Why was the USAF.....................

In article AbcLb.9516$6l1.3658@okepread03,
"Gene Storey" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
United States doesn't need a military, period.

If it wasn't for an oil based society, they would be believable. But
we need all the Nukes and Forces we can muster to keep the oil fields
and the sea lanes open. Thus, until we harness fusion, we are stuck
with the MIC (military industrial complex) as a cornerstone of our
economy.

If you repaced oil with a Magical Energy Source, there'd be some other
resource someone would want, and that wouldn't come anywhere near
removing the military threat. If you removed oil from the whole Middle
East equation, you'd still have a bunch of Muslims who think that the
best way to fix their social problems is to kill everyone who's not a
Muslim. And a bunch of Chechens who hate Russians. And a bunch of
(insert group name here) who hate (insert other group name here).

War, while often about resources, is also about non-material things.
And the people who want to kill Americans the most don't want to kill us
because we buy oil from their countries...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article kecLb.9517$6l1.5172@okepread03,
"Gene Storey" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

In reality, you'd have to buy a few thousand Patriot batteries, enlist a
few hundred thousand people to man them 24/7, and then the bad guys
would do something else to kill people.

Patriot batteries don't require many people.

A 16-man crew, times four (24/7/365), plus support staff. Per battery.

You either man the fire department, or you don't. Just think if we didn't
have fire departments because they were just too expensive.

Is losing an economic center cheaper than manning a defense?

Define "lose an economic center." A plane crashing into a building?
Then yes, it's much cheaper. A Patriot battery costs upwards of $200
million, for the hardware alone.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:hE0Lb.9457$6l1.3782@okepread03...

You're off a few years. The Air Defense Command went out of
business in 1978 (I was there).


Air Defense Command became Aerospace Defense Command in 1968.

As a USAF major command, ADC was inactivated in 1979 and control of USAF
interceptor units and air surveillance radars and control centers was
transferred to TAC. Control of space surveillance assets transferred to
SAC, and ADC communications assets transferred to AFCC.

ADC was inactivated at that time only as a major USAF command, Aerospace
Defense Command continued to function as a US specified command.

I am pleased that we in ADC continued to exist through the 70s.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling.

There's a recurring idea in the conspiracy whacko world that we actually
*did* "stand down" our interceptor planes on 9/11/2001. Apparently,
some folks had this weird idea that we normally ran *lots* of
interceptor flights all over the US, for, well, some reason or another,
and that we *didn't* do so on 9/11 to make sure no trigger-happy pilots
accidentally shot down those four airliners.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
(OXMORON1) wrote:

[snip]

The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I
see
from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
blame for 9/11?

To understand what happened you would have to look at how the intellegence
community was partitioned by congress after Nixon. You see, 'ol tricky dick
got the idea that the CIA would be useful to punish his internal enemies.
The CIA was not supposed to operate inside the US and so the pieces of the
intellegence community were ordered not to talk to eah other. A gaping hole
just waiting for 9-11.

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Christ! am I ever glad that you aren't in any position of power
Mr Marron.

Spoken like the true Canuck wussy that you are. Whattsa' matter Gordo,
jealous because when the doctors performed exploratory surgery in your
lower groin area looking for testicles they couldn't find any?

Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling.

There's a recurring idea in the conspiracy whacko world that we actually
*did* "stand down" our interceptor planes on 9/11/2001. Apparently,
some folks had this weird idea that we normally ran *lots* of
interceptor flights all over the US, for, well, some reason or another,
and that we *didn't* do so on 9/11 to make sure no trigger-happy pilots
accidentally shot down those four airliners.

Yeah, we've all heard those wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories and
I strongly suspect the original poster/troll was guilty of "B" above.
Nevertheless, this has been a very, uh, "interesting" discussion,
indeed!

Mike Marron wrote:



In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?

A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.





On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?


Dave

Gene Storey wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
United States doesn't need a military, period.

If it wasn't for an oil based society, they would be believable. But we need
all the Nukes and Forces we can muster to keep the oil fields and the sea lanes
open. Thus, until we harness fusion, we are stuck with the MIC (military
industrial complex) as a cornerstone of our economy.

The middle east, Europe, and Asia are important to us, only in the way they
are dependant on the same energy sources. Our relation to them, is as a
competitor, and a threat to keep them from interfering with our oil reserves.




I like that closing line "our oil reserves"

Dave

Dave Holford wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.

On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)