From Mon Sep 08 20:58:02 1997
>Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:00:55 -0400
>From: Patrick McSherry >Reply-To: pmm@redrose.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Spanish American War Centennial Website
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Hello!
>
>Things have been very hectic here, so I have not been involved in the
>conversations here for quite a while. However, I wanted to mention that
>the Spanish American War Centennial Website, with quite a bit of naval
>info., has been greatly updated within the last week.
>
>Check it out at http://www.powerscourt.com/war
>
>Patrick
>Conestoga, PA

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 11:24:36 1997
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Tracy Johnson
>To: MAHAN-L
>Subject: Re: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>What’s this I hear about the Russians:
>
>1) Losing track of about 100 warheads.
>
>2) Their former Minister (who had responsibility of the warheads)
>committing suicide.
>
>3) His successor, a month or so later also commits suicide.
>
>Are these rumors true or a new (Internet) legend?
>
>Tracy Johnson
>Minister of Propaganda, Justin Thyme Productions
>tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>”Semper Pollus”
> ADC-2239-5531

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 11:34:05 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom3.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:33:23 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom3
>To: Markus Stumptner
>cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Barbecuing (on) MAHAN 🙂
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Markus Stumptner wrote:
> > I thought this was a mailing list dealing with naval strategy
> > and technology, not one about “barbecuing” political dissenters.
>
>Markus, you sound … nervous? 🙂
>
>As to who gets barbecued in this depends on the positions’ relative
> truth/validity … as to be identified in fair trial-by-
> intellectual-combat.
>
>… and we’re talking about policy dissenters, not just political
> dissenters, here.
>
>And what would you recommend on barbecued Austrians, incidentally,
> Markus? Mustard? Worcestershire sauce? A-1 steak sauce? 🙂
>
>Actually, considering the culinary traditions of some of the
> South Pacific islanders, this might be a relevant sub-thread in
> and of itself. That’s it! We can feed the (debate) losers to
> the … Fijians!! 🙂
>
>Lou
> Coatney … who is … ummm … relishing the hors d’oeuvres
> de combatte, already.
> … and has disclosed his English ancestry shamelessly.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 11:59:21 1997
>Comments: Authenticated sender is
>From: “James H. E. Maugham”
>Organization: RST Environmental Services, Inc.
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:59:16 -0500
>Subject: Re: Barbecuing (on) MAHAN 🙂
>Reply-to: CaptJHEM@waterw.com
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On 8 Sep 97 at 13:33, Louis R. Coatney wrote:
>
> > Actually, considering the culinary traditions of some of the
> > South Pacific islanders, this might be a relevant sub-thread in
> > and of itself. That’s it! We can feed the (debate) losers to
> > the … Fijians!! 🙂
> >
> > … and has disclosed his English ancestry shamelessly.
>
>While I share your English ancestry Lou, I have to step in here to >correct your
>desire to feed the losers to the Fijians.
>
>It was my Maori ancestors that would partake of “long pork”, not the Fijians
>who, when exercised by the transgressions of white visitors, would simply
>dis-assemble them into their component parts. They would then >completely waste
>this largess by failing to hang the meat properly to age.
>
>Which has lead to a great deal of confusion over the years when >Maoris greeted
>visiting sailors with a statement that the sailors would be “well hung”! 🙂
>
>Regards,
>
>James “I pick my teeth at you” Maugham
>In the Heart of the Pine Barrens 39 54 03 N, 74 49 26 W

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 14:34:34 1997
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 20:16 MET DST
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Re: Fate of I-15 in 1942. Which source is correct?
>X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.0
>X-Sender: 0611603955-0001@t-online.de (Silvia Lanzendoerfer)
>From: BWV_WIESBADEN@t-online.de (Tim Lanzendoerfer)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
> > Markus,
> >
> > He feels that, for example, there was significant damage
> > suffered by Japanese warships during the Java Sea battles which has
> > never been fully admitted/recognized … and that … therefore …
> > the sacrifices of those who fought in the early and *most* crucial
> > battles of the war … often with inadequate resources, support,
> > and/or direction … have been buried.
>
>I do not think your friend is right on this issue. I believe that >nobody who has
>a serious interest in the subject has forgotten about these >sacrifices, because
>we simply do not forget (or should not forget – there is no way to remember
>everything) any sacrifices made during the war. Could you ask him >what damage he
>is speaking of? I do not believe that there was any significant >damage done to
>Japanese ships during the Java Sea battles – except the one battle >in which US
>DDs sank Japanese transports.
>
> > I’ve been urging him to get on a list, but he’s obstinately
> > computer illiterate.
>
>Nevertheless, I would be interested in his views, and he doesn’t >need to come on
>the list – I think we would be happy if he told you his views and >you forwarded
>them.
>
> > Does anyone (else) know of consistent “errors of omission”
> > about early war Allied successes … or at least effects?
>
>No…not now…I would have to look at some books…
>
>Tim
>
>Tim Lanzendoerfer | The US Navy in
>Amateur Naval Historian | the Pacific War
>Email:BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de| 1941 – 1945
>http://www.microworks.net/pacific/pacific.htm

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 21:25:45 1997
>From: John Snyder
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 21:20:42 -0700
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Re[2]: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
>Organization: MacNexus, the Sacramento Macintosh User Group
>X-Mailer: TeleFinder BBS v5.5
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Bill Riddle wrote:
>
>have some ocean front property in Maricopa County I would like to sell
>you.>>>
>
>Amen to that. I know we had them aboard transiting the Bay to and from Mare
>Island. And when those in SF were opposing homeporting MISSOURI there on the
>grounds of nukes aboard, what did they think was in all those CVs over at
>Alameda NAS?
>
>John Snyder
>John_Snyder@bbs.macnexus.org

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Sep 08 22:48:01 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com (Unverified)
>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:48:57 -0500
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Save the Olympia
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Help save the U.S.S. Olympia, the only remaining Spanish-American War era
>cruiser, Admiral Dewey’s Flagship!
>
>Go to http://WWW.POWERSCOURT.COM/war/olyhelp.htm to see photos and details.
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Sep 09 08:18:10 1997
>X-Sender: dave@microworks.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:17:33 -0700
>To: “Bill Riddle” ,mahan@microwrks.com,
> Markus Stumptner
>From: Dave Riddle
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>At 04:58 PM 9/8/97 GMT, Bill Riddle wrote:
> > Actually, this list was set up as a forum for Naval History … not
> > strategy or technology or anything else … except as they relate
> > historically, of course.
> >
> > Still, if one wanted to post a note comparing historical
> > head-in-the-sandism (US ’30s isolationism jumps right to the front
> > here) and present day “nuclear free” head-in-the-sandism, it would
> > seem valid to me.
> >
> > Comments Dave?
>
>I am not “really” a moderator here.
>
>
> >
> > On the subject of “nuclear free zones” … All such feel-good
> > pronouncements are, in my mind, counterproductive. Such as posting a
> > sign in front of a school that says “Drug Free Zone.” At best it is
> > harmless visual pollution. At worst it would engender a false sense
> > of security. In actuality I am sure it means nothing at all.
> >
> > Of course, as I understand the practice, the local government (NZ,
> > Denmark, San Francisco, whoever) declares its territory to be “Nuke
> > Free.” Then the USN adheres to its well established policy of making
> > no statements on the subject, and the local government doesn’t push
> > the issue. And if you think the Navy downloads weapons before making
> > a port call, I have some ocean front property in Maricopa County I
> > would like to sell you.
> >
> > Bill Riddle
> >
> >
> >______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
> >Subject: Re: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
> >Author: Markus Stumptner at smtp-fhu
> >Date: 9/8/97 11:12 AM
> >
> >
> >I thought this was a mailing list dealing with naval strategy
> >and technology, not one about “barbecuing” political dissenters.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> >
> >

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Sep 09 08:22:45 1997
>Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:21:49 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Sri Lanka naval action
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Tamil Tigers torch foreign-owned cargo ship in Sri Lanka
>________________________________________________________
>Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright © 1997 Agence France-Presse
>
>COLOMBO (September 9, 1997 00:33 a.m. EDT) – Tamil Tiger guerrillas
>attacked a Panamanian-registered cargo ship off Sri Lanka’s northeastern
>coast Tuesday and fled after torching the craft, officials here said.
>
>Gunmen of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) opened
>fire on the M.V. Cordiality and killed at least two soldiers providing
>security for the vessel at Pulmoddai, officials said.
>
>They said the vessel was loading mineral sands from a state enterprise
>in the region when the pre-dawn attack was launched.
>
>Navy gun boats were rushed to the area and they engaged at least eight
>rebel craft, officials said adding that it was not immediately clear if
>the rebels suffered any casualties.
>
>Tiger guerrillas had attacked another foreign cargo vessel in the same
>area recently and warned in July that they will target merchant ships
>traveling to the island’s northern peninsula of Jaffna.
>
>Tigers are leading a drawn out campaign for independence in the island’s
>northern and eastern regions for the two million Tamil minority. More
>than 50,000 people have died in fighting in the past 25 years.
>
> -= END OF MESSAGE =-

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Sep 09 08:46:39 1997
>Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:45:55 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Re: MAHAN ready for a “nuclear free” debate?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Tom, re:
> > >US Navy surface ships no longer (since 1989) carry nuclear weapons and I
> > >think the USN no longer has nuclear bombs/depth charges even in
> > >war-reserve storage.
> >
> > What? Are you telling us that no carriers had tactical nuclear weapons
> > aboard during the Gulf War? Boy, wait til’ Saddam hears about this! He’s
> > gonna be p.o.’d no end.
>
>Well, I do not confirm or deny . . . Pres Bush announced retirement of
>ship- launched tactical nuclear weapons in 1989. Nuclear ASRoc, nuclear
>Terrier, and SubRoc all were scrapped. Nuclear Tomahawks were stored
>ashore but in 1994 the surface ship armored box launchers (ABLs) for
>this weapon were decommissioned. ABLs remain in place but under the QDR
>the ABL ships will be decommissioned during 1998-2003. Nuclear Tomahawk
>is not VLS-compatible.
>
>I don’t know the status of CV nuclear bombs/depth charges in 1990 and it
>might not be permissible to disclose it anyway. Norman Friedman’s new
>=World Naval Weapons Systems 1997-1998= reports that the Navy no longer
>has nuclear bombs/depth charges for aircraft carriers today. As said in
>my previous post, for practical purposes this situation benefits the
>Navy.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous