Tools and another very key requirement. Knowledge of how to work metal and use said tools. How many kids get more than a semester of shop in Jr high any more? Not many. It takes not only the equipment but the knowhow to do this.
He was not a simple clerk, he was a trained, qualified and cleared Intelligence analyst. Their very job by description requires rather free access to a wide range of classified information. As part of his qualification process he had to submit to a very in depth background investigation, as the Analyst MOS requires a TOP SECRET clearance to be considered qualified to work in the field. Further the military rank structure has most the actual work being done by the junior enlisted. Manning was a PFC, PFC's and SPC's do most of the actual work, the higher ranks are managerial levels. When it comes to doing the analysis the PFC's and SPC's in the various HQ intel offices as Manning worked in do perform most of the actual work and more senior ranking individuals out in the remote bases can often be found reporting to such Jr. enlisted personnel and meeting requirements for information established by the Jr personnel.
contrary to your claim about your friend the intel fields actually do require a higher level of intelligence to get into. A high ASVAB test score is required to be an Analyst, and the course is not easy for the academically challenged. Now your friend may have just been lazy in HS and actually had the intelligence to get into the field while having grades bad enough to prevent him from getting into college, but that's more on his laziness in HS resulting in bad grades rather than actual abilities.
Wrong, I see no more extensive coverage (well except for all the coverage of the B-2 training mission) than has been presented every time NK starts rattling it's sabers. This happens every few years, it gets plenty of coverage and then fades away until NK is feeling neglected again and starts the process all over again.
19 years ago when I was at Basic Training they started rattling their sabers and the Drill Sergeants used the threat of conflict to impress upon us that although we had signed up for various specific jobs, if needed they would simply change the scope of BCT to Infantry BCT and send us off as infantry. Whether that was true or not is beside the point, the point is that this is nothing new, do a little research and you'll see this saber rattling and the corresponding news coverage is nothing new. It has just briefly peaked above the latest antics of the Kardashians in the amount of coverage it is getting.
You are correct that it would be different, but a fight with NK would be more along the traditional lines and one that we have trained for for decades. The Jungles/forests might be an issue for some of our troops, but not for many of them. We've been training for this potential conflict since the cease fire was signed, we've role-played and gamed and exercised for this continually.
We have a division of Army dedicated to Korea. We have Fighter and bomber wings dedicated to Korea, we have massive stockpiles of equipment and ammo in place all along the peninsula, we train there year round (something we had not really done to a great deal in regards to the deserts of Iraq.)
As to winters, we've been in Afghanistan for how long? The winters there are pretty rough as well. I'll grant that it most likely wouldn't be as quick or easy like marching on Bagdad (but then again no three day dust storms to basically halt our advances either).
The worst/scariest part of hostilities resuming would be that the second the first rounds are fired in earnest by either side or the first troops cross the DMZ, Seoul is going to be leveled by the massive, emplaced and already aimed, artillery barrage that NK has had set up for decades.
So the Hollywood Elite can use their fame to push left leaning ideas and that's fine with you, but if someone famous tries to push conservative positions? Double standard much?
Funny thing is Card is a registered Democrat, often thought somewhat out of step with the very conservative majority of his faith.
Just because the defense made a motion filing, does not mean they were not part and parcel of the overall delay process. In fact just such a motion being filed, requires time. Once the motion is filed, the Prosecutor has to have some small degree of time to prepare a response, and the justice has to schedule a hearing to hear the motion and the defense against it. And all this takes time away from the preparations for the actual trial.
The very motion discussed in that article increased the delay before trial. What would have been really funny is if the prosecution had said, sorry for the delay your honor let's go, we're ready. What would the defense attorney have said then? Because as has already been noted time is the tool of the defense. Just as the severity and number of the charges warrant careful preparation of the actual prosecution even more so does it require the careful preparation by the defense.
This is a capital case, even though the prosecution said early on it was not seeking the death penalty, such a penalty is still on the table as the Convening Authority (the judge) is the one who decides the sentence, he or she is in no way bound by the decisions of the prosecution, and as at least one of the charges is a capital charge, if convicted the Judge could assign a death sentence. So everybody is making sure their ducks are in a row before this actually goes to trial. (No I don't think the Convening Authority will go that route, but it's open.)
Oh for mod points, well stated. He made his bed, now he gets to sleep in it. He had many legitimate avenues and even not so legitimate avenues to resist, protest or fight this supposed unlawful order (that nobody can actually ever cite) that would have come far short of out right treason. But no, he thought he knew better than the many many superiors who have far greater love for this country and the constitution than he does and so chose to aid the enemy in time of war.
True, and little unknown tidbit, under the UCMJ he could still actually face the death penalty. It's unlikely but the fact that the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty does not preclude the convening authority (the General officer playing Judge) from imposing what ever sentence he feels most fitting the crime, (within sentencing guidelines for the charged crimes). As at least one of the outstanding charges are capitol crimes, although not likely the Judge could impose the death penalty if convicted.
What the 70 year old prince consort of the Nation of Aldebran refugees?
He's a politician now but his rough edges still crop up from time to time, especially as senility creeps in. He keeps the Millenium Falcon in a local hangar, with a full time crew required to keep it operational. Every few years he flies to Tattoine and finds one of Greedo's releatives to shoot (first of course). He even occasionally tries on a old battered Fedora and pulls out a whip while forgetting which universe he's actually in.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" shoot up a mall?
No that is a crime, thus the law abiding gun owner will do no such thing, but we might try to stop a criminal committing such a crime as happened in Clackmas. (whether or not he had any effect on the situation is up for debate, but a law abiding gun owner was there and did try to intervene. But realizing he didn't have a safe shot he held his fire (not wanting to cause additional injuries to innocents) and moved himself and his girlfriend to a more secure location. Of course the holophobes claim that liberal carry laws will result in mass numbers of armed citizens pulling their guns and charging in guns blazing without regards for the concequences but that did not and does not happen. Well the police do it quite regularly but armed Law abiding citizens? It hasn't happened yet.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" share her weapon with her son so that he kills 20 first-graders and 6 teachers?
And you know that she "shared her weapons" knowing what his plans were? Now I know no better than you but it's far more likely that the reason she was killed was to enable him to get access to her weapons.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" kill his wife at her office? Nope, again that's a crime. The Law abiding gun owner won't do that.
Now do formerly law abiding gun owners on rare occasion do such actions. Yes, too often. But invariably indicators go back to additional stressors leading to mental instability. And then they dis-regard the laws. But such individuals are actually quite rare. Most gun homicides are performed with illegally owned or obtained firearms by those who have no care for the law. The majority of homicides every year are inner city gang violence. We do need to find ways to reduce homicide by any and all weapon types but taking my guns isn't going to do it. Taking my guns changes this http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion into another potential mass tragedy.
You outlined a limit on the government's ability to remove a possession from you without due process. That says nothing about having a right to possess the item in the first place.
Not that big a difference, with my truck I actually get about 18 mpg on the freeway and 15-16 in city driving. If I was driving a greater distance it the freeway bonus would be greater, also the shorter route and the faster route are both on the same stretch of freeway for about a third of the route which reduces the freeway savings even more. Basically to go freeway I have to go past the location and then backtrack a little bit. Whereas the shorter route I get off the freeway earlier and cut the corner to the location.
It's a mapping application, why would it not request you turn on the location services every time you use it. It's greatest functionality is only available when location services are on. Waze does the same thing in both IOS and Android, if you enter the app it requests access to Location services, because that information is key to it's primary use.
Yes you could be pulling it up just to look for a location, but most users these days are pulling these apps up for navigation purposes.
Why different routes? Simple either by a setting or by learning your travel habits it learns that you prefer the shortest route possible, while I prefer the fastest route possible. For example I can be to work in 30 minutes if I drive a route that is 28 miles long with approx 25 of those miles on the interstate, that's the fastest route. Or I can choose the shortest route, it will usually take me about 35 minutes to get to work, but is only 23 miles long. five miles may not seem like much and not worth the five minutes but that's a quarter of a gallon of gas each way (okay a little less due to the efficiency of freeway driving versus having to stop frequently for lights and stop signs.) but that roughly half gallon of $3.50 a gallon gas each day adds up to a decent savings over time.
That is one reason for differing routes. I use Waze for navigation and it has a setting to choose between fastest and shortest route. Google may have a similar setting or it may try and learn your habits (like many other Google products do) to determine the routing you would prefer.
Naw, they don't need to lie like that. The officer can claim that "Just as I jumped out of the car the seatbelt managed to catch the edge of my glasses and pulled them off, I could have spent the next thirty seconds trying to find and put them back on or I could go assist my fellow officers, who also all managed to knock their glasses off one way or another, in trying to restrain the accused in his attempts to bash his head against the ground repeatedly. Sadly even with the six of us trying to restrain him we were unable to prevent such an action, resulting in his self inflicted coma."
Eye glasses are very easy to knock off during vigorous activities. Especially by those who aren't really used to wearing them all the time. Or the officer just "absent mindedly" pushes the glasses up onto his forehead giving a nice view of the sky during the encounter.
He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.
And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.
A bit slow at first, until the workers streamlined their check-in process then the line zipped along. Electronic voting machines but they create a paper record that you review before casting the finalized ballot. Went at 10:30 was done by 11:30. I did have to choose which form of photo ID I wanted to use, Military ID, Passport (card), Concealed weapons permit, drivers license. All of which are in my wallet. Oh and the polling place was just a block away so I walked.
So far rulings have gone both ways but more recently they've tended to side with the argument that forcing you to give up the password to decrypt is tantamount to forcing to self incriminate and thus is not legal under the 5th amendment.
Funny, according to this http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf the initial mortality report for 2011 does not support your claims of death increases. In fact it states that Infant mortality dropped in 2011 vs 2010. In fact the total infant death count for 2011 was 23,910 versus 24,586 for 2010. Where is this additional 14k more than average found again, it wasn't among infants.
You vastly underestimate the challenge of moving reasonable amounts of very heavy and bulky military equipment around by air. Yes it can be done and often is in a limited amount, but rail, road and sea are far more viable options, and both road and rail are used extensively inside the country. Most large scale movements of equipment are done by rail. Every large base I've been on in my career has a rail yard for loading and unloading equipment. Smaller movements of a few vehicles may go by road, but more than a few and unless there is no rail head at the origin or destination and the shipment goes by rail.
To move a couple hundred of them by air is not reasonable. Even via road that large a movement becomes prohibitive, needing a massive convoy (or convoys to break it up for less impact on civilian traffic) tens of miles long, whereas a single train can move hundreds of military vehicles. So one one train can move a Division's vehicles. Another train loaded with all the other equipment loaded into connexes can more the rest of a division's equipment, versus another massive convoy of trucks hauling the connexes.
What do I mean by bulky, take tanks, one 70k ton tank per aircraft is not an efficient means of movement.
Oh and as to your claim about access to military bases, Most large Army bases have, or at least had until 9/11 a large (interstate capacity) highway going through or at least to the base. After 9/11 the era of open bases came to an end and those roads while still there now have security checkpoints at the point of entry to the base or at each interchange if the road goes through the base. The airstrips on the bases are for movement of troops, and aircraft not equipment. Airfreight capacity is just too limited to rely on air for moving equipment. Airstrips on every base allow for quick loading of personnel, loading of personnel who willingly leap out of working aircraft, and for moving and dispersing combat aircraft should that capability be needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Tools and another very key requirement. Knowledge of how to work metal and use said tools. How many kids get more than a semester of shop in Jr high any more? Not many. It takes not only the equipment but the knowhow to do this.
He was not a simple clerk, he was a trained, qualified and cleared Intelligence analyst. Their very job by description requires rather free access to a wide range of classified information. As part of his qualification process he had to submit to a very in depth background investigation, as the Analyst MOS requires a TOP SECRET clearance to be considered qualified to work in the field. Further the military rank structure has most the actual work being done by the junior enlisted. Manning was a PFC, PFC's and SPC's do most of the actual work, the higher ranks are managerial levels. When it comes to doing the analysis the PFC's and SPC's in the various HQ intel offices as Manning worked in do perform most of the actual work and more senior ranking individuals out in the remote bases can often be found reporting to such Jr. enlisted personnel and meeting requirements for information established by the Jr personnel.
contrary to your claim about your friend the intel fields actually do require a higher level of intelligence to get into. A high ASVAB test score is required to be an Analyst, and the course is not easy for the academically challenged. Now your friend may have just been lazy in HS and actually had the intelligence to get into the field while having grades bad enough to prevent him from getting into college, but that's more on his laziness in HS resulting in bad grades rather than actual abilities.
Wrong, I see no more extensive coverage (well except for all the coverage of the B-2 training mission) than has been presented every time NK starts rattling it's sabers. This happens every few years, it gets plenty of coverage and then fades away until NK is feeling neglected again and starts the process all over again.
19 years ago when I was at Basic Training they started rattling their sabers and the Drill Sergeants used the threat of conflict to impress upon us that although we had signed up for various specific jobs, if needed they would simply change the scope of BCT to Infantry BCT and send us off as infantry. Whether that was true or not is beside the point, the point is that this is nothing new, do a little research and you'll see this saber rattling and the corresponding news coverage is nothing new. It has just briefly peaked above the latest antics of the Kardashians in the amount of coverage it is getting.
You are correct that it would be different, but a fight with NK would be more along the traditional lines and one that we have trained for for decades. The Jungles/forests might be an issue for some of our troops, but not for many of them. We've been training for this potential conflict since the cease fire was signed, we've role-played and gamed and exercised for this continually.
We have a division of Army dedicated to Korea. We have Fighter and bomber wings dedicated to Korea, we have massive stockpiles of equipment and ammo in place all along the peninsula, we train there year round (something we had not really done to a great deal in regards to the deserts of Iraq.)
As to winters, we've been in Afghanistan for how long? The winters there are pretty rough as well. I'll grant that it most likely wouldn't be as quick or easy like marching on Bagdad (but then again no three day dust storms to basically halt our advances either).
The worst/scariest part of hostilities resuming would be that the second the first rounds are fired in earnest by either side or the first troops cross the DMZ, Seoul is going to be leveled by the massive, emplaced and already aimed, artillery barrage that NK has had set up for decades.
IIRC, North Korea has declared war on the South multiple times since the cease fire agreement. In short, it's nothing new.
FTFY there was never an armistice in Korea, just a cease fire.
So the Hollywood Elite can use their fame to push left leaning ideas and that's fine with you, but if someone famous tries to push conservative positions? Double standard much?
Funny thing is Card is a registered Democrat, often thought somewhat out of step with the very conservative majority of his faith.
Just because the defense made a motion filing, does not mean they were not part and parcel of the overall delay process. In fact just such a motion being filed, requires time. Once the motion is filed, the Prosecutor has to have some small degree of time to prepare a response, and the justice has to schedule a hearing to hear the motion and the defense against it. And all this takes time away from the preparations for the actual trial.
The very motion discussed in that article increased the delay before trial. What would have been really funny is if the prosecution had said, sorry for the delay your honor let's go, we're ready. What would the defense attorney have said then? Because as has already been noted time is the tool of the defense. Just as the severity and number of the charges warrant careful preparation of the actual prosecution even more so does it require the careful preparation by the defense.
This is a capital case, even though the prosecution said early on it was not seeking the death penalty, such a penalty is still on the table as the Convening Authority (the judge) is the one who decides the sentence, he or she is in no way bound by the decisions of the prosecution, and as at least one of the charges is a capital charge, if convicted the Judge could assign a death sentence. So everybody is making sure their ducks are in a row before this actually goes to trial. (No I don't think the Convening Authority will go that route, but it's open.)
Oh for mod points, well stated. He made his bed, now he gets to sleep in it. He had many legitimate avenues and even not so legitimate avenues to resist, protest or fight this supposed unlawful order (that nobody can actually ever cite) that would have come far short of out right treason. But no, he thought he knew better than the many many superiors who have far greater love for this country and the constitution than he does and so chose to aid the enemy in time of war.
True, and little unknown tidbit, under the UCMJ he could still actually face the death penalty. It's unlikely but the fact that the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty does not preclude the convening authority (the General officer playing Judge) from imposing what ever sentence he feels most fitting the crime, (within sentencing guidelines for the charged crimes). As at least one of the outstanding charges are capitol crimes, although not likely the Judge could impose the death penalty if convicted.
Actually they are commissioned by the President not congress. They serve at his discretion and act by his permission. That is why he is the Commander in Chief not congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_(document)#United_States
Yep just as Disney has already totally Disneyfied and trashed the Marvel universe. Oh wait, they haven't.
What the 70 year old prince consort of the Nation of Aldebran refugees? He's a politician now but his rough edges still crop up from time to time, especially as senility creeps in. He keeps the Millenium Falcon in a local hangar, with a full time crew required to keep it operational. Every few years he flies to Tattoine and finds one of Greedo's releatives to shoot (first of course). He even occasionally tries on a old battered Fedora and pulls out a whip while forgetting which universe he's actually in.
But that didn't help him when he was shooting at Vader in Cloud City!
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" shoot up a mall?
No that is a crime, thus the law abiding gun owner will do no such thing, but we might try to stop a criminal committing such a crime as happened in Clackmas. (whether or not he had any effect on the situation is up for debate, but a law abiding gun owner was there and did try to intervene. But realizing he didn't have a safe shot he held his fire (not wanting to cause additional injuries to innocents) and moved himself and his girlfriend to a more secure location. Of course the holophobes claim that liberal carry laws will result in mass numbers of armed citizens pulling their guns and charging in guns blazing without regards for the concequences but that did not and does not happen. Well the police do it quite regularly but armed Law abiding citizens? It hasn't happened yet.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" share her weapon with her son so that he kills 20 first-graders and 6 teachers?
And you know that she "shared her weapons" knowing what his plans were? Now I know no better than you but it's far more likely that the reason she was killed was to enable him to get access to her weapons.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" kill his wife at her office?
Nope, again that's a crime. The Law abiding gun owner won't do that.
Now do formerly law abiding gun owners on rare occasion do such actions. Yes, too often. But invariably indicators go back to additional stressors leading to mental instability. And then they dis-regard the laws. But such individuals are actually quite rare. Most gun homicides are performed with illegally owned or obtained firearms by those who have no care for the law. The majority of homicides every year are inner city gang violence. We do need to find ways to reduce homicide by any and all weapon types but taking my guns isn't going to do it. Taking my guns changes this http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion into another potential mass tragedy.
My ears are living things (well parts of a living thing) and Rock music seems designed to destroy them. j/k I like rock, Now get off my lawn.
You outlined a limit on the government's ability to remove a possession from you without due process. That says nothing about having a right to possess the item in the first place.
Not that big a difference, with my truck I actually get about 18 mpg on the freeway and 15-16 in city driving. If I was driving a greater distance it the freeway bonus would be greater, also the shorter route and the faster route are both on the same stretch of freeway for about a third of the route which reduces the freeway savings even more. Basically to go freeway I have to go past the location and then backtrack a little bit. Whereas the shorter route I get off the freeway earlier and cut the corner to the location.
It's a mapping application, why would it not request you turn on the location services every time you use it. It's greatest functionality is only available when location services are on. Waze does the same thing in both IOS and Android, if you enter the app it requests access to Location services, because that information is key to it's primary use.
Yes you could be pulling it up just to look for a location, but most users these days are pulling these apps up for navigation purposes.
Why different routes? Simple either by a setting or by learning your travel habits it learns that you prefer the shortest route possible, while I prefer the fastest route possible. For example I can be to work in 30 minutes if I drive a route that is 28 miles long with approx 25 of those miles on the interstate, that's the fastest route. Or I can choose the shortest route, it will usually take me about 35 minutes to get to work, but is only 23 miles long. five miles may not seem like much and not worth the five minutes but that's a quarter of a gallon of gas each way (okay a little less due to the efficiency of freeway driving versus having to stop frequently for lights and stop signs.) but that roughly half gallon of $3.50 a gallon gas each day adds up to a decent savings over time. That is one reason for differing routes. I use Waze for navigation and it has a setting to choose between fastest and shortest route. Google may have a similar setting or it may try and learn your habits (like many other Google products do) to determine the routing you would prefer.
Naw, they don't need to lie like that. The officer can claim that "Just as I jumped out of the car the seatbelt managed to catch the edge of my glasses and pulled them off, I could have spent the next thirty seconds trying to find and put them back on or I could go assist my fellow officers, who also all managed to knock their glasses off one way or another, in trying to restrain the accused in his attempts to bash his head against the ground repeatedly. Sadly even with the six of us trying to restrain him we were unable to prevent such an action, resulting in his self inflicted coma."
Eye glasses are very easy to knock off during vigorous activities. Especially by those who aren't really used to wearing them all the time. Or the officer just "absent mindedly" pushes the glasses up onto his forehead giving a nice view of the sky during the encounter.
He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.
And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.
A bit slow at first, until the workers streamlined their check-in process then the line zipped along. Electronic voting machines but they create a paper record that you review before casting the finalized ballot. Went at 10:30 was done by 11:30. I did have to choose which form of photo ID I wanted to use, Military ID, Passport (card), Concealed weapons permit, drivers license. All of which are in my wallet. Oh and the polling place was just a block away so I walked.
So far rulings have gone both ways but more recently they've tended to side with the argument that forcing you to give up the password to decrypt is tantamount to forcing to self incriminate and thus is not legal under the 5th amendment.
Funny, according to this http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf the initial mortality report for 2011 does not support your claims of death increases. In fact it states that Infant mortality dropped in 2011 vs 2010. In fact the total infant death count for 2011 was 23,910 versus 24,586 for 2010. Where is this additional 14k more than average found again, it wasn't among infants.
You vastly underestimate the challenge of moving reasonable amounts of very heavy and bulky military equipment around by air. Yes it can be done and often is in a limited amount, but rail, road and sea are far more viable options, and both road and rail are used extensively inside the country. Most large scale movements of equipment are done by rail. Every large base I've been on in my career has a rail yard for loading and unloading equipment. Smaller movements of a few vehicles may go by road, but more than a few and unless there is no rail head at the origin or destination and the shipment goes by rail. To move a couple hundred of them by air is not reasonable. Even via road that large a movement becomes prohibitive, needing a massive convoy (or convoys to break it up for less impact on civilian traffic) tens of miles long, whereas a single train can move hundreds of military vehicles. So one one train can move a Division's vehicles. Another train loaded with all the other equipment loaded into connexes can more the rest of a division's equipment, versus another massive convoy of trucks hauling the connexes.
What do I mean by bulky, take tanks, one 70k ton tank per aircraft is not an efficient means of movement.
Oh and as to your claim about access to military bases, Most large Army bases have, or at least had until 9/11 a large (interstate capacity) highway going through or at least to the base. After 9/11 the era of open bases came to an end and those roads while still there now have security checkpoints at the point of entry to the base or at each interchange if the road goes through the base. The airstrips on the bases are for movement of troops, and aircraft not equipment. Airfreight capacity is just too limited to rely on air for moving equipment. Airstrips on every base allow for quick loading of personnel, loading of personnel who willingly leap out of working aircraft, and for moving and dispersing combat aircraft should that capability be needed.