|
Question on ...
On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction screening was minimalist in nature. When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential enlistees in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of their youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities. You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days. Funny, being drafted and going through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers' turned down because of the 'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I think you were had. Draftees didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak only minimal English. I don't know what "Project 100,000" was. Let's run through this again. My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from meeting even minimal standards. Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at recruits? He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera? How about their teeth? Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions. His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home. They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least, they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures. I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to meet. What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10? 100? 1,000?, 10,000? Interesting statistics regarding the Vietnam era from 1963 to 1973 when the last person was drafted: 9,087,000 Military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam Era. Aug. 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975. 8,744,000 GIs Were on active duty during the war. Aug. 5, 1964 - March 28, 1973 Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344. Those who actually served in Vietnam 38%. 25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees. Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam. 76% Of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds Three fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds. 82% Of Veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will. Nearly 75% Of the public agrees it was a failure of political will not of arms. Source: U.S. Government (VA Web Site Stats) It is interesting to me that most who served during the Vietnam War era did so voluntarily and were not drafted. I am sure there were many who, like me, received a draft notice but chose to join a service of choice instead. |
Question on ...
On 1/17/14, 2:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction screening was minimalist in nature. When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential enlistees in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of their youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities. You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days. Funny, being drafted and going through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers' turned down because of the 'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I think you were had. Draftees didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak only minimal English. I don't know what "Project 100,000" was. Let's run through this again. My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from meeting even minimal standards. Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at recruits? He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera? How about their teeth? Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions. His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home. They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least, they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures. I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to meet. What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10? 100? 1,000?, 10,000? Interesting statistics regarding the Vietnam era from 1963 to 1973 when the last person was drafted: 9,087,000 Military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam Era. Aug. 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975. 8,744,000 GIs Were on active duty during the war. Aug. 5, 1964 - March 28, 1973 Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344. Those who actually served in Vietnam 38%. 25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees. Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam. 76% Of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds Three fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds. 82% Of Veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will. Nearly 75% Of the public agrees it was a failure of political will not of arms. Source: U.S. Government (VA Web Site Stats) It is interesting to me that most who served during the Vietnam War era did so voluntarily and were not drafted. I am sure there were many who, like me, received a draft notice but chose to join a service of choice instead. I don't have any recollection of the numbers or percentages he turned down because of physical problems, other than his telling me the number was large. The towns around where I lived were huge pockets of real poverty. It wasn't surprising to learn there were lots of young men living in them who had serious problems relating to that poverty, I suppose you could call "enlisting" after you received a notice to report for your physical was "voluntary." :) It has never bothered me that my draft board never contacted me, even though I made damned sure it always had my current mailing address. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines was to our country's willingness to sell them. By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'. If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you? |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. |
Question on ...
On 1/17/14, 2:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines was to our country's willingness to sell them. By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'. If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you? Whatever you wish to call it, it was in fact chemical warfare. As for the mines, my reference was to selling them. The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. A problem with minefields is that those who establish them many times are not around to clear them. |
Question on ...
On 1/17/2014 12:45 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly* understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your "point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion. There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying. Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one. I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under- reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and the details have to be sorted out. Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury claims resulting from a car accident are bogus. To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for. In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their problems. I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why, it's just an abomination. Agent Orange was never used as a chemical warfare agent. It was used as a land clearing measure. We sprayed around the Cu Chi base camp to kill the vegetation which the Viet Cong would use to hide in prior to an attack on the facility. The only 'landmines' I know that we used were used as a defensive measure around camps or positions. The most used was the claymore, which was picked up when the unit moved on. I've not heard of the indiscriminate emplacement of mines by our military since I've been associated therewith. But, there may have been some of which I'm not aware. Usually, Engineers lay minefields. We had very strict rules about recording the emplacement of each and every mine, so they could be recovered when no longer needed. But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do. Of course he does. And he has the hearsay and anecdotal evidence to back him up. |
Question on ...
On 1/17/14, 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. Project 100,000 explains a lot. I don't know what medical conditions were keeping these kids out, other than the aftermath of untreated childhood diseases, malnutrition, no visits to doctors or dentists. Wasn't the pre-induction physical facility in KC somewhere near Union Station? Did you ever get a chance to look at the bullet holes on the exterior of the station? Someone at the paper was always writing a piece about it and the "massacre." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_massacre |
Question on ...
On 1/17/2014 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. For me, no EKG but they did do X-Rays. I remember a complete dental exam was done also but any problems didn't result in disqualification. The Navy dentists (usually just out of dental school and needing practice) either fixed 'em or pulled 'em. I had resisted having my wisdom teeth removed before joining. The Navy decided I didn't need them and out they came. I don't remember the Project 100,000 thing but I *do* remember having one guy in my boot camp company who probably was a participant of the program. He was a true hillbilly and had little knowledge or experience with the world outside of the small Appalachian community he grew up in. He could barely read or write and nobody could understand a word he said. He was well liked but he didn't make it through boot camp. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/17/14, 2:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines was to our country's willingness to sell them. By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'. If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you? Whatever you wish to call it, it was in fact chemical warfare. I believe I used the words 'chemical warfare' to describe it, didn't I? As for the mines, my reference was to selling them. I know. But I'd rather clear mines that *we* sold than those that another country sold. The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. A problem with minefields is that those who establish them many times are not around to clear them. Agreed. Clearing them is a bitch, especially if no records were kept and the mines were of questionable origin. Disarming can be a bitch in that case. Blowing in place becomes the only alternative. The Viet Cong were geniuses at building their own 'mines' - IEDs which tore up a lot of tanks, bulldozers, APCs and other vehicles. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:57:40 -0500, Hank wrote:
snippage as per our role model, W.B. But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do. Of course he does. And he has the hearsay and anecdotal evidence to back him up. BTW, what happened to 'centurylink'...it doesn't work any more. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:57:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/17/14, 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. Project 100,000 explains a lot. I don't know what medical conditions were keeping these kids out, other than the aftermath of untreated childhood diseases, malnutrition, no visits to doctors or dentists. Wasn't the pre-induction physical facility in KC somewhere near Union Station? Did you ever get a chance to look at the bullet holes on the exterior of the station? Someone at the paper was always writing a piece about it and the "massacre." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_massacre It may have been right next door. I got to KC by train from Sedalia. Somehow got to the induction center with everyone else = I assume I walked. We left there for Ft. Leonard Wood by bus...lots of them. And then we arrived. And then the **** hit the fan. |
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:19:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. For me, no EKG but they did do X-Rays. I remember a complete dental exam was done also but any problems didn't result in disqualification. The Navy dentists (usually just out of dental school and needing practice) either fixed 'em or pulled 'em. I had resisted having my wisdom teeth removed before joining. The Navy decided I didn't need them and out they came. I don't remember the Project 100,000 thing but I *do* remember having one guy in my boot camp company who probably was a participant of the program. He was a true hillbilly and had little knowledge or experience with the world outside of the small Appalachian community he grew up in. He could barely read or write and nobody could understand a word he said. He was well liked but he didn't make it through boot camp. I believe the project 100,000 thing was only for the Army. This line was in Wiki ; "Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army." I can't imagine any of the other services submitting reports to DA, nor can I imagine any other services using these guys for much of anything. The ones I received were mostly Spanish, and we had no translators. No fun whatsoever. |
Question on ...
On 1/17/14, 4:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:57:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/17/14, 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4] Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the soldiers.[5] At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals. When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction, I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions? I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG. Project 100,000 explains a lot. I don't know what medical conditions were keeping these kids out, other than the aftermath of untreated childhood diseases, malnutrition, no visits to doctors or dentists. Wasn't the pre-induction physical facility in KC somewhere near Union Station? Did you ever get a chance to look at the bullet holes on the exterior of the station? Someone at the paper was always writing a piece about it and the "massacre." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_massacre It may have been right next door. I got to KC by train from Sedalia. Somehow got to the induction center with everyone else = I assume I walked. We left there for Ft. Leonard Wood by bus...lots of them. And then we arrived. And then the **** hit the fan. I spent a weekend at Ft. Leonard Wood to write about a new hospital there, I think. On the way back to KC, my well-used MG-A caught fire. It might still be there, on the side of a state highway. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:05:11 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10? 100? 1,000?, 10,000? There were 2 guys on my ship who came from WV and Alabama. Only ones I knew of on the ship from those states. They were sallow looking, thin and not strong. Both of them were always catching a dose of clap. Probably malnourished as kids. I would think living on a ship with a constant dose of clap might make one look sallow and thin. You reckon they were always catching the clap from each other? |
Question on ...
On 1/17/2014 4:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:57:40 -0500, Hank wrote: snippage as per our role model, W.B. But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do. Of course he does. And he has the hearsay and anecdotal evidence to back him up. BTW, what happened to 'centurylink'...it doesn't work any more. They got mad at me just because I cancelled their internet service. Working Email sent to your salmon bait address. I lost your real addy. when I formatted my c drive. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:12:03 -0500, Hank wrote:
check. |
Question on ...
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:07:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly* understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your "point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion. There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying. Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one. I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under- reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and the details have to be sorted out. Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury claims resulting from a car accident are bogus. To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for. There is a list of medical problems associated with Agent Orange for which benefits will ensue. The Army used to publish the Agent Orange Newsletter, which included this: The following health conditions are presumptively recognized for service connection. Vietnam veterans with one or more of these conditions do not have to show that their illness(es) is (are) related to their military service to get disability compensation. VA presumes that their condition is service-connected. Conditions Recognized in Veterans 1. Chloracne (must occur within 1 year of exposure to Agent Orange) 2. Non-HodgkinÂ’s lymphoma 3. Soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, KaposiÂ’s sarcoma, ormesothelioma) 4. HodgkinÂ’s disease 5. Porphyria cutanea tarda (must occur within 1 year of exposure) 6. Multiple myeloma 7. Respiratory cancers, including cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus 8. Prostate cancer 9. Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy (must appear within 1 year of exposure and resolve within 2 years of date of onset) 10. Type 2 diabetes 11. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia As one who was exposed to quite a bit of that crap, I've always been very interested. Luckily, none of those medical conditions have surfaced. It's a damn shame 'Hearing Loss' isn't one of the conditions listed! My brother is covered by VA medical as an Agent Orange victim. He does have health problems. But he said as a SeaBee he was in lots of Agent Orange contaminated streams, building bridges. |
Question on ...
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines was to our country's willingness to sell them. By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'. If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you? I understand our mines triggers, at least for close to 50 years will degrade and be inert after a not long time. Other countries mines, will work for a long, long, long time. |
Question on ...
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/17/14, 12:03 PM, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction screening was minimalist in nature. My induction physical was less inclusive than the one I had to take to play high school football in DC. I would have enjoyed spending the afternoon sitting on the "Group W Bench," if such existed, messing around with all the other litterers, playing with the pencils and, of course, being in the selective company of the mother-rapers and father-rapers that Arlo encountered, and jumping up and down yelling "Kill, kill, kill." Alas, the draft board never bothered to send me a notice. My draft physical had me in the group with criminal records. If you paid over, I think $25 in traffic tickets, you had to check a box. That Bo's was the criminal box. We had all got called in to a room, and those with other than traffic convictions were told to stand over in a separate area. Those of us with traffic fines, were asked how much we paid. I was about 10x the next highest person. I still love speed. |
Question on ...
On 1/18/2014 2:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:02:19 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote: I always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer. What? I don't get it... "supposed to be curing cancer" at an "Airport"... confused.... They shot over a hundred Iodine 125 seeds into my prostate for a cancer problem. Several months later I was in an airport talking to some nervous TSA guys about it. I'll bet that was the scariest pat down he ever performed. |
Question on ...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:48:05 -0600, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:07:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The following health conditions are presumptively recognized for service connection. Vietnam veterans with one or more of these conditions do not have to show that their illness(es) is (are) related to their military service to get disability compensation. VA presumes that their condition is service-connected. Conditions Recognized in Veterans 1. Chloracne (must occur within 1 year of exposure to Agent Orange) 2. Non-Hodgkin?s lymphoma 3. Soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi?s sarcoma, ormesothelioma) 4. Hodgkin?s disease 5. Porphyria cutanea tarda (must occur within 1 year of exposure) 6. Multiple myeloma 7. Respiratory cancers, including cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus 8. Prostate cancer 9. Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy (must appear within 1 year of exposure and resolve within 2 years of date of onset) 10. Type 2 diabetes 11. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia As one who was exposed to quite a bit of that crap, I've always been very interested. Luckily, none of those medical conditions have surfaced. It's a damn shame 'Hearing Loss' isn't one of the conditions listed! My brother is covered by VA medical as an Agent Orange victim. He does have health problems. But he said as a SeaBee he was in lots of Agent Orange contaminated streams, building bridges. I've lucked out, so far. My doctor has the list above, and gives those items extra attention during physicals, but as yet only a mild COPD which I attribute to almost 40 years of smoking. |
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:08:12 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:02:19 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote: I always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer. What? I don't get it... "supposed to be curing cancer" at an "Airport"... confused.... They shot over a hundred Iodine 125 seeds into my prostate for a cancer problem. Several months later I was in an airport talking to some nervous TSA guys about it. Did it work? Did you undergo a prostate biopsy? Isn't that a pain in the ass? :) |
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? |
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. |
Question on ...
On 1/18/14, 10:50 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. I have no idea what "Combined Forces Command" knows or doesn't know, other than to say that "military intelligence" is one of the leading oxymorons. |
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:10:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/18/14, 10:50 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. I have no idea what "Combined Forces Command" knows or doesn't know, other than to say that "military intelligence" is one of the leading oxymorons. Right up there with 'honest media'. |
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:50:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:04:42 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:08:12 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:02:19 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote: I always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer. What? I don't get it... "supposed to be curing cancer" at an "Airport"... confused.... They shot over a hundred Iodine 125 seeds into my prostate for a cancer problem. Several months later I was in an airport talking to some nervous TSA guys about it. Did it work? Did you undergo a prostate biopsy? Isn't that a pain in the ass? :) So far so good. My PSA went down 90%. The biopsy is a bit uncomfortable. I am there with an electric dildo up my ass and the urologist says "now you will feel a little prick". I told him I didn't expect to get screwed until his bill came. Mine wasn't electric, but more of a .22 cal sized probe with a baby guillotine therein. He took five chunks. Each one was a 'little prick'. They must get that phrase from talking to dentists. |
Question on ...
On 1/18/2014 10:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ Are you saying that Denis Rodman's strategy of killing them with kindness is bearing fruit? |
Question on ...
On 1/18/2014 1:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:10:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:50 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. I have no idea what "Combined Forces Command" knows or doesn't know, other than to say that "military intelligence" is one of the leading oxymorons. Right up there with 'honest media'. And transparency in government at any level including the top. |
Question on ...
On 1/18/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:50:01 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:04:42 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:08:12 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:02:19 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote: I always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer. What? I don't get it... "supposed to be curing cancer" at an "Airport"... confused.... They shot over a hundred Iodine 125 seeds into my prostate for a cancer problem. Several months later I was in an airport talking to some nervous TSA guys about it. Did it work? Did you undergo a prostate biopsy? Isn't that a pain in the ass? :) So far so good. My PSA went down 90%. The biopsy is a bit uncomfortable. I am there with an electric dildo up my ass and the urologist says "now you will feel a little prick". I told him I didn't expect to get screwed until his bill came. Mine wasn't electric, but more of a .22 cal sized probe with a baby guillotine therein. He took five chunks. Each one was a 'little prick'. They must get that phrase from talking to dentists. Not to nit pick but the dentists usually are kind enough to say pinch. |
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
|
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:33:10 -0500, KC wrote:
On 1/18/2014 1:19 PM, wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:50:08 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. I don't know a lot about US mines but the Russians littered Afghanistan with little plastic air dropped mines. The problem is they look like toys and kids pick them up ... kaboom. There have been a number of stories about them. I think they copied a US mine. It is pretty fast to spray those out in front of an attacking army. Are mines really all that effective on modern armies like the US at this time? I know we have lots of ways to go over, through, around or otherwise avoid them and detect them too. I can't really see too many US troops unknowingly walking into a traditional mine field. I am not talking about IED's, I am talking about traditional pressure triggered mines such as used in WW1 and WW2... The type of mines in the DMZ in Korea.... We have various means of breaching minefields, but any of them would slow down an attacking force. The purpose of a minefield is to canalize or delay the enemy thus subjecting it to fire from artillery, aircraft, or other tanks. I know of no mines in the DMZ in Korea. It is a 'demilitarized zone' - wire fences on both sides, guards in towers on both sides |
Question on ...
On 1/18/14, 2:28 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/18/2014 1:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:10:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:50 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. I have no idea what "Combined Forces Command" knows or doesn't know, other than to say that "military intelligence" is one of the leading oxymorons. Right up there with 'honest media'. And transparency in government at any level including the top. Perhaps you fellas would prefer Somalia...it's a Republican/Libertarian paradise, from what I have read...no real government, no real rules, plenty of guns for everyone. Paradise! :) |
Question on ...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:34:43 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/18/14, 2:28 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/18/2014 1:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:10:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:50 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:28:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The USA has been a big-time marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory. From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000 troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers. I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would come on down the peninsula I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included. Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons, there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea. The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using landmines. South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several hundred thousand. South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the need for the DMZ, and all those http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South Korea's mines. What? Well see, there you go. Apparently those mines are so secret they didn't make the books at Combined Forces Command. Or, there may be some bull**** going on. As for mines in storage, in case of an invasion, there won't be enough time to be putting in any minefields. My comments don't include mines used to defend firing positions, such as claymores. Claymores (or the equivalent) are undoubtedly used wherever there are firing positions for US or South Korean forces. To not use them would be stupid. I have no idea what "Combined Forces Command" knows or doesn't know, other than to say that "military intelligence" is one of the leading oxymorons. Right up there with 'honest media'. And transparency in government at any level including the top. Perhaps you fellas would prefer Somalia...it's a Republican/Libertarian paradise, from what I have read...no real government, no real rules, plenty of guns for everyone. Paradise! :) Down on Blacks again? Wink, wink. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com