[sci.military] use of military resources in natural disasters

ehr@uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl) (10/03/89)

From: Ernest H. Robl <amdcad!ehr@uncecs.edu>
This may be a bit of a stretch for this newsgroup, but it does
touch on the role of the military in peacetime and the discussion
on the future of the military in previous articles.

There's been considerable reporting on the news about the 
displeasure of both individuals and government officials in the
areas hit by Hurricane Hugo about the speed -- or rather lack of
the same -- in Federal assistance.

One of the things I had been looking for -- and of which I have seen
little evidence in news reports -- would have been a major use of
military resources.  No, I'm not talking about soldiers to help keep
order.

Rather, it appears that the requirements for dealing quickly with a
major natural disaster are much the same as the requirements for
operating a major military presence in a hostile environment.  The
military -- particularly the Army -- has all sorts of highly mobile
communications gear, portable generators capable of supporting fairly
large bases, and, of course, all types of field kitchen facilities for
feeding large numbers of people.  It also has stockpiles of tents,
kots, field sanitation equipment, etc., which can at least provide
basic protection from the elements.  It has vehicles well suited to
travelling through all types of terrain and a substantial helicopter
airlift capability.

Yet, based on the news reports that I've seen, very little of this
capability was used.  Not only would this use have provided an 
excellent public relations boost for the forces involved, it would
also have served as a good "rapid deployment" test.


One of the reasons that I bring this up is that some 20 years ago --
forgive me if a few of the facts are a bit hazy, but this is all 
from memory -- while stationed at Ft. Bragg, N.C., I was on one of 
the first aircraft (military or otherwise) to land at Gulfport, 
Miss., after Hurricane Camille hit the area.  (I was an information
specialist at the headquarters public information office, and my job
was to write about and photograph activities of the Army personnel
in the disaster area.  My stories and photographs went out as news
releases to a variety of media, and were also used in the Ft. Bragg
newspaper as well as in civillian newspapers in the Fayetteville area.)

The plane that I was on carried both field telephone switching 
equipment and generator gear.  Other planes in the same flight also
brought down similar gear from the Ft. Bragg/Pope AFB area.

One of the stories that I recall doing while in the Gulfport area was
on how well Vietnam type airlift capabilities had been adapated to 
the disaster.  Three major types of helicopters were used as follows:
Light observation helicopters did the first survey work, touching down
at many isolated farms to check on the condition of the occupants and
to see what types of supplies were needed.  UH-1s then followed up on
these initial reports (mostly made by radio), bringing in supplies or
making medical evacuations.  These helicopters operated out of 
quickly set up forward staging areas which were in turn supplied by
the larger Chinook cargo helicopters which ferried supplies in from
the airport.


My basic question is this:  Why weren't the military capabilities used
this time?  A week after the storm hit, I saw reports of FEMA workers
having victims fill out forms by *flashlight* lighting at assistance
centers.  Is there a national policiy for the use of military units
in such situations?  (I assume there isn't.)  And, who makes the 
decision to commit military resources?  Does this have to come from
the President?

Just some things to think about.  -- Ernest

My opinions are my own and probably not IBM-compatible.--ehr
Ernest H. Robl  (ehr@ecsvax)  (919) 684-6269 w; (919) 286-3845 h
Systems Specialist (Tandem System Manager), Library Systems,
027 Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC  27706  U.S.A.

kiravuo@kampi.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) (10/05/89)

From: kiravuo@kampi.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo)
Here in Finland military has been used for a long time for odd
jobs and emergencies.  Every military installment has about a
platoon's worth of men ready to dash off, where ever they are
needed. Since we have a conscript army, the men are not trained
for this kind of work, but they are a cheap and readily available
source of manpower.

Usually army is needed for accidents and searching lost people
from woods. I once spent a night searching for a man who had
drowned under ice. We had to go through nearby islands just in
case he had survived.

We hace a civilian protection plan for any kind of emergencies,
which includes military as part of it, as well as police etc. But
I think that the control usually is with the civilian
authorities, military only being part of the task force. We
don't really have any natural disasters here, but man-made
disasters are sufficent (accidents, oil spills etc.)
--
Timo Kiravuo
Helsinki University of Technology, Computing Center
work: 90-451 4328, home: 90-676 076
kiravuo@hut.fi  sorvi::kiravuo  kiravuo%hut.fi@uunet.uu.net

jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (10/05/89)

From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
From: Ernest H. Robl <amdcad!ehr@uncecs.edu>
}This may be a bit of a stretch for this newsgroup, but it does
}touch on the role of the military in peacetime and the discussion
}on the future of the military in previous articles.

I sort of wonder why there is a power shortage in Charleston, given that
there is a nuclear submarine (trapped) pierside.  Any ideas?

When a hurricane hit Mississippi a decade or two ago, an LHA powered
Pascagula using on-board diesel generators.  Why not a nuclear power
plant?

[mod.note:  I'll add another precedent.  In the winter of 1929-30,
the aircraft carrier Lexington provided power for the city of Tacoma,
Washington after a drought rendered their hydroelectric plant useless.
Lexington used steam-electric drive, where boilers powered turbines which
operated generators. - Bill ]


-- 
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how
 hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."             - Calvin 
.............................................................................
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu,jwm@aplvax.uucp,meritt%aplvm.BITNET,jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu

wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) (10/11/89)

From: wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
In <9937@cbnews.ATT.COM> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>I sort of wonder why there is a power shortage in Charleston, given that
>there is a nuclear submarine (trapped) pierside.  Any ideas?

I vaguely remember that when a surprise hurricane hit Hawaii a few years
ago (the weather sat was out), all the generators were out  so there was
no  available power to jump start  the generators.  They  tried to use a
nuclear  sub, but I   don't know  if  it  worked  because  of  different
frequencies and voltages.
-- 
						   Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu)    Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077;  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

stuart@rennet.cs.wisc.edu (Stuart Friedberg) (10/11/89)

From: stuart@rennet.cs.wisc.edu (Stuart Friedberg)

The US Army used to operate (perhaps still does) two "barges" with
on-board nuclear power plants.  These barges are towed wherever
power is needed.  I remember a news item circa '74-'77 where one was
anchored off the Panamal Canal zone, with large cables strung to the
shore, hooked into a jerry-rigged power transmission system.

I said "barges", because the vessels were actually decommissioned
(non-nuclear) naval ships.  The Army had to remove the propulsion
systems, because they are not allowed to operate ships or boats
anywhere but in-land waters (for example, under the Corps of
Engineers).  Even as a teenager, I thought that was an exceptional
example of "preserving the peace" between Services at the expense
of common sense.

Stu Friedberg  (stuart@cs.wisc.edu)

smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (10/14/89)

From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin)

One problem, apparently, is the current shortage of commercial cargo
planes.  According to a recent N.Y. Times story, the demand for such
planes is so high right now that relief operations for Hugo disrupted
a lot of schedules, and even then they couldn't get as many planes
as they wanted for the relief effort.  (Note:  I am talking about
civilian planes; the military wanted to charter them.)