Strait of Hormuz: The legal tangle

Interesting look at the legalities of transiting the Strait of Hormuz traffic lanes by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi here:

Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.

Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".

Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising. [1]

However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS - and favoring Iran. These include the following:

- Per Article 39 of the UNCLOS, pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage" US ships passaging through the Strait of Hormuz must "proceed without delay" and "refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of states bordering the strait".
- Per Article 40, "During transit passage, foreign ships may not carry out any research or survey activity without the prior authorization of the states bordering the straits." And yet, by the US Navy's own admission, it has been conducting sonar activities in the area, to detect submerged vessels. This, in turn, has harmed the Persian Gulf's aquatic mammals. In light of a recent US court ruling limiting the US Navy's sonar activities off the California coast, Iran now has greater political leverage to seek information regarding the activities of US warships transiting through its territorial waters.
- Given the US's verbal acrobatics, of trying to depict as "international waters" what is essentially Iran's territorial water in the inbound traffic channel of the Strait of Hormuz, it collides with Article 34 of UNCLOS. This regards the "legal status of waters forming the straits used for international navigation", that strictly stipulates that the regime of passage "shall not affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits". Following the UNCLOS, Iran's territorial water extends 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz.
- The Pentagon videotape of the incident shows a US helicopter hovering above the US ships, which is in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the UNCLOS, which expressly forbids "the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft" during transit passage.
- Article 19, elaborating on the meaning of "innocent passage", states that "passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". And that means a prohibition on "any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind" and or "any act of harmful and serious pollution".

In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.
- Under Article 25 of the UNCLOS, a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."
- Per Article 30, "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."
- Pursuant to Article 42 of the UNCLOS, "states bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage" and "foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations." In this connection, Iran's 1993 maritime law echoes Article 20 of the UNCLOS: "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on surface and to show their flag." Yet, disregarding both international law and Iran's laws, the US Navy until now has refused to comply with the requirement of surface passage of its submarines through the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue is one of sovereignty, akin to those discussed here previously with respect to the Strait of Malacca (see here, here, and here, as examples).

The UNCLOS provisions that may apply:

Article34
Legal status of waters forming straits used for international navigation

1. The regime of passage through straits used for international navigation established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits or the exercise by the States bordering the straits of their sovereignty or jurisdiction over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil.

2. The sovereignty or jurisdiction of the States bordering the straits is exercised subject to this Part and to other rules of international law.

Article 35

Scope of this Part

Nothing in this Part affects:

(a) any areas of internal waters within a strait, except where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such;

(b) the legal status of the waters beyond the territorial seas of States bordering straits as exclusive economic zones or high seas; or

(c) the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits.

Article 36

High seas routes or routes through exclusive economic zones through straits used for international navigation

This Part does not apply to a strait used for international navigation if there exists through the strait a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics; in such routes, the other relevant Parts of this Convention, including the provisions regarding the freedoms of navigation and overflight, apply.

SECTION 2. TRANSIT PASSAGE

Article 37

Scope of this section

This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

Article 38

Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.

Article 39

Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;

(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.

2. Ships in transit passage shall:

(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;

(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.

3. Aircraft in transit passage shall:

(a) observe the Rules of the Air established by the International Civil Aviation Organization as they apply to civil aircraft; state aircraft will normally comply with such safety measures and will at all times operate with due regard for the safety of navigation;

(b) at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the competent internationally designated air traffic control authority or the appropriate international distress radio frequency.

Article 40

Research and survey activities

During transit passage, foreign ships, including marine scientific research and hydrographic survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior authorization of the States bordering straits.

Article 41

Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in straits used for international navigation

1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships.

2. Such States may, when circumstances require, and after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by them.

3. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations.

4. Before designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, States bordering straits shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the States bordering the straits, after which the States may designate, prescribe or substitute them.

5. In respect of a strait where sea lanes or traffic separation schemes through the waters of two or more States bordering the strait are being proposed, the States concerned shall cooperate in formulating proposals in consultation with the competent international organization.

6. States bordering straits shall clearly indicate all sea lanes and traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by them on charts to which due publicity shall be given.

7. Ships in transit passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article.

Article42

Laws and regulations of States bordering straits

relating to transit passage

1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;

(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;

(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including the stowage of fishing gear;

(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of States bordering straits.

2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.

3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations.

5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and regulations or other provisions of this Part shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage which results to States bordering straits.

Of course, there are also obligations imposed on the bordering state:

Article24

Duties of the coastal State

1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

Monday Reading (which you can read all week)

It's Maritime Monday 93 Fred Fry International in which Fred exposes us to the Ethiopian Shipping Lines and way too much more.

Xformed goes after Fresh Water Submarines

Spook86 has thoughts on "that" radio transmission in the Strait of Hormuz here. As C-dore14 hs noted in the comments on some other posts, there's a lot of odd radioing going on out there, so I'm not so sure Spook86 is right on this one, but at least it's another possibility...

Sunday Ship History: Operation Cold Feet

Way up north , on the Arctic Ocean, in the midst of the cold war, the Soviets put "drift stations" on the ice pack. These are best explained here:

It was the 1950s and the Cold War was on. The Soviet Union deployed numerous drift-ice stations in the Arctic, ostensibly for scientific research. Drift-ice stations moved continuously across the Arctic, even entering into waters claimed by Canada. This was a sovereignty challenge, but there was concern these stations could be used to gather intelligence about NATO forces' activities and support an attack against North America.

More specifically, it was believed the Soviets were using the drift station to collect acoustic information about U.S. nuclear submarines that were transiting under the ice pack. Another possibility seems to also exist:

The most dramatic find occurred in 1958. Canadian signals intelligence determined that the Russians had a serious problem on one drift station, North Pole 6. A Lancaster was dispatched to take a look -- and was authorized to land if necessary. After a harrowing flight, the plane broke through the clouds over North Pole 6, now drifting in Canadian waters, to find a Soviet Tu-16 Badger nuclear bomber on an ice runway. The aircraft had suffered a mishap and was stranded.Low-level pass after low-level pass gave NATO the first detailed pictures of the TU-16, a state-of-the-art Soviet model not seen up close before, and not possessing intercontinental range. The Canadians believed it was a test to see whether the Badger could refuel on a drift station before an attack on North America. In theory, the Soviets could now take off from a drift station, fly under DEW Line radar and strike targets in the south. RCAF aircraft kept an eye on the station as the Soviets recovered the aircraft and dismantled the station's intelligence-gathering equipment that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.

Of course, these ice stations were of great interest to the west, so much so that the abandonment of one by the Soviets gave the CIA a new mission - try to gain access to the abandoned station and gather useful intelligence:

In 1962, ice reconnaissance found another drift station, North Pole 11, which appeared to be abandoned in Canadian-claimed waters. The U.S. Navy was operating nuclear submarines under the pole, and intelligence assessors believed the Soviets had an underwater listening system at that station. Canada and the U.S. planned a joint operation, and two U.S. intelligence officers parachuted onto NP 11 to assess it. They were extracted by a special CIA aircraft.

There's more to the story.

It begins with an inventor with the very inventor-like name of Robert Edison Fulton, Jr. Mr. Fulton decided to improve on an existing system by which personnel could be plucked from the ground by low flying aircraft and wires. As set out
by William M. Leary here

Experiments began in 1950. Using a weather balloon, nylon line, and 10- to 15-pound weights, Fulton made numerous pickup attempts as he sought to develop a reliable procedure. Successful at last, he had his son photograph the operation. Fulton then took the film to Admiral de Florez, who had become the first director of technical research at the CIA.(7)Believing that the program could best be handled by the military, de Florez put Fulton in touch with the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Thanks to de Florez's interest, Fulton received a development contract from ONR's Air Programs Division.

Over the next few years, Fulton refined the air and ground equipment for the pickup system. Based at El Centro, California, he conducted numerous flights over the desert, using a Navy P2V for the pickups. He gradually increased the weight of the pickup until the line began to break. A braided nylon line with a test strength of 4,000 pounds solved the problem. More vexing were the difficulties that were experienced with the locking device, or sky anchor, that secured the line to the aircraft. Fulton eventually resolved this problem, which he considered the most demanding part of the entire developmental process.(8)

By 1958, the Fulton aerial retrieval system, or Skyhook, had taken its final shape. A package that easily could be dropped from an aircraft contained the necessary ground equipment for a pickup. It featured a harness, for cargo or person, that was attached to a 500-foot, high-strength, braided nylon line. A portable helium bottle inflated a dirigible-shaped balloon, raising the line to its full height.

The pickup aircraft sported two tubular steel "horns" protruding from its nose, 30 feet long and spread at a 70-degree angle. The aircraft would fly into the line, aiming at a bright mylar marker placed at the 425-foot level. As the line was caught between the forks on the nose of the aircraft, the balloon was released at the same time the spring-loaded trigger mechanism (sky anchor) secured the line to the aircraft. As the line streamlined under the fuselage, it was snared by the pickup crew, using a J-hook. It was then attached to a powered winch and pulled on board.

Some of you may recall seeing Mr. Fulton's invention used in the movies Thunderball and . It has also been used by forest fire fighting teams:

Intermountain Aviation used the bomber for firefighting and to develop the Fulton “Skyhook.” The Skyhook was used to retrieve a man or equipment from the ground without landing! As the B-17 swooped down, it snagged a rope raised aloft by a gas-filled balloon. Attached to the rope was a harness holding the person or object to be retrieved. A powered winch then reeled the dangling person or package into the plane. Evergreen’s B-17 demonstrated this technique in the 1964 James Bond movie Thunderball.

And, well, it was used in "Operation Coldfeet," that CIA effort to grab intel from the Soviet drift station, as Mr. Leary continues:

The stage was now set for the first operational use of Skyhook. What became known as Operation Coldfeet began in May 1961, when a naval aircraft flying an aeromagnetic survey over the Arctic Ocean reported sighting an abandoned Soviet drift station. A few days later, the Soviets announced that had been forced to leave Station NP 9 when the ice runway used to supply it had cracked.

The prospect of examining an abandoned Soviet ice station attracted ONR's interest. The previous year, ONR had set an acoustical surveillance network on a US drift station used to monitor Soviet submarines. ONR assumed that the Soviets would have a similar system to keep track of American submarines as they transited the polar ice pack, but there was no direct evidence to support this. Also, ONR wanted to compare Soviet efforts on drift stations with US operations.

seemed to provide the answer. To Capt. John The problem was how to get to NP 9. It was far too deep into the ice pack to be reached by an icebreaker, and it was out of helicopter range. Fulton's SkyhookCadwalader, who would command Operation Coldfeet, it looked like "a wonderful opportunity" to make use of the pickup system.(11)
***
ONR selected two highly qualified investigators for the ground assignment. Maj. James Smith, USAF, was an experienced paratrooper and Russian linguist who had served on US Drift Stations Alpha and Charlie. Lt. Leonard A. LeSchack, USNR, a former Antarctic geophysicist, had set up the surveillance system on T-3 in 1960. Although not jump qualified, he quickly went through the course at Lakehurst Naval Air Station. During the summer, the two men trained on the Fulton retrieval system, working in Maryland with an experienced P2V crew at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River.
***
In March 1962, the mission planners received the unexpected news that the Soviets had abandoned ice station NP 8 in haste after a pressure ridge destroyed its ice runway. A more up-to-date facility than NP 9, it also was in a more accessible position at 83°N 135°W. "With the operation finally about ready to take off," Cadwalader reported, "the target was shifted to this new and tempting target." After the Canadian Government readily agreed to the use of the Royal Canadian Air Force base at Resolute Bay, 600 miles from NP 8, Project Coldfeet got under way.

In mid-April, the P2V and a C-130 support aircraft from Squadron VX-6 departed Patuxent River for Resolute Bay via Fort Churchill. Captain Cadwalader, the project's commander, had hoped that the Hydrographic Office's monthly ice reconnaissance flight that flew between Thule and Point Barrow would provide an up-to-date position on NP 8; bad weather and a navigational error, however, prevented a sighting. Still, with the last known position only a month old and given the general dependability of the Hydrographic Office's drift predictions, he expected no difficulty in finding the target. The C-130 carrying the drop party would locate NP 8, while the P2V would be standing by in case an immediate extraction was necessary.

The hunt for NP 8 began in perfect weather. The C-130 flew to the station's last known position, then began a box search at 10-mile intervals. Hours went by, but nothing could be seen except ice. The next day, the C-130 started searching at five-mile intervals. It spotted the abandoned US Ice Station Charlie but not NP 8. Four more searches failed to reveal the elusive Soviet drift station. With the flight time available for the C-130 running out and the weather deteriorating, Cadwalader called off the operation.
***
The expedition had no sooner returned to the US when the monthly ice reconnaissance flight on 4 May spotted NP 8 well to the east of its predicted position. ONR remained convinced that Coldfeet could work, but its funding for the project had run out. Perhaps the Intelligence Community, which had displayed interest in the scheme, might be persuaded to support the operation.

since the fall of 1961. As it happened, Fulton had been working with CIA on the development of SkyhookIntermountain Aviation, an Agency proprietary at Marana, Arizona, that specialized in aerial delivery techniques, had equipped a B-17 with the Fulton gear in October. Over the next six months, Intermountain's veteran CIA-contract pilots Connie W. Seigrist and Douglas Price flew numerous practice missions to perfect the equipment needed to infiltrate and extract agents. (They later conducted demonstrations for the Forest Service and Air Force while training for a covert operation to extract fellow CIA-contract pilot Allen L. Pope from an Indonesian prison.)(13)


Fulton then approached Intermountain about participating in Coldfeet. Garfield M. Thorsrud, head of the proprietary, liked the idea. After $30,000 was made available by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Coldfeet was ready to resume, with Intermountain furnishing the Skyhook-equipped B-17 and a C-46 support aircraft for the project.(14)

Then it got fun:

On 28 May, assisted by a P2V from Patrol Squadron One at Kodiak, the B-17 located NP 8. Seigrist circled the station while Major Smith and pickup coordinator John D. Wall selected a drop point. Drift streamers determined the wind, then Smith left the aircraft through a "Joe hole," followed by LeSchack. After dropping supplies to the men and receiving a favorable report from Smith over his UHF hand-held radio, the B-17 departed.
***
The plan called for Smith and LeSchack to have 72 hours to explore the Soviet base. While they conducted their explorations, Intermountain mechanics Leo Turk and Carson Gerken installed the pickup booms on the nose of the B-17. Seigrist and Price tested the equipment on 30 May by making a practice pickup in front of the Arctic Research Laboratory at Point Barrow.

The next day the mission to retrieve Smith and LeSchack got under way. In addition to pilots Seigrist and Price, the B-17 carried navigator Jordan, coordinator Wall, jumpmaster Miles L. Johnson, winch operator Jerrold B. Daniels, nose-trigger operator Randolph Scott, and tail-position operator Robert H. Nicol. Cadwalader, Fulton, and Thorsrud also climbed aboard to observe the operation.

The weather, Seigrist and Price soon learned, had deteriorated since their last trip over the frozen sea. Warmer temperatures had heated the ice mass, causing dense fog to form. The target eluded the B-17, and it returned to Point Barrow.

After a second fruitless search on 1 June, Thorsrud asked Cadwalader to call out the P2V. The next morning, the P2V took off from Point Barrow two hours and 30 minutes before the B-17. Using its more sophisticated navigational equipment, it quickly located NP 8, then guided the trailing aircraft by UHF/DF steers to the location.

Then there are those lovely words: "Conditions for the pickup were marginal at best."

Things did work out:

As Seigrist lined up for the pickup, the horizon disappeared. "I was instantly in a situation," he recalled, "what could be imagined as flying in a void." The pickup line and its bright orange mylar marker, however, provided sufficient visual clues to enable Seigrist to keep his wings level. He flew into the line, made a good contact, then immediately went over to instrument flying to avoid vertigo. Winch-operator Daniels brought the cargo on board without difficulty.

As prearranged, Price, a former Navy pilot, now took over the left seat to make the pickup of LeSchack. The wind was blowing stronger, and Smith had to struggle to hold LeSchack from being blown away. As the rising balloon caught the wind, LeSchack tore away from Smith's grasp, pitched forward on his stomach, and began to drag across the ice. After 300 feet, his progress was stopped by an ice block. As he lay on the ice and tried to catch his breath, Price hooked into the line.

Smith watched as LeSchack rose slowly into the air, then disappeared throughout the overcast. Although LeSchack rode through the air facing forward, he managed to turn around and assume the correct position before being hauled on board the B-17.

Price and Seigrist again changed seats so that Seigrist could make the final pickup. Smith held tightly to a tractor as he inflated his balloon. Still, he started to drag across the ice until he managed to catch a crack with his heels. He lay on his back as Seigrist approached the line. "The line made contact on the outer portion of the left horn," Seigrist remembers. "It just hung there for what to me was an eternity."

Slowly, the line slid down the horn and into the catching mechanism. As the line streamed along the bottom of fuselage, assistant jumpmaster Johnson reached down through the "Joe hole" and placed a clamp on it. He then signaled nose-trigger operator Scott to release the line. Next, tail-position operator Nicol secured the line, Johnson released his clamp, and winch-operator Daniels quickly brought Smith on board. He received a warm welcome from Fulton, Cadwalader, and Thorsrud--and a drink of "medicinal" Scotch.

And the haul?

Operation Coldfeet, Cadwalader reported, produced intelligence "of very great value." ONR learned that the Soviet station was configured to permit extended periods of silent operation, confirming the importance that the Soviets attached to acoustical work. In addition, equipment and documents obtained from NP 8 showed that Soviet research in polar meteorology and oceanography was superior to US efforts. "In general," Cadwalader summarized, "the remarkable Soviet accomplishments in their drift stations reflect their long experience in this field and the great importance that their government attaches to it."

I guess one could add that the proof of concept for the Fulton Skyhook was complete. (By the way, the B-17 photo, "scotch welcome" and the B-17 route map are all products of Robert E. Fulton, Jr)



The system is still around today.

Oh, if you are interested in owning a piece of the Fulton system , here's a link to a guy who will sell you that piece for a mere $250.



A little background on the Russian polar drift stations here including this photo of the 1937 "first" drift station:




Offer up a little salute to the brave men of Operation Coldfeet!

How to Pick Up Chicks

With a hat tip to Walking the Berkshires:

Hormuz Confrontation: That Voice on the Radio

As I indicated here, and several comments to that post noted, the audio portion of the U.S. released tape of the Iranian small boat adventure contains a threat the origin of which is somewhat suspect. Since then, several bloggers, less experienced with the ways of sea and radio traffic over a common radio circuit, have attempted to use doubts over the audio to assert that the entire incident was with made up or overblown.

My take on the videos is that the Iranians, for reasons of their own, engaged in a little brinksmanship. It is my understanding that this event is but one of a series of Iranian probes of the "bubble" the U.S. tries to maintain over its ships...

But the audio threat? It is well known that the airwaves of the Arabian Gulf are full of strange voices jabbering. As set out in the comments to my earlier linked post, and in ‘Filipino Monkey’ may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say

So with Navy officials unsure and the Iranians accusing the U.S. of fabrications, whose voice was it? In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of “Filipino Monkey,” likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets.

Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment.

Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video.

Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s.

“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”

And the Monkey has stamina.

“He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.”

Furthermore, Hoffman said radio signals have a way of traveling long distances in that area. “Under certain weather conditions I could hear Bahrain from the Strait of Hormuz.”

Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, could not say if the voice belonged to the heckler.

“It’s an international circuit and we’ve said all along there were other ships and shore stations in the area,” he said.

When asked if U.S. officials considered whether the threats came from someone besides the Iranians when releasing the video and audio, Roughead said: “The reason there is audio superimposed over the video is it gives you a better idea of what is happening.”

Similarly, Davis said the audio was part of the “totality” of the situation and helped show the “aggressive behavior.”

Saturday Reading

Been busy, so here's a full week's worth:
CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday about a Harvard Law alum who made good.

Maritime Monday at Fred Fry International wherein Fred visits a stretch job.

Xformed at his Monday Maritime Matters.

Steeljaw Scribe goes hypersonic (sorta like a couple of my XO's when I was but a youth but different).

Chap renders honors.

Carry on.

What is your course and speed?

Video from Iran's blue boat brigade which seems to completely verify the incident that Iran earlier said was fake:

Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of fabricating video and audio released by the Pentagon showing Iranian boats confronting U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

The video from Sunday's incident shows small Iranian boats swarming around U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. In the recording, a man speaking in heavily accented English threatened, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after ... minutes."

"The footage released by the U.S. Navy was compiled using file pictures and the audio has been fabricated," an official in Iran's Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying by the state-run English-language channel Press TV.

I invite those who have bought into the "new Gulf of Tonkin" allegations to explain to me in simple terms (so that I can understand them) the differences in the videos (except for perspective). And, yes, I mean you DU fans and CBS's Harry Smith.

First, the Iranian video:


U.S. video:



Some highlights:
Iranian on radio:


Iranian boat parallels U.S. Navy ship:




Seeming near collision between Iranian boats (U.S. video at 3:30) as boats A and B seem to be trying to occupy the same water space:


As far as the audio? There are probably a zillion explanations, ranging from some U.S. sailor goofing on the net to an elaborate U.S. plot or one of the Iranians goofing on the net or an elaborate Iranian plot (what about those mysterious dropped boxes?)... Apply Occam's Razor.

For that matter , how do I know that was really Harry Smith?

Pirate attacks increase...

Reported as Big rise in pirate attacks on shipping:

GLOBAL pirate attacks rose by 10 per cent in 2007, after a big increase in the number of ships being targeted off Nigeria and Somalia.
There were 269 acts of piracy, up from 239 in 2006 and reversing a downtrend seen since 2003, according to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB).

It also revealed yesterday that pirates were becoming more violent – and are now more likely to use guns.

Last year, 18 vessels were hijacked, while 292 crew members were taken hostage, five were killed and three are still missing.

Guns were used in 72 attacks, up 35 per cent from 2006, and 64 crew members were assaulted and injured, compared with only 17 in 2006.

The majority of such incidents occurred off Somalia's coast, the IMB said. Pirates used rocket propelled grenade launchers and automatic weapons as well as mother vessels to launch smaller craft to attack ships further away from the shore.

Of the 269 cases last year, 31 were in Somalia, up from ten in 2006, and 42 in Nigeria, compared with 12 the previous year.

Pottengal Mukundan, the IMB director, said: "The significant increase in the (2007] numbers can be directly attributed to the increase in the incidents in Nigeria and Somalia."

Remember that the IMB counts all sorts of things as "piracy" including snatch-and-grab boardings of ship at anchor where crook shinny aboard and grab some line or paint cans and disappear back over the side.

Nigeria: Pirates keeping the price of oil high?

Gunfire, injuries but no seizures, as set out here:

Unknown gunmen attacked six oil industry ships on the channel leading to Nigeria's largest oil and gas export complex on Bonny Island on Wednesday, oil company security sources said.

Two people were injured, one of them seriously, but none of the vessels was boarded, the sources said. Bonny Island is the export point for about 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil and 18 million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas.

"Six vessels were attacked within the space of about 20 minutes," one of the sources said, asking not to be named.

The ships involved were all used to service oil platforms, production vessels and rigs offshore. They normally work under contract to major oil companies and are manned by a combination of foreigners and Nigerians.

"It sounds like sea pirates because there were no hostages taken," a second source said.

I mean, why else would Reuters pit the article on the "investing" page?

Steve Schippert has suggested that the recent Iranian small boat adventure (and here, here) was perhaps an effort to keep oil prices up:

But from there, most public reactions have failed to identify proper context for the Iranian actions this weekend.

First, in a quote attributed to an unnamed official in the latest New York Times article on the incident, is the possibility of an Iranian probe, testing reactions and observable procedures for future reference. “Whether they’re just testing us to learn about our procedures, or actually trying to initiate an incident, we don’t know,” the Times quoted him as saying.

Second, and more importantly from a strategic view rather than tactical, is the Iranian leveraging of crisis and instability in the manipulation of sky-high crude oil prices, the only boost that exists in the Iranian economy.

Oil is flirting with $100 per barrel. Its average price in December dropped to just over $88 per barrel from over $92 average for the month of November. Incidents like this weekend's serve to remind the global oil market of how fragile the supply route is, thus maintaining premium price for Iran's only significant export and only significant source of revenue.

There almost certainly was never any true suicide ramming threat on the open Strait. But perceptions can be quite profitable.

You know, in case there was like a conspiracy or something between the Nigerian pirates and the Iranians...

Video of Iranian Small Boats

Found at IranianEncounter.mov

Associated press release here:

Following a routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz Jan. 6, three U.S. Navy ships operating in international waters in the Persian Gulf were approached by five Iranian small boats that demonstrated irresponsible confrontational behavior near the U.S. ships.

U.S. Navy ships USS Port Royal (CG 73), USS Hopper (DDG 70) and USS Ingraham (FFG 61) were steaming in formation at approximately 8 a.m. as they finished a routine Strait of Hormuz transit when five boats, suspected to be from the Islamic Republic of Iran Revolutionary Guard Navy (IRGCN), maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of the Hopper.

Following standard procedure, Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering.

Coalition vessels, including U.S. Navy ships, routinely operate in the vicinity of both Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and IRGCN vessels and aircraft. These interactions are always correct on the U.S. part and reflect a commitment to accepted tenets of international law and common practice.

UPDATE: As T.F. Stern notes in the comments, the Iranians are asserting that the video and audio are fake:

Iran has denounced video and audio recording released by the United States of the two nations' confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz as "fabricated," according to statements carried by state-run television station.

"The footage released by the U.S. Navy was compiled using file pictures and the audio has been fabricated," English-language channel Press TV reported an official in the Revolutionary Guards as saying Wednesday.

The Pentagon Tuesday released a four-minute, 20-second video of Sunday's incident, including video showing small Iranian boats swarming around U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. In the audio recording, a man speaking in heavily accented English threatened, "I am coming to you. ...You will explode after ... minutes."

Heh.

Strait shots

Following up on yesterday's episode in the Strait of Hormuz with its attendant "Did not, did too" bickering amongst the players:

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini on Monday played down the incident, saying it was "something normal", the official IRNA news agency reported.

"It's something normal and takes place every now and then for each party, it has been resolved when the two parties identified each other," Hosseini was quoted as saying.

"The new case was similar to the past cases, it's regular and natural," he added.

Meanwhile, a Revolutionary Guards official also said "there was no unusual confrontation between Iranian patrol boats and U.S. vessels."

The Guards boats were patrolling in the Strait of Hormuz when they saw three U.S. ships there and "routinely asked the ships to identify themselves," he told state television.

"They (the U.S. ships) did so and continued their path," the Guards official added.

In any event, some minor items of reference:

First, a map with some of the Iranian military ports/ areas noted:




Second, a close up of the Strait with red circles around Bandar Abbas and the island of Qeshm.















Third, a Google Earth view of Bandar Abbas military port with some ships in view (yellow arrow points to area), followed up with a closer look, showing three Iranian subs (circled in red) occupying pier space:

Chokepoint fun and games

Well, I get a little busy at the office and Iran decides to play "Chokepoint Chicken" in the Strait of Hormuz:

The three U.S. warships _ cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham _ were headed into the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz on what the U.S. Navy called a routine passage inside international waters when they were approached by five small high-speed vessels believed to be from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy.

The Iranians "maneuvered aggressively" in the direction of the U.S. ships, said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based at nearby Bahrain. The U.S. ship commanders took a series of steps toward firing on the boats, which approached to within 500 yards, but the Iranians suddenly fled back toward their shore, Cosgriff said.

Cosgriff was not precise about the U.S. ships' location but indicated they were about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, which extend 12 miles from its shores, headed in a westerly direction after having passed the narrowest point in the straits.

At one point the U.S. ships received a threatening radio call from the Iranians, "to the effect that they were closing (on) our ships and that the ships would explode _ the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said.

"Subsequently, two of these boats were observed dropping objects in the water, generally in the path of the final ship in the formation, the USS Ingraham," he added. "These objects were white, box-like objects that floated. And, obviously, the ship passed by them safely."

The boxes were not retrieved, so U.S. officials do not know whether they posed an actual threat. Cosgriff the U.S. ship commanders were moving through a standard series of actions _ including radio calls to the Iranians that went unheeded _ but did not reach the point of firing warning shots.

And exactly how many suspicious packages dropped in the water does it take to slow down traffic in the Strait?

Practicing "swarm tactics?" Better bring more than 5 boats.

About chokepoints here:

The Strait of Hormuz is by far the world’s most important chokepoint with an oil flow of 16.5-17 million barrels per day.

More at Salamander here, at Information Dissemination and the links in both of them. Make sure you understand that CDR Salamander is exactly right when he says the Iranians bumped this event right up to "firing time." A small, armed, apparently attacking boat 200 yards out is about ready to become a former boat.

UPDATE: Some interesting analysis for you to evaluate here:

...The Iranian port of Bandar Abbas is poised at the head of the Straits of Hormuz and is the military nerve centre from which the Iranian defense strategy in the Persian Gulf would be coordinated in an emergency.
***
Bandar Abbas's coastline already bristles with military surface radars and anti-aircraft batteries as well as sprawling navy camps. Surface-to-surface missiles capable of targeting shipping moving through the Straits of Hormuz are deployed in fortified bunkers protecting them against attack from US Navy airpower in the Gulf. The effectiveness of these coast-to-ship rockets was dramatically demonstrated by Hezbollah last year when it hit a high-tech Israeli Sa'ar missile corvette Hanit, off the Lebanese coast at the start of the five-week conflict.
***
Chahbahar naval base, the closest and best access point of Iran to the Indian Ocean is being modified to serve the kilo-class submarines Iran bought from Russia in the 1990s. In 2001 the Iranian armed forces staged the Unity-80 naval exercises from here, as part of an effort to make the Chahbahar naval base and its submarines operational. The naval base at Jask is located in Hormuzgan Province, on a commanding position at the entrance to the Hormuz strait.
***
Currently, intelligence reports have identified Jask as the center of Chinese made long-range missiles.

US Military analysts warn that Iran's missile armaments pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Geographically, the Iranian coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. But the greatest threat comes from the Iranian occupied islands located off the Persian Gulf coast which are strategically sited, virtually controlling the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz.

US intelligence has located advanced anti-ship missiles are deployed at Abu Musa and two other islands, Qeshm and Sirri. Among the most dangerous, is the Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 "Sunburn". ... The Asian Times reported recently, that Abu Musa Island, along with its mountainous areas, is teeming with Supersonic cruise missiles such as Yakonts, Moskits, Granits, and Brahmos, controlled by Iranian IRGC crews.

In late January of 2000, US satellites monitored an Iranian Marine Brigade, with supporting artillery and SAMs, reinforcing Qeshm Island where many mobile anti-ship missiles were already located. Revolutionary Guard units also moved to reinforce the islands of Jazirezye Larak, Tunb al Kubra, and Abu Musa, as well as miscellaneous oil platforms. These surprising moves remained unexplained at the time, but raised the level of alert in nearby US military installations in Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations. At the same time the USS John C. Stennis strike group deployed to its station in the Gulf in support of the UK/US enforced no-fly zone in Sadam's Iraq.

An unconfirmed report quoting unidentified Pentagon sources has recently revealed a top secret Iranian contingency plan, allegedly leaked by a former Iranian intelligence defector. The document detailed a strike plan which schematically laid out Iran's military and strategic assets from the Straits of Hormuz. Coordinated by an operational headquarters, forces would integrate Revolutionary Guards missile units, strike aircraft, surface and underwater vessels, anti-shipping missiles, mine cruise missiles, all hitting targets in the Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean. Senior Iranian commanders, like Rear-Admiral Ali Fadavi, of the Revolutionary Guard have expressed similar claims, although without going into operational details. While those reports should be regarded with caution, they nevertheless render an insight into the ongoing trends in Tehran's naval strategy in the Gulf.

Sunday Ship History: Behold the Quonset Huts

Imagine, if you will, a family uprooted from the American state of Wyoming and transported across the world to live on a topical island. An island only about 15 years removed from invasion and counter invasion during World War II. Imagine then, the island of Guam in 1959.

Now, Guam is good but you still need shelter and there was a large build up of the big U.S. Air Force base at the island's north end and housing for new arrivals was being built. In the interim, newcomers got to live in ... the "boonies," in housing that was, well, often not quite up to modern standards.

And so those former cowboys managed to find shelter in temporary quarters near Harmon Village, just by what is now known as "Two Lovers Point," on the cliff above lovely Tumon Bay. And that temporary shelter was made out of corrugated steel. The corrugated building, we were informed by then Captain (USAF) Dad, was a "Quonset Hut" and we were having an adventure.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Quonset Huts, here's a little Navy background:

The quonset hut, whose semi-cylindrical form was copied from the British Nissen hut, by the end of the war differed considerably in construction from its prototype. The original quonset hut was framed with arch-rib members of steel, T sections, 2 inches by 2 inches by 1/4 inch. The hut was 16 feet by 36 feet in plan. The members were formed to a radius of 8 feet and covered with corrugated steel sheets, borne by wood purlins. The principal improvements over the Nissen type were an interior pressed wood lining, insulation, and a tongue-and-groove wood floor. Innumerable detail problems were encountered in the development of the original T-rib huts, principally because of the necessity for 48 different needs, such as galleys. shower-latrines, dental offices, isolation wards, and bakeries. Each type required individual drawings and layouts for the interior setup, and in many cases it was necessary to develop special interior equipment, such as special ovens and beds, to fit the quonset hut form. All huts were designed and detailed, using the original T- rib design.

The principal objection to this type of construction was that the curveline of the side walls began at the floor, resulting in a loss of effective width of the hut. A more suitable structural rib was found in the form of a welded strip steel member, 2 inches by 3 5/8 inches. This member--actually two light-weight channels welded back to back--contained a groove which held nails. The new rib was fabricated to provide a vertical sidewall, 4 feet high. This new hut was known as the quonset redesigned hut. Its floor plan was 16 feet by 36 feet. Standard-hut drawings were remade, for both structural and facility details. As the necessity arose for adapting the huts to use as dispensaries, latrines, hospitals, and other special facilities, the details were worked out and checked by actually erecting units in the field at the proving ground, to determine the practicability of the design for field use. In all, 86 approved interior layout plans were prepared for the small hut and the large 40-by-100-foot arch-rib warehouse.

To reduce shipping space and tonnage a redesign, incorporating lighter, corrugated, galvanized sheets for covering and half-inch plywood floors instead of one-inch tongue and groove, was effected. The new hut was larger, 20 feet by 48 feet, and lighter, using 3 ½ tons of steel instead of 4 tons. It occupied from 270 to 325 cubic feet of shipping space instead of 450 cubic feet. The arch-rib again became semi-circular.

Toward the end of 1943, continuations to each end of the hut added 4-foot overhangs to the 48-foot length. The addition was to prevent driving rains and sunlight from entering the hut through the end bulkheads. The total outside length of the hut became 56 feet, but the actual interior living space remained 48 feet. The official quonset hut dimension nomenclature then became 20-by-56. However, in the spring of 1945, it was determined that the 4-foot overhangs on the huts used in northern or temperate climates were unnecessary, and they were eliminated. In order to standardize the nomenclature for both the northern and the tropical type the dimension nomenclature was changed back to 20-by-48. This. of course, was based on interior, living dimensions; the exterior dimensions of the tropical hut remained at 20-by-56. Throughout this war history, with few exceptions, when quonsets are referred to they are of the 20-by-48-foot living-space size.

As finally developed, the quonset hut required less shipping space than did tents with wood floors and frames, when equal numbers of men were to be accommodated.

Originally, all huts had unpainted galvanized exteriors. To reduce the chance of enemy observation from the air, an olive-drab camouflage paint was applied at the factory. After 1942 the factory service was extended to include packaging for overseas shipment. Before then, some plate bending, wood fabrication. and all packaging took place at Davisville.

The number of huts produced or procured by the Navy were as followed:

T-rib quonset 8,200
Quonset redesigned 25,000
Quonset 20-by-48 and 20-by-56 120,000
Total 153,200


Larger warehouse structures also were developed for Navy advance- base use. The first were 40-by-100-foot structures with vertical sides. They used 20 tons of steel and about 650 cubic feet of shipping space. About 300 of these were procured. They were superseded by a quonset-type warehouse of the same floor plan. The steel weight was 12 ½ tons, and the shipping volume was 350 cubic feet. If a concrete floor was required, 600 additional cubic feet of shipping space was required for portland cement. In all, 11,800 such warehouses were procured. For large advance base supply functions, multiple arch-unit warehouses were developed from the 40-by-100-foot warehouses, to furnish greater storage area under single roofs.

More history of these structures here from the Seabee Museum:

Even before the formation of the Seabees in 1942, the US Military was aware that war was imminent. And to fight that war they would need a way to quickly house people and protect materiel at far-flung bases. The building needed to be inexpensive, lightweight, and portable so it could be shipped anywhere and put up quickly using hand tools.

The British had developed a light prefab structure called a Nissen Hut during WW-I. In early 1941, the US Military looked at the Nissen hut, but felt the design could be improved.

At this time at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, a new Navy base was nearing completion. Two construction companies, George A. Fuller and Company and Merritt-Chapman had been hired to build the base. In March 1941 the Military asked Peter Dejongh and Otto Brandenberger of George A. Fuller Company to design and produce a hut to US specification. And, do it within two months!

Dejongh and Brandenberger adapted the British design using corrugated steel and semi-circular steel arched ribs. The Anderson Sheet Metal Company of Providence, RI solved the technical problem of bending the corrugated sheets into a usable form. These were attached with nuts and bolts. The two ends were covered with plywood, which had doors and windows. Major improvements over the Nissan Hut were an interior Masonite (pressed wood) lining, insulation, and a one-inch tongue-in-groove plywood floor on a raised metal framework.
***
When the war ended, Quonset Huts were too good a resource to throw away. So the military sold them to civilians for about a thousand dollars each. They made serviceable single-family homes. Universities made them into student housing and returning veterans occupied Quonset huts by choice. Robert Winton even wrote play about them titled Tents of Tin.

Once in a while, a really good design surfaces -- robust, simple, and enduring. The DC-3, the Jeep, and the Quonset hut are all examples of good design. Many are still standing throughout the United States, primarily as commercial buildings.

Yep, I got to live in a classic design! One studied by engineers for its practical (note that there seems to be more than a little "sharing" of common phrasing) appeal:

Drive your streets today and you'll see them here and there. Much more than relics of war, they're icons of a day in our history -- icons that spread all the way from North Africa to the Aleutian Islands. And now, a new memorial museum for war correspondent Ernie Pyle has just been built of Quonset huts. Once in a while, a really good design surfaces -- robust, simple, and enduring. The DC-3, the Jeep, and the Quonset hut are all examples of the clear thinking that was needed to keep us out of serious trouble, back in the 1940s.

See also here.

And practical? Well, that was the whole point, wasn't it? As the war in the Pacific moved toward Japan, the support bases could have buildings that sheltered offices, doctors, and personnel. Massive warehouses could be assembled and vital supplies stored for use.

The Quonset Hut could be used in all climates, from Guam to Alaska. And they did their humble job well. Did they win the war? Probably not all by themselves, but they did help.

And after the fighting, they kept on serving - sometimes as housing, sometimes as offices on piers or in remote locations where it would be too hard to build any other type of shelter. Even working with "atomic energy".

When the troops came home and there was a severe housing shortage in places like Los Angeles, well, there were all those Quonset Huts, and Rodger Young Village:

Built on the site of Griffith Park Aerodrome, in Griffith Park, Los Angeles, the Village consisted of 750 Quonset huts, temporary buildings made of corrugated steel, which were intended to house 1,500 familes. At peak residence, over 5,000 persons lived there.

Built in approximately two months (and over the objections of the Griffith family, who had donated the park to the city), the Village was dedicated on 27 April 1946 and closed in the mid-1950s. The Quonset camp met a desperate need for living space. Many thousands of Californians had left the area for military duty. When these men and women came back from the war, they found that the housing had been taken by the thousands who had come to work in plants producing warplanes, trucks and other vital materiel.

As the veterans were discharged from the service, they found themselves with no place to live. Rodger Young Village, named for Private Rodger Young, was one of several such projects under the control of the Los Angeles City Housing Authority. Veterans and their families were able to rent living space at reasonable rates, while waiting for the post-war housing "boom" to counter the post-war housing "crunch." Other veterans' housing projects used military barracks and trailers, as did a settlement in Burbank which provided travel trailers to house some of the Japanese and Japanese Americans who had been taken from their Southern California homes and sent to internment camps in other parts of the country.
***
Nearly all residents were young families with children (including many war brides). Each family had one half of a Quonset hut, built on concrete slab floors. Their living space consisted of two bedrooms, a bath, kitchen and den. The few unmarried residents, and some married couples without children, had a bedroom to themselves but shared the remaining family area.

"RYV," as it was known, had a market, hardware store, milk and diaper delivery, drug store, theater and other amenities commonly found in small towns, and children enjoyed the adjacent Griffith Park (though they perhaps did not enjoy the RYV elementary school quite so much) and climbing the tower which still held the airport beacon. The Helms Bakery trucks and Fuller Brush salesmen made the rounds, as they did in the other neighborhoods in the area. Residents planted lawns and gardens, and were encouraged to make their surroundings as homelike as possible.

Few families had telephones, relying instead on phone booths located about 100 feet apart. When a phone call would come, whoever was closest at the moment would answer (even someone walking through from another part of RYV), while the neighborhood children would run to see who the call was for, then pass the word to that person.

Rodger Young Village was, for a time, the most diverse community in Southern California, as veterans of all races and all branches of the military lived there. This caused problems in some nearby restaurants, which were practicing de facto racial segregation, as next-hut neighbors went to dine together. The influence of RYV residents helped end these practices in a number of establishments.

College campuses sprouted Quonset Huts to, among other things, house GI Bill students and as temporary classrooms. . Photo caption:

Students walking through snow past uninsulated quonset huts that served as temporary classrooms at North Carolina State College after World War II. - 1948 February

Heck, the old Q-hut has even had museum exhibition devoted to it, as seen here, where photos of the various types of huts can be viewed (and by all means, visit the multimedia portion of the site - the "exploding view" of a redesigned Q Hut is well worth a look). Books have been written, including Quonset Hut: Metal Living for a Modern Age, which is tied to the Anchorage Museum exhibit. Other sites of interest include this collection of photographs of Quonset Huts in the modern world, some of them still in use...churches, movie theaters, warehouses and ...homes.

A salute to the Quonset Hut and the men behind it.

Container security = Pot bust

Something unusual in the container's routing set up a Huge marijuana haul found in Port Elizabeth:

The shortest route from Guadalajara to El Paso usually doesn't go through New Jersey by way of the Panama Canal.

So Customs and Border Protection officials at Port Elizabeth became somewhat suspicious about a shipment of pottery making that circuitous journey. They targeted the clay vases for a special inspection in Elizabeth, where the cargo container was being transferred from ship to truck.

And when they put the container through a imaging machine, they noticed there appeared to be something inside the vases. It turned out to be 1,097 bricks of marijuana, weighing more than a ton, with a street value of more than $5 million, Custom officials announced yesterday.

Wanta do lunch?

Put this is the "things I don't want have happen to me" category- It's behind you: Great White stalks ocean canoeist:

Alone in his tiny plastic sea kayak, marine biologist Trey Snow had hoped to stealthily track a great white shark. But he had the shock of his life when he spotted a giant fin and realised it was he who was being stalked - by surely one of the most feared killers in the world.

One man's science is another species' food.

Oh, that Kosovo....

Retired Admiral James Lyons gets it exactly right in Kosovo train-wreck warnings�:

With an unemployment rate of up to 70 percent, no one who has been to Kosovo, as I have, can doubt we are looking at the creation of a failed, nonviable rogue state. This, notwithstanding claims by the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman that somehow Muslim-led governments will embrace the United States for supporting creation of a Muslim state in the very heart of Europe. They will embrace us the same as Iran did after our elimination of their archenemy Saddam Hussein.

There is no reason for the secretary of state to be beholden to the Holbrooke Cabal in the State Department. A recent op-ed by Richard Holbrooke, President Clinton's former ambassador to the U.N., urged the U.S. to move forward with Kosovo's UDI — a position also embraced by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Oddly, even Mr. Holbrook concedes that supporting Kosovo's UDI would set the U.S. toward a "train wreck" with Russia.

Related thoughts here.

Two US sailors found dead in Ghana hotel room

Two US sailors found dead in hotel room :

Two US Navy sailors were found dead today in their hotel room while on shore leave in the West African country of Ghana, the US Navy said.

The cause of death was unknown and was being investigated by Ghanaian authorities in cooperation with US Navy officials, the Navy said in a statement.

"Currently there is no suggestion of foul play," Lieutenant Patrick Foughty, a spokesman for the US Navy Sixth Fleet, told Reuters by telephone from Naples, Italy.

The sailors, who were not identified, were stationed aboard the Fort McHenry, a 185m-dock landing ship based in Little Creek, Virginia.

The vessel was docked in the Ghanaian port of Tema, some 28 kilometres east of the capital Accra, as part of a US naval partnership program in West Africa.

New Years Day Reading

Fred has "lakers" and much more at Fred Fry International: Maritime Monday 91

Xformed has another reason for someone naming a ship after you at Monday Maritime Matters.

Lex is doing post-Navy job search, which suggests that if you need a good writer, speaker and high speed low drag sorta worker, you might wanta start off with Lex. 'Course, he is coming in with a slightly different perspective on what constitutes "fun" in the workplace...You know, when you were watching "Top Gun" --- Lex was doing it.

Happy New Year!

All the best for the New Year to all of you!



New Year's goals?

My goal is to run the Houston Marathon in January 2009, which will be the 25th anniversary of my first marathon in 1984 (and the 20th anniversary of my fifth marathon) and 8 years after my stroke.



Those who have seen me know that the first part of 2008 will involve getting back down to running weight, coupled with the early phases of getting back into shape. I will be following a slightly modified version of Hal Higdon's Marathon Training Plans from here. You are invited to join me...

I'll do an occasional post on progress.

Then there are those other goals involving family, money, etc.

Remember, plan your dive and dive your plan!