[dkstories] Analysis

[mgh397]

After re-reading all this, I noticed that, sometimes, things look kinda harsh, that was not my intention, it

Edited July 29, 2006 by mgh397

[C James]

MGH, thanks for joining the GA forums so actively! It's great to see posts from people who have just joined GA!

 

The DO series is one of my all-time favorite stories, and I found your analysis very interesting indeed! I am not trying to argue below, but I did want to add my own thoughts on some of the issues you raised.

 

Part One (DO) is pretty good, the only thing I don

[mgh397]

"I think the weapons issue is a matter of individual reader preference. For me, it added immeasurably to the story, as I love military tech. (good, detailed, and accurate thechnothrillers are my favorite mainstream genre). I think that leaving it out would have been detrimental to the story. If a reader doesn't like reading that, they can skip over it. Just my opinion."

 

That

Edited July 30, 2006 by mgh397

[old bob]

And (and I apologize beforehand if you get offended by this) you seem to take people

 

And (and I apologize beforehand if you get offended by this) you seem to take people

Edited July 30, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

"Another thing to bear in mind: During that era, war planners on the Western side grossly over-estimated the abilities of Soviet forces, and it was widely believed (even at the top) that a Warsaw Pact offensive could only be stopped by nuclear weapons. So, a Soviet ground superiority was taken as a given by NATO. Interestingly, Soviet intelligence saw this belief so often that the Soviets at many levels believed it themselves.

 

It was only after US ground forces proved themselves in the first gulf war (after the effective fall of the Soviet Union) that this perception changed. So, Nato

[mgh397]

Yes Davey had told the top level of the US Government. However, the he had NOT told the heads of other Nato nations, nor, as I recall, had anyone, so their decision matrix would have been unafected, as they didn't have the info.

 

Think of it from the point of view of the Nato governments: A crisis breaks out, the US looks like it needs help, and all of a sudden the US sends a memo:

Edited August 1, 2006 by mgh397

[mgh397]

Another thing is that, regarding Hitler, WWII started after the invassion of Poland, Poland was invaded because Germany was able to invade Czecoslovakia without anyone saying a thing, Czecoslovakia was invaded because nobody said a thing after Germany and Austria united (with was forbidden by the Versailles Treaty), and that union took place because nobody stopped Hitler from takiong the Sudetes, in fact, he did it with the approval of the British, so, if you were to avoid WWII and Hitler's attrocities, all a "Davey" had to do was warn about all this to either the US or the British governments, don't you think?

[C James]

The US would not have to tell the NATO countries the origin of the "Intel Reports" on the Soviets, I mean, do you think that those reports, even now, have the name(s) of the author(s) and how he/they got that info?; the US would just share the info they had and that's it, just as they did on the DIR timeline when they shared with the UK the info on the Argentinean invassion of the Malvinas, of course, Reagan chose to tel Tatcher about Davey, but that would not have been really necesary.

 

In the real world, you almost never disclose the source or method. However, if the info is extraordinary, the receiving government will likely ask, in order to evaluate the information. For example, SIGINT (signals intelligence and intercepts) is usually given a far higher reliability rating than HUMINT (human intelligence, such as agents and sources). The information itself is most often re-written to protect the source or method.

In the scenario above, the receiving governments would certainly ask why, exactly, and how, exactly, the US had broad-based information that went directly against what the US had been claiming (soviet capabilities) for decades.

 

You mention nuclear weapons, and that's a darn good example for this. The US considered (and actually initiated preparations, and came within 48 hours of use) using them in Vietnam. This was based in part on the US having recruited as a source the Soviet Ambassador to the UN, who was also, due to family relations, privy to Politburo strategy and contingency planning. Thus, he was able to tell the US exactly what the Soviet response would be to the US use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. (it would be political, not military). This information would have been extremely useful to share with our NATO allies under the circumstances, to avoid high-level panic when the US went nuclear. However, to protect the source, it was never done.

One of the cardinal rules in intelligence is always, always protect the source.

 

BTW, regarding Yemen, I used "Vietnam" in a similar way above, not differentiating between the then-existing north and south. Many official reports from the era do the same.

 

As for the nuke weapons, both sides knew (because of the info of Davey and Alexei) that the other side never used them in the original timeline, remember that that was the reason why the US and USSR (in reality) never went to war, but, if you take that possibility out of the equation, they can go to war as happened in the second timeline, and that's the reason (Davey using one) why there was a coup in Moscow, Alexei was killed, and the Soviet government surrendered.

 

The US and USSR never used nuclear weapons against each other in the original timeline, but that was meaningless in Davey's, as the events in Davey's had not occurred in the original. The circumstances were different, so the results could not be extrapolated.

 

True, but remember that the concept of World War is new, so the Napoleonic Wars would not have been classified as one. However, history academies (at least those that I know about) do have guideliones to classify events.

 

I've never encountered any type of "official" definition of world war. I think I can safely say that most any historian would agree on this issue.

 

As for the Straits, let me recall you what happened in the story; when hostilities started, Egypt announced its neutrality and also announced the closing of the Suez Canal to all involved parties in the conflict, so, US and NATO ships/subs/whatever were not able to go through it, however, Soviets ships/subs/whatever did; what I was saying was that, if the US/NATO had to go through the south of Africa or through the Indonesian sea to reach the Gulf, by closing the strait (the mouth of the Red Sea), they would be countering that advantage for the Soviets, forcing them to (basically) do the same, but, it would be way more dangerous because they would have to (on Europe) cross a lot of NATO sea, or (on Asia) pass through Okinaea, Taiwan, and the Philippines with all the US bases there, I mean, not only the closing of the strait would counter that advantage, but would have let them in a worse position as before.

 

I didn't remember the Soviets using the Suez in DO, but that's probably just my bad memory.

OK, for surface vessels, you have a point, *IF* forces could be deployed to the area. If those islands didn't have runways, they wouldn't be of much use, as the US didn't have a deployable land-based anti-ship missile system at that time.

 

For submarines, it would be darn near impossible to close the red sea. It's a rift system so is very deep in the center, with very rugged bottom features, and more importantly has a unique salinity gradient, with much saltier water deep down. The salinocline (boundry) between the water layers, plus the current flowing in opposite directions (which it does, the surface flow is north-westerly and the deep current south-easterly) makes for absolutely horrible sonar conditions. That layer is usually withing the max depth limits of most classes of Soviet attack subs (especially the Alfas of that era) and tracking them in it would be near impossible. The boundary layer is also a thermal difference boundary (thermocline) with the surface water warmer, and this combination makes a standard thermocline (always loved by submarines) easy to deal with by comparison. Another issue in the Red Sea is a multitude of deep hydrothermal vents, which have a nasty habit of mimicking the sound frequency ranges and emissions of a nuclear reactor (one means of locating a slow-moving submarine. A fast moving sub, on the other hand, broadcasts it's position).

 

As for Venezuelan issues, I deeply respect your courage. I know a little about the internal situation, plus I've seen a little of your country (very little). I hope all goes well for you and your countrymen.

 

I still don't get why they had to do all that to the third time traveler, I mean, Alexei died in a car accident (a car ran over him, instant death), the chinese politician had a hearth attack (instant death), and the third one (that was only warning about Davey coming back, doing exactly as Sean on the Nevada timeline) was kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered... I still don't get it... Could another method be used for the third one?, yes, something quick, like any of the methods used for the other two, it was never stated they all happened at the same time, so it implies they happened with days, maybe even years, in between; and I still don't get how were they able to find out who the chinese traveres were when A.- that was never discovered in the Nevada timeline, and B.- the US got that info with the technological advance of 4 years before, I mean, if in the Nevada timeline, that started when Davey was 12, the US was not able to find out who they were, how would they do it with the advances of the time when Davey was 8?, besides, in the Nevada timeline, since Davey didn't knew the name of the traveler, he (Davey) had to see the pics of the chinese politicians to identify the traveler (which he never did), how were they going to find this out without Davey's help? And even more, since all the info they have about the third one came from Sean (in the Nevada timeline, even though it was never stated that Sean did more than warn about him), and since all they could have was the physical description of him, how could they (the US) find him out?, I mean, it was never stated who the third one was, my guess is that he was a regular military guy, so, how to identify a single 7 year old kid (from ALL the 7 year old kids in China from 1979 to 1983) when all you have is the physical description of how the kid is going to look like in 30 years?

 

I just went back and looked at chapter 4 of DiR, and it says the apparent rape. Apparent to me indicates that it was made to look like a child rape and murder, rather than actually being one. If so, there is nothing to indicate that there was anything barbaric done, nor any indication that it was a long-term event.

 

As for how the ID's were made, I have no idea. I don't recall it being mentioned. It could possibly be the use of dramatic licence by DK, or more possibly, as the story is from Davey's POV, he wasn't told, so neither were we. (just guesses on my part).

 

But Russia is not an enemy country of the US, and Alexei wasn't a Russian/Soviet agent either.

When the government kicked him out, thinking that his project was a waste of money and time, THAT was his clearance. As I said before, those are the risks the government take when closing an investigation/project, that it might actually work, and without their consent/control.

Sean was a part of that experiment, did he pay for that murder?, in the Nevada timeline, Sean tells Davey that he recognized his name from the list of volunteers, and that he chose him thinking that he was going to die too, this means that he did knew (as the scientist) that that first guy was gonna die, and that they both thought Davey was gonna die too...

And, for you, that someone can't keep a secret is reason enough to kill him?, as I said before, why not "recruit" him?, all he was interested in was 1.- Continue with his project, and 2.- Warn about Alexei, "OBL", and the like.

 

Russia was by no means an ally in recent years, and in any case, you don't need to be working for an enemy nation to be considered an agent. The US has in prison, right now (and often in the past), agents of *allied* nations, as espionage is illegal (for good reason).

 

I'm afraid you are wrong on the classification/clearance issue for research projects. There is no termination of control by termination of funding. Even if there were, he was still using government facilities (Stanford, as I recall). But, regardless, the US government (and this is the law in most nations) retains the right to control what it deems as sensitive technology, regardless of funding. I'll look up the relevant sections of the US code if you like, but I can absolutely guarantee you that the US law is quite clear on this issue.

 

As for Sean, yes, he was culpable in the death (and also the attempted murder of Davey) IMHO. But as I say, the reason for the terminations wasn't about law or justice, it was about saving the lives of billions, a far higher calling IMHO.

 

The scientist had already proven his capacity to become a renegade, and also was insane, so could not be trusted. The goal there was to prevent any knowledge of how to build a time machine from existing, so the safest method was to terminate the scientist. Sean would have probably met a similar fate, had the government known about him. Davey didn't, as Davey didn't know how to build the machine.

 

Also, I just checked chapter 17 of DO, and the scientist in that timline was described as having gone mad, and thing dying while trying to escape. I see nothing to indicate that he was actually trying to warn anyone of anything, but rather he was boasting about how he had achieved time travel, and citing things to prove it. His attempt to escape (By holding a knife to a woman's throat), and method, seems to verify that interpretation IMHO.

 

As for the supremacy of law in all situations, on that we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion. I favor a situational view (based on what is most important in that situation), so to me there would be no issue whatsoever about violating a law when billions of lives were at stake. After all, what right do I have to endanger the lives of so many by quibbling over legalities?

 

Maybe I'm just too "cerebral", I'm analythical by nature, and history and geography are two of my "hobbies", I don't know... And I do think law must be above all no matter what what.

PD: How come the "" doesn't work with me?

 

I can identify with that, I'm much the same.

 

As for the quotes not working... That could be because there was a mistake somewhere (I often goof by using a { instead of a [) or, it could have been over the limit for the number of quotes. I had to split my post yesterday to get around that.

[old bob]

Another thing is that, regarding Hitler, WWII started after the invassion of Poland, Poland was invaded because Germany was able to invade Czecoslovakia without anyone saying a thing, Czecoslovakia was invaded because nobody said a thing after Germany and Austria united (with was forbidden by the Versailles Treaty), and that union took place because nobody stopped Hitler from takiong the Sudetes, in fact, he did it with the approval of the British, so, if you were to avoid WWII and Hitler's attrocities, all a "Davey" had to do was warn about all this to either the US or the British governments, don't you think?

Sorry to refute your opinion about the reasons and the beginning of WWII.

 

The points are:

 

1. The Germans never accepted the outcome of WWI and the military dreamed of revenge.

 

2. Their first try against the Trait

Edited August 1, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Good points, Bob.

 

I just wanted to expand on a couple of the issues you raised...

 

Sorry to refute your opinion about the reasons and the beginning of WWII.

 

The points are:

 

1. The Germans never accepted the outcome of WWI and the military dreamed of revenge.

 

2. Their first try against the Trait

[old bob]

Good points, Bob.

 

I just wanted to expand on a couple of the issues you raised...

The initial German vilolations of the treaty were in the area of arms limitations and inspections. Allowing the Germans to get away with that certainly emboldened Hitler.

Very true. Also, a little known fact is that had one shot been fired, the German troops were under orders to retreat, and Hitler would have most likly been deposed.

That was a part of it, but another part was the role of the Pacifist movement, which was against war for any reason (and this played a role in preventing action against Germany in the mid 1930's).

 

It's also interesting to look at just how Lennin was able to return to Russia in 1917: The Germans supplied him with a train, seeking to de-stabilize Russia.

Good points, Bob. I'm not trying to argue with any of them, just expand a bit.

I fully agree with your comments. How is it possible that you know such a huge amount of details about the pre-war history ? It seems you are a fan not only of weapons and astronomy but also of modern history.

What is your trick ? You dont sleep ? read day and night ?

[C James]

I fully agree with your comments. How is it possible that you know such a huge amount of details about the pre-war history ? It seems you are a fan not only of weapons and astronomy but also of modern history.

What is your trick ? You dont sleep ? read day and night ?

 

ROFL! You aren't far off with the "don't sleep" part! I often have insomnia, and the only way I can ever get to sleep (at any time) is to read, so I do spend a lot of time reading when i should be sleeping!

 

I have odd tastes in reading material. I have no interest in sports (I like to play them, but that's it) or "pop culture", and so I don't read in those fields at all. I'm totally clueless in those areas as a result. But, that leaves me more time for reading in areas that I do enjoy. Generally, my areas of interest are History, Geology, Meteorology, Physics, Astrophysics, Electronics, Aerospace technology (Primarily modern military), Geopolitics, Geography, Travel, Sociology, Economics, Medicine, Architecture, Engineering, and military tactics. Yep, that's one weird list, and I want to make clear that I don't claim to be an expert in any of it. I'm basically a generalist, not a specialist. I'm better in some areas than others, but in none am I an expert.

 

As for my posts, please don't get the idea that it's all me: I sometimes fact-check myself by using google. On the Internet, anyone can pose as an expert at anything, due to the ability to look things up within seconds.

 

As for reading, I'm weird there too (noticing a trend here? ). When I was four, I became fascinated that my Father spent so much time reading newspapers. Naturally, I wanted to look, so he gave them to me to play with when he was finished. I knew my alphabet, and started asking questions about different words, and spent hours with the newspapers (I was never one for regular toys as a kid). Basically, I taught myself to read, and could read newspapers before I turned five. But, due to having no instruction, I hadn't learned the "correct" way: I had learned to read word groups rather than individual words (I later found out that this is a speed-reading technique). So, by happenstance, I'm a natural speed-reader, hence I read quite a lot of material.

 

I also have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) which makes it taxing for me to concentrate on any one thing. This makes me a sort of chronic multi-tasker: when I'm watching TV, I'm reading a book as well. Or such as right now, I'm reading the news online, writing a business contract, and switching back and forth to this post every couple of minutes. End result: I do a lot of reading.

 

I generally have a good memory for concepts and overviews, but I have poor recall for detail. For example, I could describe the tactics and timeline for the battle of Waterloo, but I couldn't name more than a few of the people involved, and in fact I can't even remember the date (Which I just realized!). I'm very poor at remembering dates, so when I post a date, take it with a big grain of salt! (treat it very skeptically).

 

I've been very fortunate in that I have traveled a great deal. That's helped my education, as my usual practice is to read a few books on wherever I'll be visiting.

 

I also love to analyze and deduce, which gets me into trouble at times (I can seem like a chronic nit-picker, or worse.). I also have a great love of polite debate, which can make me seem overly argumentative.

 

And, as you can see from my posts, I have a strong tendency to be long-winded, too!

 

So, what about you? I enjoyed reading about your family background BTW.

[mgh397]

Old Bob:

WOW! You do are old Old Bob!

Abot Hitler, the thing ois that the "reconstruction" of the German army was an internal factor, what I meant was that, because the international community let Hitler get away with the "external" factors (the union with Austria, the Sudetes, the invassion of Czecoslovakia) he tought he was going to get away with the invassion of Poland too, if these incidents would have never happened (especially those regardoing to non-german countries, like Czecoslovakia) maybe WWII would have never happened; now, maybe, if you were to send a "German Davey" back in time, and tell Hindenburg about what happened because of the "election" of Hitler, maybe WWII would have never happened at all... Or something like that, stoping Hitler from gaining power, and not necesarily by killing him; maybe by arresting him the instant he changed sides and expulsing him from Germany?

 

In the real world, you almost never disclose the source or method. However, if the info is extraordinary, the receiving government will likely ask, in order to evaluate the information. For example, SIGINT (signals intelligence and intercepts) is usually given a far higher reliability rating than HUMINT (human intelligence, such as agents and sources). The information itself is most often re-written to protect the source or method.

...

BTW, regarding Yemen, I used "Vietnam" in a similar way above, not differentiating between the then-existing north and south. Many official reports from the era do the same.

 

Wouldn't the NATO countries go with the story (Davey's info) if the US had told them that the info they got came from a really god source?, and if the NATO governments asked who that source was, all the US had to do was just as you said, say they were not in the position to disclosure that info.

 

It's something common in countries that are going through civil war, but I really can't remember if both Yemens were at war back them (though I think they separated way before, around the 1960's).

 

The US and USSR never used nuclear weapons against each other in the original timeline, but that was meaningless in Davey's, as the events in Davey's had not occurred in the original. The circumstances were different, so the results could not be extrapolated.

 

It is implied in the story that the USSR went to war with the US because both sides knew the retiscence of the other in using kukes, remember, that was the reason why Alexei was killed at the coup after Davey used one.

 

I didn't remember the Soviets using the Suez in DO, but that's probably just my bad memory.

 

My guess is that they were using it, I mean, the Soviet ships and sub were coming from the Red Sea and when leaving the area went again to the Red Sea so... Just my guess.

 

For submarines, it would be darn near impossible to close the red sea. It's a rift system so is very deep in the center, with very rugged bottom features, and more importantly has a unique salinity gradient, with much saltier water deep down.

 

But isn't it a lot shallower (is that a word?) at the mouth?, especially with all the islands nearby?, I mean, an area with so many islands, and many of them cramped together, and with the continental plaques as close as that area, ussually is a lot more shallow than an open sea; the US could have sent ships to patrol the area (or whatever the term is, I have no idea), and, even if the ships would not have been able to detect all subs, the US could have just sent some subs of their own to do the job.

 

As for Venezuelan issues, I deeply respect your courage. I know a little about the internal situation, plus I've seen a little of your country (very little). I hope all goes well for you and your countrymen.

 

Really? Where've you been? If you want to know a little more about what's been happening here, there are two excellent sites: The Devil's Excrement, and Venezuela, News & Views, these sites are blogs of friends of mine, if you see someone commenting in the "comments" section under the name "Michel", that's me

 

I just went back and looked at chapter 4 of DiR, and it says the apparent rape. Apparent to me indicates that it was made to look like a child rape and murder, rather than actually being one. If so, there is nothing to indicate that there was anything barbaric done, nor any indication that it was a long-term event.

 

Well, you know that when in the media someone mentions apparent it ussually means that something did happen but the reporter doesn't have official proof, and, besides, you know a doctor will only say that a rape is apparent if s/he wasn't able to examine the person raped, which is not the case with a corpse, and to check if a body was raped or not is quite simple.

 

Russia was by no means an ally in recent years, and in any case, you don't need to be working for an enemy nation to be considered an agent. The US has in prison, right now (and often in the past), agents of *allied* nations, as espionage is illegal (for good reason).

 

But is not considered an enemy country, hell, I think even Russia is in a better diplomatic relationship with the US than Venezuela...!

 

The scientist had already proven his capacity to become a renegade, and also was insane, so could not be trusted. The goal there was to prevent any knowledge of how to build a time machine from existing, so the safest method was to terminate the scientist. Sean would have probably met a similar fate, had the government known about him. Davey didn't, as Davey didn't know how to build the machine.

 

Davey does know (in that timeline) how to build one, in the Nevada timeline the machine ois built by Dyadya, Sean, and Davey, even more, remember the last conversation between Davey and his dad in the oval office?

 

"How long would it take you and Sean to put another one together?" He asked and I let out a long breath. He knew.

 

"Thirty days." I admitted while hanging my head.

 

Also, I just checked chapter 17 of DO, and the scientist in that timline was described as having gone mad, and thing dying while trying to escape. I see nothing to indicate that he was actually trying to warn anyone of anything, but rather he was boasting about how he had achieved time travel, and citing things to prove it. His attempt to escape (By holding a knife to a woman's throat), and method, seems to verify that interpretation IMHO.

 

The scientist was thought to have gone mad because of all the things he said (if you were to know someone that told you things that you think are completelly impossible at this time, wouldn't you think that that person went nuts?); yes, it is never told that he was giving the info to warn, but it is never said (not even implied) that he was boasting the info; now, if you were in that position (people think you're nuts because of what you're saying, and are sent to a high-security facility) what would you do?

 

As for the supremacy of law in all situations, on that we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion. I favor a situational view (based on what is most important in that situation), so to me there would be no issue whatsoever about violating a law when billions of lives were at stake. After all, what right do I have to endanger the lives of so many by quibbling over legalities?

 

As they say: "let's agree to disagree".

 

--------------

 

On all the rest, you know?, it seems that (differences aside) we're pretty much the same, I mean, I'm multy-task person (I get really bored if I have to do a only a single thing, could that be ADD too? ), I taught english to myself (english is so basic here in highschool is almost inexistent), I'm also analythical, I just love to have an interesting conversation/discussion/debate (care to chat someday?), I always try to analize things from the perspective of all people involved in a situation, guessing the possible outcomes.

 

When I was thinking about all this, and after reading "Mists of Fate" (didn't like J'Stan dying in the end...), I think that my position regarding this issue (the death of characters in the stories) is because of my state of mind, I mean, Brew Maxwell wrote a multi-story (the so called Foley-Mashburn saga), I read it quite a while ago, in the story, the brother of a character dies, quite suddenly and unexpectedly, I was devastated when I read it because you get to identify with the characters, but that death didn't hit me as hard back then as these deaths hit me now, maybe it's the sircumstances of the deaths?, could it be because of all that's going on in here?, anti-depressants are in high demand here these days... Who knows...?

Edited August 2, 2006 by mgh397

[C James]

Wouldn't the NATO countries go with the story (Davey's info) if the US had told them that the info they got came from a really god source?, and if the NATO governments asked who that source was, all the US had to do was just as you said, say they were not in the position to disclosure that info.

 

If the information was deemed to be self-serving for the US, IMHO, based on prior interaction between the intelligence agencies in that era, the information would be treated with great skepticism (at best) by the majority of the governments.

 

This very issue was discussed within a few compartments in the upper echelons of the US intel community

when trying to decide whether to assure US allies that there would be no Soviet military response (including threats) to the US use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. It was decided that the information would not be believed without being able to evaluate the source, so nothing was done.

 

It's something common in countries that are going through civil war, but I really can't remember if both Yemens were at war back them (though I think they separated way before, around the 1960's).

Vietnam was two separate countries for an equivalent period of time.

Yemen never really had a civil war. As I recall, what was called the South was a British enclave, which became independent when the British withdrew.

 

It is implied in the story that the USSR went to war with the US because both sides knew the retiscence of the other in using kukes, remember, that was the reason why Alexei was killed at the coup after Davey used one.

 

But history belies that, and both sides would have known, without Davey or Alexi, that both sides had at various times come close to nuclear use (the US closest of all, and the Soviets were aware of it). That's one of the reasons that the Soviets made such a big propaganda push to try to get the US to agree to "no first use" of nuclear weapons (and one reason why the US would not do so).

 

My guess is that they were using it, I mean, the Soviet ships and sub were coming from the Red Sea and when leaving the area went again to the Red Sea so... Just my guess.

But isn't it a lot shallower (is that a word?) at the mouth?, especially with all the islands nearby?, I mean, an area with so many islands, and many of them cramped together, and with the continental plaques as close as that area, ussually is a lot more shallow than an open sea; the US could have sent ships to patrol the area (or whatever the term is, I have no idea), and, even if the ships would not have been able to detect all subs, the US could have just sent some subs of their own to do the job.

 

I really need to re-read DO, but if they were going in and out of the Red sea, then yes, that's a good bet.

Subs from the Soviet Mediterranean fleet, perhaps.

 

As for the mouth of the red sea: Yes, it is shallower, but still over 500 ft deep in many areas. Nuclear Attack Subs don't often operate much deeper than that (they can't) and although max depth varies (the Soviet Alfas, for example, could go considerably deeper than US subs due to having Titanium hulls) anything over 1400 ft is fairly useless. Very deep water in and of itself is no aid to a sub. It's the bottom features within it's operational depth range, and also (more importantly) passive sonar conditions that are most important.

 

The bottom topography, from what I remember, is very rugged in that area, and the many islands would make things harder, not easier, to track subs.

 

As for US subs, US subs (like their Soviet counterparts) mainly use passive sonar (active broadcasts your own position, and generally is only used in close combat). The passive sonar conditions in that area are awful, duw to salinity variations, strong currents (flow noise) etc. To give an example, Soviet subs often were able to sneak through the Gibraltar straits undetected, in spite of the NATO base at Gibraltar, and the SOSUS (cable mounted sea floor underwater microphone array) across the straits, which are quite narrow (about ten miles).

 

Really? Where've you been? If you want to know a little more about what's been happening here, there are two excellent sites: The Devil's Excrement, and Venezuela, News & Views, these sites are blogs of friends of mine, if you see someone commenting in the "comments" section under the name "Michel", that's me

 

Thanks, I'll go have a look!

 

Davey does know (in that timeline) how to build one, in the Nevada timeline the machine ois built by Dyadya, Sean, and Davey, even more, remember the last conversation between Davey and his dad in the oval office?

 

"How long would it take you and Sean to put another one together?" He asked and I let out a long breath. He knew.

 

"Thirty days." I admitted while hanging my head.

 

Davey AND Sean, not Davey alone.

 

The scientist was thought to have gone mad because of all the things he said (if you were to know someone that told you things that you think are completelly impossible at this time, wouldn't you think that that person went nuts?); yes, it is never told that he was giving the info to warn, but it is never said (not even implied) that he was boasting the info; now, if you were in that position (people think you're nuts because of what you're saying, and are sent to a high-security facility) what would you do?

 

If he was rational, he would not have been disclosing all that info and not expecting trouble as a result. I also cannot support his actions of putting a knife to an innocent woman's neck.

 

On all the rest, you know?, it seems that (differences aside) we're pretty much the same, I mean, I'm multy-task person (I get really bored if I have to do a only a single thing, could that be ADD too? ), I taught english to myself (english is so basic here in highschool is almost inexistent), I'm also analythical, I just love to have an interesting conversation/discussion/debate (care to chat someday?), I always try to analize things from the perspective of all people involved in a situation, guessing the possible outcomes.

 

I'd love to keep conversing with you (I'm enjoying this very much) but I'd prefer most any means instead of chat. I really don't use chat at all, as I strongly dislike it. I'm not sure why, but for me it just seems a very awkward and slow way to have a conversation. This might be because I'm a very poor typist and can't touch-type, or it might be because I find it uncomfortable having to concentrate on it, I don't really know.

 

I've tried to learn foreign languages, and outside of a few words and phrases I never had any success. I've always admired the multilingual, but I'll never be able to be one.

 

We seem to share a love of multi-perspective analysis. I love doing that, and seeing things from different points of view.

[mgh397]

But history belies that, and both sides would have known, without Davey or Alexi, that both sides had at various times come close to nuclear use (the US closest of all, and the Soviets were aware of it). That's one of the reasons that the Soviets made such a big propaganda push to try to get the US to agree to "no first use" of nuclear weapons (and one reason why the US would not do so).

Exactly, both countries had the "no first use" policy, and both Davey and Alexei told their respective sides that they both respected that, that's why, in my opinion, the USSR went to war with the US in the story, I mean, I don't remember the US and the USSR ever going to war directly while the Cold War, indirectly, yes, but directly, nothing comes to mind.

If he was rational, he would not have been disclosing all that info and not expecting trouble as a result. I also cannot support his actions of putting a knife to an innocent woman's neck.

Not even "for the sake of billions"?, because that's subjective, I mean, and I guess your reaction to this depends on how critical you might or might not be of the US, did they kill the 3 travelers for the sake of billions or did they kill the travelers to avoid other countries to get a hold of that information?, because a country with so many nukes as the US at that time and pointing to so many cities, really can't be considered as to taking actions to save billions; yes, te Soviets and other countries have/had nukes too, but that's not what we're discussing right now; and also, remember that in all timelines (except in the original one) Davey was a military target for the info he had.

I'd love to keep conversing with you (I'm enjoying this very much) but I'd prefer most any means instead of chat. I really don't use chat at all, as I strongly dislike it. I'm not sure why, but for me it just seems a very awkward and slow way to have a conversation. This might be because I'm a very poor typist and can't touch-type, or it might be because I find it uncomfortable having to concentrate on it, I don't really know.

Same here, I guess, as you do, that it may be because you have to concentrate on doing only *that*, and I'm really impatient so, that bit of time (regardless of how long) when you have to wait for the other person to read, think, and write, just drives me nuts; anyway, my (main) email is mgh397@hotpop.com.

I've tried to learn foreign languages, and outside of a few words and phrases I never had any success. I've always admired the multilingual, but I'll never be able to be one.

I've always admired multilinguals too, I remember that I was a child that the thing I admired of the Pope, to be able to speak so many languages Now, I really recommend you to learn another language, scientists discovered recently that people that speak more than one language are less at risk of developing Alzheimer, and, apparently, the more languages someone knows, the lower the risk, so, if you wanna learn spanish, just tell me, we can come up with some strategies for you to learn it.

[old bob]

Old Bob:

WOW! You do are old Old Bob!

...., if you were to send a "German Davey" back in time, and tell Hindenburg about what happened because of the "election" of Hitler, maybe WWII would have never happened at all... Or something like that, stoping Hitler from gaining power, and not necesarily by killing him; maybe by arresting him the instant he changed sides and expulsing him from Germany?

Hi ! a lot of years, but still fit .

Check the history of the nazis before 1933. Hitler was arrested and spent one year in prison, just enough time to write "Main Kampf" and so everybody was able to understand his politics. He was an instrument in the hands of the right wing of the prussian aristocrats and all the nationalists who were against the Weimar Republic and against the german pacifists (some of them relatives of mine !). It would not be necessary to tell Hindenburg, because Hitler told it himself in his book and all the "powerfull" german leaders (inclusive Hindenburg) believed that they could manage the nazis like puppets. As I told allready, the deep reason of the behaviour of the powerfull and wealthy people in western Europ was fear of the communist revolution and the need to stay in peace to any price.

Old Bob

[old bob]

ROFL! You aren't far off with the "don't sleep" part! I often have insomnia, and the only way I can ever get to sleep (at any time) is to read, so I do spend a lot of time reading when i should be sleeping!

So, what about you? I enjoyed reading about your family background BTW.

 

Hi James !

I could imagine that we had the same past and have the same defaults, a strong tendency to write and speak too much, the will to know better as others about everything, and the pleasure to talk and exchange words with everybody.

As the son of a German mother and a French father, I have too mother tongues and I learnt (and forgot) very quickly other languages. I learnt English at school and had a lot of opportunities to use it in Great Britain and other places (I never went in the States, unfortunately). I used Spanish, Italian and Russian in my professional travels, but forgot it when I reduced my professional activities. I'm especially proud of the fact that I speak fluently swiss-german. You travelled in the german part of Switzerland, so you know which kind of language this is !

I'm "Gemini" and like also to do a lot of different tasks at the same time. For instance, I still work as a consultant engineer and my hobby is to have all the files of the different clients mixed on my desk so I can deal with them all together ( My clients seem to be nevertheless satisfied !).

If you want to know more about my experiences in my early years (born June 1929) and later in the 53 years of my business life (still going on), I will bring some in my next blogs.

Old Bob

[C James]

Exactly, both countries had the "no first use" policy, and both Davey and Alexei told their respective sides that they both respected that, that's why, in my opinion, the USSR went to war with the US in the story, I mean, I don't remember the US and the USSR ever going to war directly while the Cold War, indirectly, yes, but directly, nothing comes to mind.

 

But both countries DIDN'T have the "no first use" policy. The US specifically avoided committing to that, and for good reason. The Soviets also had many scenarios where they would initiate nuclear use.

 

As for the US and USSR in direct combat, it has happened. In the Korean war, the Soviets provided planes and pilots, so they were Soviet in everything but markings, to the North Koreans (but under Soviet command). In at least two instances, Soviet aircraft out of Vladivostok directly engaged (were the aggressors) against US Navy aircraft in international waters.

 

There have been smaller incidents over the years, as well. Such as the Soviets intentionally shooting down US Recon aircraft over international waters.

 

Not even "for the sake of billions"?, because that's subjective, I mean, and I guess your reaction to this depends on how critical you might or might not be of the US, did they kill the 3 travelers for the sake of billions or did they kill the travelers to avoid other countries to get a hold of that information?, because a country with so many nukes as the US at that time and pointing to so many cities, really can't be considered as to taking actions to save billions; yes, te Soviets and other countries have/had nukes too, but that's not what we're discussing right now; and also, remember that in all timelines (except in the original one) Davey was a military target for the info he had.

 

Given that the three travelers had info that was a direct clear and present danger, not just to the US but to every human being on earth, either reason for killing them would be plenty IMHO. I can also so no real reason not to kill them, under the circumstances.

 

<chat>

Same here, I guess, as you do, that it may be because you have to concentrate on doing only *that*, and I'm really impatient so, that bit of time (regardless of how long) when you have to wait for the other person to read, think, and write, just drives me nuts; anyway, my (main) email is

 

Wow, a fellow chat-hater! I thought I was the only one! OK, I'll e-mail you within a couple of hours. Thanks!

 

Hi James !

I could imagine that we had the same past and have the same defaults, a strong tendency to write and speak too much, the will to know better as others about everything, and the pleasure to talk and exchange words with everybody.

 

ROFL! Yes, that certainly describes me, especially the bit about speaking too much!

 

As the son of a German mother and a French father, I have too mother tongues and I learnt (and forgot) very quickly other languages. I learnt English at school and had a lot of opportunities to use it in Great Britain and other places (I never went in the States, unfortunately). I used Spanish, Italian and Russian in my professional travels, but forgot it when I reduced my professional activities. I'm especially proud of the fact that I speak fluently swiss-german. You travelled in the german part of Switzerland, so you know which kind of language this is !

I'm "Gemini" and like also to do a lot of different tasks at the same time. For instance, I still work as a consultant engineer and my hobby is to have all the files of the different clients mixed on my desk so I can deal with them all together ( My clients seem to be nevertheless satisfied !).

If you want to know more about my experiences in my early years (born June 1929) and later in the 53 years of my business life (still going on), I will bring some in my next blogs.

Old Bob

 

I got a laugh out of your habit of mixing the files! I do the same thing for the several fields I work in. I thrive on variety, but repetition kills me.

 

I'd love to hear more of your past!

[old bob]

ROFL! Yes, that certainly describes me, especially the bit about speaking too much!

I got a laugh out of your habit of mixing the files! I do the same thing for the several fields I work in. I thrive on variety, but repetition kills me.

I'd love to hear more of your past!

Hi C James

There is so much to relate Perhaps you could help me by asking a few questions.

I studied at the Swiss Institute of Thechnology in Zurich, worked 2 years in a lab (it was the beginning of a new device : the transistor !) got an offer to St Paul as a research engineer (it was the time of the "brain drain" from Europ to the States) and hesitated a night long before I said "No". If I had say yes, my children would be US citizen now. I dont know today if it was the right decision I choosed another opportunity. It was the beginning of the Swiss warning Radar network (and the beginning of the Cold War) and as an officer I took part to its building ( I was the first Radar officer of the Swiss Air Force !)

I was allways politicaly active, first as member of a communist youth group during college ( it was when FDR was "nice" to his russian friends !) and wery quickly later with a party which you could call "liberal" in your way.

I founded the swiss Junior Chamber of Commerce" in 1959, so you see that I'm no more "marxist". After my studies as an electrical engineer, I studied business administration and became an consultant engineer for an union of coal and fuel importer. 1965, I founded my own consulting company . But this is another story . Is this what you want to know ?

the next after your questions

old Bob

Edited August 7, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Hi C James

There is so much to relate Perhaps you could help me by asking a few questions.

I studied at the Swiss Institute of Thechnology in Zurich, worked 2 years in a lab (it was the beginning of a new device : the transistor !) got an offer to St Paul as a research engineer (it was the time of the "brain drain" from Europ to the States) and hesitated a night long before I said "No". If I had say yes, my children would be US citizen now. I dont know today if it was the right decision I choosed another opportunity. It was the beginning of the Swiss warning Radar network (and the beginning of the Cold War) and as an officer I took part to its building ( I was the first Radar officer of the Swiss Air Force !)

I was allways politicaly active, first as member of a communist youth group during college ( it was when FDR was "nice" to his russian friends !) and wery quickly later with a party which you could call "liberal" in your way.

I founded the swiss Junior Chamber of Commerce" in 1959, so you see that I'm no more "marxist". After my studies as an electrical engineer, I studied business administration and became an consultant engineer for an union of coal and fuel importer. 1965, I founded my own consulting company . But this is another story . Is this what you want to know ?

the next after your questions

old Bob

 

Wow! Especially being the first Radar officer and also founding the Junior Chamber of Commerce!

 

I can't think of any questions off the top of my head, but I probably will soon.

 

Thanks very much, Bob!

[old bob]

Wow! Especially being the first Radar officer and also founding the Junior Chamber of Commerce!

I can't think of any questions off the top of my head, but I probably will soon.

Thanks very much, Bob!

Hi C James

Thanks for what ?

I tried to explain who I am in my first blogs, but I dont suppose it could interest anybody (?) My grandchilden ( aged from 9 to 28) asked me to write my story and the story of my family (their members live at present in Switzerland, France, England, Russia, Brazil, Israel and the States !!). That's a challenge. As I look back, the most difficulty was to combine professional and family life, work- and rest-time....fortunately, I dont need a lot of sleep and can work hard night I suppose it is the same for you (?).

Old Bob

Edited August 9, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Hi C James

Thanks for what ?

I tried to explain who I am in my first blogs, but I dont suppose it could interest anybody (?) My grandchilden ( aged from 9 to 28) asked me to write my story and the story of my family (their members live at present in Switzerland, France, England, Russia, Brazil, Israel and the States !!). That's a challenge. As I look back, the most difficulty was to combine professional and family life, work- and rest-time....fortunately, I dont need a lot of sleep and can work hard night I suppose it is the same for you (?).

Old Bob

 

Bob, sorry it took me a while to get back to this.

 

I've always read your posts with interest, but if you had mentioned being the first radar officer in Switzerland or founding the Jr. Chamber of Commerce, the culprit is my bad memory.

 

You mention family members in Russia, have you been there? I've only been once, but loved it.

 

How is the story-writing going? That does sound like a challenge!

 

I know what you mean about sleep. In my case, I often have insomnia, which is why I am often at GA at weird hours.

[old bob]

Bob, sorry it took me a while to get back to this.

I've always read your posts with interest.You mention family members in Russia, have you been there? I've only been once, but loved it.

Hi

The last time it was 1990. I worked for the Gorbatschov-governement. I stayed 4 months in Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg, trying to organise management courses for directors of the Gossnab -a national organisation who sold construction equipments and a lot of goods in all URSS- , with opportunities for the students to follow specialised courses in Switzerland ( I did it allready in 1973 for Algeria, with great success).

Unfortunately, politics changed, URSS disappeard and I was sent home! It was a funny period, the beginning of "liberalisation". I got a lot of friends, with Wodka at breakfast , lunch and dinner

When have you been there and where ?

Old bob

[C James]

Hi

The last time it was 1990. I worked for the Gorbatschov-governement. I stayed 4 months in Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg, trying to organise management courses for directors of the Gossnab -a national organisation who sold construction equipments and a lot of goods in all URSS- , with opportunities for the students to follow specialised courses in Switzerland ( I did it allready in 1973 for Algeria, with great success).

Unfortunately, politics changed, URSS disappeard and I was sent home! It was a funny period, the beginning of "liberalisation". I got a lot of friends, with Wodka at breakfast , lunch and dinner

When have you been there and where ?

Old bob

 

I was there a couple of times, but just on exceedingly brief visits. The most recent was a few days in St. Petersburg in 2003, going in an out by sea. I love Russia, and I don't mind the vodka at all (but don't expect it to be as good as the vodka they export!).

[old bob]

Hi James.

In the discussion about the attitude of the republican party and his management of the fight against terrorism, I found an interesting article in the last issue (september 06) of the "Atlantic", which doesnt directly concern the subject of your discussions above, but could be a part of a better attitude of the democrats (??) :

extract of Atlantic online :

"Declaring Victory

The United States is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism. The time has come to declare the war on terror over, so that an even more effective military and diplomatic campaign can begin.

by James Fallows

FOLLOW-UP Can We Still Declare Victory?

Yes. James Fallows explains why the foiled airline bombing plot actually strengthens the argument for declaring victory in the war on terror

by James Fallows

INTERVIEWS Endgaming the Terror War

James Fallows talks about the surprising strides we've made against al-Qaeda

Edited August 18, 2006 by old bob