsor of the event.
We are in other words beguiled into loving a narcissist in the form of
a narcissistic institution which cannot gratify or love us in return
but only desires to grow. Our relationship with the military mirrors
women's relationship to men who demand but cannot give love.
>
> >pose hazards which though statistically small are out of
> > proportion to the public benefit,
>
> Opinion.
How does an advanced fighter benefit me in the slightest?
>
> >and promote an unthinking warlike
> > psychology
>
> Whoa, very much opinion!
No, very much a subconscious truth which is no longer sayable because
the fortunes of wealthy men depend on preserving a military-industrial
complex.
>
> > Furthermore, air shows and their attendees are significantly
> > intolerant of opposing views and do not regard their patriotism as a
> > personal preference.
>
> Unsubstantiated opinion. You could've at least made your point somewhat
> believable by inserting "some" or even "many" before "air shows."
>
> Many of their attendees in North Carolina
> > probably support the clowns at the University of North Carolina who
> > oppose the assignment of the Koran to UNC frosh
>
> Why shouldn't I or anyone else oppose the assignment of the Koran (or the
> Bible) at a state-funded school?
Because this would prevent the students from reading ANY literature
that was in ANY way connected with an organized or even unorganized
religion. The First amendment to the US Constitution does NOT mean
that the UNC can't assign the Koran...any more that it was ever
interpreted as meaning that Methodists and others could not found
universities at which the first major, in the 19th century, was
divinity.
This is libertarianism at its most idiotic, for it seeks, literally, a
zone that does not exist between the morons who oppose the assignment
of the Koran and attend stock-car races, and the UNC faculty, by
trying, idiotically, to code the assignment of the Koran as an
establishment of religion...when it is clear that the faculty, who
assigned the Koran, are Christian or agnostic and assigned it
primarily as literature and as culture.
In this idiotic libertarianism, political concepts become silly
counters in a fool's game.
I regard it as an intermediate phase between urbanization and a
postmodern phenomemon: regressed urbanization wherein urban dwellers
(including people in the Durham/Chapel Hill cities) REGRESS under
economic pressure to hill folk, while trying through "libertarianism"
to maintain the image of coherence.
Thus they say we must as *bien pensants* tolerate the deliberate
endangerment of Dale Earnhardt, air shows, and assaults on academic
freedom when in fact tha managers of car races, military brass and
fundamentalists do not subscribe to the ground rules of tolerance.
Stanley Fish, a Duke English prof for many years who's fled to
Chicago, saw this process first hand and showed how the "libertarian"
stance creates intolerance...by tolerating it.
>
> > patriots. This module is activated when they lose arguments with the
> > Other and takes the form of an appeal to a tolerance which they
> > themselves do not exercise.
>
> Misuse (or misunderstanding) of the word 'tolerance.' I TOLERATE the fact
> that you have stated your opinion, inasmuch as I think your opinions are
> groundless. I TOLERATE your statements, but I don't have to AGREE with
> them. I realize the feeling is mutual.
The problem is that you get money and a permit for air shows in Grant
Park whereas a demonstration for peace and jobs does not.
The problem is that homeless people, even when sober and drug-free,
are not permitted a zone of Grant Park in which they can pitch tents
and sleep even if they obey the rules.
This isn't a matter of opinion at all, since after fifty years in
which my country has wasted money and lives, one has, in my country,
no health insurance independent of a job DESPITE the fact that we
regard ourselves as part of the developed world. In a few months, the
only way of getting around the States may be a choice between
overpriced air travel and travel by bus since the Bush administration
refuses to fund Amtrak.
This will trap working people in a 19th century economy, since only
the railroad allowed Black people to come North and escape feudal
conditions.
People in South Dakota will have to drive or walk to Fargo from all
over the state for jobs as rich clowns zip overhead, exacerbating the
destruction of a middle class. This will create a Latin American
style country in which elections will have to be manipulated to avoid
the election of President Nader or even President Hilary Clinton in
2004.
Edward G. Nilges
By the way, Peter, here is the poem I mentioned about your boy Sir
John Moore who was just a good a man as Wellie but had a spot of bad
luck.
A deconstructive reading of military history teaches us that military
greatness is both real and unknowable. Sir John conducted a brilliant
retreat from Salamanca which unlike Dunkirk was not chosen for
celebration.
This shows that the military virtues are real but also that we can
never know, when we celebrate a Churchill or a Wellington, that the
laurels are deserved. Best in my view to end war for the very reason
that the horizon of death hides greatness in an unmarked Cenotaph.
And best to stay away from any air show or parade that tempts children
to desparate glory.
NOT a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried.
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning,
By the struggling moonbeam's misty light
And the lanthorn dimly burning.
No useless coffin enclosed his breast,
Not in sheet or in shroud we wound him;
But he lay like a warrior taking his rest
With his martial cloak around him.
Few and short were the prayers we said,
And we spoke not a word of sorrow;
But we steadfastly gazed on the face that was dead,
And we bitterly thought of the morrow.
We thought, as we hollow'd his narrow bed
And smooth'd down his lonely pillow,
That the foe and the stranger would tread o'er his head,
And we far away on the billow!
Lightly they'll talk of the spirit that 's gone,
And o'er his cold ashes upbraid him—
But little he'll reck, if they let him sleep on
In the grave where a Briton has laid him.
But half of our heavy task was done
When the clock struck the hour for retiring;
And we heard the distant and random gun
That the foe was sullenly firing.
Slowly and sadly we laid him down,
From the field of his fame fresh and gory;
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone,
But we left him alone with his glory.
Edward G. Nilges
"On the Burial of Sir John Moore, after Corunna", and the Gettysburg
Address, have a dignity lacking in military airshows and the rage in
my country to build sarcophagi honoring the fallen of WWII.
A year ago, George Bush saw fit at the National Cathedral to talk a
lot about God but Abe Lincoln did not speak of religion and evilduuers
and God at Gettysburg. Nor did Quiller Couch blather on about King
and Country.
"We carved not a line, we raised not a stone." Here in the States we
rage about monuments to the dead of September 11 while our military in
an undocumented fashion creates the absolute preconditions for future
blow-back.
"We can not hallow this ground." People forget that men who actually
served, people like your George MacDonald Fraser, would have us hallow
this ground by making sure that the kids get an education and a decent
job, not at best a shot at the British Army or a career as a soccer
yobboe, refighting Salamanca in Spanish cafes.
The hell with Churchill. He got my uncle killed in Italy. And up
with the grey and colorless men, from Omar Bradley to Sir John Moore,
who did their job and tried to minimize the damage to the men.
Of course, it is paradoxical that "we left him alone with his glory"
brings itself a bit of old glory to the poem, near unsayable, for the
same literary reason that Lincoln said we can not hallow.
But there is a moral difference between celebrating Sir John and the
Union dead quietly and fat people cheering the Blue Angels (or the
Life Guards) and yelling "nuke Iraq" (or screw the Argentines.) If
this is elitism, then it is elitism with a reason, with a cause, with
a rocket up its ass and a mission.
Chris McMartin
news:f5dda427.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > included) are going off on all sorts of tangents. Those tangents don't
> > change our overall viewpoints. With which part of this do you disagree?
>
> Not quite that simple.
Neither are your assertions that our military, or involvement on the global
stage, is unnecessary.
> > You haven't shown your following points. 2 of your 3 points are
statements
> > of opinion, not fact.
>
> An opinion that has been justified by argument you are pleased to call
> a tangent becomes itself a fact.
It's justified to YOUR satisfaction, not mine.
> > OK. So does everyday air travel, cars, rock music, etc.
>
> You failed to see that the harmful effect is balanced in your example
> by a benefit other than the meaningless benefit of PR to the very
> sponsor of the event.
Similarly, you fail to see the benefits offered by air shows, and yes, they
do exist. You have decided that PR is a "meaningless benefit," but I know a
lot of folks, both in the military and the private sector, that beg to
differ. If PR was meaningless, we wouldn't have multimillion-dollar Super
Bowl ads (military included).
> We are in other words beguiled into loving a narcissist in the form of
> a narcissistic institution which cannot gratify or love us in return
> but only desires to grow.
Believe me, nothing would make me happier than if there WASN'T a need for me
to risk my life if necessary to preserve our country and our way of life.
Sadly, many others in the world don't agree with many American ideals, and
want to cause harm to our people to deny us those ideals.
We get what we pay for. The military doesn't desire to grow for its own
sake; many weapons systems refused by the military are forced upon us by
Congressmen whose constituents run the factories. We the people elect those
officials.
> Our relationship with the military mirrors
> women's relationship to men who demand but cannot give love.
You have America confused with countries still requiring mandatory military
service. No one says you HAVE to like the military. Having first-hand
experience, there are many aspects _I_ don't like about the military (like
any bureaucracy, there is a lot of waste, for example). Even if you HATE
the military and demonstrate against it regularly, the very thing reviled
will still defend your right to do so if the need arises.
> How does an advanced fighter benefit me in the slightest?
I'm not going to be able to explain that succinctly here. I suggest
starting another thread with this as the subject line--although seeing how
I'm posting solely from rec.aviation.military, the responses will be
understandably skewed.
> > >and promote an unthinking warlike
> > > psychology
> >
> > Whoa, very much opinion!
>
> No, very much a subconscious truth which is no longer sayable because
> the fortunes of wealthy men depend on preserving a military-industrial
> complex.
To whom do you attribute the "unthinking warlike psychology?" I for one, as
a person on the "front lines," do not yearn for battle, with the chance of
leaving my wife and child husband/fatherless. I assume you're talking about
the senior civilian leadership of our country.
> > Why shouldn't I or anyone else oppose the assignment of the Koran (or
the
> > Bible) at a state-funded school?
>
> Because this would prevent the students from reading ANY literature
> that was in ANY way connected with an organized or even unorganized
> religion.
There are plenty of private institutions where those so inclined can choose
to go. Yes, it is a choice, based on a multitude of other choices made
throughout the basic education years.
> The First amendment to the US Constitution does NOT mean
> that the UNC can't assign the Koran...
But it means the government can't give funds to a Christian or Muslim soup
kitchen? The Koran or the Bible weren't written as the "feel-good novels of
the year." Their specific purpose is to reveal the word of God.
> This is libertarianism at its most idiotic, for it seeks, literally, a
> zone that does not exist between the morons who oppose the assignment
> of the Koran and attend stock-car races
By the same token, this statement smacks of academic elitism. Only "morons"
attend stock-car races, it appears.
> (including people in the Durham/Chapel Hill cities) REGRESS under
> economic pressure to hill folk,
This appears to be more academic elitism. You seem to have a problem with
people who don't enjoy the urban lifestyle.
> The problem is that you get money and a permit for air shows in Grant
> Park whereas a demonstration for peace and jobs does not.
I'm unfamiliar with how the Grant Park air show works. I can't see how the
local government PAYS a private entity to put on an air show--I would think
it'd be the other way around--i.e. the permit costs money.
If you can't get a permit to peacably assemble in a public facility, then I
agree that is wrong.
> This isn't a matter of opinion at all, since after fifty years in
> which my country has wasted money and lives, one has, in my country,
> no health insurance independent of a job DESPITE the fact that we
> regard ourselves as part of the developed world.
Yet many illegal immigrants come here to give birth, and they often do it in
our hospitals, with no insurance.
>In a few months, the
> only way of getting around the States may be a choice between
> overpriced air travel and travel by bus since the Bush administration
> refuses to fund Amtrak.
I'm willing to bet this is a little far-fetched. You get all this from an
air show crash half a world away?
> This will trap working people in a 19th century economy, since only
> the railroad allowed Black people to come North and escape feudal
> conditions.
Are you talking about the Underground Railroad, which was neither
underground nor a railroad? :)
> People in South Dakota will have to drive or walk to Fargo from all
> over the state for jobs as rich clowns zip overhead, exacerbating the
> destruction of a middle class.
I'm on the edge of my seat! But I'll leave the further discussion of this
paragraph to talk.politics, where it would seem more appropriate, but in
which you're getting me interested!
Peter Twydell
>No, in your country, the recruiting sergeant gets him drunk and gives
>him a shilling, promising a red coat and buxom wenches and many
>opportunities to loot and pillage. He then gets shipped off to some
>place where he gets blown half to bits and then is sent to the end of
>the parish to beg. That's the drill, isn't it :-).
>
Ho, Ho, very funny.
>Seriously, that's life in the UK and US. Other countries have lower
>ratios of CEO and brass hat pay to that of grunts and squaddies, and
>in other countries the squaddies don't have to sit around de campfire
>and growl "that's life."
>
So what?
>I can well imagine a world in which the front line was paid more than
>the general because of its exposure to shot and shell. To be a
>commander you'd have to be like Plato's philosopher-king, or like
>Frederick the Great who apart from Sans Souci lived simply in an old
>grey coat. You'd have to want to be a commander.
<snip>
>> "military enthusiasts" are aware of the horrors and tribulations of war
>> without you stuffing them down their throats.
>
>Many are. The old staff of Simulations Publications in New York City
>in the 1970s were, perhaps because in that distant time, military
>gaming was hard work for both designer and player.
>
>The designer had to carefully design the playing chits and with equal
>diligence type the instructions, and then playtest the game
>extensively. The players had to read the instructions carefully and
>set up at times for hours.
>
>Indeed, I stopped playing these kinds of simulations when my kids were
>born as a total waste of time and because the kids would tear them
>apart.
>
>Today, Medal of Honor's very ease of set up may desensitize its
>players to what is really happening. Whereas setting up a careful
>German offensive in the latter half of Simulations Publications'
>(relatively simple) WWI game, only to have a "black day" of your
>German army teaches more about the folly of war, for the counters were
>so simple, and so nonpictorial, that they did not represent
>themselves, but reality. Whereas the figures in Medal of Honor seem
>to represent only themselves.
>
What is the relevance of this rambling?
WSC wasn't a military commander in the sense that De Gaulle was. We
didn't need him to be an innovative thinker, just lead and manage the
brains he had gathered to advise him. Was FDR an innovative thinker?
>He also seems to have had quite a problem with the sauce and during
>his final tenure as Prime Minister it impacted his judgement and
>performance. He conducted much of his work in the early 1950s from
>bed and failed to check the succession of a seriously ill man, Anthony
>Eden, to the office. This resulted in Suez and the destruction of the
>Empire.
>
By the time he started his last term as PM he was 77 years old! I know
he did drink quite a bit, but was it really a problem?
>>
>> >For Churchill's bulldog resistance had to be conducted with a
>> >nonexistent army and a Royal Navy in the process of being defeated by
>> >the U-boats. In the interregnum he had to wait for an attack on the
>> >US and on Russia. Indeed, he had to encourage both events which of
>> >course got thousands of Americans, and millions of Russians, killed.
>> >
>> Oh purleeze. How many RN ships were sunk by U-boats by 1940? I can only
>> think of HMS Royal Oak and HMS Courageous. The RN were busy sinking
>> Kriegsmarine destroyers by the bucketful in Narvik, plus the cruisers
>> Koenigsberg (sunk by FAA Skuas) and Hipper (rammed and sunk by HMS
>> Glowworm), and poor Langsdorff's pocket battleship Graf Spee. Not bad
>> for a navy "in the process of being defeated by the U-boats". HMS
>> Glorious was sunk by surface forces, namely the battleships Scharnhorst
>> and Gneisenau.
>
>Thanks for the info, but the UBoats were winning as a consequence of
>attacks, not on capital ships but on merchant ships. Were it not for
>the US Navy, this fight might well have been lost and Britain starved
>into submission.
>
But you said the RN was being defeated by the U-boats. You said nothing
about merchant ships. Make your mind up.
>> The army was hardly non-existent. Only the BEF, not the entire army,
>> retreated from France, and the losses were mainly in equipment.
>>
>> >Whereas you fellows acted more sensibly in the period 1805..1815. You
>> >sent Wellington (another loose cannon) to Spain and to Portugal, which
>> >(despite Sharpey, the British TV hero of the Peninsular campaign) was
>> >a sideshow, like our Vietnam, except you won.
>> >
>> Wellington a loose cannon? What the hell is that hippy chick giving you
>> to smoke? He was one of the most thorough and meticulous generals there
>> has ever been. He planned carefully and exploited his opponents'
>> weaknesses in a decisive and effective manner. He might not have hit it
>> off with the authorities in the Horse Guards at times, but that's
>> usually not a bad thing.
>
>I like old hooky as well as the next man, but view his rise as
>luck...being in the right place at the right time, and also surviving
>pot-shots and cannon-balls.
>
>Sir John Moore, apart from a very fine poem, is unremembered except by
>professionals, one of whom (Keegan, if memory serves) calls Sir John
>the founder of the modern British Army. But Sir John had the bad luck
>to fall at Corunna, and unlike Wolfe at Quebec, Benjamin West wasn't
>hanging around the shop with a couple of Indians willing to look like
>meditative Greeks in the conventions of the time.
>
>[The moral must be, boot the poets and not the painters out of the
>baggage train, and always keep the wenches: cf. the Sharpey series on
>your "telly."]
>
Do you HAVE to sneer all the time? Belittling things over this side of
the Atlantic (see your comments on recruiting) does nothing to advance
any logical arguments you might have.
<snip more rambling>
It looks as if we will just have to continue to disagree.
Peter Twydell
Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> writes
>spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.0208192
>002.51...@posting.google.com>...
>> Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<P+D4rJA5uoX9Ew
>2...@ntlworld.com>...
>
>By the way, Peter, here is the poem I mentioned about your boy Sir
>John Moore who was just a good a man as Wellie but had a spot of bad
>luck.
>
>A deconstructive reading of military history teaches us that military
>greatness is both real and unknowable. Sir John conducted a brilliant
>retreat from Salamanca which unlike Dunkirk was not chosen for
>celebration.
>
>This shows that the military virtues are real but also that we can
>never know, when we celebrate a Churchill or a Wellington, that the
>laurels are deserved. Best in my view to end war for the very reason
>that the horizon of death hides greatness in an unmarked Cenotaph.
>
>And best to stay away from any air show or parade that tempts children
>to desparate glory.
>
>
>NOT a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
> As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
>
Interesting. I first encountered this work at the age of 11. We were
asked to select a poem from a text book, and I picked this one. The
English teacher (a woman) didn't exactly ridicule me, but was puzzled,
ISTR. All the others picked what I regarded at the time as soppy stuff
about daffodils and puppy dogs and the like. It was the first time I
encountered the sadness and despair that accompanies victory.
I still can't see how you equate the desperation and misery of war with
the excitement of airshows. Chacun a son goût, I suppose.
Edward G. Nilges
Hate to say it, but abandoning the draft in the USA was a bad idea.
It's created an overprofessionalized military which could be used in a
coup d'etat because its members are overwhelmingly conservative.
It's also placed operational emphasis on *stosstruppen* (a WWI German
term for special units trained for extreme combat). Men permanently
stunted by service in *stosstruppen* like the Navy Seals become
politicians with a Fascist outlook (like Jesse Ventura) because they
were never "grunts." It appears that in Afghanistan the war was
fought by special units and as a result it was conducted in secret
with uncounted civilian casualties.
A draft would have prevented this, or a genuine militia consisting of
all adult males who meet regularly for training (no, not some clowns
in Michigan.)
>
> > How does an advanced fighter benefit me in the slightest?
>
> I'm not going to be able to explain that succinctly here. I suggest
> starting another thread with this as the subject line--although seeing how
> I'm posting solely from rec.aviation.military, the responses will be
> understandably skewed.
>
> > > >and promote an unthinking warlike
> > > > psychology
> > >
> > > Whoa, very much opinion!
> >
> > No, very much a subconscious truth which is no longer sayable because
> > the fortunes of wealthy men depend on preserving a military-industrial
> > complex.
>
> To whom do you attribute the "unthinking warlike psychology?" I for one, as
> a person on the "front lines," do not yearn for battle, with the chance of
> leaving my wife and child husband/fatherless. I assume you're talking about
> the senior civilian leadership of our country.
Of course. War is what they want because it advances flag rank
careers.
>
> > > Why shouldn't I or anyone else oppose the assignment of the Koran (or
> the
> > > Bible) at a state-funded school?
> >
> > Because this would prevent the students from reading ANY literature
> > that was in ANY way connected with an organized or even unorganized
> > religion.
>
> There are plenty of private institutions where those so inclined can choose
> to go. Yes, it is a choice, based on a multitude of other choices made
> throughout the basic education years.
>
> > The First amendment to the US Constitution does NOT mean
> > that the UNC can't assign the Koran...
>
> But it means the government can't give funds to a Christian or Muslim soup
> kitchen? The Koran or the Bible weren't written as the "feel-good novels of
> the year." Their specific purpose is to reveal the word of God.
>
> > This is libertarianism at its most idiotic, for it seeks, literally, a
> > zone that does not exist between the morons who oppose the assignment
> > of the Koran and attend stock-car races
>
> By the same token, this statement smacks of academic elitism. Only "morons"
> attend stock-car races, it appears.
Certainly as organized by tobacco corporations so as to foreground
only extreme players in extreme situations, such as Dale Earnhardt was
placed in. These kind of races subject the drivers to unsafe levels
of stress and audiences to accidents.
They are different in kind from a bunch of good ole boys racing cars
but it's in the interest of the corporations for us not to see this.
Similarly, minor league baseball is the real thing where your kid has
a snowbal's chance of getting his autograph whereas major league
baseball is a travesty.
>
> > (including people in the Durham/Chapel Hill cities) REGRESS under
> > economic pressure to hill folk,
>
> This appears to be more academic elitism. You seem to have a problem with
> people who don't enjoy the urban lifestyle.
>
At places like Disney world and air shows, I just don't see anyone
enjoying themselves. I see them playing a role: "having a good time."
> > The problem is that you get money and a permit for air shows in Grant
> > Park whereas a demonstration for peace and jobs does not.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with how the Grant Park air show works. I can't see how the
> local government PAYS a private entity to put on an air show--I would think
> it'd be the other way around--i.e. the permit costs money.
>
> If you can't get a permit to peacably assemble in a public facility, then I
> agree that is wrong.
>
> > This isn't a matter of opinion at all, since after fifty years in
> > which my country has wasted money and lives, one has, in my country,
> > no health insurance independent of a job DESPITE the fact that we
> > regard ourselves as part of the developed world.
>
> Yet many illegal immigrants come here to give birth, and they often do it in
> our hospitals, with no insurance.
They also clean up our s*t and take the jobs we can't do anymore, like
computer programming.
>
> >In a few months, the
> > only way of getting around the States may be a choice between
> > overpriced air travel and travel by bus since the Bush administration
> > refuses to fund Amtrak.
>
> I'm willing to bet this is a little far-fetched. You get all this from an
> air show crash half a world away?
Yeah. Pretty slick, huh.
>
> > This will trap working people in a 19th century economy, since only
> > the railroad allowed Black people to come North and escape feudal
> > conditions.
>
> Are you talking about the Underground Railroad, which was neither
> underground nor a railroad? :)
Nope, I am talking about the Illinois Central around 1920.
>
> > People in South Dakota will have to drive or walk to Fargo from all
> > over the state for jobs as rich clowns zip overhead, exacerbating the
> > destruction of a middle class.
>
> I'm on the edge of my seat! But I'll leave the further discussion of this
> paragraph to talk.politics, where it would seem more appropriate, but in
> which you're getting me interested!
In Idaho Falls, to get to San Francisco, I had to fly (1) to Boise in
a puddle jumper (for you may not get to Heaven when you die, but if
Heaven is in Idaho, you will stop at Boise), (2) to Seattle in a
Fokker midrange and (3) down the coast in an Alaska Airlines 757.
This is silly, for with a rail network, I'd pop down to Salt Lake City
and hang a right.
If we weren't wasting money on military nonsense, we'd have a
passenger rail network.
Chris McMartin
news:f5dda427.02082...@posting.google.com...
Maybe so, but even with a draft, the monetarily and/or socially/politically
better-off could always get out of it. I'd rather see a compulsory service
in the individual's choice of military or Red Cross/Peace Corps with service
in a foreign country. I think people would tend to come away with a better
appreciation of how good we have it in the US, and maybe it would motivate
them to make it even better.
> A draft would have prevented this, or a genuine militia consisting of
> all adult males who meet regularly for training (no, not some clowns
> in Michigan.)
I thought Montana was where it's at for those kind of happenings! :)
> > This appears to be more academic elitism. You seem to have a problem
with
> > people who don't enjoy the urban lifestyle.
> >
> At places like Disney world and air shows, I just don't see anyone
> enjoying themselves. I see them playing a role: "having a good time."
I'm not making the connection, though I assume you intended one. I was
referring to your apparent disdain for "hill folk" who don't want or like to
live in big cities. That's not to say they can't enjoy themselves during a
trip to a theme park or an air show.
> > Yet many illegal immigrants come here to give birth, and they often do
it in
> > our hospitals, with no insurance.
>
> They also clean up our s*t and take the jobs we can't do anymore, like
> computer programming.
Except for the ones who take a "vacation" to the US, during which they give
birth to what is now a US citizen, and miraculously the younger sibling is
also born "on a vacation" to the US two years later. It happens.
I would rather have a person come to this country wanting to work than a
born-and-raised citizen who thinks certain jobs are "beneath them," yet
think welfare isn't.
> If we weren't wasting money on military nonsense, we'd have a
> passenger rail network.
If we weren't paying so much out of pocket on taxes to fund pork programs,
the private sector could fund a passenger rail network and make it
profitable. Shoot, we could even use government to give a boost, but rather
than throw money at Amtrak, we could require government travel to be by
rail, and buy lots of tickets for govt employees. At least we the taxpayer
would get something in return that way rather than pouring more money into a
defunct system.
When all else fails, we can ride bikes. That'd help the obesity problem
too! :)
Edward G. Nilges
Unfortunately, the private sector learned by 1940 that it is not
possible to make money in passenger transportation by rail because
railwaymen face the same fixed costs as does United Airlines.
Passengers as opposed to freight do not allow you to use optimum
packing methods, formal or informal, to make money. They insist on
leg-room and in the case of intercity rail, food and a place to sleep.
This is why in most other countries passenger rail is government
funded. In relation to the free-market it occupies the same economic
position as commuter transportation.
In order for the free market to function optimally, labor needs
physical mobility and insists on a diseconomic level of comfort during
the transport. Irish immigrants were needed in the US and were
transported at levels close to the Middle Passage, in which African
human beings were treated as identical to commodities. Although some
American companies were willing to pay the cost of passage, they paid
it to companies that in the absence of regulation crammed the Irish
into stinking holds.
When we fly on business, we joke about being in steerage precisely
because in economic terms the demand for in-flight comfort is elastic
(more salted almonds! bring me another drink!) but we are unwilling to
pay for it.
It becomes a bad proposition for United to pay merely the storage
costs for crafts providing the expected levels of comfort and safety
just as Union Pacific went slowly broke storing passenger cars in
Pocatello.
The real free market answer happens to be a nightmare, and that is
private ownership of aircraft. This means that only a small minority
of people will be mobile whereas most people won't be able to afford
to travel more than a few miles from home.
Both rail and air transportation happen to be a really existing form
of necessary socialism. The alternative is a crowded freeway in which
the fixed costs (of private ownership of the car) is borne by people
least able to afford them, and pollution is off the books, but
omnipresent.
> profitable. Shoot, we could even use government to give a boost, but rather
> than throw money at Amtrak, we could require government travel to be by
> rail, and buy lots of tickets for govt employees. At least we the taxpayer
> would get something in return that way rather than pouring more money into a
> defunct system.
>
> When all else fails, we can ride bikes. That'd help the obesity problem
> too! :)
Sounds good to me.
But as Paul Johnson points out (in his History of the American
People), America's physical size is unlike Europe outside Russia. We
feel we need a car because of our vast distances and the savagery of a
climate in which a killer tornado can appear out of nowhere (it is no
laughing matter to encounter even a thunderstorm in Northern Illinois
where you are the highest point for miles.)
Perhaps the government should socialize United Airlines in order to
avoid screwing the UA unions in a bankruptcy.
Chris McMartin
news:f5dda427.02082...@posting.google.com...
> of necessary socialism.
Interesting take; I maintain the answer lies somewhere in between, but I'm
not saying I have it!
>The alternative is a crowded freeway in which
> the fixed costs (of private ownership of the car) is borne by people
> least able to afford them, and pollution is off the books, but
> omnipresent.
We're LIVING that (poor) alternative! :)
Edward G. Nilges
> <snip stuff>
>
> >No, in your country, the recruiting sergeant gets him drunk and gives
> >him a shilling, promising a red coat and buxom wenches and many
> >opportunities to loot and pillage. He then gets shipped off to some
> >place where he gets blown half to bits and then is sent to the end of
> >the parish to beg. That's the drill, isn't it :-).
> >
> Ho, Ho, very funny.
>
> >Seriously, that's life in the UK and US. Other countries have lower
> >ratios of CEO and brass hat pay to that of grunts and squaddies, and
> >in other countries the squaddies don't have to sit around de campfire
> >and growl "that's life."
> >
> So what?
So as nations we have wasted our spirit in an expanse of shame for
fifty years.
Rather high old boy. Lack of imagination and narrowness is not an
argument.
OK, but then I am at a loss why neoconservatives celebrate him. There
seems to be an instinct to celebrate the third-rate. Thereby recent
biographies of our John Adams rate him higher than Jefferson or Paine,
because Adams was a "pragmatist."
The problem is that once you foreground "pragmatism" there is no lower
bound to the bar and you wind up with CEOs and politicians who have
designed their careers around being nth-rate.
Failures such as the way in which Thatcher delayed Mandela's ascent
through support of Chief Buthelezi are explained as the best of a bad
set of alternatives whereas chaps like Michael Foot are coded as
"loony left." Now, Michael Foot may have had a few toys in the attic
but one should note that this has never, independent of ideology, been
a disqualification for high office. Certainly Maggie was a bit of the
old madwoman in the attice when she told an interviewer "there is no
such thing as society."
Air shows manufacture consent to the sort of nth-raters who rise to
the top because they code their failures as "pragmatism", such as
Mayor Daley here in Chicago.
> >He also seems to have had quite a problem with the sauce and during
> >his final tenure as Prime Minister it impacted his judgement and
> >performance. He conducted much of his work in the early 1950s from
> >bed and failed to check the succession of a seriously ill man, Anthony
> >Eden, to the office. This resulted in Suez and the destruction of the
> >Empire.
> >
> By the time he started his last term as PM he was 77 years old! I know
> he did drink quite a bit, but was it really a problem?
Yes. Your country's foreign policy was in stasis in the early 1950s
and drifting towards the disasters of 1956. Despite the fact that
even in the British Empire's salad days people other than Winston were
calling for its dismantling as an expensive folly, Winston refused to
realize what even Harold Macmillan, of all people, learned. This
resulted not only in a near-war when my country's Sixth Fleet harassed
the Royal Navy in the eastern Med but also interference in 1962 with
Iraq's internal affairs that has contributed to the mess we have
today.
My dear boy, your music-hall practically invented the idea of
foreigners as humorous, from the excitable Crapaud to the drawling
Yankee, and your lack of a self-reflexive sense of humor has always
been a defect.
Humor, like art, follows power. Therefore in the Edwardian music-hall
Yankees were "funny" with their go-ahead schemes and lack of polish,
and Frenchmen were funny because they wrote down their constitution
several times. But it seems that even today we must take Englishmen
seriously, which resulted in violations of my Constitution when Reagan
accepted a honorary knighthood from the Queen.