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

Re: [coldwarcomms] Organizing

Expand Messages
  • Black Max
    I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War Infrastructure... Regards, Jason Swift KE4KYY ... __________________________________________________ Do you
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.