|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366729 is a reply to message #366682] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 16:03   |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> off topic
>> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>
>>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> AAAnd, they are still flying!
Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
are too old.
Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
of course would benefit the contractor.
In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
and aircraft and submarines. Extremely expensive. Kept the
military draft going for years.
Was it all necessary? Very tough to say. I can certainly
understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
quite understandably. Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
causing trouble worldwide.
* Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from
above-ground testing. The nuclear plants left behind an
enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA. It blows my mind that
they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
now already blow up the world many times over?
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366733 is a reply to message #366729] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 16:13 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-04-24, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> off topic
>>> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>
>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>
> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
> are too old.
Sort of like the ancient Sea King helicopters that the Canadian
military had to deal with. One of the pilots wrote a critique,
sung to the tune of "Seasons in the Sun":
Goodbye papa, it's hard to fly
When your airframe's cracking in the sky.
For every hour in the air,
It takes twenty to repair.
We fly these things on a dare.
We had joy, we had fun,
We had Sea Kings in the sun.
But the engine's on fire,
And the Sea Kings must retire.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366737 is a reply to message #366733] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 16:55 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-04-24, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> off topic
>>>> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>
>>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>>
>> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
>> are too old.
>
> Sort of like the ancient Sea King helicopters that the Canadian
> military had to deal with. One of the pilots wrote a critique,
> sung to the tune of "Seasons in the Sun":
>
> Goodbye papa, it's hard to fly
> When your airframe's cracking in the sky.
> For every hour in the air,
> It takes twenty to repair.
> We fly these things on a dare.
>
> We had joy, we had fun,
> We had Sea Kings in the sun.
> But the engine's on fire,
> And the Sea Kings must retire.
One time in NYC some Canadian Navy ships paid a visit and
hosted an open house. On the bridge they had typical
office desks with a PC on them. The PC screens had
a vertical chart with the speeds of the old ship's
telegraph--full ahead, full astern, etc.
I thought that was kind of sad.
However, I believe the veteran workhouse, the Teletype model
28, was originally developed for marine service. according
to Wikipedia, that remained in production as long as the model
33 did, even though it was Baudot. A lot of Western Union
networks stuck with Baudot. I think their SIMCOM was Baudot.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366749 is a reply to message #366729] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 21:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> off topic
>>> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>
>>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>
>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>
> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
> are too old.
Those pilots' kids will be retired before the B-52 goes out of
service.
> Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
> by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
> of course would benefit the contractor.
>
> In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
> War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
> and aircraft and submarines. Extremely expensive. Kept the
> military draft going for years.
For certain values of "expensive".
> Was it all necessary? Very tough to say. I can certainly
> understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
> after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
> quite understandably. Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
> Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
> causing trouble worldwide.
>
>
> * Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from
> above-ground testing.
I don't feel very poisoned.
> The nuclear plants left behind an
> enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
> ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA.
Hanford was the _first_ large-scale nuclear reactor complex, created
during a war in which it was feared that the other side might be doing
the same thing. It was not a "nuclear plant" in the sense that that
term is usually used.
> It blows my mind that
> they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
> now already blow up the world many times over?
You seem to have missed a number of treaties.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366751 is a reply to message #366737] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 21:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-04-24, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>
>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > off topic
>>>> > Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>>
>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>>
>>>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>>>
>>> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
>>> are too old.
>>
>> Sort of like the ancient Sea King helicopters that the Canadian
>> military had to deal with. One of the pilots wrote a critique,
>> sung to the tune of "Seasons in the Sun":
>>
>> Goodbye papa, it's hard to fly
>> When your airframe's cracking in the sky.
>> For every hour in the air,
>> It takes twenty to repair.
>> We fly these things on a dare.
>>
>> We had joy, we had fun,
>> We had Sea Kings in the sun.
>> But the engine's on fire,
>> And the Sea Kings must retire.
>
> One time in NYC some Canadian Navy ships paid a visit and
> hosted an open house. On the bridge they had typical
> office desks with a PC on them. The PC screens had
> a vertical chart with the speeds of the old ship's
> telegraph--full ahead, full astern, etc.
>
> I thought that was kind of sad.
You do understand that to actually change the speed of the ship
involves considerably more than pressing an accelerator pedal. You
tell the black gang how fast you want to go and they make it happen.
>
> However, I believe the veteran workhouse, the Teletype model
> 28, was originally developed for marine service. according
> to Wikipedia, that remained in production as long as the model
> 33 did, even though it was Baudot. A lot of Western Union
> networks stuck with Baudot. I think their SIMCOM was Baudot.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366753 is a reply to message #366737] |
Tue, 24 April 2018 22:20 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 24/04/2018 21:55, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
{snip}
>
> However, I believe the veteran workhouse, the Teletype model
> 28, was originally developed for marine service. according
> to Wikipedia, that remained in production as long as the model
> 33 did, even though it was Baudot. A lot of Western Union
> networks stuck with Baudot. I think their SIMCOM was Baudot.
>
>
>
>
The Cold War was bluffed in ITA2. It was the Gulf War before the British
Army switched to ITA5 (ASCII).
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366762 is a reply to message #366729] |
Wed, 25 April 2018 00:20 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
> by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
> of course would benefit the contractor.
>
> In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
> War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
> and aircraft and submarines. Extremely expensive. Kept the
> military draft going for years.
>
> Was it all necessary? Very tough to say. I can certainly
> understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
> after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
> quite understandably. Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
> Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
> causing trouble worldwide.
remember the important thing about U2 program was that it debunked the
USAF claims about "bomber gap" ... where they were trying to just 1/3rd
increase in Pentagon budget ... contributing to Eisenhower's goodby
warning about the Military-Industrial Complex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap
Disproval of gap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap#Disproval_of_gap
US President Dwight Eisenhower had always been skeptical of the
gap. However, with no evidence to disprove it, he agreed to the
development of the U-2 to find out for sure.[7]
.... snip ...
WW2, LeMay was trying to justify 4engine, high altitude, strategic
bomber program ... even claiming that it could win the war w/o even
having to invade Europe ... 2/3rds total US WW2 spending went to planes
and half that (1/3rd) went to strategic bombing (drift: 1943 US
Strategic Bomber program needed industrial & military targets in Germany
.... and it got the information from wallstreet). Even with Norden
sights, they had difficulty hitting anything from 5-6 miles up
.... possibly explaining McNamara on Lemay's staff planning switch to
fire bombing German and Japanese cities (something was going to catch
fire)
The European Campaign: Its Origins and Conduct
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1075
loc2582-85:
The bomber preparation of Omaha Beach was a total failure, and German
defenses on Omaha Beach were intact as American troops came ashore. At
Utah Beach, the bombers were a little more effective because the IXth
Bomber Command was using B-26 medium bombers. Wisely, in preparation for
supporting the invasion, maintenance crews removed Norden bombsights
from the bombers and installed the more effective low-level altitude
sights.
.... snip ...
more drift; Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam: Learning
to Eat Soup with a Knife
https://www.amazon.com/Counterinsurgency-Lessons-Malaya-Viet nam-Learning-ebook/dp/B000QECG20/
loc1628-30:
The American army's involvement in the Second Indochina War from 1950 to
1972 demonstrates the triumph of the institutional culture of an
organization over attempts at doctrinal innovation and the diminution of
the effectiveness of the organization at accomplishing national
objectives.
loc1631-33:
The concept that success in counterinsurgency consisted of separating
the insurgents from popular support never took root. The U.S. Army
proceeded with its historical role of destroying the enemy army-even if
it had a hard time finding it. The United States Army entered the
Vietnam War with a doctrine well suited to fighting conventional war in
Europe, but worse than useless for the counterinsurgency it was about to
combat.
loc1641-43:
The learning cycle was also ineffective in recognizing poor performance,
suggesting doctrinal innovation, gaining organizational consensus behind
new doctrine, and disseminating the changes throughout the army in
Vietnam. Although there was substantial innovation from below, neither
the personnel nor the organization of the Military Assistance Advisory
Group (MAAG) and of its successor organization, Military Assistance
Command-Vietnam (MACV), was conducive to counterinsurgency learning.
loc2818-20:
Many of these innovations were, if useless, at least not harmful to the
achievement of American goals; the same can hardly be said for the use
of strategic B-52 bombers in a tactical close air support role, which
produced a vast number of civilian causalities and provided duds (5
percent of the bombs failed to explode) for booby traps that killed more
than one thousand U.S. soldiers in 1966 alone
.... snip ...
McNamara had left for the auto industry with the end of WW2 hostilities,
but comes back for Vietnam as SECDEF where Laos becomes the most bombed
country in the world (more tonnage than dropped on Germany and Japan
combined).
Trivia, recent estimate of still large number of unexploded WW2 bombs
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/apr/23/allied-bombs- still-threaten-hamburg-ww2
"As a rule of thumb, though, if German ordnance hit the ground, it
exploded," says period munitions expert Stephen Taylor, "while Allied
bombs were notoriously unreliable, with a failure rate generally
estimated at 15% or even 20%, especially if they hit soft soil and had
pistols rather than fuses."
.... snip ...
military-industrial(-congressional) complex posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial .complex
past posts mentioning "bomber gap":
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#80 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#10 The Knowledge Economy Two Classes of Workers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#18 Air Superiority: Advantage over enemy skies for 60 years
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#54 What Makes collecting sales taxes Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#41 Is newer technology always better? It almost is. Exceptions?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#52 US Army hopes to replace 25% of soldiers with robots by 2040
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#54 Royal Pardon For Turing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#22 $40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#13 LEO
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#70 God No, the U.S. Air Force Doesn't Need Another Curtis LeMay
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#79 Shout out to Grace Hopper (State of the Union)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#80 Qbasic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#99 Trust in Government Is Collapsing Around the World
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016e.html#122 U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#47 British socialism / anti-trust
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016h.html#33 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016h.html#89 "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366786 is a reply to message #366751] |
Wed, 25 April 2018 10:01 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-24, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> off topic
>>>> >> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>> >
>>>> > AAAnd, they are still flying!
>>>>
>>>> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
>>>> are too old.
>>>
>>> Sort of like the ancient Sea King helicopters that the Canadian
>>> military had to deal with. One of the pilots wrote a critique,
>>> sung to the tune of "Seasons in the Sun":
>>>
>>> Goodbye papa, it's hard to fly
>>> When your airframe's cracking in the sky.
>>> For every hour in the air,
>>> It takes twenty to repair.
>>> We fly these things on a dare.
>>>
>>> We had joy, we had fun,
>>> We had Sea Kings in the sun.
>>> But the engine's on fire,
>>> And the Sea Kings must retire.
>>
>> One time in NYC some Canadian Navy ships paid a visit and
>> hosted an open house. On the bridge they had typical
>> office desks with a PC on them. The PC screens had
>> a vertical chart with the speeds of the old ship's
>> telegraph--full ahead, full astern, etc.
>>
>> I thought that was kind of sad.
>
> You do understand that to actually change the speed of the ship
> involves considerably more than pressing an accelerator pedal. You
> tell the black gang how fast you want to go and they make it happen.
>>
>> However, I believe the veteran workhouse, the Teletype model
>> 28, was originally developed for marine service. according
>> to Wikipedia, that remained in production as long as the model
>> 33 did, even though it was Baudot. A lot of Western Union
>> networks stuck with Baudot. I think their SIMCOM was Baudot.
>>
Like the stokers in the movie -A Night to Remember_: The telegraph told the
engineer how fast to go and he yelled at the stokers to shovel faster ;-)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366801 is a reply to message #366749] |
Wed, 25 April 2018 17:52 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:39:54 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> off topic
>>>> Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>
>>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>>
>> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
>> are too old.
>
> Those pilots' kids will be retired before the B-52 goes out of
> service.
>
>> Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
>> by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
>> of course would benefit the contractor.
>>
>> In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
>> War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
>> and aircraft and submarines. Extremely expensive. Kept the
>> military draft going for years.
>
> For certain values of "expensive".
>
>> Was it all necessary? Very tough to say. I can certainly
>> understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
>> after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
>> quite understandably. Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
>> Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
>> causing trouble worldwide.
>>
>>
>> * Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from
>> above-ground testing.
>
> I don't feel very poisoned.
It has been said that above-ground testing led to higher
radiation levels in the food chain, resulting in an increased
occurrence of diseases like leukemia. I don't know if that
claim is scientifically accurate. But knowing a number of people
with leukemia, I find it troubling.
>> The nuclear plants left behind an
>> enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
>> ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA.
>
> Hanford was the _first_ large-scale nuclear reactor complex, created
> during a war in which it was feared that the other side might be doing
> the same thing. It was not a "nuclear plant" in the sense that that
> term is usually used.
Hanford, like Oak Ridge, was indeed a "nuclear plant". It made
plutonium.
It was built in a rush during WW II with minimum safeguards. The
making of plutonium is extremely toxic and they knew it back then.
Stainless steel storage tanks for the waste proved to be inadequate.
Anyway, once the Cold War got underway, production was increased
at Hanford, and new sites were created (I think Pucadah, KY was
one). Hanford is now a mess.
>> It blows my mind that
>> they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
>> now already blow up the world many times over?
>
> You seem to have missed a number of treaties.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366802 is a reply to message #366751] |
Wed, 25 April 2018 17:53 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:41:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> One time in NYC some Canadian Navy ships paid a visit and
>> hosted an open house. On the bridge they had typical
>> office desks with a PC on them. The PC screens had
>> a vertical chart with the speeds of the old ship's
>> telegraph--full ahead, full astern, etc.
>>
>> I thought that was kind of sad.
>
> You do understand that to actually change the speed of the ship
> involves considerably more than pressing an accelerator pedal. You
> tell the black gang how fast you want to go and they make it happen.
In earlier days they used a ship's telegraph, a round device
operated by a wheel. The indications on the dial were the same
as on the face of the PC.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366808 is a reply to message #366801] |
Wed, 25 April 2018 19:54 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:39:54 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > off topic
>>>> > Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>>>
>>>> AAAnd, they are still flying!
>>>
>>> Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
>>> are too old.
>>
>> Those pilots' kids will be retired before the B-52 goes out of
>> service.
>>
>>> Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
>>> by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
>>> of course would benefit the contractor.
>>>
>>> In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
>>> War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
>>> and aircraft and submarines. Extremely expensive. Kept the
>>> military draft going for years.
>>
>> For certain values of "expensive".
>>
>>> Was it all necessary? Very tough to say. I can certainly
>>> understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
>>> after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
>>> quite understandably. Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
>>> Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
>>> causing trouble worldwide.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from
>>> above-ground testing.
>>
>> I don't feel very poisoned.
>
> It has been said that above-ground testing led to higher
> radiation levels in the food chain, resulting in an increased
> occurrence of diseases like leukemia. I don't know if that
> claim is scientifically accurate. But knowing a number of people
> with leukemia, I find it troubling.
>
>
>
>
>>> The nuclear plants left behind an
>>> enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
>>> ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA.
>>
>> Hanford was the _first_ large-scale nuclear reactor complex, created
>> during a war in which it was feared that the other side might be doing
>> the same thing. It was not a "nuclear plant" in the sense that that
>> term is usually used.
>
> Hanford, like Oak Ridge, was indeed a "nuclear plant". It made
> plutonium.
>
> It was built in a rush during WW II with minimum safeguards. The
> making of plutonium is extremely toxic and they knew it back then.
> Stainless steel storage tanks for the waste proved to be inadequate.
It didn't produce power, which is what a "nuclear plant" does today,
and conflating it with one appears to be blatant propagandizing.
> Anyway, once the Cold War got underway, production was increased
> at Hanford, and new sites were created (I think Pucadah, KY was
> one). Hanford is now a mess.
Which is the way things go when you're learning how to do something.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> It blows my mind that
>>> they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
>>> now already blow up the world many times over?
>>
>> You seem to have missed a number of treaties.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366824 is a reply to message #366564] |
Thu, 26 April 2018 09:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: David Jones
Yes, Pucadah, KY was another site.
I don't know about the food chain. But world wide background radiation levels did go up ever since the air tests. Even steel made before and after has different levels. I was reading that in a few cases people have gotten steel from old pre-nuclear age ship wrecks to use in making sensitive science instruments, for just this reason.
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366838 is a reply to message #366824] |
Thu, 26 April 2018 13:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:14:51 -0700 (PDT), David Jones
<djones60@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Pucadah, KY was another site.
>
> I don't know about the food chain. But world wide background radiation levels did go up ever since the air tests. Even steel made before and after has different levels. I was reading that in a few cases people have gotten steel from old pre-nuclear age ship wrecks to use in making sensitive science instruments, for just this reason.
Isn't thst Paducah ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366886 is a reply to message #366824] |
Fri, 27 April 2018 03:59 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djones60@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Pucadah, KY was another site.
>
> I don't know about the food chain. But world wide background radiation levels did go up ever since the air tests. Even steel made before and after has different levels. I was reading that in a few cases people have gotten steel from old pre-nuclear age ship wrecks to use in making sensitive science instruments, for just this reason.
I think that the change in steel dates to around the Hiroshima bomb. If
that made a difference, what did the far bigger explosions later do?.. I
am told that the transsiberian railroad passes through a big area the
far side of the Urals which is dodgy.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366896 is a reply to message #366886] |
Fri, 27 April 2018 09:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djones60@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, Pucadah, KY was another site.
>>
>> I don't know about the food chain. But world wide background radiation
>> levels did go up ever since the air tests. Even steel made before and
>> after has different levels. I was reading that in a few cases people
>> have gotten steel from old pre-nuclear age ship wrecks to use in making
>> sensitive science instruments, for just this reason.
>
> I think that the change in steel dates to around the Hiroshima bomb. If
> that made a difference, what did the far bigger explosions later do?.. I
> am told that the transsiberian railroad passes through a big area the
> far side of the Urals which is dodgy.
>
North Korea has contaminated an entire town near their test site, and
collapsed part of the mountain where their site is located.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad [message #366905 is a reply to message #366896] |
Fri, 27 April 2018 10:33 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4/27/2018 8:48 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djones60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, Pucadah, KY was another site.
>>>
>>> I don't know about the food chain. But world wide background radiation
>>> levels did go up ever since the air tests. Even steel made before and
>>> after has different levels. I was reading that in a few cases people
>>> have gotten steel from old pre-nuclear age ship wrecks to use in making
>>> sensitive science instruments, for just this reason.
>>
>> I think that the change in steel dates to around the Hiroshima bomb. If
>> that made a difference, what did the far bigger explosions later do?.. I
>> am told that the transsiberian railroad passes through a big area the
>> far side of the Urals which is dodgy.
>>
>
> North Korea has contaminated an entire town near their test site, and
> collapsed part of the mountain where their site is located.
>
But nobody is suggesting that the North Koreans are "the sharpest knives
in the drawer". ;-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
