Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Organizing

Expand Messages
  • Albert LaFrance
    Several people have brought up important questions concerning the proposed organization to promote our interests. One of these concerns the range of subject
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Several people have brought up important questions concerning the proposed
      organization to promote our interests.

      One of these concerns the range of subject areas we choose to include within
      our "charter". Specifically, should we be inclusive of anything related to
      the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on communications, or do we
      want to be somewhere in between?

      For example, one researcher noted that some of the facilities we discuss on
      the list are not primarily communications stations, although communications
      is a vital element of their operations. For example, installations like
      Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use* communications, but
      communications is only one component of their broader and more complex
      missions.

      To people studying some aspects of Cold War infrastructure, like civil
      defense and missile systems, communications may be simply one slice of a big
      pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic. Some potential members
      may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy or domestic politics, and
      thus will be interested in communications networks only for the clues they
      provide on those topics. Others may be interested solely in the technical
      details of specific system or facility.

      My inclination would be to define the organization's mission as broadly as
      possible. This list seems to function very well with a wide range of
      interests represented, and exchanges of information among people working on
      different aspects of the Cold War field can be very enlightening. If the
      organization is structured as an "umbrella" group, it should be able to
      accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse membership.

      Albert
    • ozob99 <ozob99@yahoo.com>
      ... proposed ... include within ... related to ... do we ... discuss on ... communications ... like ... but ... complex ... civil ... of a big ... members ...
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Albert LaFrance"
        <albertjlafrance@c...> wrote:
        > Several people have brought up important questions concerning the
        proposed
        > organization to promote our interests.
        >
        > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we choose to
        include within
        > our "charter". Specifically, should we be inclusive of anything
        related to
        > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on communications, or
        do we
        > want to be somewhere in between?
        >
        > For example, one researcher noted that some of the facilities we
        discuss on
        > the list are not primarily communications stations, although
        communications
        > is a vital element of their operations. For example, installations
        like
        > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use* communications,
        but
        > communications is only one component of their broader and more
        complex
        > missions.
        >
        > To people studying some aspects of Cold War infrastructure, like
        civil
        > defense and missile systems, communications may be simply one slice
        of a big
        > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic. Some potential
        members
        > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy or domestic
        politics, and
        > thus will be interested in communications networks only for the
        clues they
        > provide on those topics. Others may be interested solely in the
        technical
        > details of specific system or facility.
        >
        > My inclination would be to define the organization's mission as
        broadly as
        > possible. This list seems to function very well with a wide range
        of
        > interests represented, and exchanges of information among people
        working on
        > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very enlightening.
        If the
        > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group, it should be able
        to
        > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse membership.
        >
        > Albert


        It seems discussing "Coldwar" comms without exploring the cold war
        function or mission the comms are used for is incomplete &
        unfulfilling...i think members are just as interested in the purpose &
        users of the comms as with the nature of the transmission.
      • Black Max
        I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War Infrastructure... Regards, Jason Swift KE4KYY ... __________________________________________________ Do you
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War
          Infrastructure...
          Regards,
          Jason Swift
          KE4KYY
          --- Albert LaFrance <albertjlafrance@...> wrote:
          > Several people have brought up important questions
          > concerning the proposed
          > organization to promote our interests.
          >
          > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we
          > choose to include within
          > our "charter". Specifically, should we be
          > inclusive of anything related to
          > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on
          > communications, or do we
          > want to be somewhere in between?
          >
          > For example, one researcher noted that some of the
          > facilities we discuss on
          > the list are not primarily communications stations,
          > although communications
          > is a vital element of their operations. For
          > example, installations like
          > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use*
          > communications, but
          > communications is only one component of their
          > broader and more complex
          > missions.
          >
          > To people studying some aspects of Cold War
          > infrastructure, like civil
          > defense and missile systems, communications may be
          > simply one slice of a big
          > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic.
          > Some potential members
          > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy
          > or domestic politics, and
          > thus will be interested in communications networks
          > only for the clues they
          > provide on those topics. Others may be interested
          > solely in the technical
          > details of specific system or facility.
          >
          > My inclination would be to define the organization's
          > mission as broadly as
          > possible. This list seems to function very well
          > with a wide range of
          > interests represented, and exchanges of information
          > among people working on
          > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very
          > enlightening. If the
          > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group,
          > it should be able to
          > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse
          > membership.
          >
          > Albert
          >
          >
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
          http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        • Paul Rosa
          Albert: I m a contrarian thinker. Even though I m not one of the illeterari of the coldwarcomms crowd, and I m just an innocent spectator who is trying to
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Albert:

            I'm a contrarian thinker. Even though I'm not one of the illeterari of
            the coldwarcomms crowd, and I'm just an innocent spectator who is trying
            to learn, I say the group's interest is best focused on the core
            technologies and systems that are of interest to the most members. By
            focusing on just one topic that numerous members are interested in, the
            group and our subject matter can land like a ton of bricks on the world
            stage. If we land amidst a modicum of mediocrity, I think we'll hardly
            be noticed. So let's go balls-to-the-walls and be a total affront to
            everybody!

            Paul Rosa
            Harpers Ferry, WV

            Albert LaFrance wrote:

            > Several people have brought up important questions concerning the
            > proposed
            > organization to promote our interests.
            >
            > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we choose to include
            > within
            > our "charter". Specifically, should we be inclusive of anything
            > related to
            > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on communications, or
            > do we
            > want to be somewhere in between?
            >
            > For example, one researcher noted that some of the facilities we
            > discuss on
            > the list are not primarily communications stations, although
            > communications
            > is a vital element of their operations. For example, installations
            > like
            > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use* communications, but
            > communications is only one component of their broader and more complex
            >
            > missions.
            >
            > To people studying some aspects of Cold War infrastructure, like civil
            >
            > defense and missile systems, communications may be simply one slice of
            > a big
            > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic. Some potential
            > members
            > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy or domestic
            > politics, and
            > thus will be interested in communications networks only for the clues
            > they
            > provide on those topics. Others may be interested solely in the
            > technical
            > details of specific system or facility.
            >
            > My inclination would be to define the organization's mission as
            > broadly as
            > possible. This list seems to function very well with a wide range of
            > interests represented, and exchanges of information among people
            > working on
            > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very enlightening. If
            > the
            > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group, it should be able
            > to
            > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse membership.
            >
            > Albert
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • mwj116@psu.edu
            My opinion would be that the organization would focus on the specific topics covered here, which would generally be considered to be C3 issues...command,
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              My opinion would be that the organization would focus on the
              specific topics covered here, which would generally be considered
              to be C3 issues...command, control, and communications systems
              related to the cold war. That would include facilities such as Mt
              Weather, other government COG facilities, SAC HQ, the Notch,
              SAGE, etc in addition to the AT&T and WU facilities.

              This way we would avoid inclusion of weapons systems, which are
              well covered by the Nike people, National Atomic Museaum, Chuck
              Hanson, etc. I'd also suggest including the Warning function (which
              might be a C or an I function, depending on how you look at it).

              I think that making contact with the FAS might be useful since they
              include a lot of historical C3 systems on their web site.

              Mike

              Mike Jacobs, N3MJ
              Antenna and RF Engineering Laboratory
              Penn State University
              State College, PA
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.