# "Those Who Do not Learn From History Are Doomed..."



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Surfing the internet this AM, reading the news I came upon an article quoting a USAF General relating that the Air Force was preparing it's remaining B52 Heavy Bombers to once again stand nuclear alert(s). Boy does that bring back memories!

One of my early assignments in the USAF (45+ years back) was with the 379th Bomb Wing, Heavy at Wurtsmith AFB, MI. and that was followed by an assignment with the 351st Strategic Missile Wing at Whiteman AFB, MO. The B52's at Wurtsmith were "cocked and locked" on nuclear alert, with flight crews living in 'the Mole Hole' seven days at a time. The Minuteman II missiles at Whiteman, sat in their launch tubes, with the intrepid missile launch crews pulling 24 hour alerts in a series of underground launch control centers spread across the Missouri countryside. Those Crew Dogs, be they aircrew or missile launch crew, were all waiting for the NCA order to go to war.

Many things have changed...Wurtsmith AFB closed, nuclear armed bombers were downloaded and taken off alert back in 1991, the Minuteman II missiles were forfeited as part of a SALT Treaty and pulled out of the tubes, their role assumed by more advanced hardware, and even the Strategic Air Command was decommissioned and relegated to the forgotten pages of military history....but the inveterate B52 still flies and continues to protect our strategic interests...now that's an eagle!

Indeed, we who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as we seem to be doing in this present instance. However, given the reality of the potential outcome(s) of our present day flight and launch crews being ordered to carry out their nuclear release missions, we should keep those young men and women in out thoughts and (if you are so inclined) our prayers.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oddly enough I had opportunity to view the masterful 'Fail Safe' for the first time last weekend. Larry 'J.R.' Hagman turns in a gripping performance, Henry Fonda is the best president the U.S.A. never had, but it is Matthau's Political Scientist who steals the show - "I'm not your kind!"

The script (as one might reasonably imagine) parallels 'Strangelove' given that the two movies share the premise but the ending is entirely different. I shall not give it away.

I imagine that, given your professional career Eagle, you will have seen both of these films - do you have a preference?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I consider "Fail Safe", "The Manchurian Candidate", "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days In May" to be the finest political films of the Cold War Era.

But more to Eagle's point, well taken. I came of age in the latter stages of the Cold War so I don't remember duck and cover drills nor did I hear Khrushchev talk of turning out missiles like sausages. I certainly was never at the spearhead of our Nuclear response apparatus. 

However, I also recognize that we always say we need to learn from history yet we always seem to repeat it. I think it's just in our nature and there's no changing it. Human nature is not perfectible, and part of the imperfection is war. 

With respect to the DPRK, I'm not really sure what else we are supposed to do. The choice is either we allow them to continue to accumulate weapons and even proliferate, or we stop them. I'm not sure what the point of talking and diplomacy can be at this point. The DPRK wants, needs, nuclear weapons. There's really no negotiating with them to have them give it up. The only thing we can do is squeeze them and make the cost so unbearable that it threatens the stability of their regime. 

Wars occur not because of misunderstanding, but because one side perceives a lack of deterrence. For the past 30 years, the DPRK has been able to have it's cake and eat it too; in short, they have not been made to pay any price for their continuing with their nuclear program and have experienced nothing to deter them. At this point, I'm not really sure what else is left. 

The readying of B52's and a strengthening of our military posture is also a form of diplomacy so given the failures of the last 30 years, let's see how this form of it plays out. Of course, the stakes are higher and I don't make these remarks casually.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I wonder what else, if anything, might deter the troublesome Mr Kim? He seems intent on provoking a fight.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Oddly enough I had opportunity to view the masterful 'Fail Safe' for the first time last weekend. Larry 'J.R.' Hagman turns in a gripping performance, Henry Fonda is the best president the U.S.A. never had, but it is Matthau's Political Scientist who steals the show - "I'm not your kind!"
> 
> The script (as one might reasonably imagine) parallels 'Strangelove' given that the two movies share the premise but the ending is entirely different. I shall not give it away.
> 
> I imagine that, given your professional career Eagle, you will have seen both of these films - do you have a preference?


:icon_scratch:. Clearly the acting is better in the movie Fail Safe, but given my preferred perception of myself as sort of a self-styled, modern day version of the character Major T.J. "King" Kong played by Slim Pickens, in Dr Strangelove and the undeniable appeal of riding the nuclear weapon you just released to it's detonation on target,as did Major Kong (now that's taking full responsibility for one's actions), Dr Strangelove gets my vote. However, if one truly wants to get a more realistic sense of the aftermath of such a turn of events, the movie "The Day After, staring Jason Robards," is the movie to see!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> :icon_scratch:. Clearly the acting is better in the movie Fail Safe, but given my preferred perception of myself as sort of a self-styled, modern day version of the character Major T.J. "King" Kong played by Slim Pickens, in Dr Strangelove and the undeniable appeal of riding the nuclear weapon you just released to it's detonation on target,as did Major Kong (now that's taking full responsibility for one's actions), Dr Strangelove gets my vote.


Press!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If a nuclear bomb lands on Seattle that would be life changing for the west coast. Going around the bomb site for fifty or more years is not negotiable. People back east don't understand the significance. Especially the big three left reporters, ABC, CBS and NBC, and then there is PBS and some others. I think what they are mostly interested in is money and smearing the right, and brainwashed by their own blather. I love the northwest. And nk might aim for Portland, OR. 

If Amazon is your favorite store....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Is anyone else impressed by the fact the B52 Stratofortress (the BUFF) entered the USAF inventory almost 65 years ago and the Bird is still flying, present day, combat missions. Hell, old soldiers/sailors/airmen like Flanderian, Oldsarge, myself and others too many to mention, aged to the point we were put out to pasture, but the Buff keeps flying!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> :icon_scratch:. Clearly the acting is better in the movie Fail Safe, but given my preferred perception of myself as sort of a self-styled, modern day version of the character Major T.J. "King" Kong played by Slim Pickens, in Dr Strangelove and the undeniable appeal of riding the nuclear weapon you just released to it's detonation on target,as did Major Kong (now that's taking full responsibility for one's actions), Dr Strangelove gets my vote. However, if one truly wants to get a more realistic sense of the aftermath of such a turn of events, the movie "The Day After, staring Jason Robards," is the movie to see!


'The Day After' is a new one on me and I shall endeavour to track a copy down and give it a spin. It would seem to correlate strongly with the BBC's 1965 docudrama 'Wargames', which remained suppressed and unbroadcast until 20 years later.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Is anyone else impressed by the fact the B52 Stratofortress (the BUFF) entered the USAF inventory almost 65 years ago and the Bird is still flying, present day, combat missions. Hell, old soldiers/sailors/airmen like Flanderian, Oldsarge, myself and others too many to mention, aged to the point we were put out to pasture, but the Buff keeps flying!


They can't design a washing machine these days that doesnt break down in 5 minutes and so, yes, very impressed.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Is anyone else impressed by the fact the B52 Stratofortress (the BUFF) entered the USAF inventory almost 65 years ago and the Bird is still flying, present day, combat missions. Hell, old soldiers/sailors/airmen like Flanderian, Oldsarge, myself and others too many to mention, aged to the point we were put out to pasture, but the Buff keeps flying!


It does. Sometimes piloted by the granddaughters of the original captains! Some things are just designed and built right from the beginning.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What about metal fatigue?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Having grown up in the era where nuclear Armageddon was a daily possibility, I don't like nukes. They send a shiver up my spine. The best preventative being preparation and information. And despite loving the old BUFF's, their best role is seemingly as a platform for conventional weapons, and as a propaganda device for nuclear saber rattling. The reality is that one nuclear attack submarine can turn the entire Korean peninsula (And a fair bit of China :cold into a giant radioactive puddle for millennia.

Without getting into the details, I listened to a very knowledgeable interview with a fellow who was a career senior former member of the U.S. state department for Asia. For sound reasons, it was his informed opinion that a nuclear armed DPRK was inevitable with simply no viable way of preventing it that isn't worse than the problem of its existence, and that American foreign policy should instead be more focused on dealing more effectively with that eventual fact.

The DPRK's "Cut your head off and spit down your neck" rhetoric has been around as long as it has. The likelihood of them actually lobbing nukes at the U.S. is virtually non-existent, but the possibility of them using them to blackmail neighbors very real. The purpose of their nukes is existential insurance, and leverage within the region.

Edit: And I'll add, that unless China is willing to take over full responsibility, diplomatically, politically and militarily, for trying to clean up the mess that is the DPRK I frankly don't see a stable, and constructive long-term solution. But to date, they've kinda viewed it like living next to an overflowing cesspool: Sure it stinks, but it'll stink even worse if you have to go into it, clean it up and build a new one, and it'll cost a h**l of a lot of money. 

But no one else has the nexus of geography, resources and self-interest.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

With the election in Japan and Abe's substantial victory it looks like Japan has decided that pacifism is not the way to go. Given Japanese technology and the power of their economy, should they decide to upgrade the Defense Forces, it could be a sort of a race to see who does the scorched earth on DPRK first. This is not a happy thought.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> With the election in Japan and Abe's substantial victory it looks like Japan has decided that pacifism is not the way to go. Given Japanese technology and the power of their economy, should they decide to upgrade the Defense Forces, it could be a sort of a race to see who does the scorched earth on DPRK first. This is not a happy thought.


There is one reason, and one reason only that the fate of civilization rests upon defending South Korea -


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

I Che


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

I checked into the forum after several months away to get away from all this. I literally just set down Schlosser’s “Command and Control.” With all respect, Eagle, SAC is hardly forgotten to the pages of military history. Curtis Lemay has assured it a permanent and prominent place in American memory, at least for those inclined to even casually glance at the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WA said:


> What about metal fatigue?


LOL, not a problem. Over the years our B52's have undergone several upgrades, replacing aging wing struts, upgrading engines, installing the latest and greatest avionics suites, redesigning both offensive and defensive weapons packages that capitalize on the 'Old Bird's' inherent strengths and compensating for it's few weaknesses. As I recall, at one point the old bird(s) were actually re-skinned! Most recently the Buff has been tasked with dropping conventional weapons against ISIS targets, but the last I heard, it is also still capable of effectively delivering several varieties of 'standoff' nuclear weapons packages.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Having grown up in the era where nuclear Armageddon was a daily possibility, I don't like nukes. They send a shiver up my spine. The best preventative being preparation and information. And despite loving the old BUFF's, their best role is seemingly as a platform for conventional weapons, and as a propaganda device for nuclear saber rattling. The reality is that one nuclear attack submarine can turn the entire Korean peninsula (And a fair bit of China :cold into a giant radioactive puddle for millennia.
> 
> Without getting into the details, I listened to a very knowledgeable interview with a fellow who was a career senior former member of the U.S. state department for Asia. For sound reasons, it was his informed opinion that a nuclear armed DPRK was inevitable with simply no viable way of preventing it that isn't worse than the problem of its existence, and that American foreign policy should instead be more focused on dealing more effectively with that eventual fact.
> 
> ...


My friend, I greatly respect your words/opinions, but in this present instance think you may be placing too much trust in North Korea's capability for exercising future restraint. If they get to a point that they can successfully pair the weapons with sufficiently ranged delivery systems, North Korea will use them! On a perhaps grander scale, as the nuclear club membership grows, the inevitability of an ill advised future use of such weapons grows exponentially. We should be looking to eliminate such weapons entirely, rather that accepting the inevitability of future members acquiring such capabilities. In the meantime, there are measures, short of nuclear, available to deal with today's challenge.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WICaniac said:


> I checked into the forum after several months away to get away from all this. I literally just set down Schlosser's "Command and Control." With all respect, Eagle, SAC is hardly forgotten to the pages of military history. Curtis Lemay has assured it a permanent and prominent place in American memory, at least for those inclined to even casually glance at the past.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is good hearing from you...welcome back! A well read copy of Eric Schlosser's book sits on my bookshelf. I hope your assessment of the present generation's interest in the "American memories" proves correct.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

@eagle2250 is absolutely right. When and if Kim gets a dependable delivery system for his nukes, he will not hesitate to use them.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> My friend, I greatly respect your words/opinions, but in this present instance think you may be placing too much trust in North Korea's capability for exercising future restraint. If they get to a point that they can successfully pair the weapons with sufficiently ranged delivery systems, North Korea will use them! On a perhaps grander scale, as the nuclear club membership grows, the inevitability of an ill advised future use of such weapons grows exponentially. We should be looking to eliminate such weapons entirely, rather that accepting the inevitability of future members acquiring such capabilities. In the meantime, there are measures, short of nuclear, available to deal with today's challenge.


Could be. Though I'm not sure I'm entirely mistaken as to the nature of the DPRK's leadership. Descriptors that come to mind include; insular, paranoid, ignorant, vicious, corrupt and generally, for simplicity sake, evil. But the root of their motivation is power and privilege though it's expressed in such a way as to resemble a juvenile delinquent who has barricaded himself in a candy store and stuffed his face full while yelling threats and insults through the locked door. And as ignorant and insular as they may be, to even be able to wield the power they do requires enough wit to know that attacking a nuclear superpower will result in the end of all of that. Instantly.

I agree, universal nuclear disarmament would be wonderful. But it doesn't look like it's currently within reach. The horrible irony being that an actual nuclear war would likely achieve it for the few left.

I'm unsure what measures other than preparedness and vigilance are available to militarily alter the DPRK's current tactics. China is the only actor I see that can make the choices necessary for substantial change. And from my perspective they have compelling reasons for both doing it, and not doing it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

One American intelligence officer (retired) has said that the idea of a threat from NK is ridiculous. Kim wants what all dictators want, to die in bed after a long life of despoiling the people he governs. Lobbing a single nuke anywhere will reduce his chances of achieving that to zero because the DPNK will be reduced to slag and he knows it. I rather hope he's right.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't think we need nuclear bombs for nk. There are other bombs that will do the job just fine. The problem isn't us. It is them. After all, we have had plenty of time to do what ever we want against them. And, of course, not being evil, we haven't. If they want to be great without evil they would have gone a different way. The best they are doing is like 13 year old children. If they want respect they've got to give up the childish gibberish. There are plenty of famous people who were actually worthless, being self centered. The leadership in nk is worthless to its own people. Delinquents, indeed. Most all the people who live there that he stomps on are better than those in leadership. Why are we letting those lives be ruined by a few powerful greedy? Their lives are worth something. The rot should have been bombed out decades ago. And look at where we are now. A real nuclear threat.

As far as what some "experts" say, that he's not a real threat, for the reasons they think, the fact is they don't know how much of a nut he is. He wouldn't have a nuclear bomb if he is the lesser nut they claim. All it takes is one nuclear bomb on the west coast here and this part of America will never be the same again. The damage will be far too much. Put one of those nuclear bombs on a ship and the east coast isn't safe either.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> One American intelligence officer (retired) has said that the idea of a threat from NK is ridiculous. Kim wants what all dictators want, to die in bed after a long life of despoiling the people he governs. Lobbing a single nuke anywhere will reduce his chances of achieving that to zero because the DPNK will be reduced to slag and he knows it. I rather hope he's right.


Exactly! And Kim rides the tiger where he has to simultaneously keep the military leaders satisfied but terrified of crossing him. And it's not just Kim but the entire regime that benefits at the expense of the North Koreans. The only legitimacy the regime can claim is protecting Korea from the rapacious, war-mongering Americans and South Koreans over whom they will eventually triumph. To do this he must do two things; do everything he can to foster a high level of tension, and make absolutely certain that no serious shooting ever breaks out.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I for one am not comfortable with the notion that he’s not crazy enough to use a nuke. I’m not willing to bet LA or SF on that.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Or Honolulu.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Or Guam... Besides, if he violates Japanese airspace with an armed missile, Shinzo Abe will not hesitate to retaliate.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Maybe this will be over quicker than we think.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The US has weapons suites to which Kim, his henchmen and much of the rest of the worlds population have yet to be introduced. Never underestimate the power of the "dark side of the force!" In all probability the US response to the DPRK's nuclear saber rattling will be somewhat more subtle than a thermonuclear rain shower. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> The US has weapons suites to which Kim, his henchmen and much of the rest of the worlds population have yet to be introduced. Never underestimate the power of the "dark side of the force!" *In all probability the US response to the DPRK's nuclear saber rattling will be somewhat more subtle than a thermonuclear rain shower.* :icon_scratch:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Or something.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Getting rid of one won't accomplish much. Another, and then, another, etc. will step into leadership. Is there 200? 1, 000? More?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> In all probability the US response to the DPRK's nuclear saber rattling will be somewhat more subtle than a thermonuclear rain shower. :icon_scratch:


I completely agree with this. The US will not use nukes agaist NK. They do not want a repeat of 1945. The backwards nation will see its military infrastructure crippled with surgically-precise conventional weapon strikes. Once the NK citizens have a way of defecting that won't get them killed, they will lay down their arms and welcome any occupying force(s) that will feed them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> I completely agree with this. The US will not use nukes agaist NK. They do not want a repeat of 1945. The backwards nation will see its military infrastructure crippled with surgically-precise conventional weapon strikes. Once the NK citizens have a way of defecting that won't get them killed, they will lay down their arms and welcome any occupying force(s) that will feed them.


You assume they have a modern, functioning military.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

There are a lot of excellent views that have been put forward. And if anyone here has full knowledge of all aspect of this issue, and all the capabilities and strategies of any actor in this sad drama, it certainly isn't me. But this is my perspective:

For over 60 years the insular DPRK and those who control it have alternated between paranoid terror and hyperbolic bluster. Put simply, they're bad guys who will do any bad thing they think they can get away with *to remain in power.* And for them, remaining in power also means staying alive as few would be if they weren't, so it's an existential requirement.

Bad guys who feel threatened want nukes. They view that as the ultimate insurance policy that they won't be overthrown. I.e., get dead. In the DPRK what is happening in the rest of the world is viewed through a warped lens in which they are great actors and all the activities elsewhere in the world relate in some way to them. They've wanted nukes for a while and have worked toward them. But in 2002 GWB specifically names 3 bad actors as Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Pow! Saddam is gone. Gadaffi is overthrown via western air power and subsequently hunted down, brutalized and beaten to death by his own people. "Wow" the DPRK thugs think, "we're next!" And their nuclear program accelerates. My belief is that they believe these nukes will keep them in power while at the same time allowing them to blackmail their neighbors into concessions of territory and economic gains. That's a really bad problem to have from the U.S.'s perspective and one that will take careful policy analysis and coordination with allies in the region and military preparedness to deal with their threats of using nuclear weapons.

Nuts or not, no one individual in the DPRK is entirely independent, there are competing centers of power, each with their own somewhat different perceived self-interest. Those among them who are rational don't want any of the other guys actually throwing nukes around because it would screw up their game. And then they would get dead. So they will do all in their power to prevent this.

But more significantly China won't let them. I guarantee you that China has more spies in the DPRK than Carter's has Little Liver Pills, and have a level of real-time intelligence so high that they know how many times a night Kim Jung Un passes wind.

You want to see regime change? Watch what China does if they ever believed that a nuclear attack by the DPRK on the U.S. was truly imminent. There'd be regime change in the blink of an eye. Why? Since the Maoists were purged, while certainly still corrupt and totalitarian China has also been logical, analytical and methodical. And the DPRK would then have created a problem that is an existential threat to *them,* and given the way they do business they would have a contingency plan in effect to deal with it.

And a large part of their reason *is* business. How many millions of your customers do want to have killed? How many billions (trillions?) of dollars in assets that you have squirreled away in the U.S. do want to see wiped out? And how much of your own country do wish to see destroyed, and how many decades do want your economy set back?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> You assume they have a modern, functioning military.


We know that they have the abilities to enrich uranium, produce nuclear weapons, carry out nuclear tests, and deploy semi-functional missiles. "Modern" or not, taking them lightly would be to our detriment.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Frankly, given his seemingly volatile and even tempestuous temperament, I'm quite surprised your president has not already mounted a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. Given the highly inflammatory and personal nature of the rhetoric from Mr Kim, Mr Trump has shown much greater reserves of forbearance than I would ever have credited him with. Even a cool-tempered leader might have taken a calculated risk by now, while it is still possible.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Langham said:


> Even a cool-tempered leader might have taken a calculated risk by now, while it is still possible.


And then?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> And then?


That presumes a measure of foresight that may be absent from my (no doubt highly over-coloured and hackneyed) image of Trump.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

You presume a leader capable of true calculation.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> You presume a leader capable of true calculation.


That is what is missing when you don't have a president with a military background. Trump is a businessman. I trust him with all things business related. When it comes to tactical strategy, he is out of his element. Prior to becoming commander in chief, his military background consisted of playing Risk in college.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> That is what is missing when you don't have a president with a military background. Trump is a businessman. I trust him with all things business related. When it comes to tactical strategy, he is out of his element. Prior to becoming commander in chief, his military background consisted of playing Risk in college.


What? The last president we had with a real, bona fide military background was Eisenhower.

This isn't Ancient Rome. We don't need a general in charge of the country. All executives, no matter public or private, gather to themselves advisers and other experts to help shape policy. I think so far the combination of diplomacy and bellicosity is working better than attempts before. At least we've got the Chinese on record with some of our goals and at least on the surface, they've moved further than ever before. Let's see what happens.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I am inclined to agree with SG 67 that we don't need a past General sitting in the Oval office, but I also think it ill advised and just plain wrong to elect those who actually evaded military service to sit in said office. Sadly, we seem to consistently have gotten into that habit.

On the other hand, my old office may not have been oval shaped and the decor was anything but fancy, but it was arguably a seat of some power and it was the one place I could go that was so climate controlled that it would clear up my sinuses and any suspected allergies for a day or two! Not a bad deal.  Seriously, I thought some might like to see how we 'minions' lived!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Pretty upscale, Eagle. I lived like this.










However, while I believe that general officers may not be necessary, some experience in government, preferably in an executive position, is. While I like senior military commanders (especially in the Eisenhower model) I'll happily take a governor. I have no interest in Senators nor have I much respect for the alleged skills of 'practical businessmen'. But enough of that.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

China's mentality is not so great. They are still thugs running the country. They haven't moved on from their childish thinking. I have no faith that they have so many spies in nk. China itself is greedy. Greed is a mental illness. They are building islands where they shouldn't be and, threatened the US for going by them so closely, claiming it's not international waters. The other countries close by have as much right to those new islands as China. Greed destroys wisdom. Who knows, nk might have a plan to nuke China, too.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Bush Jr wasn't to bright with military decisions. 
Obama seemed not to understand it at all. And the world is now a far more dangerous place to live.
Trump is somewhat of a bully, therefore, has some understanding. I don't think Russia wants to deal with him in a war, nor China. He is also unpredictable, which is a serious threat to anyone who wants to tangle with him. He don't quit until he won. So don't start with him. He has a great deal of determination that others don't have. Put it this way. He doesn't believe in being a pansie.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldsarge said:


> Pretty upscale, Eagle. I lived like this.
> 
> View attachment 18588
> 
> ...


Upscale may not be all that it appears to be. LOL, candor forces me to admit that our launch control centers were buried beneath 90+ feet of fresh, sometimes still warm Missouri cow pies. Though, you are right, we didn't sleep under canvas, our equipment racks were (air) conditioned down to between 55 and 60 degrees and we also didn't have to eat C-rations or MRE's, but rather 'foil packs'...the military version of TV dinners..yum! 

However, I completely agree with your assessment of what qualifies a person to sit in the Oval Office.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I am inclined to agree with SG 67 that we don't need a past General sitting in the Oval office, but I also think it ill advised and just plain wrong to elect those who actually evaded military service to sit in said office. Sadly, we seem to consistently have gotten into that habit.
> 
> On the other hand, my old office may not have been oval shaped and the decor was anything but fancy, but it was arguably a seat of some power and it was the one place I could go that was so climate controlled that it would clear up my sinuses and any suspected allergies for a day or two! Not a bad deal.  Seriously, I thought some might like to see how we 'minions' lived!
> View attachment 18581


You had much nicer chairs! And they *DID* make us eat C-rations! 

Edit: But C-ration fruit cake was actually pretty good!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> we also didn't have to eat C-rations or MRE's, but rather 'foil packs'...the military version of TV dinners..yum!


I bet you would gladly trade your SlimFast shake for one of those foil packs.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> You had much nicer chairs! And they *DID* make us eat C-rations!


Apparently, the guy in the fourth chair doesn't like having his picture taken..


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I much preferred the old C rats to the first iteration of MRE's. But they did eventually become more bearable.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> Apparently, the guy in the fourth chair doesn't like having his picture taken..
> 
> View attachment 18590


Ah, the old one fingered salute!

He's only expressing his editorial opinion on the whole proceeding. Translation: "G*****n blanken' pictures! What the blankety-blankety for? Even had to wear my G*****n class A's instead of my 2 year-unlaundered fatigue pants and a T-shirt! Then they tell me I can't even look at the blanken' camera! What a bunch of Mickey Mouse, sorry a***d, blankety blanken' chicken ****!"

This was the Air Force, but only sorta. USAFSS. Then he'd spend the next 8 hours with cans on his head losing his hearing and any remaining sanity attempting to hear what can't be heard, and do it *PERFECTLY*! While sucking down endless Marlboro's, a pot of black coffee and trying not to *** in his pants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Security_Service


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I had a friend who was a listener for the old Army Security Agency. He still can't talk about what he heard.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

drlivingston said:


> I bet you would gladly trade your SlimFast shake for one of those foil packs.


Indeed, but then I would probably trade off the chalky tasting SlimFast meals for a serving of even those nasty grey,green hued (C-RAT) ham and eggs that OLdsarge prefers. However, if you closed your eyes and didn't actually look at them, the taste of the eggs was not so bad!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> You had much nicer chairs! And they *DID* make us eat C-rations!
> 
> Edit: But C-ration fruit cake was actually pretty good!


They gave us those heavily padded chairs with the five point restraint harnesses not for comfort, but to prevent our falling out of those chairs and hurting ourselves! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> I had a friend who was a listener for the old Army Security Agency. He still can't talk about what he heard.


A prudent choice when even the TP was classified Confidential! 



eagle2250 said:


> They gave us those heavily padded chairs with the five point restraint harnesses not for comfort, but to prevent our falling out of those chairs and hurting ourselves! LOL.


They look pretty good for a snooze.  How long was your shift? 



eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, but then I would probably trade off the chalky tasting SlimFast meals for a serving of even those nasty grey,green hued (C-RAT) ham and eggs that OLdsarge prefers. However, if you closed your eyes and didn't actually look at them, the taste of the eggs was not so bad!


I once decided in desperation to try and eat a C-ration frank. They were lined up in undisturbed rows in a pan on the steam table. They had a unique appearance - they were slickly shiny and iridescent. When the cook picked it up and put it on my plate it sagged like a water balloon that was only half full. I got it to the table. When I touched it with my fork the casing ruptured and a substance leaked out. It looked just like oily green sawdust.

I drank the coffee.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

That wasn't a C rat. C rats were boxes that were a single meal. They did have bean-and-frank meals in them, though, that were pretty foul. The canned apricots were, to this day, unsurpassed.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> That wasn't a C rat. C rats were boxes that were a single meal. They did have bean-and-frank meals in them, though, that were pretty foul. The canned apricots were, to this day, unsurpassed.


I ordinarily would defer to your significantly greater experience, except that in this instance, I think I have very specific information for my belief.

While in the sorta Air Force, I was billeted on an old army post in Germany occupied by the U.S. Army. As such, we did not get fed normal Air Force chow (Champagne and caviar!) but shared that of our unfortunate neighbors. Our rations, C-ration or otherwise, were commonly foul. Having pulled mess checker duty a number of times I got to enjoy the company of the USAF cooks. (Whose mood was as foul as their food.) Including needing to go into their kitchen on rare occasions as well as being there when they shoveled the food into the trays on the steam table.

I have absolutely no doubt concerning the accuracy of your experience with the nature of C-rations. But I think different places and times resulted in a different experience. And while this sounds like a joke, or is at least comical, this was in '67 and I wouldn't be surprised if this food was left over from WWII, or at least Korea. It came mostly in large OD metal tins. I saw them stacked up in the pantry. The franks came in a flat oval tin that looked to hold 1 1/2 or 2 gallons. The tin was OD and clearly stenciled in white, C-Rations, Frankfurter - XXX, one each type.

So, if these weren't C-rations, they were ringers obtained from heaven knows where! But that's entirely possible, because it was long suspected that someone had a nice little business going selling normal, standard Air Force chow for what they attempted to feed us.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Hmm. Well that was a couple of years before my time in. Ten years ago that sort of meal was known as a T-rat and was served at division HQ. By then meals were prepared in advance at a permanent location and then sent out in trucks where they were heated up in, if you can believe this, mobile restaurant sized microwave ovens! Actually, they were pretty good. An additional thirty years of technology had to be good for something!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> Hmm. Well that was a couple of years before my time in. Ten years ago that sort of meal was known as a T-rat and was served at division HQ. By then meals were prepared in advance at a permanent location and then sent out in trucks where they were heated up in, if you can believe this, mobile restaurant sized microwave ovens! Actually, they were pretty good. An additional thirty years of technology had to be good for something!


Then that makes sense. It actually sounds like it might have been better than what we ate. Sorta making me hungry! :beer:

The first microwave oven I saw was in an unstaffed snack bar out at our Ops site. It sold greasy refrigerated hamburgers from a vending machine. And had a microwave oven next to it to heat them up in. But no instructions. Unfortunately, the hamburgers were wrapped in foil covered plastic.

You've never lived until you've watched plasma balls flying around in a microwave oven before it shorted out and exploded! :amazing:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

:amazing::amazing::amazing::amazing:

Less funny was my first experience with MRE's. With C rats we used to take the canned main dish, put it in a canteen cup of water and stick it on the exhaust manifold of the jeep. When the water was steaming, we'd take out the heated meal and make coffee with the hot water. Werrrrllll, when they first handed out the MRE's we tried to do the same thing. Shortly afterwards, the brass sent out an urgent message that the ink on the plastic packages was toxic and would cause intestinal upset. We were not to drink the heating water. Too late. We had. And it did! Since I was in Korea at the time I quickly learned that the safest thing to do was ignore the MRE's completely and live on Korean Army rations. When there's snow on the ground and you're living in an unheated tent soup, steamed rice and kimchee make a very satisfying breakfast!:beer:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> A prudent choice when even the TP was classified Confidential!
> 
> They look pretty good for a snooze.  How long was your shift?
> 
> ...


The first three years I spent in missile launch operations e would gout out on alerts for two days at a time; going down in the hole for the first 12 hours, then above ground for 12 hours in rest status, then back in the hole for a second 12 hour shift, after which we returned to Base. We were not allowed to sleep on duty.  In the fourth year of the assignment, we went to 24 hour tours, all of which were spent in the hole! :angry:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The first three years I spent in missile launch operations e would gout out on alerts for two days at a time; going down in the hole for the first 12 hours, then above ground for 12 hours in rest status, then back in the hole for a second 12 hour shift, after which we returned to Base. We were not allowed to sleep on duty.  In the fourth year of the assignment, we went to 24 hour tours, all of which were spent in the hole! :angry:


What, no sleeping on duty!?!? 

A 24 hour tour would have to tax anyone's stamina. Heck, 12 hours is a long time to have remain alert and focused! Were you the only crew member in there?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> What, no sleeping on duty!?!?
> 
> A 24 hour tour would have to tax anyone's stamina. Heck, 12 hours is a long time to have remain alert and focused! Were you the only crew member in there?


There was no sleeping on duty when we were working the two 12 hours shifts in the hole on each alert tour. When we went on to the 24 hours all in one trip to the hole, equipment modifications were put in place that allowed one of the two crew members on duty in each of the launch control centers to be napping for "short periods" of time. Alert tours were a great opportunity to complete homework assignments for our masters degree programs (that were built into our duty schedules as an incentive to get officers to volunteer for such duty).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> There was no sleeping on duty when we were working the two 12 hours shifts in the hole on each alert tour. When we went on to the 24 hours all in one trip to the hole, equipment modifications were put in place that allowed one of the two crew members on duty in each of the launch control centers to be napping for "short periods" of time. Alert tours were a great opportunity to complete homework assignments for our masters degree programs (that were built into our duty schedules as an incentive to get officers to volunteer for such duty).


Not a bad deal at all!

Was it more waiting, or monitoring various systems status?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Worst time I ever spent was 44 hours straight awake . . . sort of. And the end of that marathon I discovered that the best bed on earth is a US Army cot with a semi-inflated air mattress, an M16 between the cot and the mattress and not having your boots on. Talk about dead to the world!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Not a bad deal at all!
> 
> Was it more waiting, or monitoring various systems status?


The control panel showcased in the picture below includes 10 columns of status indicator lights, each one tracking the status of a sortie. If the panel were active, one or more lights might be illuminated in each column of lights. The preferred status was having just a single green indicator light illuminated, telling us that missile was "clean and green" and ready to launch. We could also reset the panel to monitor sets of 10 missiles assigned to the four other flights, should the need arise. The job did involve monitoring our weapons systems, but the bottom line was we waited and we waited and we waited for the National Command Authorities to issue the "go to war" orders...Thank God those orders never came! :happy:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldsarge said:


> Worst time I ever spent was 44 hours straight awake . . . sort of. And the end of that marathon I discovered that the best bed on earth is a US Army cot with a semi-inflated air mattress, an M16 between the cot and the mattress and not having your boots on. Talk about dead to the world!


Indeed life can be very good, regardless of our circumstance and sometimes, because of them!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The control panel showcased in the picture below includes 10 columns of status indicator lights, each one tracking the status of a sortie. If the panel were active, one or more lights might be illuminated in each column of lights. The preferred status was having just a single green indicator light illuminated, telling us that missile was "clean and green" and ready to launch. We could also reset the panel to monitor sets of 10 missiles assigned to the four other flights, should the need arise. The job did involve monitoring our weapons systems, but the bottom line was we waited and we waited and we waited for the National Command Authorities to issue the "go to war" orders...Thank God those orders never came! :happy:
> View attachment 18617


Sounds as if that afforded ample time to get your school work done.

Rumor was USAFSS was training a new batch of replacements for *our* AFSC -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^:laughing::lol:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As perhaps a final thought to provide closure to this thread, a picture of perhaps the most critical piece of equipment in our SAC approved underground fortress of solitude, the chemical toilet...when you gotta go, you just gotta go! We really did have an eight step checklist detailing procedures for it 's proper use. Mother SAC thought of everything. :crazy:










Looks a lot like the ones used by the US Dept of Prisons, eh...and no that is not one of those infamous $10,000 toilet seats!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> :icon_scratch:. Clearly the acting is better in the movie Fail Safe, but given my preferred perception of myself as sort of a self-styled, modern day version of the character Major T.J. "King" Kong played by Slim Pickens, in Dr Strangelove and the undeniable appeal of riding the nuclear weapon you just released to it's detonation on target,as did Major Kong (now that's taking full responsibility for one's actions), Dr Strangelove gets my vote. However, if one truly wants to get a more realistic sense of the aftermath of such a turn of events, the movie "The Day After, staring Jason Robards," is the movie to see!


I concluded my viewing of 'The Day After' yesterday evening and (the limitations of its made-for-T.V. production values aside) really rather enjoyed it.

The scenes of the nuclear birds flying their Kansas coops in a belch of holy fire, thrusting through the azure Bible- Belt skies towards the firmament, intent on annihilation of the enemy, are extraordinarily stirring.

Conversely, the aftermath of radiation poisoning lacks any appeal for me whatsoever.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^My friend,
I am glad to hear that you enjoyed the movie and I certainly concur with your observations regarding the lingering effect(s) of an exchange of such weapons. I rather wish our present day National Command Authorities would take the time to watch 'The Day After.' Going on alert each time (408 times), carried in my Tech Order bag (a black leather catalogue case) were copies of tech orders and operations checklists appropriate to the Minuteman II missile system and a decidedly tattered (read that, well used) copy of the Bible. On each and every alert tour I spent a bit of time studying both!


----------



## GRH (Feb 3, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> Is anyone else impressed by the fact the B52 Stratofortress (the BUFF) entered the USAF inventory almost 65 years ago and the Bird is still flying, present day, combat missions. Hell, old soldiers/sailors/airmen like Flanderian, Oldsarge, myself and others too many to mention, aged to the point we were put out to pasture, but the Buff keeps flying!


Yep. Impressed and amazed.


----------

