Thread View: alt.folklore.computers
19 messages
19 total messages
Started by hanc...
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:44
off topic 1952 B-52 ad
Author: hanc...
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:44
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:44
4 lines
1406 bytes
1406 bytes
off topic Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber. https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad
Author: Jon Elson
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:12
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:12
11 lines
1994 bytes
1994 bytes
hanc...@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&dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false AAAnd, they are still flying! Jon
Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad
Author: hanc...
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:03
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:03
38 lines
2907 bytes
2907 bytes
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > hanc...@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&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
Author: Charlie Gibbs
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:13
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:13
36 lines
2475 bytes
2475 bytes
On 2018-04-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> hanc...@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&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
Author: hanc...
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:55
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:55
45 lines
3207 bytes
3207 bytes
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2018-04-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > > > >> hanc...@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&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
Author: J. Clarke
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 01:39
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 01:39
57 lines
3318 bytes
3318 bytes
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: >> hanc...@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&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
Author: J. Clarke
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 01:41
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 01:41
54 lines
3417 bytes
3417 bytes
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2018-04-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: >> > >> >> hanc...@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&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
Author: Andrew Swallow
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 02:20
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 02:20
16 lines
2649 bytes
2649 bytes
On 24/04/2018 21:55, hanc...@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
Author: Anne Lynn Wheeler
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:20
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:20
140 lines
8460 bytes
8460 bytes
hanc...@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-Vietnam-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
Author: Peter Flass
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:01
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:01
59 lines
4154 bytes
4154 bytes
J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:13:54 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2018-04-24, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: >>>> >>>>> hanc...@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&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
Author: hanc...
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:52
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:52
82 lines
4481 bytes
4481 bytes
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), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > >> hanc...@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&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
Author: hanc...
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:53
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:53
17 lines
2350 bytes
2350 bytes
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
Author: J. Clarke
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 23:54
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 23:54
89 lines
4718 bytes
4718 bytes
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@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), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: >> >> hanc...@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&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
Author: David Jones
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:14
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:14
3 lines
1746 bytes
1746 bytes
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
Author: JimP
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:19
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:19
8 lines
1683 bytes
1683 bytes
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:14:51 -0700 (PDT), David Jones <djon...@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
Author: David Jones
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:44
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:44
5 lines
1594 bytes
1594 bytes
> > Isn't thst Paducah ? Yes, I did a copy and paste and didn't notice. https://www.energy.gov/pppo/paducah-site
Re: off topic 1952 B-52 ad
Author: maus
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:59
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:59
13 lines
1872 bytes
1872 bytes
On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djon...@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
Author: Peter Flass
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:48
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:48
21 lines
2620 bytes
2620 bytes
maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote: > On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djon...@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
Author: Charles Richmond
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:33
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:33
26 lines
3060 bytes
3060 bytes
On 4/27/2018 8:48 AM, Peter Flass wrote: > maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-04-26, David Jones <djon...@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
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads