Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ben Wa who wrote (3800)	10/28/2000 7:46:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

It might not be fearmongering - Yeah is is... Fearmongering that is... We were essentially living for the past 4 decades with nuclear switchblades at our throats as the US and USSR looked each other beadily in the eyes. However, what it would mean is that the US would have less leverage against China's exploits in Asia, or against Taiwan. That's the REAL threat.. an expansion of aggressive Chinese domination over Asia. But that's still at least a decade off, IMO. that soldiers on deck did not even have weapons While that's not very security minded, it's also not uncommon. They would have not been permitted to fire anyway unless the captain of the ship gave permission to engage. Besides, the Cole was armed with 12 Phalanx 20mm gatling guns, any one of which could have saw that raft in half with one burst and should have been trained on any approach towards the ship by unauthorized craft. These guys just got lazy and complacent about security... An ever vigilant alert posture is extremly hard to maintain 24x7x365.... But you're right in that they should have been more alert in that particular harbor... especially since the US embassy was shut down under a terrorist threat. But in reality, this is the first terrorist act that I've ever seen occur in this manner. Normally terrorism occurs against a land target and the navy has mainly only worried when they are docked and sailors are on liberty. But this was something new, and something that we'll now have to alter our force protection guidelines to incorporate. Btw, force protection is ALWAYS the ultimate responsibility of the commander, in this case the captain. He should have been aware of all security threats in that port and taken appropriate defensive measures, REGARDLESS of guidance from above. That's the commander's primary assignment, defending his ship and crew from all threats and engaging the enemy. Defending that ship comes FIRST, Engaging the enemy 2nd... Btw, I was in force protection in the Army.. And that's what we were always told. We were there to HELP the commander, who's responsibility for FP is designated by regulation. But the entire leadership structure will have to account for why they exposed the Cole to refueling there, when they had more than enough fuel available to make it to their destination. Regards, Ron