THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

On Feb 4 2004 (Mike Marron) quoted John F. Kennedy
""War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation in prestige that the warrior does today."

In 1963 a VQ-2 Elint collection mission was planned in coordination with
other collectors, as one of VQ-2's missions at that time.

Two A3D-2Q (EA-3B) and one WV-2Q (EC-121M) flew to the Black Sea. One
A3D-2Q was to penetrate low-level under radar for 60 miles over Yalta,
then pop up
to hopefully cause Soviet Union radars to light up, and scram back over
the Black Sea. (A well practiced loft and toss maneuver from the A3D
Heavy Attack program). The other collectors would then document the
transmissions, ie., standard Elint stuff.

However the Navy CDR pilot of the probe aborted the mission just before
landfall, turned around and returned to the staging airfield. He was a
combat carrier pilot in WWII, and Heavy Attack pilot in VC and VAH
squadrons when they had the nuclear attack role 1948 - 1956, and had no
qualms about dropping a nuclear weapon if the flag went up in those
days.

The CDR, whom no other officers would talk to, was flown back to Rota,
VQ-2's homebase, then sent back to the United States for Courts Martial
(or some other action). I flew with him, as I had completed ten years
service and was leaving the Navy. He talked to me on the flight back to
Philadelphia, in a confessional type of way (we had a history together
that allowed that).

His position was that he was a patriot, and had risked his life many
times to defend the United States. His decision not to overfly was not,
in his view, an act of cowardice, as he was confident that he and his
crew would have successfully returned. His judgment was that such
provocative missions were wrong, and he could no longer conscientiously
or morally participate. He did not "go public" to push his views ie.,
did not have a political agenda; he gave up his career, retirement etc.,
as a matter of conscience. He was hoping that he could avoid other
punishment, but realized that he might not.

Chuck Huber (VC-8, VAH-1, FAITCLANT, VQ-2 - 1953 to 1963)







HEAVY ATTACK COMPOSITE (VC-5,6,7,8,9) WEBSITE
http://community.webtv.net/charles379/USNComposite

FAIRECONRON ONE AND TWO (VQ-1/2) CASUALTIES
http://www.anzwers.org/free/navyscpo...r_AirCrew.html

(Chuck) wrote:

On Feb 4 2004 (Mike Marron) quoted
John F. Kennedy ""War will exist until that distant day when the
conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation in prestige that
the warrior does today."

In 1963 a VQ-2 Elint collection mission was planned in coordination with
other collectors, as one of VQ-2's missions at that time.

Two A3D-2Q (EA-3B) and one WV-2Q (EC-121M) flew to the Black Sea. One
A3D-2Q was to penetrate low-level under radar for 60 miles over Yalta,
then pop up
to hopefully cause Soviet Union radars to light up, and scram back over
the Black Sea. (A well practiced loft and toss maneuver from the A3D
Heavy Attack program). The other collectors would then document the
transmissions, ie., standard Elint stuff.

However the Navy CDR pilot of the probe aborted the mission just before
landfall, turned around and returned to the staging airfield. He was a
combat carrier pilot in WWII, and Heavy Attack pilot in VC and VAH
squadrons when they had the nuclear attack role 1948 - 1956, and had no
qualms about dropping a nuclear weapon if the flag went up in those
days.

The CDR, whom no other officers would talk to, was flown back to Rota,
VQ-2's homebase, then sent back to the United States for Courts Martial
(or some other action). I flew with him, as I had completed ten years
service and was leaving the Navy. He talked to me on the flight back to
Philadelphia, in a confessional type of way (we had a history together
that allowed that).

His position was that he was a patriot, and had risked his life many
times to defend the United States. His decision not to overfly was not,
in his view, an act of cowardice, as he was confident that he and his
crew would have successfully returned. His judgment was that such
provocative missions were wrong, and he could no longer conscientiously
or morally participate. He did not "go public" to push his views ie.,
did not have a political agenda; he gave up his career, retirement etc.,
as a matter of conscience. He was hoping that he could avoid other
punishment, but realized that he might not.

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward. The author of the story (e.g:
Kramer) is the real coward. As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

snip

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.

With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
space,
it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
reached
a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
that,
I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
personal
limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
that of the era.

That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
different expectation
of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
present doesn't alter the
fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
away from the duty that
they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
now he would probably get
more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
there would still be that
thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...

The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.

Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
personally, only through his
posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
reveal the true identity of
the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
with what *they felt* was
cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
coward in the face of strong evidence
to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
that you apologise unreservedly.

He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
weren't aware of the details)
by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
whom he spoke. He told the story
only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
by reading it.

I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
unbecoming'.

BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?

As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
about human nature.
If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
across the mouth of a cannon.
He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
jaded Empire
decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.

Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
that he *was* a brother to
them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
betrayal of that brotherhood
even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
fate by some casual acquaintance or
by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
'family'.

I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
somewhere similar.

I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
appropriate adjustments.

The CO

Subject: OT THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
From: "The CO"
Date: 2/7/04 5:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.

With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
space,
it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
reached
a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
that,
I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
personal
limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
that of the era.

That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
different expectation
of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
present doesn't alter the
fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
away from the duty that
they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
now he would probably get
more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
there would still be that
thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...

The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.

Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
personally, only through his
posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
reveal the true identity of
the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
with what *they felt* was
cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
coward in the face of strong evidence
to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
that you apologise unreservedly.

He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
weren't aware of the details)
by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
whom he spoke. He told the story
only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
by reading it.

I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
unbecoming'.

BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?

As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
about human nature.
If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
across the mouth of a cannon.
He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
jaded Empire
decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.

Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
that he *was* a brother to
them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
betrayal of that brotherhood
even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
fate by some casual acquaintance or
by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
'family'.

I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
somewhere similar.

I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
appropriate adjustments.

The CO



I have found over the years that I can never predict who will be reading what I
post. Recently the daughter of a man I flew with in the 494th squadron found my
website and questionrd me at length about her dad. I knew her dad quite well.
He passed away recently. But had I witrten anything negative about him and
revealed his identity it would only break his daughter heart So I never, never,
never reveal names when it might cause anyone hurt. On my website "I am going
to die today" is a case in point Imagine had I revealed his identity and his
children read it now. It would be a tragedy. And creating tragedy is not why I
post my experiences. Thank you for your kind words and support. I appreciate
it.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Snip

I never, never, never reveal names when it might cause anyone hurt. On
my website "I am going
to die today" is a case in point Imagine had I revealed his identity and
his
children read it now. It would be a tragedy.

Quite right.

And creating tragedy is not why I
post my experiences.

Noted.

Thank you for your kind words and support. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Your experiences are part of history and should be
preserved.
Personal attacks for posting them for others to see are inappropriate under
the circumstances.

The CO

From: "The CO"

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.

With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
space,
it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
reached
a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
that,
I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
personal
limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
that of the era.

That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
different expectation
of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
present doesn't alter the
fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
away from the duty that
they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
now he would probably get
more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
there would still be that
thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...

The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.

Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
personally, only through his
posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
reveal the true identity of
the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
with what *they felt* was
cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
coward in the face of strong evidence
to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
that you apologise unreservedly.

He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
weren't aware of the details)
by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
whom he spoke. He told the story
only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
by reading it.

I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
unbecoming'.

BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?

As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
about human nature.
If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
across the mouth of a cannon.
He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
jaded Empire
decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.

Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
that he *was* a brother to
them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
betrayal of that brotherhood
even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
fate by some casual acquaintance or
by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
'family'.

I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
somewhere similar.

I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
appropriate adjustments.

The CO


In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11. Take
what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire. He has no military
experience.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...

In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.

Boggle! Some variant of the fairy tale about how it should only take a few
minutes to get fighters
hot loaded, crewed and airborne with ROE for hijacked airliners full of
people all sorted and ready to kick butt no doubt.

Take what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire.

Given that tidbit I doubt there is sufficient salt on the planet.

He has no military experience.

I Figured.

The CO

B2431 ) wrote:

In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.

Huh? Either post the exact comment where I specifically accused the
USAF of being "responsible for 9/11" or go back to your scintillating
"pitot tube" arguments with Tarver.

Take what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire. He has
no military experience.

I only wish that I had your military experience! I wish...I wish!!

From: Mike Marron
Date: 2/7/2004 10:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

B2431 ) wrote:

In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.

Huh? Either post the exact comment where I specifically accused the
USAF of being "responsible for 9/11" or go back to your scintillating
"pitot tube" arguments with Tarver.


The thread starts at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...36a5d81.040107
1041.fe49dd9%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3DRon%2B(banmilk%40hotmail.com)%2B9%252F11%2 6meta%3Dgr
oup%253Drec.aviation.military.*

And has about 200 posts. Most seem to involve you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

snip

I only wish that I had your military experience! I wish...I wish!!

I wish you had *any* military experience. You might conceivably spout less
bull****,
but then again, you have so much natural talent....
Perhaps one day your alligator mouth will insult someone in person and get
that
blowfly arse of yours kicked in the real world as well as in cyberspace.

The CO