Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise,(military chiefs red-faced)
The Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 10th November 2007 | MATTHEW HICKLEY

Posted on 11/09/2007 4:55:08 PM PST by fanfan

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chinesemilitary; chinesenavy; navair; submarine; usn; usskittyhawk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 next last
To: fanfan
“U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War. “

Oh really? What were we doing with the soviets for 40 years in all the oceans of the world.

Something does not smell right. Is this just a deception we allowed to happen? The soviets could not flush a toilet on a nuc sub in any ocean with us not knowing.

So how did a Chinese sub gets into the middle of an a naval exercises and know one knew it?

51 posted on 11/09/2007 5:58:02 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

Actually I’ve figured out a way to move even quieter than electrically powered propellers. It’s a variation on the otter’s fin, slow but as silent as an otter’s fin-thrust.


52 posted on 11/09/2007 5:58:58 PM PST by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: navyguy
Sneaking up on us is a lot easier for the ChiComms now because they are using stolen US technology... well, except for the stuff Bill Clinton gave to them.

It was Nixon and Kissinger who opened the damn door

I knew this was a mistake when they did it
53 posted on 11/09/2007 5:59:56 PM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: timer

Have you spoken with the Navy yet?


54 posted on 11/09/2007 6:01:32 PM PST by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

gotta keep a closer check on those Chinese fortune cookies


55 posted on 11/09/2007 6:07:40 PM PST by jesseam (Been there and done that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JSteff

I have no idea, but the US government does not deny that it happened last year, and we are unsure if this is a new report.

I don’t think this is a new report, now that I think about it, and read other posts, which brings up the question of ‘Why bring it up, again, now?’

Hmmm.


56 posted on 11/09/2007 6:09:24 PM PST by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

I think this is about that earlier incidence.

LLS


57 posted on 11/09/2007 6:11:05 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise

Excuse me, but is this the way to Albuquerque?

58 posted on 11/09/2007 6:14:45 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (I could be Agent "HT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

I’d like to know what our free trade friends are going to say if we lose a few carriers to these subs when China takes on Tiawan. It’s also possible for us to lose about 75% of our populace to nuclear first strike from subs located off our coast. What will the free traders say about something like that, when they were the ones who financed China’s indistrial military complex?

I’ve had military types tell me this type of scenario was impossible. They rode me pretty hard for even suggesting it, saying they were in the know. Okay you ‘in the know people’, care to explain this?


59 posted on 11/09/2007 6:16:19 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Mrs Crinton have Pay Feava. There she go now. "Ah Hsu Ahhh Hsu Ah Hsu!" Crintons worth every penny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Not good.

True. And this was an older-type deisel-electric sub. Their new ones are probably even quieter.

60 posted on 11/09/2007 6:19:21 PM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“It could be that the sub didn’t realize just how close it was to the carrier.”

Or one of our subs had been following him and then started to “actively” ping him as if getting ready to fire. The chicoms then got scared and thought they were about to be sunk.

Maybe him surfacing was a way of saying “unc-ral, so sorry”. When he new the jig was up.

At least that is the way I hope it went down.

61 posted on 11/09/2007 6:22:02 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NMR Guy
“I’d also have to think that it might be to our advantage to let them think we can’t detect their subs”

My thoughts too. I was having a conversation the other night with a former sailor and I mentioned that maybe we knew they were there all along and we didn’t let on so they would become overconfident and allow us to track them, not knowingly of course. It would be a great way to gather intelligence, even if we do have to lose face doing it.

62 posted on 11/09/2007 6:24:55 PM PST by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

I’m sorry but this just infuriates me. My family is military, I was in the military and I support the military but this is just another piece of evidence of incompetence in our institutions. Everywhere we look our institutions are breaking down and it seems like our whole country is falling apart at the seams while personnel and costs keep going up, up and beyond.

The entire command of that exercise should be relieved of command in my view. We can NOT accept mediocrity of our military. That so many missed this sub is unacceptable.


63 posted on 11/09/2007 6:25:29 PM PST by Joan Kerrey (Believe nothing of what you hear or read and half of what you see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

This is a rehash of a story, of dubious validity, from a few months ago.


64 posted on 11/09/2007 6:34:16 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
” lose about 75% of our populace to nuclear first strike from subs located off our coast”

Why would they go to all that expense? All they need to do is put some cruise missiles on a container ship or in that port they run down in the Bahamas (area).

No need to risk a multiple expensive ships (subs) and crews when they can do it with some containers on a few cargo ship crewed by 20 or 30.

Minimal expense, minimal risk, fewer assests. Remember a very, very low % of all cargo containers are ever checked.

65 posted on 11/09/2007 6:36:04 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: em2vn; All

Thanks.

You are quite possibly correct.

Good night all.


66 posted on 11/09/2007 6:37:39 PM PST by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Well, considering that the USN dismantled most of its ASW capabilities back in the early 1990s during the New World Order nonsense, I guess the admirals shouldn’t be too surprised...

Yea the 1000 points of stupidity started our military on a downturn. Of course Slick Willie had his turn also. Six of Slick's eight years were under a GOP controlled house and senate too. IOW sellouts in both parties from the time Ronnie left the Oval Office-present. No help is coming as the so called elected adults {both parties} are too busy lining their pockets and planning for their high paying retirements.

67 posted on 11/09/2007 6:44:44 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

bfd...a diesel is almost undetecable when on battaries and ESPECIALLY in the middle of all the ambient noise generated by task force NOT conducting 100% ASW operations.


68 posted on 11/09/2007 6:47:36 PM PST by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hammerhead

I was in the middle of a NATO task force, where we were the bait. Our own Navy couldn’t find us. We sank every ship in the whole flotilla.

Finally they made us go through a 1 mile wide check point so they could sink US!

skimmers = targets

pure and simple.


69 posted on 11/09/2007 6:51:52 PM PST by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What puzzles me in all this is why the submarine surfaced. Having snuck undetected into the middle of the task group one would think that the surfacing would be the last thing it would do. You do not advertise your capabilities to your opponent. It could be that the sub didn’t realize just how close it was to the carrier.

It could be that they didn't even know that they were in the middle of a US carrier battle group when they surfaced.

70 posted on 11/09/2007 6:54:11 PM PST by EricT. (The tree of liberty needs to be watered...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey
The entire command of that exercise should be relieved of command in my view. We can NOT accept mediocrity of our military. That so many missed this sub is unacceptable.

That's really not the answer. The problems are coming from bad policy which began under Poppy Bush?sec of Def Cheney, continued through the Clinton years, and went uncorrected under Bush/Rummy/Gates. None of them not a one was a Reagan or a Weinberger. In the early 1990's under Poppy even during Desert Storm the gutting and downturn began and it has yet to be slowed down. Not having needed resources is a Pentagon and Congressional as well as Sec of Defense issue.

Carriers used to use S-3 Vikings and helo's for anti-sub the S-3 were relieved of that duty if I understand right. Also except for one carrier which now lies 15,000 feet under the sea on the ocean floor no carrier has a sonar dome either. We can not continue cutting vital programs and blaming the poor results on mid level officers for issues beyond their means to control. The Pentagon did it to two carrier Captains immediately after 9/11 for issues caused by the Pentagon and congress. That is where the problems actually lie.

71 posted on 11/09/2007 6:57:49 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"You do not advertise your capabilities to your opponent."

There are reasons why you might: to introduce the element of uncertainty for one. Planners must now weigh more heavily the possibility of losing a carrier to a Chinese sub against taking a hard line on the independence of Taiwan.

72 posted on 11/09/2007 6:58:10 PM PST by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

What should we have done? Sunk it?


73 posted on 11/09/2007 7:10:51 PM PST by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Travis McGee; hiredhand

Uh Oh........


74 posted on 11/09/2007 7:13:23 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Or one of our subs had been following him and then started to “actively” ping him as if getting ready to fire. The chicoms then got scared and thought they were about to be sunk.

Our sub wouldn't have for the same reason, you don't tell your opponent that you've been tracking him.

75 posted on 11/09/2007 7:14:15 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Боевое Самбо
76 posted on 11/09/2007 7:14:53 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: spanalot
didnt Clinton give away our quiet prop technology?

I'm certain he didn't "give it away".

77 posted on 11/09/2007 7:15:34 PM PST by The Duke (I have met the enemy, and he is named 'Apathy'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

A few people on the exercise are either in big trouble, or we’re all in big trouble. One or the other.


78 posted on 11/09/2007 7:15:40 PM PST by hiredhand (My kitty disappeared. NOT the rifle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV
There are reasons why you might: to introduce the element of uncertainty for one.

None that make sense. This didn't introduce uncertainty, it was an eye opener. The U.S. is taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. If this was deliberate then the Chinese just gave away their capabilities.

79 posted on 11/09/2007 7:16:00 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

Our enemies are already in the wire.....why waste their military to take us down......they have the socialist Rat’s n Rino’s doing their dirty work for em....... 10 years from now they can take what they want IMO if we don’t quit trying to save the world why we lose the USA.


80 posted on 11/09/2007 7:20:38 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What puzzles me in all this is why the submarine surfaced. Having snuck undetected into the middle of the task group one would think that the surfacing would be the last thing it would do. You do not advertise your capabilities to your opponent.

The Chinese consider themselves to be in competition with us -- at War if you will. It's not a shooting war, but a War just the same. There's value in putting it in the US Navy's head that they can't safely push a carrier battlegroup into Taiwanese waters should a real shooting war start.

Frankly, I think the sub was sitting nearly motionless in restricted waters having been alerted to the possible track of the CVBG. Then they just 'pop-up' when the get the acoustics in stereo. Let's see if they can do it in deep water or without their satellite 'eyes'.

81 posted on 11/09/2007 7:25:54 PM PST by Tallguy (Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
You can thank Mr. William Jefferson Clinton for that.
The question is, just how much technology did Clinton give China for all that payoff money he received?
82 posted on 11/09/2007 7:31:39 PM PST by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

You can thank Mr. William Jefferson Clinton for that.
The question is, just how much technology did Clinton give China for all that payoff money he recieved for the Chinagate incident? Are the payoffs by Hsu and other Chinese to Hillary further payment?


83 posted on 11/09/2007 7:32:51 PM PST by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
MATTHEW HICKLEY of The Daily Mail (UK) shows one way to stretch one’s writing.

Here is what you do.

Make every sentence a paragraph.

He pretty much says the same thing over and over in his article.

But with all those paragraph breaks, it looks like he has a long column.

I almost think he relished writing this piece.

Mathew did not seem alarmed that the lives of American sailors might be at risk, or that Taiwanese security has been lessened.

Some people on the left see nothing wrong with communism, or real tyrants. They imagine President Bush is a tyrant. It’s that old “moral equivalence” thing. If Mathew had his head screwed on straight, he'd realize this is nothing to smirk about.

84 posted on 11/09/2007 7:33:06 PM PST by ChessExpert (Reagan dismantled the Russian empire of 21 conquered nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
Old story from a few months ago. It is publicaly not clear exactly what happened,...or how close the ChiComm got, and there has been no official details

My own inside sources told me that the sub was...uh, "convinced" to surface, and that the sub itself, and not the carrier, was what was in danger.

85 posted on 11/09/2007 7:42:45 PM PST by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: nvcdl; Kevmo

No, McCain’s A-4 was the one hit by a Zuni. There were a number of factors that led to the severity of that fire, including superannuated 1000 pound bombs (some of pre-WWII vintage!) and most of the crew not having a good grounding in fire fighting when the first line fire fighters were taken out by the secondary explosions.


86 posted on 11/09/2007 8:09:58 PM PST by magslinger (cranky right-winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Chain rattling again or have they come up with something high tech? No,don’t tell me what it is. I have no need to know.


87 posted on 11/09/2007 8:19:44 PM PST by magslinger (cranky right-winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey; Jeff Head
Penetrating a CVBG is trivial for a submarine, really. With no more Perry class frigates or Spruance and Kidd class destroyers, who is the ASW platform? The Arleigh Burkes? Ha!

We don't need ASW platforms anymore, since the USSR collapsed.

/sarcasm

88 posted on 11/09/2007 8:22:22 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan
What should we have done? Sunk it?

Nope, detected it at a safe distance from the carrier, and run all over the top of it pinging the hell out of it, to send THEM a message, instead of them sending US a message.

89 posted on 11/09/2007 8:24:57 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PARodrig; Vom Willemstad K-9

ping


90 posted on 11/09/2007 8:26:50 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NMR Guy

“I’d also have to think that it might be to our advantage to let them think we can’t detect their subs.”

I like your way of thinking. It leads to a possible explanation of the statement posted below from the article, which to me seems a manufactured response to a “Duh, that’s what subs do” question:

“It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was “shadowing” the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence”


91 posted on 11/09/2007 8:27:15 PM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (The WOT will end when pork products are weaponized)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: ichabod1

“I think it shows the folly of investing a lot of money in new surface fleets. I think the surface warship may be obsolete.”

No, it doesn’t. It does, however, highlight the need for new and improved sonar gear.


93 posted on 11/09/2007 8:54:02 PM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

I wouldn't count on that. The sub driver may have not been playing by the normal rules of peacetime engagement. We could hardly drop depth charges or other ordnance on him. Well, one of the attack subs could, after all who would know, other than the crew of our sub would of course. But they don't call 'em the "Silent Service" for nothing. So if he just kept driving in, in spite of being detected, pinged and otherwise humiliated, there really wouldn't be much our guys could do to drive him off.

94 posted on 11/09/2007 8:57:13 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

An OHPr myself - god I loved huntin’ the shadows with that tail. This happened a lot with the russians before - someone mentioned that diesels are hard to detect - this is true. But I still caught quite a few japanese and korean diesels before they could do much. I think as with our “cia” skills - we have laxed off in our asw skills as well.

My real question though is where was the Battle group sub. My guess is they were sitting behind and below the diesel and watching the whole thing - of course if it had been a real situation ....


95 posted on 11/09/2007 9:05:52 PM PST by reed13k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
We don't need ASW platforms anymore,

That does seem to be the theory.

Of course if we really are detecting these subs by some yet unknown, more or less, method, but which we don't want to expose, for obvious reasons, we still have plenty of ways to sink 'em, if and when the time comes. Why show our hand now?

For example, I seem to remember reading something about using radar or other sensors on satellites to detect the disturbance, (displacement of the water by the sub) caused by a moving sub.

96 posted on 11/09/2007 9:19:38 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I remember reading something 20 years ago about using lasers to detect the vibration of glass windows to determine the conversation going on within a room. My physics background saws that it would not be impossible (though difficult) to determine via some detectable wavelength such a disturbance as you note.


97 posted on 11/09/2007 9:23:48 PM PST by reed13k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

That’s a lot to hope. I hope our navy doesn’t get stuck on the wrong side of a paradigm shift, like the British in early 1942.


98 posted on 11/09/2007 9:48:01 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
This doesn't mean that the ChiCom sub actually navigated, submerged, into the middle of the carrier group.

The sub could have been on the bottom, silent, waiting for the group to pass overhead, then surface.

Another problem for the science boys to fix...

99 posted on 11/09/2007 10:37:10 PM PST by etcetera ("Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy." Henry Kissinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“No. It was a missile from another plane that hit his.”

So he managed to get shot down sitting on the carrier deck? Not a good omen for him.


100 posted on 11/09/2007 10:41:38 PM PST by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson