Re: Catholic Soldier: Mass Murder Is My Job, But Serving With A Woman Is Too Much For My Conscience

[George Z. Bush]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Apocalypse Now" > wrote in message
> ]...
> >
> > As you may know, Adolf Hitler was a very bad Catholic - he used to
> > sleep in the same room (and God knows what else..) with woman he was
> > not married to.
> >
> > But not all Catholics are like him. Captain Berry is a good Catholic,
> > who will not let any sinful thoughts distract him from his Christian
> > duty - killing millions of men, women and children.
> >
> > Jesus would be proud of him !
>
>
> OFF TOPIC for rec.aviation.military , probably a lot of others too.
>
> Tex Houston

The cross-posting high school children are up late tonight.....Mom and Dad must
be having a bash at the Elks social and there are no adults at home to keep an
eye on the monitor. Oh, well.....maybe they'll get sleepy soon and give us all
a break.

George Z.

[BUFDRVR]

>Well, if he can't resist whipping it out and pouncing on the nearest
>female, perhaps he can't resist pushing the little red button, either.

Its actually turning a key, but I agree with your premis.

>Sounds like he's too unstable for the job, though how anyone who's
>stable would take the job of nuking millions of people is beyond me.

Is it? I consider myself stable and I've now served on 2/3 of the triad.

>Don't they have cameras watching these people?

Nope, you can even smoke cigars down there in direct violation of the
applicable AFI forbidding it.....at least that's what I've been told ;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Yeff]

On 26 Nov 2003 03:29:28 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

> Is it? I consider myself stable and I've now served on 2/3 of the triad.

You were also shot down and killed so your stability post-death is
questionable... <g>

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Apocalypse Now)
]>
>
>Then-Lieutenant Berry is Roman Catholic and is married. He was
>concerned that being in tight quarters such as this for extended
>periods of time presented him with an "occasion of sin" which his
>Catholic faith requires him to avoid: he was concerned that this
>situation could lead to inappropriate feelings of a sexual nature, or
>could lead to strong emotional feelings for his partner over time that
>might interfere with his relationship with his wife.

Was it the same priesthood that was busy molesting little altar boys telling
him about that ban on the "occasion of sin" stuff?
Dave

[Bob McKellar]

Yeff wrote:

> On 26 Nov 2003 03:29:28 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> > Is it? I consider myself stable and I've now served on 2/3 of the triad.
>
> You were also shot down and killed so your stability post-death is
> questionable... <g>
>
> -Jeff B.
> yeff at erols dot com

I hate to think how many newbies on this group will have no idea what you're
talking about.

Bob McKellar

[Leslie Swartz]

Has anyone even objectively looked at the data on mixed-gender crews?

Ooops sorry; not allowed under the PC military.

Sad fact is, the man had a point (screwing while on duty, divorce, etc
wise.).

Steve Swartz

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Well, if he can't resist whipping it out and pouncing on the nearest
> >female, perhaps he can't resist pushing the little red button, either.
>
> Its actually turning a key, but I agree with your premis.
>
> >Sounds like he's too unstable for the job, though how anyone who's
> >stable would take the job of nuking millions of people is beyond me.
>
> Is it? I consider myself stable and I've now served on 2/3 of the triad.
>
> >Don't they have cameras watching these people?
>
> Nope, you can even smoke cigars down there in direct violation of the
> applicable AFI forbidding it.....at least that's what I've been told ;)
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Yes, you make a great point- we shouldn't allow homosexuals to serve in the
silos either.

Steve Swartz

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Apocalypse Now)
> ]>
> >
> >Then-Lieutenant Berry is Roman Catholic and is married. He was
> >concerned that being in tight quarters such as this for extended
> >periods of time presented him with an "occasion of sin" which his
> >Catholic faith requires him to avoid: he was concerned that this
> >situation could lead to inappropriate feelings of a sexual nature, or
> >could lead to strong emotional feelings for his partner over time that
> >might interfere with his relationship with his wife.
>
> Was it the same priesthood that was busy molesting little altar boys
telling
> him about that ban on the "occasion of sin" stuff?
> Dave

[BUFDRVR]

>> You were also shot down and killed so your stability post-death is
>> questionable... <g>

>I hate to think how many newbies on this group will have no idea what you're
>talking about.
>

Yeah, but us "old heads" will get a chuckle out of it, at least I did.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Has anyone even objectively looked at the data on mixed-gender crews?

Yes, in the early 80's when they were first introduced on Minuteman crews.
Prior to the gender integration in Minuteman, Titan crews had been integrated
for around a dozen years, however a Titan site was *much* larger than a
Minuteman Launch Control Center and had a 6 person crew.

>Sad fact is, the man had a point (screwing while on duty, divorce, etc
>wise.).

I completely disagree. If you don't have the self control not to attempt sexual
relations with someone other than your spouse than a.) you should not be
married and b.) should not be certified under PRP which is required to control
nuclear weapons.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

I agree with you completely.

But you avoided the point entirely.

The point is not "Can some idealized man or woman work together in close
quarters, alone, for an extended period of time."

Nor was it "Should people entrusted with a leg of the SIOP triad be expected
to behave themselves."

The point is "What happens to real (not theoretical) people when they do."

The numbers show a statistically- and practically- significant increases in
fraternization, infidelity, and divorce.

Yes, we can hold on to our cherished notions of "perfectable man (or
woman)," but in the meantime, we have to work with what we've got.

Steve Swartz

(if only people who would never stray were allowed to get married or work
around nuclear weapons, that wouldn't leave us with much of a society nor
much of a force, now would it?)



"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Has anyone even objectively looked at the data on mixed-gender crews?
>
> Yes, in the early 80's when they were first introduced on Minuteman crews.
> Prior to the gender integration in Minuteman, Titan crews had been
integrated
> for around a dozen years, however a Titan site was *much* larger than a
> Minuteman Launch Control Center and had a 6 person crew.
>
> >Sad fact is, the man had a point (screwing while on duty, divorce, etc
> >wise.).
>
> I completely disagree. If you don't have the self control not to attempt
sexual
> relations with someone other than your spouse than a.) you should not be
> married and b.) should not be certified under PRP which is required to
control
> nuclear weapons.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Regnirps]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

<<I completely disagree. If you don't have the self control not to attempt
sexual
relations with someone other than your spouse than a.) you should not be
married and b.) should not be certified under PRP which is required to control
nuclear weapons. >>

That would be ideal. I have wondered how the integrated crews would affect who
shoots who first and why.

-- Charlie Springer

[BUFDRVR]

>The numbers show a statistically- and practically- significant increases in
>fraternization, infidelity, and divorce.

Hogwash. The rate of divorce among Minuteman crewmembers has not changed *at
all* since gender integration. Additionally, the rate of fraternization, always
high in Northern Tier bases, has not changed either. The bottom line is; gender
integration has had zero impact on the missile community, save a few religious
"wackos", who somehow feel living in close proximity to a female is
unacceptable, but killing a million of them 10,000 miles away is OK.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.

O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?

I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life surveys
yet . . .

Steve Swartz



"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The numbers show a statistically- and practically- significant increases
in
> >fraternization, infidelity, and divorce.
>
> Hogwash. The rate of divorce among Minuteman crewmembers has not changed
*at
> all* since gender integration. Additionally, the rate of fraternization,
always
> high in Northern Tier bases, has not changed either. The bottom line is;
gender
> integration has had zero impact on the missile community, save a few
religious
> "wackos", who somehow feel living in close proximity to a female is
> unacceptable, but killing a million of them 10,000 miles away is OK.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.

I don't have an attitude, I just provide facts.

>O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
>fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?

During the first few days of Undergraduate Space & Missile Training you go
through an orientation course where you discuss (in the presence of a panel
which includes a few chaplains and senior Space & Missile leaders,typically O-6
Group or Wing Commanders) various topics, including gender integration. The
statistics were presented and in fact, the discussion on gender integration is
open to any spouses as well. When I went through, a few guys brought their
wives, none of whom seemed concerned by the prospect of their husband being
buried 150' below ground with another woman.

Where did you get your "facts"?

>I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life surveys
>yet . . .

I'm eagerly awaiting your data. I spent three years as a Minuteman III Combat
Crewmember. In those three years I knew of one person who had issues with
gender integration. Interestingly enough, he was in the same squadron as this
last yahoo. Unlike the last yahoo, this guy never made captain and ended his
career four years after it began. Of course, he didn't get the publicity of
this latest guy, but the story is nearly identical. But the bottom line, out of
the hundreds of crewmembers I knew, and the hundreds of wives (and a few
husbands), there was a problem with *one*. If you try to provide some "data"
that says the quality of life surveys mention gender integration in a negative
way, I'll know you're full of it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Well, I got exactly what I expected.

Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an 0-6
briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
any facts. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in setting the bar a little
higher than that. A bunch of O-6s mouthing the party line during a briefing
is somewhat underwhelming; and certainly would not constitute "facts" by any
stretch of the imagination.

Your first-person anecdotal experience (three years worth at one unit)
carries more weight (marginally so) than the first "evidence." I can
certainly accept that a single individual (and his circle of associates)
would provide the socially desirable responses required of the position,
however. This bias is certainly problematic of all anecdotal reports, and
is particularly troublesome when combined with socially desirable responding
as is the case here.

Here are some additional confounds (the most serious) to actually addressing
this issue in an objective sense:

1) We are talking about relatively rare events in the first place (making
individual experiences unique)
2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
(limiting the time available for study)
3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over time
(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)
4) The data themselves are time series data

Add to that the most serious confound of socially desirable responding and
you have quite a problem here. Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
in itself taboo? Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
performed in this area.

Interesting, is it not?

Steve Swartz


"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.
>
> I don't have an attitude, I just provide facts.
>
> >O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
> >fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?
>
> During the first few days of Undergraduate Space & Missile Training you go
> through an orientation course where you discuss (in the presence of a
panel
> which includes a few chaplains and senior Space & Missile
leaders,typically O-6
> Group or Wing Commanders) various topics, including gender integration.
The
> statistics were presented and in fact, the discussion on gender
integration is
> open to any spouses as well. When I went through, a few guys brought their
> wives, none of whom seemed concerned by the prospect of their husband
being
> buried 150' below ground with another woman.
>
> Where did you get your "facts"?
>
> >I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life
surveys
> >yet . . .
>
> I'm eagerly awaiting your data. I spent three years as a Minuteman III
Combat
> Crewmember. In those three years I knew of one person who had issues with
> gender integration. Interestingly enough, he was in the same squadron as
this
> last yahoo. Unlike the last yahoo, this guy never made captain and ended
his
> career four years after it began. Of course, he didn't get the publicity
of
> this latest guy, but the story is nearly identical. But the bottom line,
out of
> the hundreds of crewmembers I knew, and the hundreds of wives (and a few
> husbands), there was a problem with *one*. If you try to provide some
"data"
> that says the quality of life surveys mention gender integration in a
negative
> way, I'll know you're full of it.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an 0-6
>briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
>any facts.

The O-6s came with facts. They presented a briefing that compared divorce and
UCMJ adultery prosecution rates before and after gender integration in
Minuteman. No difference.

>2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
>(limiting the time available for study)

I fail to see why 1988 is a magic year. In 1991 there were 6 missile wings
(Minot, Grand Forks, Malmstrom, Ellsworth, FE Warren and Whiteman) all fully
gender integrated. By 1994 Ellsworth and Whiteman had closed (Minuteman II
Wings). In 1997 Grand Forks closed its missile wing, leaving us with Minot,
Malmstrom and FE Warren, all gender integrated for the last 15 years. Seems a
substantial amount of data is available for those inclined.

>3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over time
>(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)

Wrong again. Overnight in the early 1980's, Titan crews were gender integrated.
The delay on Minuteman was due to the much closer quarters and the more
"intimate" crew of two, however in the mid-80's, instantly women were permitted
on Minuteman crews. Many former Titan female crewmembers, who had been out of
a job for 3 or more years, were retrained in Minuteman and showed up "in mass",
to Minuteman Wings throughout SAC. No one complained because the Minuteman
Wings were terribly under manned and the presence of a dozen new crewmembers
instantly relieved a burden that was forcing most Minuteman crewmembers to do
over 9 alerts a month.

>Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
>in itself taboo?

Hardly, the Air Force itself keeps (or at least they did up until 1991) the
comparison figures and presents them to each new space & missile class.

>Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
>performed in this area.
>
>Interesting, is it not?

See above.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an
0-6
> >briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
> >any facts.
>
> The O-6s came with facts. They presented a briefing that compared divorce
and
> UCMJ adultery prosecution rates before and after gender integration in
> Minuteman. No difference.

See confounds; particularly with respect to time series data and rare
events. Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
advocacy briefing.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
proof.

Note that I am not asking you to "prove a negative." Not at all. If there
was no difference, there was no difference. Should be very easy to
demonstrate one way or another. Within the bounds of the confounds listed
below, of cours.

>
> >2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
> >(limiting the time available for study)
>
> I fail to see why 1988 is a magic year. In 1991 there were 6 missile wings
> (Minot, Grand Forks, Malmstrom, Ellsworth, FE Warren and Whiteman) all
fully
> gender integrated. By 1994 Ellsworth and Whiteman had closed (Minuteman II
> Wings). In 1997 Grand Forks closed its missile wing, leaving us with
Minot,
> Malmstrom and FE Warren, all gender integrated for the last 15 years.
Seems a
> substantial amount of data is available for those inclined.
>

The situation in the silos was affected by the collaps of the FUSSR. That's
what makes it an historical confound. Any comparison of crew behavior
before, during, and after 1988 becomes problematic. Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
the hole in 1995.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight. This is also a
confound. This is particularly a confound for time series data. You would
see a gradual effect over time, as the percentage of crewmembers serving in
mixed gender crews increased.

The simplest way for this confound to present itself would by the masking of
the effect. If the percentage of crewmembers serving in gender integrated
crews were to slowly increase fromnone" to "some" over a period of time, any
simple "before" vs. "after" comparison would be invalid. Just looking at
(for instance) some arbitrary year as the "integration" year along that
contimuum would include many events as bveing "pre" integration when they
may have been in fact the result of integration.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

> >3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over
time
> >(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)
>
> Wrong again. Overnight in the early 1980's, Titan crews were gender
integrated.
> The delay on Minuteman was due to the much closer quarters and the more
> "intimate" crew of two, however in the mid-80's, instantly women were
permitted
> on Minuteman crews. Many former Titan female crewmembers, who had been
out of
> a job for 3 or more years, were retrained in Minuteman and showed up "in
mass",
> to Minuteman Wings throughout SAC. No one complained because the Minuteman
> Wings were terribly under manned and the presence of a dozen new
crewmembers
> instantly relieved a burden that was forcing most Minuteman crewmembers to
do
> over 9 alerts a month.
>

Re my previous comment about your "Chief of Staff" attitude. Claiming het
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
(or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
lower, level?) "overnight" is an absolute howler.

You can't expect *any* rational person to believe that.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?


> >Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
> >in itself taboo?
>
> Hardly, the Air Force itself keeps (or at least they did up until 1991)
the
> comparison figures and presents them to each new space & missile class.
>

YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

There's no way you can actually believe that.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

(Not to change the subject, but have you ever independently crunched the
Class A mishap data? Wanna take any bets that ORM can be causally linked to
*increased* Class A's? What's the official version on ORM? How can
something so obviously wrong still be the "school solution?")

> >Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
> >performed in this area.
> >
> >Interesting, is it not?
>
> See above.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: (typhoon)

>Lt. Berry is being punished merely for asking for the continuation of
>a religious exemption that was easily accommodated for eighteen
>months. It's a shame the military can't find a way to be as
>accommodating of traditional faiths like Catholicism.
>
If an officer or enlisted is not available to perform all his duties at all
times when not on medical waiver,in hospital, on leave or pass his performance
is substandard. He is to be rated as such on his performance reports.

During the above stated eighteen months there may have been no scheduling
problems. If his new commander feels that he would have difficulty working
schedules around the person in question without being unfair to the others then
the person in question is causing a conflict and should seek retraining in a
field where such a conflict would not exist. Until then it would be perfectly
fair to rate him as substandard.

It sure would be nice to accomodate each serviceman, but it can't always be
done and the mission must come first.

To Lt. Berry I would say "you should have thought of that before selecting the
job."

What would he have done if his partnered officer took ill just prior to going
underground and the only person available was female? Would he have refused to
go? What about the crew underground? How long would they have to wait for
relief because of him?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

> Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
>research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
>advocacy briefing.

I fail to see why this data is so "skewed" in your view. Divorce rates among
missile crews was X before gender integration and X after, seems clear cut to
me that gender integration did not effect divorce rates among married
missileers.

>That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
>not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

No impression was required, it was statistical data.

>The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
>well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
>proof.

OK, I'll be your proof. Over 150 alerts over a three year period, at least a
dozen with a woman who was not my wife and I kept my hands (and other
appendages) to myself for the entire 24-hour period. I was good friends with at
least a dozen other married guys, none of who even hinted they had comitted
adultery with a female missileer.

> Campbell and Stanley
>(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
>series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
>the hole in 1995.

Really? How so? I'm willing to bet life in the hole was identical from 1962 to
the present day. It was(and still is) a very scripted and monotonous 24-hour
period and with a few minor exceptions unchanged over time or by the actions of
other nations.

>Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
>If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
>mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
>where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight.

Only because your definition of gender integration is an equal population of
female crewmembers. Using this definition, we are not now, nor will the missile
community ever be, gender integrated.

>Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
>briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
>falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

Inappropriate analysis? Its simple analysis. Divorce rates before and after
gender integration and UCMJ prosecution rates for adultery before and after
integration. How can that data be misleading?

>Claiming that
>percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
> "overnight" is an absolute howler.

Who in God's name said that? You're the one using that criteria as the basis
for gender integration, not me. My definition of gender integration was the
lifting of the restriction prohibiting woman from serving on Minuteman crews.
If you use 50% as the magic number, like I said above, we'll never have a
gender integrated missile career. By my best guess, based on the makeup of the
91st Missile Wing circa 1993, approximately 8-10% of the crewmembers were
female.


>or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
>lower, level?

There can be no "level" associated with it. If you use some random level, I can
argue the USAF as a whole is not gender integrated, but if you look around you
won't see any WASPs.

>Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
>"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?

You're the one trying to somehow associate a percentage with full gender
integration (and a ridiculous level I might add, 50% are you serious?), I'm not
misrepresenting anything, I'm just supplying you with facts about a life I
lived, everyday, for 3+ years. You seem to be someone who can't handle facts
counter your personal beliefs.

>YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
>has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

Yes.

>How long have you been in the war?
>
>You can't be that naive. No way.

You're a "black helicopter" guy aren't you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Bob McKellar]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> < snip discussion I find tedious ( from one side only ). >

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Dear Mr. DRVR,

Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
which I have no answer or opinion:

1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?

2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
"your night in the barrel"?

3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?

4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
diminish said mental condition?

I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
sound good.

5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
the case, or am I hallucinating again?

Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
often as well

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:00 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>BUFDRVR wrote:
>
>> < snip discussion I find tedious ( from one side only ). >
>>
>> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>> everyone on Bear Creek"
>
>Dear Mr. DRVR,
>
>Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
>which I have no answer or opinion:

While you asked BUFDRVR, I assume you are open to comment for the good
of the newsgroup, so I'll interject my somewhat dated perspective on
missile duty.
>
>1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?

Lemme see, hot spots like Cheyenne WY, Fargo ND, etc. etc. At least
those are the nominal locations, the "job site" is really out
somewhere in the middle of a snow-swept prairie somewhere. You get to
live in a hole for days at a time, with another nebbish while being
routinely subjected to harrassment, testing, evaluation and detailed
trivia games. When you get to go home, you then fill your off-alert
days with mind-numbing inanities. Short answer: NO.
>
>2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
>"your night in the barrel"?

Missile duty was the last refuge of the pilot/nav school washout. It
wasn't career enhancing because other than the basic,
never-get-to-actually-do-it job, there was little opportunity to
demonstrate potential for higher rank. Command slots for the Minuteman
force usually went to folks from outside the program.
>
>3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
>"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?

Seldom was a missile assignment greeted enthusiastically, unless it
was received by a latrine orderly on the DEW line.
>
>4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
>diminish said mental condition?

While the vaunted HRP and PRP programs were supposed to preclude
strangeness in the nuke field, there were probably a parallel
percentage of neurotics, alcoholics and weirdos as in the population
at large.
>
>I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
>to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
>sound good.

They gave them blue coveralls, neato vinyl baseball caps and polyester
dickies.
>
>5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
>the case, or am I hallucinating again?

That will be left to BUFDRVR to report. It's a fact of military life
that regular, but not too frequent swapping between cockpit and staff
lead to good things in the long term. Or, maybe not.

>
>Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
>often as well

I hope the hole you sat in was properly steel wrapped.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:00 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>BUFDRVR wrote:
>
>> < snip discussion I find tedious ( from one side only ). >
>>
>> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>> everyone on Bear Creek"
>
>Dear Mr. DRVR,
>
>Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
>which I have no answer or opinion:

While you asked BUFDRVR, I assume you are open to comment for the good
of the newsgroup, so I'll interject my somewhat dated perspective on
missile duty.
>
>1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?

Lemme see, hot spots like Cheyenne WY, Fargo ND, etc. etc. At least
those are the nominal locations, the "job site" is really out
somewhere in the middle of a snow-swept prairie somewhere. You get to
live in a hole for days at a time, with another nebbish while being
routinely subjected to harrassment, testing, evaluation and detailed
trivia games. When you get to go home, you then fill your off-alert
days with mind-numbing inanities. Short answer: NO.
>
>2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
>"your night in the barrel"?

Missile duty was the last refuge of the pilot/nav school washout. It
wasn't career enhancing because other than the basic,
never-get-to-actually-do-it job, there was little opportunity to
demonstrate potential for higher rank. Command slots for the Minuteman
force usually went to folks from outside the program.
>
>3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
>"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?

Seldom was a missile assignment greeted enthusiastically, unless it
was received by a latrine orderly on the DEW line.
>
>4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
>diminish said mental condition?

While the vaunted HRP and PRP programs were supposed to preclude
strangeness in the nuke field, there were probably a parallel
percentage of neurotics, alcoholics and weirdos as in the population
at large.
>
>I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
>to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
>sound good.

They gave them blue coveralls, neato vinyl baseball caps and polyester
dickies.
>
>5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
>the case, or am I hallucinating again?

That will be left to BUFDRVR to report. It's a fact of military life
that regular, but not too frequent swapping between cockpit and staff
lead to good things in the long term. Or, maybe not.

>
>Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
>often as well

I hope the hole you sat in was properly steel wrapped.

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:00 -0500, Bob McKellar >
> wrote:
>
> >BUFDRVR wrote:
> >
> >> < snip discussion I find tedious ( from one side only ). >
> >>
> >> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> >> everyone on Bear Creek"
> >
> >Dear Mr. DRVR,
> >
> >Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
> >which I have no answer or opinion:
>
> While you asked BUFDRVR, I assume you are open to comment for the good
> of the newsgroup,

Of course.

> so I'll interject my somewhat dated perspective on
> missile duty.
> >
> >1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?
>
> Lemme see, hot spots like Cheyenne WY, Fargo ND, etc. etc. At least
> those are the nominal locations, the "job site" is really out
> somewhere in the middle of a snow-swept prairie somewhere. You get to
> live in a hole for days at a time, with another nebbish while being
> routinely subjected to harrassment, testing, evaluation and detailed
> trivia games. When you get to go home, you then fill your off-alert
> days with mind-numbing inanities. Short answer: NO.
> >
> >2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
> >"your night in the barrel"?
>
> Missile duty was the last refuge of the pilot/nav school washout.

I am awaiting comment on that one!


> It
> wasn't career enhancing because other than the basic,
> never-get-to-actually-do-it job, there was little opportunity to
> demonstrate potential for higher rank. Command slots for the Minuteman
> force usually went to folks from outside the program.
> >
> >3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
> >"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?
>
> Seldom was a missile assignment greeted enthusiastically, unless it
> was received by a latrine orderly on the DEW line.
> >
> >4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
> >diminish said mental condition?
>
> While the vaunted HRP and PRP programs were supposed to preclude
> strangeness in the nuke field, there were probably a parallel
> percentage of neurotics, alcoholics and weirdos as in the population
> at large.

As bad as this NG?

>
> >
> >I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
> >to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
> >sound good.
>
> They gave them blue coveralls, neato vinyl baseball caps and

> polyester dickies.

Is that the sort of thing I'm getting all those emails about?

>
> >
> >5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
> >the case, or am I hallucinating again?
>
> That will be left to BUFDRVR to report. It's a fact of military life
> that regular, but not too frequent swapping between cockpit and staff
> lead to good things in the long term. Or, maybe not.

I guess that's a whole different topic. I was just curious about our local boy.

>
>
> >
> >Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
> >often as well
>
> I hope the hole you sat in was properly steel wrapped.

Well the water hole part was steel, a lot of the hole in the associated and attached
low level air was aluminum.

But nobody cared, since it was all really just many layers of paint.

Bob

[John Penta]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:00 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:


>Dear Mr. DRVR,
>
>Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
>which I have no answer or opinion:
>
>1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?
>
>2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
>"your night in the barrel"?
>
>3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
>"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?
>
>4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
>diminish said mental condition?
>
>I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
>to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
>sound good.
>
>5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
>the case, or am I hallucinating again?
>
>Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
>often as well

Y'know, as just a civ, I've always wondered that.

My additional questions would be, though:

6. What the hell could a missileer do after they got out? I somehow
can't see the ability to work with ICBMs as a very transferrable
skill.

7. I'm tempted to ask...If you were locked in the hole, what the hell
did you do to not go absolutely nuts when not working or sleeping?

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus

>>
>>Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring
>pretty
>>often as well
>
>I hope the hole you sat in was properly steel wrapped.
>
And that someone in the steel lined hole in the ocean that didn't sleep with
the windows open.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?

Yes and No. Yes in that it allowed you a lot of free time. Pulling 8 alerts a
month means working 8 full days (days on alert) and 8 half days (the day you
come off alert), throw in two days a month for classroom training and one day a
month for a simulator and as you can see, an average line guy/gal has a lot of
time to themselves. The No part is, you've got a lot of free time to yourself
in places like Minot and Grand Forks North Dakota, Rapid City South Dakota,
Great Falls Montana, Cheyenne Wyoming and the missile garden spot (missile wing
closed since '93) Knob Noster Missouri, throw in winter and you can see that a
single guy won't have much to do with his free time.

>2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or
>more
>"your night in the barrel"?

I thought the whole PRP thing was great and I enjoyed the whole concept.

>3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains
>evince a
>"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?

Oh ****, or in my case; "where's Minot North Dakota?". I got caught up in the
post Desert Storm draw down of '91 and had my orders for pilot training
cancelled 1 week prior to leaving. I had student loan payments, car payments,
car issurance, etc. and had already quit my civilian job so I needed to get
onto active duty quickly. I called AFPC and asked what jobs were available and
asked if I could give them my choice over the phone (vis mailing in a card with
my top three jobs written down). The Sgt. at AFPC said she could take my job
request over the phone, but not base preference.....thus, I wound up in Minot
three weeks later. Live and learn.

>4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
>diminish said mental condition?
>

Most single guys, by the end of their four year controlled tour, were pretty
miserable unless they were lucky enough to find a decent female companion.
Unfortunately, in many cases they did....with A1Cs, Sgts, TSgts and other
enlisted personnel from on base.

>I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring
>tour
>to me, despite its undeniable importance.

It was a lot of responsibility very early in my career which added some
entertainment value to alerts,but by and large, yes it was boring.

>I wondered what was done to make it
>sound good.

There was the Minuteman Education Program which provide 100% tuition for a
master degree. The program was cancelled in '98 because it was deemed unfair
(interestingly enough, pilot bonuses were not considered unfair??) and now
everyone in the Air Force gets 100% tuition assistance.

>5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is
>that
>the case, or am I hallucinating again?

I wish to God you were hallucinating, but alas, its true. With any luck I'll be
back in the cockpit in 2 years, 8 months.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Missile duty was the last refuge of the pilot/nav school washout.

For the most part, true up until '93. Since '93 they merged the Space Ops and
Missile Ops career fields and now there are people who actually want to get
into the Space & Missile career field. I'm sure they still get jet trash
however.

>Command slots for the Minuteman
>force usually went to folks from outside the program.

Probably true in your day Ed, but by the 90's, the missile world had thier own
born and bred leaders and ironically, I've found my Missile Squadron, Group and
Wing Commanders better leaders than most of my Bomber squadron, group and wing
commanders.

>While the vaunted HRP and PRP programs were supposed to preclude
>strangeness in the nuke field, there were probably a parallel
>percentage of neurotics, alcoholics and weirdos as in the population
>at large.

We had a guy in my missile squadron in '92 get quoted in Air Force Times as
saying Minot North dakota was; "a Disney World for alcoholics". He got some
grief from above, but he was right.

>>5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk.
>Is that
>>the case, or am I hallucinating again?
>
>That will be left to BUFDRVR to report. It's a fact of military life
>that regular, but not too frequent swapping between cockpit and staff
>lead to good things in the long term.

And those would be...........?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>My additional questions would be, though:
>
>6. What the hell could a missileer do after they got out? I somehow
>can't see the ability to work with ICBMs as a very transferrable
>skill.

Obviously nothing directly related to missile duty, but with a masters degree
and a job that brought with it significant responsibility, most of our guys did
pretty well on the outside. Now a days, with a missile tour and a space ops
tour, civilian corporations (mostly in the communication field) are dying to
hire these guys.


>7. I'm tempted to ask...If you were locked in the hole, what the hell
>did you do to not go absolutely nuts when not working or sleeping?

Worked, slept and worked on your masters. I actually like going out on alert on
Sundays during football season. Our local Minot cable would only show 1 game
every Sunday, and that was the Vikings. Out on alert we had a satallite system
and I could get any game I wanted.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Gene Storey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> We had a guy in my missile squadron in '92 get quoted in Air Force Times as
> saying Minot North dakota was; "a Disney World for alcoholics". He got some
> grief from above, but he was right.

My Dad said he was in the bar when they decided on the name of "Ruthville."
Ruth was supposedly the wife or bartender, I forget which. My Dad had a
lot of stories, so don't know how true that one was. He finally succumbed to
cirrhosis by age 64. He was born on a farm near the base, and left in 1939
when he joined the Army Air Corps after college.

I spent two years up over in Fortuna AFS (Montana/Canadian border) and
that was where Air Defense Command alcoholics went. Between the drug
users and drunks, it was amazing that we even got the radar to rotate. I never
saw so many 20 year Staff and Buck Sgts in my life! Most were on Staff Sgt
for the second or third time...

[Gene Storey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >My additional questions would be, though:
> >
> >6. What the hell could a missileer do after they got out? I somehow
> >can't see the ability to work with ICBMs as a very transferrable
> >skill.
>
> Obviously nothing directly related to missile duty, but with a masters degree
> and a job that brought with it significant responsibility, most of our guys did
> pretty well on the outside. Now a days, with a missile tour and a space ops
> tour, civilian corporations (mostly in the communication field) are dying to
> hire these guys.

They're college graduates, not mechanics :-)

I work for a major defense contractor, and work with a guy who got a physics
degree, became a missile/radar officer, got a masters in education, and then got
a bachelors in Electrical Engineering when he retired. It turns out he has a
knack for finance, and hates the boring engineering side of our outfit (lots
of paperwork, and endless meetings). When someone wants something,
they can use the traditional route and fail, or go to him and he'll find a way
to finance it. He thinks *way* out of the box, and while some may say he
is breaking the rules, he says most people use rules to find ways not to
do their jobs, while he finds rules to expedite peoples jobs. If he was
wrong, he would have been fired 10 years ago.

I've got a short memory when it comes to calculus (being software and
linear algebra oriented), and I'm always amazed at how fast he can break
down a problem, or recite every theorem. He's the guy that people going
to night school seek out to explain what the calculus teacher really meant
to say :-)

Says he really enjoyed missile duty!

[Leslie Swartz]

Okay, sheesh.

Here's two obvious issues with time series data. Much of it (though not
all) has to do with "stationarity."

Lets say you have data trending down for a period of years. Over ten years,
you have an average of X1. Then you implement some change, and the data
beginss trending upward. over ten years, you have average of X2.

If you ignore teh nonstationarity of the data, you would say "hey, there's
been no change, because X1=X2."

But it gets worse.

Let's say you have 20 years of data- and let's say they are de-trended.
Let's say you implement "program X" on 1 Jan 19xx. You begin
implementation, and the progrm is finally "up and running" ten years later.
Depending on what date you *choose* for the breakpoint, you can show (most
likely) no change at all in key variables. Specifically, if we implemented
"gender inytegration" in 1980, but used only same-sex crews until 1985, by
choosing 1980 as the breakpoint you would totally overlook any changes in
trend occuring after teh true event, whoich would have occurred sometime
*after* 1985.

Anyhow, these are only two of themost common ways USAF staffers- many of
them unwittingly- seriously misrepresent many issues.

My favorite is when AFMC uses "Trend Adjusted" statistics to show customer
support is improving when it's actually getting worse. A classic!

Steve Swartz

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> > Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
> >research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type
of
> >advocacy briefing.
>
> I fail to see why this data is so "skewed" in your view. Divorce rates
among
> missile crews was X before gender integration and X after, seems clear cut
to
> me that gender integration did not effect divorce rates among married
> missileers.
>
> >That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and
am
> >not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."
>
> No impression was required, it was statistical data.
>
> >The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
> >well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least
some
> >proof.
>
> OK, I'll be your proof. Over 150 alerts over a three year period, at least
a
> dozen with a woman who was not my wife and I kept my hands (and other
> appendages) to myself for the entire 24-hour period. I was good friends
with at
> least a dozen other married guys, none of who even hinted they had
comitted
> adultery with a female missileer.
>
> > Campbell and Stanley
> >(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in
time
> >series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life
in
> >the hole in 1995.
>
> Really? How so? I'm willing to bet life in the hole was identical from
1962 to
> the present day. It was(and still is) a very scripted and monotonous
24-hour
> period and with a few minor exceptions unchanged over time or by the
actions of
> other nations.
>
> >Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat
misleading.
> >If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
> >mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
> >where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight.
>
> Only because your definition of gender integration is an equal population
of
> female crewmembers. Using this definition, we are not now, nor will the
missile
> community ever be, gender integrated.
>
> >Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
> >briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
> >falshoods using inappropriate analysis.
>
> Inappropriate analysis? Its simple analysis. Divorce rates before and
after
> gender integration and UCMJ prosecution rates for adultery before and
after
> integration. How can that data be misleading?
>
> >Claiming that
> >percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to
50%
> > "overnight" is an absolute howler.
>
> Who in God's name said that? You're the one using that criteria as the
basis
> for gender integration, not me. My definition of gender integration was
the
> lifting of the restriction prohibiting woman from serving on Minuteman
crews.
> If you use 50% as the magic number, like I said above, we'll never have a
> gender integrated missile career. By my best guess, based on the makeup of
the
> 91st Missile Wing circa 1993, approximately 8-10% of the crewmembers were
> female.
>
>
> >or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other,
much
> >lower, level?
>
> There can be no "level" associated with it. If you use some random level,
I can
> argue the USAF as a whole is not gender integrated, but if you look around
you
> won't see any WASPs.
>
> >Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
> >"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?
>
> You're the one trying to somehow associate a percentage with full gender
> integration (and a ridiculous level I might add, 50% are you serious?),
I'm not
> misrepresenting anything, I'm just supplying you with facts about a life I
> lived, everyday, for 3+ years. You seem to be someone who can't handle
facts
> counter your personal beliefs.
>
> >YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air
Force
> >has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!
>
> Yes.
>
> >How long have you been in the war?
> >
> >You can't be that naive. No way.
>
> You're a "black helicopter" guy aren't you?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[WaltBJ]

I was in the 326FIS at RG AFB, MO, flying F102As when the missile
program got into high gear around 1960 or so. The pitch was intense;
the carrot was the 'free' Master's Degree; the stick was life in the
'hole'. There were no takers out of my outfit - we all wanted to fly
and living underground sure didn't meet that goal. Later, word
filtered back that the rosy picture painted during the recruiting
campaign had hidden blemishes - the major one being the frequent
drills - difficult to get into and maintain a serious study mood when
the 'SAC Voice' comes on with coded drill messages (which must then be
decoded - accurately - not all that easy) many times each twenty-four
hours. I suppose the ideal missileer is the same kind of guy that
volunteers for ballistic missile sub duty. Kind of polar opposites
from fighter pilots. BTW Cheyenne is an hour from Fort Collins and
CSU, 1 1/2 hours to Denver. Not too isolated at all.
Walt BJ

[BUFDRVR]

<snip a bunch of statistical theory not relevant to the issue>

>Specifically, if we implemented
>"gender inytegration" in 1980, but used only same-sex crews until 1985, by
>choosing 1980 as the breakpoint you would totally overlook any changes in
>trend occuring after teh true event, which would have occurred sometime
>*after* 1985.

Which is not the case here. Minuteman gender integration literally happened
over night with dozens of former female Titan crewmembers showing up at
Minuteman wings with T.O.s in hand, ready to pull alert.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

O.K., so if I give you ten examples, and you are able to cast doubt on one
of the ten, you win.

I get it now.

Future Chief of Staff fer sure.

Steve Swartz


"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> <snip a bunch of statistical theory not relevant to the issue>
>
> >Specifically, if we implemented
> >"gender inytegration" in 1980, but used only same-sex crews until 1985,
by
> >choosing 1980 as the breakpoint you would totally overlook any changes in
> >trend occuring after teh true event, which would have occurred sometime
> >*after* 1985.
>
> Which is not the case here. Minuteman gender integration literally
happened
> over night with dozens of former female Titan crewmembers showing up at
> Minuteman wings with T.O.s in hand, ready to pull alert.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>O.K., so if I give you ten examples, and you are able to cast doubt on one
>of the ten, you win.
>

If you can give me *one* factual statistic that shows gender integration had a
negative impact on unit readiness (including moral) then you "win". Up till now
you (who has never pulled a single Minuteman alert) have provided exactly zero
in showing how woman have negatively impacted USAF Minuteman units. Meanwhile I
sit here and tell you about statistical data about divorce rates and UCMJ
adultery rates and provide you actual experience in the career field and you
ignore both. Your sole contribution has been to try to insult me by insinuating
that I'm a future COS. I'm convinced you are a lost cause, you cannot be
convinced because you choose not to be convinced. In your view all the data is
skewed and my personal experience (and those of every current and former
Minuteman crewmember I know) is an anomoly that doesn't represent "how things
really are". You sir, are irrational.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Here's a good deal- I'll prove my point with *your* facts. Post, or send
directly, or give me a pointer to where I can find those briefings you were
referring to.

I'm that confident- because what you are claiming is analogous to claiming
that F=ma^2 or 2PV=nRT (well, the social science equivalent at least).

Oh, right- you don't have/can't remember/it was so long ago/ etc. . . .

Steve Swartz.


"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >O.K., so if I give you ten examples, and you are able to cast doubt on
one
> >of the ten, you win.
> >
>
> If you can give me *one* factual statistic that shows gender integration
had a
> negative impact on unit readiness (including moral) then you "win". Up
till now
> you (who has never pulled a single Minuteman alert) have provided exactly
zero
> in showing how woman have negatively impacted USAF Minuteman units.
Meanwhile I
> sit here and tell you about statistical data about divorce rates and UCMJ
> adultery rates and provide you actual experience in the career field and
you
> ignore both. Your sole contribution has been to try to insult me by
insinuating
> that I'm a future COS. I'm convinced you are a lost cause, you cannot be
> convinced because you choose not to be convinced. In your view all the
data is
> skewed and my personal experience (and those of every current and former
> Minuteman crewmember I know) is an anomoly that doesn't represent "how
things
> really are". You sir, are irrational.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Here's a good deal- I'll prove my point with *your* facts. Post, or send
>directly, or give me a pointer to where I can find those briefings you were
>referring to.

Contact the USMT unit at Vandenberg and ask for the UNCLASSIFIED portion of the
Space & Missile orientation course. If they still teach it they should be able
to send it to you. The briefs I saw (got to see it twice) were done using the
best of 1990s technology and as such do not exist electronically, however I'm
confident that Powerpoint was invented while they still taught the section (if
they still don't teach it today, which I'm confident they do).

>Oh, right- you don't have/can't remember/it was so long ago/ etc. .

You're a fool.

"I don't have"- No I don't, why would I? You have a copy of every brief you've
recieved since 1991?

"can't remember"- I remember they showed divorce rates (a percentage) before
gender integration and divorce rates after (a percentage) and they were
identical. I remember they showed UCMJ adultery convictions (a hard number per
year) before gender integration and UCMJ convictions (a hard number per year)
after gender integration and the numbers post-integration were actually lower.
These conviction rates were for all 18XX (the old missile ops AFSC) serving at
standing missile wings.

"It was so long ago" - 12 years pal and the briefing was of little interest to
me, I wasn't married at the time. I'm sure you remember the details of any
brief you recieved in the summer of 1991.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Thansk for the lead on the source.

And yes, I still have all my course materials from teh SAC procedures course
in 1988 (as well as earlier stiff going back to all teh materials issued in
basic in 1978).

A little sensitive, are we?

"If you're going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it."

At least I didn't a) attribute someone else's postings to you, b) call you a
liar, c) make references to black helicopters, d) call you an idiot . . .
(etc.)

Steve Swartz

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Here's a good deal- I'll prove my point with *your* facts. Post, or send
> >directly, or give me a pointer to where I can find those briefings you
were
> >referring to.
>
> Contact the USMT unit at Vandenberg and ask for the UNCLASSIFIED portion
of the
> Space & Missile orientation course. If they still teach it they should be
able
> to send it to you. The briefs I saw (got to see it twice) were done using
the
> best of 1990s technology and as such do not exist electronically, however
I'm
> confident that Powerpoint was invented while they still taught the section
(if
> they still don't teach it today, which I'm confident they do).
>
> >Oh, right- you don't have/can't remember/it was so long ago/ etc. .
>
> You're a fool.
>
> "I don't have"- No I don't, why would I? You have a copy of every brief
you've
> recieved since 1991?
>
> "can't remember"- I remember they showed divorce rates (a percentage)
before
> gender integration and divorce rates after (a percentage) and they were
> identical. I remember they showed UCMJ adultery convictions (a hard number
per
> year) before gender integration and UCMJ convictions (a hard number per
year)
> after gender integration and the numbers post-integration were actually
lower.
> These conviction rates were for all 18XX (the old missile ops AFSC)
serving at
> standing missile wings.
>
> "It was so long ago" - 12 years pal and the briefing was of little
interest to
> me, I wasn't married at the time. I'm sure you remember the details of any
> brief you recieved in the summer of 1991.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>And yes, I still have all my course materials from teh SAC procedures course
>in 1988

Which doesn't answer my question about copies of all syllabus briefings, I'll
take your answer to mean you don't have copies either.

>A little sensitive, are we?

No.

>"If you're going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it."
>
>At least I didn't a) attribute someone else's postings to you, b) call you a
>liar, c) make references to black helicopters, d) call you an idiot . . .
>(etc.)
>

Your statement declaring that I will someday become CoS was not meant as a
compliment, it was delivered and recieved as an insult. You're they one who
needs to decide whether or not you should be "dishing it out".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"