US Engineers

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>   ...
>>>
>>>> ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have 
>>>> a well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for 
>>> was getting into the building where my office was, and to get into 
>>> some tech meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>> NIH = National Institutes of Health.  Don't think you need one there.
> 
> Not normally, but you'd be surprised. (Don't get the wrong idea; no 
> weaponry by any stretch.)
> 
> Jerry

Was this the location of the meeting?
;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   ...
>>>>
>>>>> ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have 
>>>>> a well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for 
>>>> was getting into the building where my office was, and to get into 
>>>> some tech meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NIH = National Institutes of Health.  Don't think you need one there.
>>
>>
>> Not normally, but you'd be surprised. (Don't get the wrong idea; no 
>> weaponry by any stretch.)
>>
>> Jerry
> 
> 
> Was this the location of the meeting?
> ;)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51

I'm glad to see you were joking. (No.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

"HelpmaBoab" <FU2@yahoo.co.zpc> wrote in message 
news:p2iVf.8600$JZ1.316464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> By Matt Kelley
> USA Today
>
> The Pentagon risks running out of scientists to operate and upgrade the
> nation's arsenal of intercontinental nuclear and conventional missiles,
> according to a report released this week by the Defense Science Board.
>
> As the nation's veteran engineers and scientists retire, the military will
> lose much of its expertise in long-range missile technology, the report
> says. That means the Air Force and Navy, which operate most of the
> 1960s-vintage missiles, will be unable to cope with system failures or
> develop improved weapons, the report says.
>
> Not only are fewer American engineers and scientists choosing to work on
> missile technology, there are fewer of them altogether, the report says.
> Each year, about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate 
> science
> and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared with a combined
> 200,000 in China and India, the report says.
>
> The government should pay higher salaries and offer other incentives to
> attract more experts into the strategic missile field, the report says.
>
> A task force of five outside missile experts spent two years preparing the
> report at the Pentagon's request.
>
> Although the board lacks the power to force the Pentagon to act, Lt. Gen.
> Frank Klotz, acting head of the Air Force Space Command, told a Senate
> committee this month that the Pentagon is trying to improve its recruiting
> and retention of missile experts. Space Command runs the intercontinental
> ballistic missile system.
>
> The report does not give specifics on the number of experts who are 
> retiring
> or the numbers needed to replace them, but it says about 20,000 research 
> and
> development scientists and engineers work in the aerospace industry as a
> whole, down from more than 140,000 in the mid-1980s.
>
> John Steinbruner, head of the Center for International and Security 
> Studies
> at the University of Maryland, says few scientists want to work on
> long-range missiles because "it's not too hard to figure out that American
> security doesn't depend on this any more."
>
> Instead, Steinbruner says, the Pentagon's priorities have shifted toward
> fighting terrorism and "low-intensity conflicts," such as the insurgency 
> in
> Iraq.
>
> The report, he says, sounds like the Pentagon advisory board is "just 
> trying
> to keep the money flowing" and may be biased toward Cold War-era ballistic
> missile systems.
>
> The report also questions a Pentagon plan to seek more than $500 million 
> to
> replace nuclear warheads on some submarine-launched Trident ballistic
> missiles with conventional warheads. The Pentagon says those missiles 
> could
> be used to strike fortified targets such as nuclear weapons facilities in
> rogue nations.
>
> Converting the warheads on these missiles will be difficult, the report
> says, because the Pentagon lacks the necessary engineering skills. It adds
> that technical requirements for non-nuclear warheads are much different 
> for
> long-range missiles from those for shorter-range missiles or nuclear
> weapons.
>
> Panel cites weaknesses in strike force
>
> A two-year study by a panel of the Defense Science Board found several 
> flaws
> in the nation's strategic missile system. They include:
>
> .Expertise: There's a lack of industry and government expertise in
> long-range missile systems, and what exists may not be available for 
> future
> systems.
>
> .Rebuilding costs: It would take five to seven years to rebuild a skilled
> workforce, and even then there would be mistakes and cost overruns because
> of inexperience.
>
> .Failure to cope: The Pentagon "may not be able to cope with unanticipated
> failures" in intercontinental nuclear missiles.
>
> .Inexperience: It's been 25 years since the last long-range missile was
> designed, and few in the Air Force have helped design a missile system.
>
> .Shortages: There's an "alarming" lack of missile expertise in the Defense
> Threat Reduction Agency, where severe shortages of civilian experts exist 
> in
> 124 of 163 critical skills areas.
>
> .Incentives: Defense contractors and the Pentagon need to increase pay and
> incentives to attract "the best and brightest students" to missile 
> programs
> they have avoided in favor of better-paying jobs.
>
> http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1641407.php
>
>

Just out-source it.. :0