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.