Re: [coldwarcomms] Organizing
- I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War
--- 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
> 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
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
- 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 Jacobs, N3MJ
Antenna and RF Engineering Laboratory
Penn State University
State College, PA