New Prohibited Area

Montblack wrote:

I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!
(It's to the point that if it happens - great!! If not - oh well)

I agree that long posts should be trimmed, however, the post the jumping
Jim was complaining about wasn't even a full page long! It was 20 lines
by my count. Hardly worth the time to type a complaint.


Matt

On Sat, 28 May 2005 15:10:51 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::

RST Engineering wrote:

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Who is the idiot?

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html


Hey, Mr. Wier is too lazy to roll the wheel on his mouse. Why should
he give a damn if top posting makes followup articles impossible to
follow? Chronology is only important to authors who have
consideration for their readers. :-)

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...

And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes

to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.


A prohibited area does no such thing.

No, the national command authority does, by either direct or standing
orders. The prohibited area designates an area where friendies should
not enter without proper identification and permission. The controlling
agency (or their superiors, all the way up to the NCA) determine what
response is appropriate response to a threat.


Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
time to "protect" against an airplane.

Pete



Do you know what a CIWS (Close In Weapons System) is? Its a radar
controlled Gatling gun. It is used as a "last ditch ship defense weapon"
and its range is intended for that one to two mile area.. and under
several thousand feet. Radar controlled. If its set to "live" it does
the job automatically. Who is to say there isn't one on a sub tender,
and this is the airspace restriction that they need to

Dave

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
No, the national command authority does, by either direct or standing
orders.

As far as I know, there is no such order for Bangor. But whether there is
or not, the Prohibited Area doesn't create that; the order would.

[...] Who is to say there isn't one on a sub tender, and this is the
airspace restriction that they need to

Well, for one, the fact that no such defense has been described. The
Prohibited Area is described as protecting the sub base, not as protecting
aircraft that might fly close enough to be shot down.

In any case, the sub base is not at risk, and needs no such defense. To
even hint at the potential for killing unarmed, innocent civilians would be
ludicrous.

Pete

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

People are now idiots if they don't top post?

It would appear that RST Engineering has problems.
Although I can see why with a 64k modem and a 386 he is unimpressed

I agree.

I have flown by the base numerous times, I just hug the mountain range to
the North, and if someone were to decide to overfly the base it's barely 5
N. miles and would take just about no time.
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only
goes
to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

A prohibited area does no such thing.

Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
time to "protect" against an airplane.

Pete