"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.


not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3
you dismissed so quickly--you know, the ones that Clark acknowledged almost
three YEARS ago were already performing homeland defense operations?). You
need to attend a basic antiterrorism course before you make such ridiculous
claims.

Brooks


--
Andrew Toppan