Cliff wrote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347644_sonar17.html


As soon as we kill all the whales it will be much safer piloting a sub
underwater. Really sucks running into one.

Btw, eviromentalists hate nuclear, hate coal, so we go to natural gas for
power. Now it costs a bundle to heat your home while France is 70%
nuclear. Then you wanted solar power but quickly named windmills California
Cuisonarts and railed against it. We try to put windmills off shore and
your idol Teddy Kennedy doesn't want to see them in his back yard so to say.

Admit it, you just want the human race to die except for a few Democrat
Sierra Clubbers that will repopulate the world worshiping the earth mother.

FOAD

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines, unless you count the one
or two that we pick up comming into Florida filled with drugs, so what makes
this so urgent that it requires that the courts be overridden - this smacks
of what is worse about bush - his imperious attitude and his inability to
even conteplate that there may be nuances and valid other positions.

and yes, a dieout of the human race may be inevitable if we continue our
current ways - I think I'd rather than not happen - how about you?



wrote in message ...
Cliff wrote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347644_sonar17.html


As soon as we kill all the whales it will be much safer piloting a sub
underwater. Really sucks running into one.

Btw, eviromentalists hate nuclear, hate coal, so we go to natural gas for
power. Now it costs a bundle to heat your home while France is 70%
nuclear. Then you wanted solar power but quickly named windmills
California
Cuisonarts and railed against it. We try to put windmills off shore and
your idol Teddy Kennedy doesn't want to see them in his back yard so to
say.

Admit it, you just want the human race to die except for a few Democrat
Sierra Clubbers that will repopulate the world worshiping the earth
mother.

FOAD




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

Gunner

On Jan 17, 11:10 pm, "William Noble" wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines, unless you count the one
or two that we pick up comming into Florida filled with drugs, so what makes
this so urgent that it requires that the courts be overridden - this smacks
of what is worse about bush - his imperious attitude and his inability to
even conteplate that there may be nuances and valid other positions.

and yes, a dieout of the human race may be inevitable if we continue our
current ways - I think I'd rather than not happen - how about you?



wrote in ...
Cliff wrote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347644_sonar17.html

As soon as we kill all the whales it will be much safer piloting a sub
underwater. Really sucks running into one.

Btw, eviromentalists hate nuclear, hate coal, so we go to natural gas for
power. Now it costs a bundle to heat your home while France is 70%
nuclear. Then you wanted solar power but quickly named windmills
California
Cuisonarts and railed against it. We try to put windmills off shore and
your idol Teddy Kennedy doesn't want to see them in his back yard so to
say.

Admit it, you just want the human race to die except for a few Democrat
Sierra Clubbers that will repopulate the world worshiping the earth
mother.

FOAD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


Bush fan I am not, and I'm not in favor of needlessly harming
wildlife, but we are going to be facing a challenging subsurface
situation across the world, especially from china, but from others as
well.

Damn ran outta commas...


Dave

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:38:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

Gunner


Saves dollars as well :-)

Maybe not though. Mil-spec dixie cups and duct tape could run dear...


Mark Rand
RTFM

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:38:56
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,

So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

William, like so many civilian pukes, seems to feel that when the
War starts, he'll be able to run down to the nearest military base,
and be handed a bran new from the factory super duper weapon system,
and will be able to fly it, just like he does on his gameboy.
He's going to have a great shock when he is old enough for a
driver's licence, and discovers those other drivers are incompetent.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect
the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the
US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do. But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke

Dave Smithers wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the

environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the

US

mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!


Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do. But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke




What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...
Dave Smithers wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the

environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,
the

US

mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!


Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a
Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They
had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find
submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a
bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're
supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave
for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants
and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline
had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of
government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.
But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we
get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke




What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim


I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first. I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us. So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke

In article , "Dave Smithers" wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect
the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the
US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They had
no idea it was even there.

Well, that's what we let them think, anyway...

So it's clear that our ability to find submarines
isn't that great, period.

You clearly have no clue.

[...]

Hawke

Aaaahhh, *that* explains it.
Back in the killfile, you nym-shifting Pigeon.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jan 18, 5:18 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message

news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...



Dave Smithers wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the

environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,
the

US

mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a
Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They
had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find
submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a
bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're
supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave
for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants
and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline
had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of
government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.
But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we
get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke

What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim

I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first. I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us. So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke


There are indeed threats to the US, that is what makes the Bush legacy
even worse than it might otherwise be. He's de-legitimized the US
being strong, because he has misused that strength so, so, horribly.

Anyone who thinks we are about to be attacked (by a nation-state, not
talking indiv terroists here) is paranoid (either an actual mental
problem, or adopting that mindset because it makes the sheeple easy to
control and lines your buddies pockets), anyone who thinks we don't
have nations that want to do us harm has their head in the sand.

That's why neither the right nor the left offers any real hope, and
since R/L is the only choice, we're ****ed.


Dave

Dave Smithers wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect
the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the
US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines
And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They had
no idea it was even there.

It was TWO years ago. However the only ones who claim that the Kitty
Hawk didn't know the sub was there were the CIVILIANS who were asked if
THEY knew it was there. I can guarantee that they knew they were there
and allowed them in so they could get good sound readings off the sub.

So it's clear that our ability to find submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about.

Really, I guess the subs that Iran bought from Russia are in safe hands?
Maybe the ones that North Korea has are in safe hands? Or are you
talking about the ones that Syria bought from Russia.

We're supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do. But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke


--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Life is not like a box of chocolates
it's more like a jar of jalapenos-
what you do today could burn your ass tomorrow!

Hawke wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...

Dave Smithers wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the


environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,

the

US


mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!


Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a

Chinese

sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They

had

no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find

submarines

isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a

bunch of

animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're

supposedly

allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave

for

us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants

and

daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline

had a

program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of

government.

They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.

But

it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we

get

sane people in the White House.

Hawke




What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim



I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first. I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us. So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke




North Korea DOES have a fleet of submarines and they also have missiles.
They are currently working on long range missiles. You might want to
check it out. I am not scared of any of the little slant eyed ****ers.
I just don't trust them as far as I could throw their capitol
building. Having spent 21 years in the military I learned that not
everyone wants to be our friend. The crazy assholes running North Korea
and China are unpredictable and I don't trust them. Better to have the
necessary training and be ready than to sit on our asses, as those on
the left would have us do, and NOT be ready when something happens.

Jim

wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:18 pm, "Hawke" wrote:

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message

news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...




Dave Smithers wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the

environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,

the


US

mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a

Chinese

sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They

had

no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find

submarines

isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a

bunch of

animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're

supposedly

allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave

for

us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants

and

daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline

had a

program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of

government.

They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.

But

it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we

get

sane people in the White House.

Hawke

What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim

I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first. I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us. So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke



There are indeed threats to the US, that is what makes the Bush legacy
even worse than it might otherwise be. He's de-legitimized the US
being strong, because he has misused that strength so, so, horribly.

Anyone who thinks we are about to be attacked (by a nation-state, not
talking indiv terroists here) is paranoid (either an actual mental
problem, or adopting that mindset because it makes the sheeple easy to
control and lines your buddies pockets), anyone who thinks we don't
have nations that want to do us harm has their head in the sand.

That's why neither the right nor the left offers any real hope, and
since R/L is the only choice, we're ****ed.


Dave


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Jim

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:37:20 -0800, Dave Smithers wrote:

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well.

Your ignorance of the difference between "active" and "passive" sonar is
noted. You might want to fix that before you pretend to be an authority
on the subject.

Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

Riiiiiiight.

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it.

Yeah, because it's evil that the commander in chief would want the
military to have some training before they need it.

Hawke

Ah, it's you. Sliterhed out of the killfile again, did you? reflush

to start with, look up ASW Simulators - training does not require using the
live sonar in situations that place other life at risk. Perhaps you have
not been involved in recent developments in training and simulation, so it
is understandable that you don't know these things. Live fire training for
infantry is important, and going out on the ocean is important to the navy
and it's readiness, but there is no need to do this particular training at
this particular time in that particular location.
"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the
US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

Gunner



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message

William, like so many civilian pukes, seems to feel that when the
War starts, he'll be able to run down to the nearest military base,
and be handed a bran new from the factory super duper weapon system,
and will be able to fly it, just like he does on his gameboy.
He's going to have a great shock when he is old enough for a
driver's licence, and discovers those other drivers are incompetent.


There is an old saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a
fool than to speak out and prove the case. QED



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"
North Korea DOES have a fleet of submarines and they also have missiles.
They are currently working on long range missiles. You might want to
check it out. I am not scared of any of the little slant eyed ****ers. I
just don't trust them as far as I could throw their capitol building.
Having spent 21 years in the military I learned that not everyone wants to
be our friend. The crazy assholes running North Korea and China are
unpredictable and I don't trust them. Better to have the necessary
training and be ready than to sit on our asses, as those on the left would
have us do, and NOT be ready when something happens.

Jim

absolutely - and if NK could threaten and blackmail us directly, they would
do so - but they do not have long range ocean going submarines, they do not
have SLBMs, and for now, neither does China. We do not need to do these
tests and training under conditions that will cause serious problems to
marine life - we can move farther off shore, to a different locale, or at a
different time. Developing proper safeguards and doing the test next year
will not decrease our security.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:13:14 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Finger, not weapon. It's sooo..... gauche..... to have a gun!

Should I paint my fingernail bright orange to aid in aiming?

Hey, what makes me wonder. Does GWB have the constitutional authority to
override other peoples laws?

Yes, temporarily.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Gunner" wrote in message
news On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:10:57 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect the
environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar, the US
mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines,


So when training to detect submarines, you suggest that we simply duct
tape some dixie cups to the operators ears, and somone in the room
makes some squeeky noises as a simulation of the real thing?

Then I, when I go to the range, should simply point my weapon at the
target, and shout Bang, Bang? This is good training..eco friendly
training, correct?

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

William Noble wrote:
"
North Korea DOES have a fleet of submarines and they also have missiles.
They are currently working on long range missiles. You might want to
check it out. I am not scared of any of the little slant eyed ****ers. I
just don't trust them as far as I could throw their capitol building.
Having spent 21 years in the military I learned that not everyone wants to
be our friend. The crazy assholes running North Korea and China are
unpredictable and I don't trust them. Better to have the necessary
training and be ready than to sit on our asses, as those on the left would
have us do, and NOT be ready when something happens.

Jim

absolutely - and if NK could threaten and blackmail us directly, they would
do so - but they do not have long range ocean going submarines, they do not
have SLBMs, and for now, neither does China. We do not need to do these
tests and training under conditions that will cause serious problems to
marine life - we can move farther off shore, to a different locale, or at a
different time. Developing proper safeguards and doing the test next year
will not decrease our security.




WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.

Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.

--
Ned Simmons

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
William Noble wrote:
"
North Korea DOES have a fleet of submarines and they also have missiles.
They are currently working on long range missiles. You might want to
check it out. I am not scared of any of the little slant eyed ****ers.
I just don't trust them as far as I could throw their capitol building.
Having spent 21 years in the military I learned that not everyone wants
to be our friend. The crazy assholes running North Korea and China are
unpredictable and I don't trust them. Better to have the necessary
training and be ready than to sit on our asses, as those on the left
would have us do, and NOT be ready when something happens.

Jim

absolutely - and if NK could threaten and blackmail us directly, they
would do so - but they do not have long range ocean going submarines,
they do not have SLBMs, and for now, neither does China. We do not need
to do these tests and training under conditions that will cause serious
problems to marine life - we can move farther off shore, to a different
locale, or at a different time. Developing proper safeguards and doing
the test next year will not decrease our security.

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in which
a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North Korea and
China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD. Maybe you
missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile launched into
D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think that the U.S.
should stop that? How about if they decided to target a few of the U.S.
coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might cause a problem?
Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible with the current crop
of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building and selling off.

--
Steve W.


Perhaps you would care to reveal your sources for this new information? I
have some serious doubts about what you say - NK subs manage to reach SK but
barely,and they are very small - do you have evidence that they have
acquired ocean going subs? with what exactly will they target US bases on
the mainland? How will they launch a conventional missile into DC? You can
sit there and quaver in fear or you can look at what is actually a
capability. You can read on the web about rusting russian subs that are
avaialble cheaply, but there is no way that these could be bought or stolen
by NK without detection -- read up on a threat before you ramble - a couple
of good sources is Janes and FAS, you can learn a lot there.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.

Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton.

That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.

So, the way one gets to DC is to preposition a few tenders.

Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.

Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.


And no mention of missile launching capability.

I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution. The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.


And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?


Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.

Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.


The only way to find them..is with active sonar, unless he rammed his
conning tower into your hull .

Gunner

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:23:35 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

and going out on the ocean is important to the navy
and it's readiness, but there is no need to do this particular training at
this particular time in that particular location.


Your opinion, which runs counter to that of the Navy;s is noted.

Gunner

The only way to find them..is with active sonar, unless he rammed his
conning tower into your hull .

Gunner

FALSE statement again - perhaps a little reading would do you good - start
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare

it's amazing how much blatantly false information is stated as fact - but
then again, this is the internet and you really can't beleive anything you
read



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.

Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton.

That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.

I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders. In fact, they don't appear to have any ships
with a range as great as the subs. And even a later version than the
Korean's Romeo (Type 033 vs. 031) is described as "...generally
regarded as an ageing design, only suitable for coastal defence and
patrol duties. The submarine is very noisy, and incapable of operating
deep oceans far from its homeport..."
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033romeo.asp

So, the way one gets to DC is to preposition a few tenders.

If the Koreans had such a thing, and if they could operate undetected.

Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.

They can operate for a couple days at very low speeds.


Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.


And no mention of missile launching capability.

I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution.

Wild speculation.

The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.


And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?

With luck, they could presumably reach the west coast on a suicide
torpedo attack. That's a long way from a missile strike on DC. There
may be a legitimate reason to carry on the sonar training, but it
ain't North Korea's sub capability.

--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:

Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.


Yeah! It's not like they can find diesel fuel and fresh supplies
anywhere but home port! Oh, ****, they CAN!!!


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

9000 mile limit - phooey!

Never heard of refueling away from home?

Kwajalein atoll was a mid Pacific refueling station for Japanese subs during
WWII. They were able to refuel under water. I know this as I lived there and
have had a swim in a large tank of fuel that has a deep rain water layer over
the fuel.

It would be easy as punch to have a tanker, a cargo container ship or another
to be a tanker - refuel and then trash at sea the fuel tanks and come to port.

They might not come to our port but a trading partner along the way.
They might have a one way trip planned on something like that - figuring
we find them after the fact. Think of the 15 year old body bombs.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ned Simmons wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.

Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.
Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton.
That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.

I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders. In fact, they don't appear to have any ships
with a range as great as the subs. And even a later version than the
Korean's Romeo (Type 033 vs. 031) is described as "...generally
regarded as an ageing design, only suitable for coastal defence and
patrol duties. The submarine is very noisy, and incapable of operating
deep oceans far from its homeport..."
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033romeo.asp

And a boat made from old inner tubes and plywood could NEVER make it to
the US from Cuba. How about those OLD wooden ships that sailed around
the world and were a LOT less able than a steel hulled ship built using
technology that is far superior. Take a look at what Germany did with a
far older design of sub. Those subs are also considered "an aging
design, very noisy and incapable of operation far from there home ports"


So, the way one gets to DC is to preposition a few tenders.

If the Koreans had such a thing, and if they could operate undetected.

Guess what a sub tender is! A simple ship that carries fuel, munitions
and food for the sub. The US tenders carry spare parts and can do some
repairs as well but for a limited attack they could use a converted
fishing trawler for the fuel and supply only food for the crew. Easy to do.


Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.

They can operate for a couple days at very low speeds.

Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.


And no mention of missile launching capability.
I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution.

Wild speculation.

Nope. Russia developed an exterior mounted launching platform for the
633 class as a "test".
http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/ss.htm
However that isn't really needed. A simple launch rack welded to the
hull can handle a TLAM or two easily.
Or they can use the launcher made for the YJ-8 missile which was
designed for the 033G class Romeos.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033g.asp
Notice that the boat itself MAY be out of service but nobody knows for sure.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rk/s-romeo.htm
However if they can find a few TLAMs those could be launched from the
torpedo tubes just like the UK and the US have done. The 033s have a 21"
tube and the TLAM will fit in a 20.5" tube.


The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.


And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?

With luck, they could presumably reach the west coast on a suicide
torpedo attack. That's a long way from a missile strike on DC. There
may be a legitimate reason to carry on the sonar training, but it
ain't North Korea's sub capability.

No luck involved with the West Coast. 5200 miles or so from North Korea
to LA and San Fransisco. 9000 mile range gives them 3800 spare miles.
And that is IF they didn't carry any extra fuel on board.

Of course they could also contact a few nutcases and convince them to
make a suicide run at the US.


--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Life is not like a box of chocolates
it's more like a jar of jalapenos-
what you do today could burn your ass tomorrow!

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

9000 mile limit - phooey!

Never heard of refueling away from home?

Kwajalein atoll was a mid Pacific refueling station for Japanese subs
during
WWII. They were able to refuel under water. I know this as I lived
there and
have had a swim in a large tank of fuel that has a deep rain water layer
over
the fuel.

It would be easy as punch to have a tanker, a cargo container ship or
another
to be a tanker - refuel and then trash at sea the fuel tanks and come to
port.

They might not come to our port but a trading partner along the way.
They might have a one way trip planned on something like that - figuring
we find them after the fact. Think of the 15 year old body bombs.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
Crap cut

Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the
WORLD. Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional
missile launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you
don't think that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided
to target a few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into
Groton might cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All
very possible with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia
has been building and selling off.


Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.

What a load of crap! Get your paranoid head out of your ass and face
reality. With ****wits like you populating the US, no nation needs to
attack the US, idiots like you are doing the job for them. When the
**** settles, China will buy you for 5 cents on the dollar.

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:VEbkj.1823$LN4.727@trnddc07...
Hawke wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...

Dave Smithers wrote:

look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the


environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,

the

US


mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!


Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a

Chinese

sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They

had

no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find

submarines

isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a

bunch of

animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're

supposedly

allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave

for

us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants

and

daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline

had a

program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of

government.

They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.

But

it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we

get

sane people in the White House.

Hawke




What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim



I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet
of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first.
I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked
by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all
the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being
attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us.
So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries
or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke




North Korea DOES have a fleet of submarines and they also have missiles.
They are currently working on long range missiles. You might want to
check it out. I am not scared of any of the little slant eyed ****ers.
I just don't trust them as far as I could throw their capitol
building. Having spent 21 years in the military I learned that not
everyone wants to be our friend. The crazy assholes running North Korea
and China are unpredictable and I don't trust them. Better to have the
necessary training and be ready than to sit on our asses, as those on
the left would have us do, and NOT be ready when something happens.

Jim


As I said, we already spend as much money on our military as the rest of the
world put together. I would think that kind of outlay with no real nation
state enemies on our par shows just how paranoid and how overly ready we are
for military conflict. I don't see how we could be any more prepared than we
are now compared to the level of threat out there. We have the world's
biggest and most high tech military by far right now. Saying that we are
complacent or are sitting on our asses simply is not anywhere near factually
correct. We are not on the level of a nation with a military designed for
it's self defense. We have a military whose mission is to enforce the will
of the world's biggest and only remaining empire. We could cut our military
in half and have nothing to worry about as far as defending America goes. Of
course, dominating and intimidating the rest of the world would be a lot
harder.

Hawke

"John" wrote in message ...
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

9000 mile limit - phooey!

Never heard of refueling away from home?

Kwajalein atoll was a mid Pacific refueling station for Japanese subs
during
WWII. They were able to refuel under water. I know this as I lived
there and
have had a swim in a large tank of fuel that has a deep rain water layer
over
the fuel.

It would be easy as punch to have a tanker, a cargo container ship or
another
to be a tanker - refuel and then trash at sea the fuel tanks and come to
port.

They might not come to our port but a trading partner along the way.
They might have a one way trip planned on something like that - figuring
we find them after the fact. Think of the 15 year old body bombs.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
Crap cut

Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the
WORLD. Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional
missile launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you
don't think that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided
to target a few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into
Groton might cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All
very possible with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia
has been building and selling off.


Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.

What a load of crap! Get your paranoid head out of your ass and face
reality. With ****wits like you populating the US, no nation needs to
attack the US, idiots like you are doing the job for them. When the
**** settles, China will buy you for 5 cents on the dollar.

Amen! You got people arguing about what North Korea could do to the US. In
military terms the answer is nothing. Besides, all an attack on the US by
Korea would do is get them obliterated by nuclear weapons. I'm amazed that
people seem to have forgotten what deterrence is all about. Sure the world
is full of idiots and crazies around that would love to do all kinds of evil
things. But they don't because of what would happen to them if they did.
It's why we have nukes and it's called retaliation. Do something bad to us
and you all die. If you can back it up that works very well in the real
world. We can back it up. We have 10,000 nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them anywhere we want. We really don't need much more than that
militarily. Certain nuclear annihilation will do a lot to keep people in
line even when they are crazy.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Amen! You got people arguing about what North Korea could do to the US. In
military terms the answer is nothing. Besides, all an attack on the US by
Korea would do is get them obliterated by nuclear weapons. I'm amazed that
people seem to have forgotten what deterrence is all about. Sure the world
is full of idiots and crazies around that would love to do all kinds of evil
things. But they don't because of what would happen to them if they did.
It's why we have nukes and it's called retaliation. Do something bad to us
and you all die. If you can back it up that works very well in the real
world. We can back it up. We have 10,000 nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them anywhere we want. We really don't need much more than that
militarily. Certain nuclear annihilation will do a lot to keep people in
line even when they are crazy.

Hawke



Hawk, you are such an idiot.

It surprises me that people actually like to argue with you.

NOBODY is going to use nuclear weapons in anything but retaliation
for nukes.

Cripes!

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Joseph Gwinn
wrote on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

And no mention of missile launching capability.

I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution. The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.


And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?

Depends on what day of the week, and which way the wind is
blowing.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:28:21 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:




The only way to find them..is with active sonar, unless he rammed his
conning tower into your hull .

Gunner

FALSE statement again - perhaps a little reading would do you good - start
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare

it's amazing how much blatantly false information is stated as fact - but
then again, this is the internet and you really can't beleive anything you
read


A Bill? Im familiar with anti-submarine warfare, being something of a
military fact and military history buff.

Some of the electric boats are damned silent, and if at the
thermocline, or dogging on the bottom...passive simply isnt going to
get it.

Reflected passive..shrug..might..might work if you have the time to do
a full workup from a stationary receiver.

Im sorry if your touchy feely is hurt because of some unproven believe
that sonar is harmful to sealife and many of us with an understanding
of the realities of life, dont agree with you.


Shrug

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:45:16 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.

I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders.


Any ship can be a tender. The Germans proved that quite well in
Argentinan waters during WW2.

You need fuel tanks, a couple good cranes and thats about all.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:37:17 +1300, John wrote:


Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton. And no mention of missile
launching capability.

What a load of crap! Get your paranoid head out of your ass and face
reality. With ****wits like you populating the US, no nation needs to
attack the US, idiots like you are doing the job for them. When the
**** settles, China will buy you for 5 cents on the dollar.


Of course it paranoia. Who would turn 4 airliners into WMD, or blow
up British double decker buses either? Unthinkable. Balderdash!!

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:28:21 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:




The only way to find them..is with active sonar, unless he rammed his
conning tower into your hull .

Gunner

FALSE statement again - perhaps a little reading would do you good - start
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare

it's amazing how much blatantly false information is stated as fact - but
then again, this is the internet and you really can't beleive anything you
read

A Bill? Im familiar with anti-submarine warfare, being something of a
military fact and military history buff.

Some of the electric boats are damned silent, and if at the
thermocline, or dogging on the bottom...passive simply isnt going to
get it.

Reflected passive..shrug..might..might work if you have the time to do
a full workup from a stationary receiver.

Im sorry if your touchy feely is hurt because of some unproven believe
that sonar is harmful to sealife and many of us with an understanding
of the realities of life, dont agree with you.

Shrug

Gunner


If he believe passive SONAR works, he should try passive spamming.
that's where he has something for sale, and you know it without being
told.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:36:54 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:45:16 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders.

Any ship can be a tender. The Germans proved that quite well in
Argentinan waters during WW2.

You need fuel tanks, a couple good cranes and thats about all.

And active sonar isn't such a great idea in warfare - recall the
Murphy's Law edict: "Tracers work both ways." Passive sonar doesn't
tell the enemy that you are looking for them, and where you are.

-- Bruce --