From: gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.war.nuclear
Subject: Re: EMP
Date: 19 Oct 2000 16:50:23 -0700

Dwayne Allen Day  <wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>bob <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
>: well the guy in question has imported around 100 warplanes as of the last
>: time i talked to him.. that takes him out of the fly by night category, and
>: puts him in the major player group, by my book... if there is a privatly
>: owned mig 15, 17, or 21 around you, then he probably was the one who brought
>: it in the country... as to how he acomplished this, or what the particulars
>
>The part I don't buy is bringing an "operational" Scud into the country
>for a private collector.  Rocket engines are much more sensitive than jet
>engines.  They are covered by things like the Missile Technology Control
>Regime and export controls.

MTCR basically doesn't care about transfers from already ballistic
missile posessing countries... and doesn't say anything about *importing*
stuff into the US.  Exporting it, sure, you had better have all your
ducks in a row and pre-approved.

Import controls on weapons of mass destruction are basically the same
for importing a live 20mm cannon and a Scud.  You need a BATF WOMD
dealer permit.  Plenty of people import and export WOMD all the time;
private dealers handle a lot of the transfers off to even allied
countries buying new military gear (Sherwood International, etc).
There are plenty of tanks and military aircraft imported into the
US (though BATF has a hold on personal imports right now for some
reason while they reassess policy... the professional dealers are
business as usual).  There's no law against an individual owning
a rocket engine; you can buy surplus ICBM engines on the open
market from time to time (hell, 4 intact Atlas-A ICBMs were auctioned
off earlier this year...).  Again, import/export on them is more
restriced, but mere posessession is not particularly regulated.

People are often suprised by this, and by things like the
F-16 and F-18's in private hands, the whole passel of nearly
intact F-14s someone bought and is restoring, the occational
live armed tank which is in private hands, etc.  But there are
a lot of live military grade weapons systems in either corporate
or personal hands.  I have several active hobbies that the next
step up would require a WOMD permit and could justify my purchase
of live major weapons systems (space launch, armored vehicle design
and analysis...).  The real deal is that it's not a big deal if
you are legit, law abiding, and pay your fees and process your
paperwork dilligently.


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com

From: gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.war.nuclear
Subject: Re: EMP
Date: 19 Oct 2000 18:44:18 -0700

bob <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>market from time to time (hell, 4 intact Atlas-A ICBMs were auctioned
>>off earlier this year...).  Again, import/export on them is more
>>restriced, but mere posessession is not particularly regulated.
>
>when was this???

Just this year.  Was reported in Smithsonian's Air and Space...

>>People are often suprised by this, and by things like the
>>F-16 and F-18's in private hands, the whole passel of nearly
>>intact F-14s someone bought and is restoring, the occational
>>live armed tank which is in private hands, etc.  But there are
>>a lot of live military grade weapons systems in either corporate
>>or personal hands.  I have several active hobbies that the next
>>step up would require a WOMD permit and could justify my purchase
>>of live major weapons systems (space launch, armored vehicle design
>>and analysis...).  The real deal is that it's not a big deal if
>>you are legit, law abiding, and pay your fees and process your
>>paperwork dilligently.
>
>I'm familiar with a destructive devices permit, but a WOMD??? whats the
>diffrence?

This is a terminology oops between BATF and international arms
regulation terms.  I was referring to the BATF Dealer, Importer,
and Manufacturer of destructive devices permits, class whatever
(I haven't got that in front of me to check).

>sounds to me like the BATF is liscencing private individuals to own and
>posses bio warfare artilliary, and nuclear weapons...

There apparently exist add on applications for those.
My guess is that Pantex has a manufacture nukes permit.
I would suspect that an individual applying for one would
bring more of the wrong type of attention than they're
likely to think is amusing...


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com

From: gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.war.nuclear
Subject: Re: EMP
Date: 19 Oct 2000 20:33:10 -0700

bob <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Just this year.  Was reported in Smithsonian's Air and Space...
>
>do you recall any particulars, or waht issue?? I would be interested to
>learn more...

Relatively recent, last 3 months.  My magazines collection is a mess
right now, I couldn't practically search the recent aquisitions.

>>This is a terminology oops between BATF and international arms
>>regulation terms.  I was referring to the BATF Dealer, Importer,
>>and Manufacturer of destructive devices permits, class whatever
>>(I haven't got that in front of me to check).
>
>specifics asside, are you implying that is someone has a liscence to own
>destructive devices, then this liscence couls apply to balistic missiles as
>well? or is the batf liscencing more of a case by case scenario? ie a friend
>of mine who collects guns has looked into getting a destructive devices
>permitm, because there is a particularly wild .50 cal handgun he is
>interested in purchasing. If he were liscenced by the batf to posess
>dectructive devices, is that a blanket liscence, or am i thinking about
>something entierly diffrent?

Short of internationally defined Weapons of Mass Destruction (NBC),
my understanding is that a BATF DD permit covers anything.  14.5mm rifle;
Bazooka; Stinger missile; 60mm Mortar; Mk-48 Torpedo; 120mm Tank Gun;
2,000 lb Laser-Guided Bomb; Mk-41 VLS Launcher; Titan ICBM.


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com

From: gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.war.nuclear
Subject: Re: EMP
Date: 20 Oct 2000 18:43:52 -0700

Dwayne Allen Day  <wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>George William Herbert <gherbert@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>: People are often suprised by this, and by things like the
>: F-16 and F-18's in private hands, the whole passel of nearly
>: intact F-14s someone bought and is restoring, the occational
>
>I'd like to see citations for the info on F-16s, 18s and 14s.

The F-16 and 18 are a new development.  The -16 is of unknown-
to-me providence, the -18 was apparently a US Navy Blue Angels
F-18A which was discarded when the Angels upgraded to -C model
Hornets, based on the paint and systems fitout.

The -14s were purchased about a year ago by a scrap dealer
in SoCal, with their vertical tail fins mutilated as the
requisite demil but otherwise intact (weapons and radar and
engines all gone, but other systems / structure intact).
This was relatively well documented at the time in aviation
magazines.  I might be able to find that magazine as well,
but it suffers from the same pile-of-magazines problem I
described earlier.


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com

From: gherbert@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.war.nuclear
Subject: Re: EMP
Date: 21 Oct 2000 00:48:36 -0700

Dwayne Allen Day  <wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>George William Herbert <gherbert@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>:>: People are often suprised by this, and by things like the
>:>: F-16 and F-18's in private hands, the whole passel of nearly
>:>: intact F-14s someone bought and is restoring, the occational
>
>: The -14s were purchased about a year ago by a scrap dealer
>: in SoCal, with their vertical tail fins mutilated as the
>: requisite demil but otherwise intact (weapons and radar and
>: engines all gone, but other systems / structure intact).
>
>Okay, but I thought you were implying that somebody had bought flyable
>versions of the F-14s.  Clearly this is not the case.  And it goes back to
>the issue of de-militarizing certain pieces of equipment.  The US
>government does not want certain devices in the country (or coming in or
>going out...) in working condition.  That's why I think that imported
>Scuds have to be effectively de-militarized, with holes cut in their
>engine chambers, etc.

The F-14s are flyable given replacement engines and tail fins.

Demilling of weapons proper (missiles, cannons, etc) is required to
be more non-reversable (breech welded, etc), and restoring it to
functional condition without BATF approval is usually several felonies.
Buying a bunch of F-14 tail fins and F-101 engines and installing
them would be no legal violation at all.


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com