BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:14:46 -0400, Andrew C. Toppan
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Over-generalizations always sound silly; yours is no exception. They
each have a mission. The question here is, what's the mission of the
future NAF Brunswick?

Most likely a deployment site for JAX squadrons doing North Atlantic
surveylance.

Nobody has defined that mission or the people
that will do it. The base maintenance, administrative, and security
forces don't do any good without some sort of operating forces
present.

You save admin money downgrading from an NAS to an NAF. You might
have to keep only one or two hangers up, along with a reduced
maintenance capability. You might have only one or two squadrons
present at only one time. You don't need a major simulator base.
There is some operational sense, here.

assigned...wouldn't surprise me. That you find the concept of performing sea
or border surveillance with aircraft like P-3's or C-130's not to be much of
import to the concept of "homeland defense" just further points to your
complete and utter lack of a grasp of the concepts of military operations.

Since neither of those aircraft has that mission, I think you are the
one without much grasp of reality. The P-3s and C-130s from Brunswick
don't spent their lives patrolling the Gulf of Maine looking for
terrorists or invading Canadians (that's the Coast Guard's job), nor
do they protect us against hijacked terrorist aircraft (that's for
fighters, not freighters).

What constitutes "Homeland Defense", rather like what constitutes
"beauty," seems to exist mostly in the eyes of its beholders. There
may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did
not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

Your definition of "active homeland defense" is obviously very deficient.

It means doing something, not just sitting there. Lately it's
fashionable to say ever military facility is "defending the homeland"
just by existing. This is a silly notion.

Oh, come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of
technology,but standing Condition Five came pretty close to "sitting
around." I would think that living in a Mole Hole for long periods
would also come close.

Action is not always progress; inaction is not always wasteful.

Bill Kambic

On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.


not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3
you dismissed so quickly--you know, the ones that Clark acknowledged almost
three YEARS ago were already performing homeland defense operations?). You
need to attend a basic antiterrorism course before you make such ridiculous
claims.

Brooks


--
Andrew Toppan

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.


Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3

Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Oh, touche! Yeah, I brainfarted and used the "New" instead of NAS. Mea
freakin' culpa. Now when are you gonna 'fess up to incorrectly stating that
P-3's have never had/don't have any homeland defense mission?



Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3

Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

Uhmmm...if you had not noticed, our *lack* of adequate situational awareness
contributed to that outcome, not the other way around. Now, come on and give
us some more gems of your vast anti/counter-terrorism experience and/or
knowledge, Andrew... You are beginning to sound a bit like Henry J.
again....

Brooks


--
Andrew Toppan

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Is it safe to assume that neither of you will be bowling, throwing darts, or
playing badminton any time soon? That is to say, as gleeful chums?

AHS

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:mFUie.2571$tt5.2509@edtnps90...
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Is it safe to assume that neither of you will be bowling, throwing darts,
or
playing badminton any time soon? That is to say, as gleeful chums?

It probably would not be a lot of fun. I doubt Andrew even knows which end
of a bowling ball he is supposed to point at the badminton net while trying
to avoid those pesky darts...

Brooks


AHS

Andrew C. Toppan wrote in
:
There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles

Westover AFB is within a few hundreds of miles. The new plan is if another
aircraft threatens the northeast US, Westover will put up all the C-5As and
when they converge on the target their combined distortion of the local
gravitational field (g=m1*m2/r**2) will knock the threat aircraft right out
of the sky...