Is it really Important to know how the DoD is doing?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

To be honest with you all, I have reservations posting DoD information that is viewable by International internet viewers. It really does not have any effect on us Americans since we already have plenty of info regarding much of everything else. I hate to see a bunch of Gumby's with their heads cut off spouting crucial information regarding our Nations security and ability to defend itself. Either one is fatalistic, suicidal, or a moron. You don't see other nations spouting off like a bunch of arrogant butt-heads now do you?

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 20, 1999

Answers

* * * 19990521 Friday

... Speaking to "morons" ... _You_ *_know_* who _you_ are! ...

Feller ...

The DoD and any other Federal agency that possessed Web site capability, had PUBLIC Y2K-related sites up and fully functional until sometime in April, 1998!! This, after several months of building useful Y2K status/"fix"/workaround knowledge databases. Doh!

The morons took down their valuable Y2K sites claiming they were divulging classified information of some sort. These were useful for quickly and inexpensively sharing important Y2K information about application software, hardware, and firmware with each other and taxpayers that paid hard-earned dollars for this service. Just think about all the redundant and expensive work being done without a central clearinghouse of Y2K information.

The national security angle was/is bogus for the following reasons:

* Y2K phenomena is universal ( ... including our "enemies" )

* Most affected computer-ware outside USA borders is "pirated" and/or lagging by many ( non-compliant ) versions ( ... well documented elsewhere on this board )

* Lagging and/or well-aged non-compliant computer-ware requires "immediate" upgrading/replacement ( ... the likelihood of "pirates" taking this ethical option in less than 2 years [globally] is extremely remote )

* Another excu$e for $elf-aggrandizing by $elf-important bureaucrat$ ( ... cla$$ical behavior of that $elf-anointed, teat-$ucking cla$$ )

The Chi-Comm's, Ruskies, Brit's, et al, are so far behind the technology 8-ball as to be laughable. All those "enemy" parties will suffer the most consequences.

Besides, Pollyanna's shouldn't care one wit about USA national security related to Y2K ... After all, it's a bogus issue! ... Right?! ... Well? ... Right???! So what's the REAL harm, then?!

Get it?!

In Loathing Regards, Bob Mangus < rmangus@hotmail.com > * * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999.


Its no secret, Feller:

We ARE In Trouble - AlarmingTruth Of US Military Status By Pamela Newby and Lee Webb 5-20-99 (CBN News) Hard-hitting, high-tech precision bombing air raids. Whether targets are in Belgrade or Baghdad, America's military might, in 1999 appears unparalleled. Congressional leaders, such as Representative Floyd Spence who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, warn us not to be fooled. Chairman Spence says, "Aside from thousands of our military being cut back along with equipment being worn out, we're cannibalizing the aircraft. There are now three people are doing the work of five." Continue... FURTHER STATISTICS Budget Authority dropped from 1990 to 1997 in the following ways (millions of dollars): Military Personnel - 78,876 to 67,492 Operations and Maintenance - 88,309 to 90,590 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation - 36,459 to 32,654 Military Construction - 5,130 to 4,488 Overall Budget Authority Appropriation - 292,999 to 242,808 Active Military Personnel Strength from 1990 to 1996: 2,069,000 to 1,485,200 Strategic and General Purpose Forces reductions from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers - 220 to 56 B-1 Bombers - 90 to 60 Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft - 36 to 0 Army Divisions reduced (1990 to 1997): Active - 18 to 10 Reserve - 10 to 8 Army Separate Brigades reduced (1990 to 1997): Active - 8 to 3 Reserve - 27 to 18 Source: Defense Technical Information Center Critics call it the Clinton administration's great military downsize. Consider these numbers... In 1988, active and reserve armed services personnel totaled over 3.3 million. By 1998, their numbers had dropped to 2.5 million. Active Army divisions in 1990 numbered 18. By 1997, they were down to 10. In 1990, there were 546 Navy ships. Today there are 336. Navy Master Chief Duane Frost is stationed aboard the USS Lady Gulf. "At the end of the Cold War, we were ready to deploy. We had all our infrastructure built up to deploy on a moment's notice. I don't believe we have that today." That is precisely what has some military analysts very concerned. Since Operation Allied Force began, the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, on patrol in the Persian Gulf, was ordered to the Adriatic. That means the USS Kitty Hawk moved from her normal tour of duty in the Pacific to monitor Iraq, which could leave the volatile waters of the Pacific vulnerable until fall. So the nagging question: What happens if a crisis breaks out now in the conflict-prone tinderbox of the Middle East or involving Taiwan or North Korea in the Pacific? Or as one military analyst has suggested, even worse? "We've been giving away technology, especially to the Chinese, Mr. Kenneth Timmerman, a Middle East Analyst says. "We have been turning a blind eye to bad behavior by the Russians, allowing them to get away with arming Iran and Iraq with long-range missiles. And we have been neglecting our own security interests and our own national interests. I think the possibility of a larger war is very, very real and it's something that we need to face head-on. America's national military strategy calls for the US to be able to fight two major wars at one time. But national security experts like Chairman Spence warn about the increasing high risk of a hollow military. "A lot of our people get flippant and they say, 'Well, we've got a nuclear weapon. We can handle it that way.' Does anyone really think we're going to drop a bomb on the people in the Balkans or somewhere?" Demoralizing The Military Most of the dedicated military careerists, those in uniform are reluctant to go public with their concerns about problems in the military. It usually means an end to their career. However, there are those willing to speak out. U.S. Navy Lieutenant Jerry Burns has been in the Navy 20 years. He enlisted in 1979. Along the way earned his college degree, then his commission and became a navel flight officer, flying at the back of F-14 Tomcats. Lieutenant Burns says he loves the Navy, but he's had enough. He cites his most recent stint with fighter squadron II. "I was attached to the squadron for 25 months. Of that 25 months, I was deployed for 19 months, at least a portion of the month during my time there. That tempo of operation takes a tremendous toll on your family life, your personal life. Doing more is one thing, but doing more with less, Burns says, is weakening and demoralizing our military. Doing more with fewer parts, fewer hours for actual flying time and fewer personnel. For example, on a deployment aboard the USS Eisenhower last summer, Burns says the carrier was 450 to 500 sailors short, especially in critical areas. "That ship, at the time that I was out there, had so few qualified air traffic controllers for the carrier air traffic control center that we couldn't man the air traffic control center for 24 hours a day," says Lt. Burns. "If we would launch under VFR conditions, visual flight rules, during the day and the weather deteriorates such that we had to come back under instrument conditions, they literally had to go rouse people out of their beds from the night shift to bring them up during the day to man the radar consoles in order that we could recover aircraft under instrument conditions." The admiral in charge of Naval Air Forces Atlantic refused to give us an on-camera interview for this story. A Navy spokesperson acknowledges the Eisenhower was up to 500 sailors short for that deployment but maintains the carrier's air traffic control center was, quote 'staffed to acceptable standards.' Burns wants to make it clear that he's not representing the Navy in this interview. These are his views, but views that are shared by many of his peers. A May 3rd Washington Times article reports, 'A Navy commander has warned the service's fleet of radar reconnaissance planes, including those flying against Yugoslavia, that shortages of aircraft, spare parts and training hours created a safety threat in his unit. The squadron commander said, "We have not been given the tools necessary to do our mission. We've merely been fighting for survival.' Navy officials respond by saying, "No squadron is going to deploy until it's ready." But Lieutenant Burns had something to say about his 1997 deployment on the USS Constellation. "To be on cruise, you need to be at least a C-2, preferably C-1, which is the highest readiness rating. For pilots, you need to have flown at least 27 hours a month in order to achieve that C-1 readiness rating. When we were on cruise, or as the senior leadership likes to refer to it as we were out on the tip of the spear, our pilots were averaging about 12 to 15 hours a month, roughly half of what you actually need to be considered C-1, or at the top of your readiness rating. As I said, the senior leadership likes to refer to the deployed squadrons as the ones that are on the tip of the spear. The joke among the junior officers that we were on the tip of the spoon." Burns says his peers blame those senior officers and civilian Pentagon leaders for not having their troops' best interests at heart. "I think a lot of the junior officers believe that flag and general officers are little more than self-interested careerists who are more interested in promoting themselves and advancing their careers than taking care of their subordinates." Burns says he's never seen morale lower. "They try to remain upbeat, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. People are doing the best that they can, but at the end of the day they're going to vote with their feet. People are just going to leave." "And that's what's happening. It's already the most hazardous profession in the world, and you've just made it a lot more hazardous by compounding it with these other issues. I love the Navy and I hope that these problems can be resolved and that we can turn the corner on the readiness and retention issues. But like I said, for me, it's just too hard anymore, and my family deserves better." Lieutenant Jerry Burns, after 20 years of service, will soon be retiring from the United States Navy. This is already the most hazardous profession in the world, taking off and landing on the decks of aircraft carriers. Nothing these men and women do can be considered routine. Does Lt. Burns feel threatened with his safety when he gets on board an F-14 Tomcat? He says he checks the aircraft much more closely these days before he'll get in one. http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/stories/990519c.asp#next

-- a (a@a.a), May 21, 1999.


are you guys familiar with the term "mental masturbation"?

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 1999.

No, but I once knew a guy who screwed chickens. Their opinion on the whole thing didn't really concern him.

-- sickofgovtrolls (tues@niteblues.com), May 21, 1999.

Feller -- anything we can find on the Net, anybody can find, wherever they live. And no one in a decision-making capacity -- wherever they live -- can trust anecdotal reports, such as we often see here.

People in the Manhattan Project had to be very careful what they talked about in public -- because they actually knew something about what was going on. I don't think this applies to any posters here! We have only a large inventory of semi-informed opinions and guesses and speculations -- nothing anyone can take to the bank.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 21, 1999.



Actually, I appologise for my Derogatoriness starting the post. And thanks for the flame. Hadn't really been flamed before. Not too hot, not too cold, hmmmm, just right!

I understand that freedom of speech is important and we all need a chance to be heard in this country. The media does a good job of exposing the wrongs of this country. I guess i've always felt the media and individuals have overstepped, revealing important information regarding the security of our nation. The "raise your hand so everyone can see me" theme gets played out too much while those (foreign countries) are on the lookout for information vital to their strategies. It's like when the first broadcaster of DoD info gets it out, Our Country's Forefathers spirits are all yelling DoHHH, the next broadcast...DoHHH...Etc...DoHHH....DoHHH...DoHHH and by the way, what I'm saying here is immune from flaming. You just don't play with Cards with massive stakes and show them off.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 21, 1999.


As far as the Troll thing is concerned, there is no need to Troll. The D.o.D. and the C.I.A are debatable for public knowledge. D.o.D. material is intriguing to say the least and is irresistable for some to pass Vital information. It is like a passion that can never really be rewarded in the long term. Just think of all present and ex-military heads and their love/hate relationship to their job. Of course the high tech part and the secrecy of it makes their ego's bulge out when they can divulge to others whose eyes glisten and tongues hang out. You guys are really doing a fine job investigating.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 21, 1999.


Feller,

Just a quick comment. If it's public domain, it's a fair research and analysis target.

Afterall, who pays for the whole kit 'n kaboodle?

We prefer to be saavy investors.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.


Sold. All it takes is a little soft touch.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 21, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ