Pro-GFAFB Petition

[star2city]

I've been meaning to hunt down the numbers all week, but the STrib article gave these:

$379m/year in jobs, construction, and purchasing

7,900 personnel, family members, and civilian employees

To benchmark those numbers, UND's budget is a bit over $300m (leading to a total estimated economic impact of about $931m).  No one wonders about the economic impact of UND because its right there in the middle of town and its reach is obvious, whereas the base is a bit more out of sight; however, there's no doubt those dollars find their way into the surrounding economies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Transcript from Senator Conrad's website: http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/...2005413C11.html

Reporter: Talk about the economy. How would ND be affected if these three bases were to close?

Conrad: That would be a stunning blow if all three were closed. I think there's no chance of that. The major risk is that we would lose a major base. Most of the economic analysis says the unemployment in a community where a base would close would be over 20%.   That would be a very very serious matter. Look, that's why this is a high priority for every leader in ND. That's why we have such a united effort.

The ~1100 civilian jobs have much more of an impact on the economy than the military positions (who are mostly housed on base and purchase consumer goods there), but the multiplier effect probably makes the total civilian job loss around 3000 positions. Somewhere, I read that the majority of construction contract work is done by Fargo-based firms, so the impact would hit the entire Red River Valley, well beyond Grand Forks County.

Two more major job additions - on the order of the Cirrus' recent 350 job expansion - would be needed to offset the GFAFB civilian job loss.

[The Sicatoka]

Marshall said the loss of the Grand Forks base would sting communities throughout the Red River Valley, including Fargo, which provides about 80 percent of subcontractors for base projects.

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm...78&section=News

An archive of BRAC stories:

http://www.in-forum.com/collections/index....ollection=brac1

[ScottM]

It looks like price tag for "savings" has been set, but fewer installations may be on the block.

$48.8B

There are/were also some interesting links to other articles on the issue, especially by the Christian Science Monitor

[Cratter]

The question must be asked save the base this round, but then how many future rounds will there be?

[CoteauRinkRat]

The question must be asked save the base this round, but then how many future rounds will there be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to say that there couldn't be many more rounds, but I'm sure they have some sort of master plan to really concentrate our military bases down into a smaller conglomerate.

[Goon]

The question must be asked save the base this round, but then how many future rounds will there be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats the question how much does our leaders want to cut our defense, I really don't see how we can cut it much more without putting our nations defenses in jepordy. I read in an article a while back that said the towns in Germany that we used to have troops in now, have hardly if any troops in them leaving a huge gaping how in their economy and their economic health. Some of these towns haven't recovered from our leaving. Seems the German people hated having our soldiers and airmen but liked having our money. Time will only tell what happens to GFAB, I know I like having them there. Military Bases and the defense industry is a hugh money makers. That being said I am sick and tired of us government cutting the Military and bases. The problem being is that get into a war, another country spouts off ala, Iran and Korea and we don't have enough troops to fight more than one battle. It appears that Rummy and his philosophy of a leaner smaller army has some serious flaws in it.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Thats the question how much does our leaders want to cut our defense, I really don't see how we can cut it much more without putting our nations defenses in jepordy. I read in an article a while back that said the towns in Germany that we used to have troops in now, have hardly if any troops in them leaving a huge gaping how in their economy and their economic health. Some of these towns haven't recovered from our leaving. Seems the German people hated having our soldiers and airmen but liked having our money. Time will only tell what happens to GFAB, I know I like having them there. Military Bases and the defense industry is a hugh money makers. That being said I am sick and tired of us government cutting the Military and bases. The problem being is that get into a war, another country spouts off ala, Iran and Korea and we don't have enough troops to fight more than one battle. It appears that Rummy and his philosophy of a leaner smaller army has some serious flaws in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you, but the blame needs to be passed around on this one. For fifteen years now, the defense department has been eliminating bases. We had no problem cutting defense spending, year after year, but when we need our military to defend us or to fight to protect other people in the world, the first people we look to is the military.

My argument has nothing to do with Minot, Grand Forks, Fargo, I would like to see all those bases stay, but putting that aside, I do not like to see us constantly cutting back.

[Goon]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you, but the blame needs to be passed around on this one.  For fifteen years now, the defense department has been eliminating bases.  We had no problem cutting defense spending, year after year, but when we need our military to defend us or to fight to protect other people in the world, the first people we look to is the military. 

My argument has nothing to do with Minot, Grand Forks, Fargo, I would like to see all those bases stay, but putting that aside, I do not like to see us constantly cutting back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what I agree you. Rummy isn't the only one that needs to take blame there are a whole bunch of our leaders that need to stand up and say we have cut our miltary enough. Although a big GOPer I was all for Rummy being thrown out on his ear after W's first term. Its started even before him too. I have other issues that tie into this. We can't defend our country with a downsized military. Its a larger picture. I guess the Govenator has been in Washington lobbying so he can keep all 25 of California's military bases. I thinks its only fair that we keep our our two main bases. The bases of our state mean a lot that we will only realize after we have cut them if they are on the block.

I don't however, buy the argument that Fargo has to keep the Holigans and that they can't be moved to GFAB. That is arrogant and pompus. The GFAB is perfect for them to practice their Combat air tactics. Also, whatever happend to the unmaned airplane plans that someone had brought up ealier last year?

[jimdahl]

I guess the Govenator has been in Washington lobbying so he can keep all 25 of California's military bases. I thinks its only fair that we keep our our two main bases. The bases of our state mean a lot that we will only realize after we have cut them if they are on the block.

California has location to its advantage. The perceived threat is now warm/Pacific instead of cold/over the pole. My guess is that we're going to see mostly NE/Midwest locations closed and moved to the Southwest. G.F.'s traditional advantage of low cost and open spaces isn't as great compared to some Southwestern locations.

If there's any remaining value to keeping cold readiness / Northern border protection, G.F. and Minot are among the last along this stretch of the border. Another often mentioned standard is usefulness in recent wars (if they're not in use now, why have them?), which would seem to favor G.F. with a strategically important refueling mission; howver, I've also heard of a strong desire to move refueling to the Southwest to be "closer to the action".

It seems like GFAFB should be on the list, but I guess we'll see with round 1 tomorrow.

[Cratter]

I've gotta believe GFAFB will be on the list tomorrow, especially since they were on the list last time.

[Siouxman]

California has location to its advantage. The perceived threat is now warm/Pacific instead of cold/over the pole. My guess is that we're going to see mostly NE/Midwest locations closed and moved to the Southwest. G.F.'s traditional advantage of low cost and open spaces isn't as great compared to some Southwestern locations.

If there's any remaining value to keeping cold readiness / Northern border protection, G.F. and Minot are among the last along this stretch of the border. Another often mentioned standard is usefulness in recent wars (if they're not in use now, why have them?), which would seem to favor G.F. with a strategically important refueling mission; howver, I've also heard of a strong desire to move refueling to the Southwest to be "closer to the action".

It seems like GFAFB should be on the list, but I guess we'll see with round 1 tomorrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Siouxman]

Sorry about that. A premature twitch sent the quote out before I had responded.

Minot and Grand Forks AFB are not defensive bases. They are offensive bases. At one point in time Minot had the 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (my outfit). It was deactivated many years ago. That left the two bases with missles and bombers. Both of these weapon systems are offensive or retaliatory in nature. They don't defend. They are considered a deterrent to an attack, not a defense when an attack is on the way.

Many of the older missle systems have been deactivated. The strength of Minot and Grand Forks was the over the pole route to the USSR. Now that the USSR is broken up and not seen as such a threat, it may be that the role of these bases is seen differently. There is also the issue of the tanker wings. To some extent it is logical to have tankers with the bombers, but in reality the tankers could rendezvous with the bombers somewhere in mid-mission and not have to tag along. From what I have seen, the role of the tankers in refueling has moved far from the two bases. That places an additional risk of having those wings move.

Those are the weak points of the two bases. On the flip side, there used to be a whole string of bomber bases along the northern frontier, KI Sawyer in MI, Ellsworth at Rapid City, Malmstrom in Montana, and I believe one in WY. Again, the polar route and the missles were the reason for all of these. Maybe the two ND bases will be left in place as the last remnant of this deterrent force.

[JESUS,family,rutgers]

I hope you guys are able to keep the bases in North Dakota at current or near current employment levels. Here in the southern part of New Jersey, we are losing two bases which are Fort Monmouth and Lakehurst Naval Air Station. We will lose about 8,000 jobs, not including all the area businesses that depend on their employees. Since there about eight million people in New Jersey and another four million in the Philadelphia area, this will hurt but not be devastating to the area. It certainly will hurt thousands of families,though. I can't imagine how bad this will be for more rural states. I hope everything will work out for the best for everyone affected.