photos of Moffet Field (NUQ)

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

: miso ) wrote:
: : You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
: : military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
: : projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
:
: : Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
:
: I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
: was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
: justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
: ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
: the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
: faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
: could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
: I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
: the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
: had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
: and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
: first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
: SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...

: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.

Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
that the services don't want or need.
As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
described above.
In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
is far from special.

I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
to keep up?

No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
"wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
no clue.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

....
: : I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
: : was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
: : justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
: : ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
: : the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
: : faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
: : could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
: : I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
: : the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
: : had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
: : and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
: : first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
: : SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...
:
: : Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
: : the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.
:
: Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
: doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
: wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
: that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
: pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
: that the services don't want or need.
: As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
: to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
: needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
: described above.
: In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
: to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
: believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
: And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
: is far from special.

: I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
: was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
: to keep up?

Don't change the subject.
As I said, part of the strategy was to force the USSR to spend
money to try to keep up, knowing they couldn't. But that policy (1)
had an indeterminate effect on the collapse of the USSR, i.e., we
can't allocate the collapse among Gorbachev, Chernobyl, the arms
race, the influence of the Pope in Eastern Europe, and many other
factors; and (2) had negative effects of the country such as the
widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the
massive increase in the national debt.

: No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
: "wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
: beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
: no clue.

If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:



If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

And your extensive military service was in which branch????

Al Minyard

Absolutely. Reagan spent money on everything. The guy was out of
control. It really screwed things up for GHW Bush, forcing him to
raise taxes and break his pledge.


IBM wrote in message .. .
(miso) wrote in
om:

You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.

Which you would have us believe all came from defense spending.
Nice try but no cigar.
Just the increase in domestic programs during the Reagan years
about equals the entire defense budget.

Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.

So what excuse does his hand picked successor have.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Engineers don't like to work on projects that never get built. This
massive defense built frustrated the engineers as much as is PO'd the
taxpayer.

Given the amount of Soviet spy infiltration that has been exposed in
the post-Reagan era, I really doubt the Soviets feared our weapons
programs. Hell, they had plenty to fear with just the conventional US
arsenal.

Reagan did finish the B1B, though the jury is still out if that was a
good thing or not.


Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

: miso ) wrote:
: : You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
: : military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
: : projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.

: : Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
:
: I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
: was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
: justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
: ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
: the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
: faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
: could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
: I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
: the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
: had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
: and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
: first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
: SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...

: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.

Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
that the services don't want or need.
As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
described above.
In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
is far from special.

I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
to keep up?

No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
"wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
no clue.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

: Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: : On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:
:

:
: If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
: justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
: made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
: wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

: And your extensive military service was in which branch????

Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
disqualifies me??
We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
military is wasting money.

(miso) wrote in
om:

Absolutely. Reagan spent money on everything. The guy was out of
control. It really screwed things up for GHW Bush, forcing him to
raise taxes and break his pledge.

Its a little more complicated than that.
In order to get the defence budgets ( principally the 600
ship navy ) he wanted, Reagan agreed to a Democrapic demand
that 2/3 of the federal budget ( domestic spending mostly ) be
put on what amounts to autopilot with guaranteed yearly increases.
AIUI this provision is largely intact today.
It was a major mistake.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:

: Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: : On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:
:

:
: If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
: justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
: made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
: wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

: And your extensive military service was in which branch????

Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
disqualifies me??
We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
military is wasting money.

Well, lets see, the military has no power, there fore it cannot spend
any money, but according to you it is wasting money? That is
utterly illogical. And 35 years of sweeping out the men's room
at some sub-contractor hardly makes you an expert.

Al Minyard

\

http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
may be of interest to the group.

there is a very interesting fact about Moffet Field. Those big rounded
blimp hangers are big enough that they have their own weather systems
inside them.

George ) wrote:
: \
:
: http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
: I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
: may be of interest to the group.

: there is a very interesting fact about Moffet Field. Those big rounded
: blimp hangers are big enough that they have their own weather systems
: inside them.

I know that's true of Hangar 1--the big (single) hangar on the
west side of the field--but have not heard that about the two
smaller hangars, which are/were used for airplanes.