Comments on: BRAC May Emphasize ‘Realignment’ over ‘Closure’

By: PunditGuy

PunditGuy — Fri, 13 May 2005 19:08:56 +0000

BRAC Day Now that the Pentagon has released the official list detailing 33 major base closures, the affected communities begin their fight to keep them open. The Report (section 1 – 14.1 MB PDF) &nbs...

By: Don Carr

Don Carr — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:16:01 +0000

I'm not sure that "it takes more enemy missiles to hit a lot of widely scattered targets" was ever too much a part of rationale for placement of bases. In frontier days, "bases" went where expansion went, Bases were put up to protect the people of the new communities being built out on the frontier. The "base" (fort) was "their" base. Later, newer bases - created not so much to protect communities as to be part of a national defense strategy - went where they really wouldn't be all that intrusive on the communities. In those cases, often as not, the citizenry expanded their communities toward the bases (some use the word "encroached"), and, again, a base in a community became "their" base. Hence, the concern today of most communities about what BRAC could do to "their" base.

By: WILLisms.com

WILLisms.com — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:03:42 +0000

Some Call It A Carnival/Bonfire Of Classiness.
We call it "Classiness, All Around Us." Click to explore more WILLisms.com. In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents classiness from the blogosphere: 1. What does it mean to be rich? Peaktalk has some great thoughts in response to this Asymmetri...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:52:31 +0000

The tiny bases mostly grew up either in frontier days, before modern transportation, or on an ad hoc basis to ramp up for WWII.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:47:17 +0000

So are we sure the military rationale for a lot of small, scattered bases -- that it takes more enemy missiles to hit a lot of widely scattered targets -- no longer holds?