0+7 +46,0SP0@7=!;$6%!8G4#$ 5 ^F)A\$U"$&%!8W%<@%N!
MEV)472)84&\'D&XG!4"L978)\"U > 0`=&)4LUL`"R @=UDP1C%G+#!G6(!=
MT A@9V@%0&ED+N$\W$UI:V4\W!VO'K]?:^]L]V $;F87,0!Q, ,`$! `````
M`P`1$ ````! ```#T``0````$`````
%````J38`
`
end
------------------------------
From: Wei-Jen Su
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Skunky prophesy?
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Dave Rosen wrote:
> OFF TOPIC ALERT
I apologise to everybody in the list because this is have gone
off the topic... I will stop after I replay this message.
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 Wei-Jen Su wrote, in part:
>
> >East (our main provedor of gasoline) specifically Saudit Arabia turn against
> >USA (As Nostradamus predict it will happen around the year 2,000).
>
> Do you really someone human can see far into a future in which all our
> actions and decisions are already decided by someone's master plan? Do you
> believe we have no free will to change our actions and fool the wise
> Nostradamus? That we live our futile lives as puppets, with unseen prophets
> jerking our strings?
>
Uh... sound like X-Files or Star Trek type of thinking... :)
Nostradamus has predict our future since long time ago. And it
haven't change... People knew about Nostradamus and his prediction...
Does they did something to change the future? If they knew that a guy
name Hitler (But Nostradamus spell it wrong) is going to be the second
anti-christ... Does anybody stop him to be the Fuller? If we know that
there is going to be a third anti-christ from the middle east, we just
said: "hey... kill this guy since Nostradamus said he will kill millions
of peoples" Well... I believe we can change our destiny but not too big.
If there will be million of people that is going to die, we can make it
less...
In the Chinese tradition people predict the future and change it
by their own benefice... But sometimes you can not make a big change...
> > We can depend in our own reserve... But not for long term.
>
> When you say "long term," do you think of "long" as a month, or as a
> decade? In the "short term" of only a century or two, it will all be gone,
> no matter whose land it is buried under now.
>
Very easy... Look at the USA petrolium reserve and compare to
OPEC (Organization Petrolium Export Countries?) reserve countries... And
relative this to USA annual comsumption...
Just to give you a idea, easy access gasoline for all countries
will be approximately 30 years...
> > I don't wanted to create tension to anybody... But we have to
> >face the reallity...
>
> If you really do believe in prophesy, why must we face reality? If the
> fabric of the future is already woven, why must we do anything? If all is
> pre-ordained, all our lives are meaningless. We should just sit in our bomb
> shelters and drink beer.
>
> Dave Rosen
Facing the reality we will be prepare better for any unpredict
event (like weather reporter do to any big storm, therefore, we will be
ready to a big storm rather than a unknown).
And as I said, I believe we can change our future a little bit,
but not too big. If there will be one million of people that is going to
die, we can make it half of it... But not zero people...
Sorry againg if this is too far off the topic but is relative to
our life...
May the Force be with you
Su Wei-Jen
E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu
"I didn't know how empty was my soul...until it was fill"
King Arthur (Excalibur)
------------------------------
From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 02:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: McDonnell-Douglas card
> 2. Which model aircraft did you purchase?
>
> _F-14 Tomcat _F-15 Eagle _F-16 Falcon _F-19A Stealth _Classified
>
> This is pretty dumb. The only one of these planes that is built by MD is
> the F-15. The F-19 doesn't even exist. The card was a good thought though.
The worst part about it is that "card" has been floating around for
YEARS, and nobody has ever bothered to fix it before reposting.
- -----------
2. Which model aircraft did you purchase?
_F-15 Eagle _F/A-18 Hornet _AV-8B Harrier _F-19A Stealth _Classified
There, was that so difficult? :>
------------------------------
From: John Burtenshaw
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:46:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Warhead Detection
>> >On 13 Apr 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote:
>>
>> > Question: How easy is to get only the nuclear warhead to USA
>> >territorry? I mean only the warhead!!! The warhead is not that big...
>> >So... by the same method the illegal drug get in to USA, it will apply to
>> >a nuclear warhead. In the USA borders is relative easy to get in illegal
>> >inmigrants... So, if one of them carry a nuclear warhead... There is
>> >thousands of way to put a nuclear warhead in USA territory passively and
>> >detonate whenever they want.
Reminds me of conversation I had in the Seventies with a retired RAF senior
planner. He told me that Whitehall was really concerned with certain
countries (he didn't name them) bringing in to the UK a nuclear device in
their Diplomatic Bag (which is never searched and does not have to be a
*bag*) and hiding it in the basement of their Emabassies. In a time of war
or crisis the first thing that happens is that the Embassy of the country is
shut and their people go home leaving the nuclear weapon ticking away. No
early warning - just a big bang and no more London (or Washington come to that).
John
____________________________________________________________________________
John Burtenshaw
The Computer Centre
Bournemouth University
Dorset
Tel: (01202) 595293
E-Mail jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: jstone@thepoint.net (John Stone)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 18:08:47 +0100
Subject: U-2 and SR-71 Web page up and running again!
Hi,
My Lockheed Blackbird web page is up and running again. The new url is:
http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html
Thanks,
John
|
/ ^ \ ___|___
-(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o--------
SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady
John Stone
jstone@thepoint.net
U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html
------------------------------
From: "Murrell, Duncan V."
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 17:48:00 PDT
Subject: RE: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft?
If Paul is naive, then he is in good company:
"With the demise of the Soviet threat and the emerging consensus on the
need to deal with the deficit, one might have expected defense spending to
bear some portion of the reductions, or at least not be increased."
-- from _Foreign Affairs_, Nov.-Dec. 1995, by Lawrence Korb,
former assistant secretary of defense (Reagan administration), former
director of defense policy studies, American Enterprise Institute (not
exactly a bunch of bleeding hearts), former vice president of Raytheon.
It is a valid and useful exercise to wonder about the shape and
substance of the U.S. armed forces in a multi-polar world. In 1993, the
administration addressed the issue by commissioning a Bottum's Up Review,
which tried to develop the skeleton on which to build the post-Cold War
military. That review decided we ought to be able to fight two regional wars
simultaneously -- one on the Korean peninsula, and one in the Middle
East/Persian Gulf area.
Skipping over serious questions about this model's validity (Korb and
others argue the chances of having to fight in Korea and the Persian Gulf
at the same time are remote; the model also assumes we would be alone in
fighting those wars), the next question is, What do you need to fight those
two wars?
For instance, what threat does the SSN-21 (Seawolf) address? It was
designed as a counter to the Soviet attack submarine fleet. That fleet is
now languishing in Russian ports, rusting and unused. In a number of
well-documented cases, newly democratic towns and cities that host the
former Soviet fleet have shut off power to the piers because the fleet can't
pay its utility bills. Some threat.
Are there other countries with submarine threats even remotely
approaching that presented by the Soviet Union? No. Not one. Nevertheless,
we're buying another Seawolf ( the third and last one) in the FY 96 and 97
budgets, at a price tag of around $1.5 billion. Additionally, we have begun
developing the next generation (NSSN) of submarine. Between 1995 and 1997,
we will have spent almost $2.5 billion to develop the ship. The first
submarine itself isn't funded until 1998, when it is expected to roll out of
production at Electric Boat in Groton, Ct. The next one will be built in
1999 at Newport News, then the next one in 2000 at Electric Boat, and then
the fourth one at Newport News, etc, etc, etc,. If that sound inefficient,
it is, unless you recognize that the SSN-21 and the NSSN have less to do
with security threats and more to do with jobs. The Virginia and Connecticut
congressional delegations would not stand to have one or the other be the
sole beneficiary of this lucrative program.
For perspective, a $1.5 billion submarine (in 1997 dollars) meets or
exceeds the yearly budgets of:
1. The General Services Administration and the Small Business
Administration, combined;
2. The National Weather Service, twice over
3. All expenditures on energy
4. NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, 1 and 1/2 times over
5. Four times the NASA's budget for Life and Microgravity Sciences
I've just included the programs that might be of interest to the members of
this group -- the list of social programs that fall below the $1.5 billion
threshold is lengthy and includes most of the so-called wasteful programs
such as Head Start, school lunches, the NEA, the NEH, etc etc.
My point is, it's a fallacy to discuss the weapons procurement budget
strictly in terms of threat. Here on Capitol Hill, threat is clearly not the
only, or even most important consideration.
If threat were primary, we would be focusing on the tools of
low-intensity conflict, not medium- to high-intensity. To hold the Persian
Gulf as the avatar for future conflict is somewhat delusional. The American
military, on a case by case basis, is much more likely to find itself
executing a TRAP (tactical recovery of aircraft personnel) to retrieve Scott
O'Grady, or separating warring factions, or ensuring the safety of relief
workers, or protecting isolated populaions from genocide, than they are
likely to pour over the DMZ with Abrams' ablazin'.
With those missions in mind, let's take another look at the defense
budget. Current plans would have the Vietnam-era CH-46 (medium-lift) on line
for another 20 years. As a former Marine officer, my gut reaction is that
this bucket o' junk isn't going to make it another 20 years. I have a legion
of stories to tell of being stranded in an LZ with a battlefrog spewing
hydraulic fluid from hissing, serpentine hoses that "just pulled away, sir."
The V-22, the CH-46's nominative replacement, has had it's procurement
schedule _slowed down_ in the current future years defense plan (FYDP). The
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Krulak, has called that "ludicrous."
Same goes for the lightweight 155mm towed howitzer. The HMMWV program
gets cut. Ammunition procurement gets cut. What these programs all have in
common are their relatively small price tags, and their relatively small
constituencies. In a face-off between the massive B-2 (with contractors in
all 50 states), the C-17 (same), and the V-22 (Texas, Pennsylvania and
Indiana), the B-2 and C-17 are the predictable winners.
If threat were so important, would we be spending almost $500 million
this year to build a National Missile Defense (capable of defending against
a limited ICBM attack), when such Republican mandarins as Dick Lugar and
John McCain argue that we are much more likely to be the victims of a
jury-rigged nuclear bomb smuggled into the country? The former Soviet states
are having a hell of a time holding on to their stockpiles of enriched
uranium, and yet we cut $71 million from the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program (otherwise known as Nunn-Lugar), a program which assists former
Soviet states to secure their nuclear stockpiles.
I could go on and on. My point is that focusing on "threat" is itself
naive, belying a very superficial understanding of the defense budgeting
process.
About Paul's efforts to expose the black budget: if the Social
Security Administration were to collect an illegal $2 billion slush fund
that no one knew about, and build a palatial new headquarters with an
additional $300 million no one knew about, isn't it likely we would be up in
arms? We'd have Granny and the welfare queens out on the street in a second.
And yet, the black budget allowed the National Reconnaissance Office to do
just that. Additionally, the insulated, womb-like atmosphere of the
intelligence community allowed the Director of Central Intelligence to avoid
any sort of management shake-up, firings, etc., until almost 9 months later,
when Sen. Arlen Specter practically strangled Deutch at a hearing, after
Deutch sheepishly admitted that there had been no punishment meted out for
$2 billion's worth of thumb-nosing at our nation's laws.
That's why I think trying to examine the black budget is an important
activity. Hell, Specter must have had Paul in mind, as one of the leading
black budget gadflies, when he told me the only way we can root corruption
and inefficiency out of the intelligence and defense budgets is to throw the
process open "to the journalists and citizens, who can go through this
thing, in more detail than an office of inspectors general."
Duncan Murrell
Defense and Intelligence Writer
LEGI-SLATE News Service
------------------------------
From: Mary Shafer
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:57:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why? [Skunk Works Digest V5 #646]
Proprietary advantage, probably. Companies are not obliged to tell the
world how they're spending their IR&D money, after all. It's only the
gummint that has to account to the taxpayers.
Regards,
Mary
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end....
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, John Pike wrote:
> >From: David Lednicer
> >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
> >Subject: Why?
> ......
> >example - the X-36 was a deep dark secret until the day they rolled it out.
> >What was gained by keeping it secret during the time they were building it?
> ......
>
> Yes. Would anyone care to offer an explanation of what was conceivably
> gained by keeping this thing under wraps??
>
> ____________________________
>
> John Pike
> Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects
> Federation of American Scientists
> 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/
>
------------------------------
From: Brett Davidson
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:48:54 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Re: your mail
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, CRM114 wrote:
> dadams@netcom.com wrote:
>
> >The relationship of Aviary members
> >to MJ-12 group is murky. More than one
> >UFO researcher estimates that
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, CRM114 wrote:
>
> Yes, and furthermore, Majority 12 and other insidious agents of the Secret
> Satellite Government are responsible for global warming. It's a plot to
> increase the influence of the Trilateral-controlled cartel of central
> bankers and finance ministers. Once you have attained the secret third
> level of the 32nd Masonic degree, all of this will be disclosed to you.
> However, until then, you are not eligible for the Bilderberger exemption
> from the (unconstitutional) income tax requirement, so you must file on
> Monday along with the rest of us.
Well now I know who to blame for my dandruff.
- --Brett
------------------------------
From: Brett Davidson
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:55:36 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft?
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Byron Weber wrote:
>
> Todays NY Times reported the US Military is asking for an additional
> $15 billion in next years budget for weapons and "other items."
> Apparently President Clinton promised to increase weapons spending
> every year for five years until it reached $60 billion by 2001. By
etc.
Are these figures for the total budget or procurement only?
- --Brett
------------------------------
From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:31:05 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Diplomatic nukes, etc
To back up John Burtenshaw's comments re a nuclear bomb being brought in
via a diplomatic bag - I've heard of cargo containers being classed as a
"diplomatic bag". Plenty of room there even for lead screening as well.
"Stolen" nuclear missiles and warheads shouldn't pose too much of a threat,
in theory, as you need the codes to get them to go bang. Remember that a
military nuclear device is built to withstand hard knocks without nuclear
detonatation (like being in a B52 that crashes for example). They're not
simple devices and they degrade with time. It was once suggested to me by
someone 'in the business' that one reason no-one was too likely to attempt
a first strike was that they couldn't guarantee more than about one weapon
in three reaching the target and detonating.
Seems like we're off-topic here. Can we try to get back on (detouring to
avoid crashed UFOs if necessary)?
Steve Barber
These thoughts are totally independent of my employer
------------------------------
From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 6:16:30 EDT
Subject: Re: Skunky prophesy?
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Dave Rosen wrote:
>
> > OFF TOPIC ALERT
>
> I apologise to everybody in the list because this is have gone
> off the topic... I will stop after I replay this message.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why don't people stop BEFORE they say something? That completely
eliminates the need for an apology.
------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #648
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).