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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (31860)	6/8/2002 12:14:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

More like 50, and they were re-designing it to be 40 tons. That's the clever flack on it. The unit is a front gun and an armored shell carrier towed. They ain't no good without the Ammo. 50 tons each, and they are claiming 42 tons each, but would not get there. A lot of things were designed around Atomic capability. I used to walk guard around the damn things when they were being repaired at our Ordnance Company.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (31860)	6/8/2002 12:56:06 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re the Crusader artillery piece... I read recently somewhere that they were replacing it with various guided rockets and the like. What I like about artillery, as opposed to rockets is that artillery provides more metal on target per dollar and per ton. If we ever again get in a real war bang for the buck is going to be important again. Re: "Especially when compared to the cost to deploy and maintain a Spectre gunship." The other problem with Spectre is that it can be relatively easily shot down. The SOF guys want a stealthy version: globalsecurity.org -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (31860)	6/8/2002 1:52:23 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

A negative take on Bush's plan. I just published the summing up. The rest of the article is just the normal NYT whining about the Administration. June 8, 2002 Department of Homeland Insecurity By FRANK RICH >>>Instead of creating a new organizational chart, Mr. Bush might have enlisted one man to hose down our security bureaucracy: Rudolph Giuliani. Instead of speechifying that "only the United States Congress can create a new department of government," he might have followed the suggestion of Stansfield Turner, the former C.I.A. chief who, like others, has called for the president, "with a stroke of the pen," to give the director of central intelligence the authority to coordinate the 14 entities in our intelligence apparatus.<<< nytimes.com