[SBE] Conalrad, EBS, EAS, CAP... "Whatever"

[russ at russvanderhorst.info]

Hi All,

This has been a long thread with a lot of interesting discussion. I think that it comes down to 
two matters. does the gun work, and do the people with their finger on the trigger know when 
to pull it. 

As engineers, we can design the gun...but also, as engineers, we want to be certain that the 
gun works. This is my reasoning for a national end to end test to find out if the site on the 
gun is lined up correctly, and that the gun fires and hits the targets it is supposed to hit. 

As far as pulling the actual trigger, we as engineers have no control over this...we may build 
the gun, and we can push to allow a full scale mock test of the gun to see if it works and to 
get any kinks out of it...but it is up to the people who have their finger on the trigger to 
actually fire the gun. Debating whether or not the gun should have been pulled is now an 
academic matter. The event is long past, and all we can do is learn from it. Do we need a 
better gun? I don't know as from what I can gather the gun we currently used hasn't been 
used long range (an end to end test)...do we need people ready to put their finger on the 
trigger 24/7/365...absolutely!

Russ, CBT

On 10 Oct 2009 at 10:56, Carl Sundberg wrote:


> 

>     I have been following the thread and reading everything that is being said here 

>     and I can't believe what I am reading. I now know why any form of Alert system 

>     will never really work as a national alert system. Since the 50's, we have 

>     changed the system three times and we are now moving to a 4th. With some 

>     exceptions here and there, the alert systems always worked with extreme 

>     reliability. From Conalrad to the present EAS, our engineering track record is real 

>     clear. For the most part... the system always worked, no matter what the design 

>     was. Every major problem that I can recall came from the people at the other 

>     end. The gun has always worked pretty darn good. The problem has most 

>     always been the person who had their finger on the trigger.

>     

>     The challenge isn't the gadget or the delivery system. The challenge is 

>     Administration and it always has been. Look, no one is going to call the President 

>     and announce an attack. Yes.. weather and geophysical events, kidnapped kids, 

>     local disasters and the like are easy to figure out and its always a damn good 

>     idea to alert people about them, no matter how much we over do it. The big "but" 

>     is this: The whole system began as an alert system to warn us of the "BIG" 

>     attack.

>     

>     We got lucky the day the WTC and the Pentagon was attacked in one respect. It 

>     was a seemingly limited terrorist attack. Because some genius decided to ground 

>     all planes right away, we'll never know just how widespread the plan really was. 

>     Again, it was even more luck one plane was forced to crash in a field and it didn't 

>     hit a city. If nothing else, people in its path should have been warned by EAS 

>     when fighters were scrambled to go after it. 

>     

>     There is one thing that is certain. Our Pentagon was hit and our leaders were 

>     taken to secure locations. Duh! Just what needs to happen before someone pulls 

>     the trigger on the alert system. Since we got lucky, it is NOT OK to say "NO 

>     FOUL". Every American citizen was at some risk and no one viewing an 

>     automated TV channel or automated radio station had a clue of just what the risk 

>     was. Not everyone gets hit by a Tornado, but we warn all in the area anyway. 

>     Just because no extra people were killed by one of these flying bombs, they were 

>     nevertheless bombs of impending doom and at some point our government knew 

>     it and no EAS warning went out. I say "FOUL!"

>     

>     Based on what I have read in this thread I feel as though some are saying... "We 

>     don't need no stinking national alert system... We have CNN"... 

>     

>     We need to get our leaders to wake up. We engineers can make anything work... 

>     The problem has never been the gun... Like always, the problem is and has 

>     always been with the person who had their finger on the trigger. I'll bet we have 

>     never, ever had a full time person at the button of Conalrad or EBS, and we all 

>     know all someone was asleep at the EAS switch when we WERE under attack. 

>     All of those systems worked damn well and so will CAP... 

>     

>     The real question is: Who's working on the national alert use criteria and who 

>     has the job of keeping their finger near that button 24/7/365? 

>     

>     Carl Sundberg, CBT

>     Licensed Engineer since 1967

> 

> 

>     From: Edwin Bukont <ebukont at msn.com>

>     To: sbe <sbe at sbe.org>

>     Sent: Sat, October 10, 2009 2:06:19 AM

>     Subject: Re: [SBE] Working the kinks out of EAS

>     

>     The formation of EAS goes back to when SBE Member Robert Greenberg was 

>     alive and a friend to broadcasters at the FCC. 

>     

>     Bob came to the Chapter 37 meetings and was a delight when he would stand up 

>     and introduce himself to ask a question of some presenter who did not realize 

>     who was in the audience.

>     

>     Although he saddly passed away long before 9/11, it his guidance that I am 

>     echoing, and which some here have correctly stated. With regard to 9/11, I had 

>     checked this as well with Jim Farley, the VP News for WTOP, which is the F/T 

>     news station in the Nation's Capital.

>     

>     EAS is NOT a News Service. Not Nationally and not Locally.

>     

>     EASIS a Action Notification system. Nationally and Locally.

>     

>     It was CORRECTLY, NOT used on 9/11 for the following reason.

>     

>     While we were attacked, neither the nature of the attack nor whatthe public 

>     should do were known. It is the NOT known that keeps the EAS from being 

>     used. Therefore, while there was News,,,there was nothing in the way of 

>     necessary behavior to alert the public to do. Thus the EAS was not used.

>     

>     The purpose of EAS is NOT to say that we are under attack.

>     

>     The purpose of EASIS tosay, "We have been attacked, AND the public is 

>     instructed by authorities to take the following ACTION...".

>     

>     There was no reason to cause a mass hysteria by activating EAS on September 

>     11, 2001.

>     

>     There was no reason to cause a national panic for what, in spiteof the tragedy, 

>     appeared initially to be an isolated local incident.

>     

>     We have to subtract the emotion that built immediately after the events. It's very 

>     easy in hind sight to compress the time and knowledge between events and ask 

>     how come we did or did not react in a certain way. But since no one 

>     (exceptperhaps Mossad) had precognition of the events, when the first plane 

>     struck the tower that my family helped build, there was no indication of a terrorist 

>     attack. I remember my father looking at the towers from directly across the 

>     Hudsonand saying 'Why the hell would you build something so tall out so far on 

>     the island. Some day some ass hole is going to fly a plane into one of them just 

>     to be an asshole'. 

>     

>     Even after the second plane, which I got to watch come in and hit, there still was 

>     still nothing of an EAS nature. Yes, it may have become clear we were under 

>     attack. Butthe attack remains a news event, in part because we have such 

>     ubiquitous news coverage, but not an EAS event, until the situation has been 

>     assessed and a public action is necessary. 

>     

>     That is the point when EAS is used, when the authorities need not to inform, but 

>     rather to get theattention of and to thendirect the public to do something. No 

>     inbound missiles has been launched. In spite of what had just happened,there 

>     was no indication of a danger to the masses,and so therefore, no EAS. Now, 

>     had the planes been trailing some unknown purple smoke that might be laced 

>     with poison as they approached, perhaps that would have been a reason to 

>     trigger the EAS locally once that reality was realized.

>     

>     Had the EAS been activated, it actually would have interrupted the spread of 

>     news and the gathering of information while providing no new information nor any 

>     substantive directive from federal or local authorities.

>     

>     

>     

>     Edwin Bukont CSRE, DRB, CBNT

>     V- 240.417.2475;F-240.368.1265

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 



my webpage
http://russvanderhorst.info