text:
Gordon Bennett (general)

Lieutenant General Henry Gordon Bennett, (15 April 1887 – 1 August 1962) was a senior Australian Army officer who served in both World War I and World War II. Despite highly decorated achievements during World War I, during which he commanded at both battalion and brigade level and became the youngest general in the Australian Army, Bennett is best remembered for his role during the fall of Singapore in February 1942. As commander of the 8th Australian Division, he escaped while his men became prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Army. After this, Bennett's military career waned and, although he rose to command a corps, he never again commanded troops in battle. In 1945, his escape caused controversy and resulted in a Royal Commission and military enquiry. Both found that he had been unjustified in relinquishing his command.

A citizen soldier, before World War I Bennett had worked in the insurance industry and at the conclusion of hostilities pursued his commercial interests while continuing to serve in the military in a part-time capacity, commanding at brigade and divisional level. He retired from the Army after World War II and turned to farming in the Hills District northwest of Sydney. He remained active in the world of business and as a military commentator, before dying in 1962 at the age of 75

Early life
Bennett (who was always known as Gordon) was born in Balwyn, Melbourne, on 15 April 1887, to George Bennett, a South African-born school teacher, and his Australian-born wife, Harriet. He was the sixth of nine children and attended Balwyn State School, where his father taught, and then Hawthorn College as a teenager having been given a three-year scholarship. While at Hawthorn, he did well at mathematics and in 1903, as a 16-year-old, after completing a competitive examination he was accepted into the AMP Society to train as an actuary. In May 1908, just after he turned 21, Bennett volunteered to serve in the Militia, Australia's reserve military force, joining the 5th Australian Infantry Regiment as a "recruit officer". After completing a six-month part-time course, he was appointed as a provisional second lieutenant, and posted to the regiment's 'B' Company, in Carlton, Victoria. He continued to work at AMP during this time, but devoted most of his spare time to his military duties and rose in rank quickly, reaching major in 1912, at the age of 25, when he became adjutant of his regiment.

At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Bennett volunteered to serve with the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and, after securing his release from AMP on full pay, was appointed second-in-command of the 6th Battalion, which was part of the 2nd (Victorian) Infantry Brigade, assigned to the 1st Division. After a short period of training, the 1st Division began to embark for Europe. Just prior to his departure overseas, Bennett became engaged to Bess Agnes Buchanan, whom he had met at a dance in Canterbury. As an engagement gift, Bess bought her betrothed a miniature photo of herself, set in a gold frame. Bennett carried the picture in his jacket pocket while serving overseas and it later saved his life on the Western Front, deflecting a German bullet.

Gallipoli
While in transit, as a result of overcrowding in training camps in the United Kingdom, the 1st Division was diverted to Egypt with the intention that it would complete its training there before moving to the Western Front at a later date. The decision by the Allies to force a passage through the Dardanelles interrupted this process, as the 1st Division was allocated to take part in the Gallipoli Campaign. During the landing at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915, Bennett fought on the southern flank of the Anzac beachhead. He led 300 men of his battalion to an advanced position on Pine Ridge, south of Lone Pine. While directing the defence of this position, Bennett was wounded in the shoulder and wrist and forced to retire to the beach for treatment. When the Turkish forces counter-attacked in the evening, the 6th Battalion force on Pine Ridge was isolated and killed to the last man, including Bennett's younger brother, Godfrey. Instead of accepting evacuation on a hospital ship, after having his wounds treated, Bennett returned to his battalion.

In early May, the 2nd Brigade was selected to move to Cape Helles to reinforce the British forces for the Second Battle of Krithia. After being transferred by boat, on 8 May, Bennett advanced with his battalion in impossible conditions. Bennett was the only officer of the 6th, and one of few in the 2nd Brigade, to survive the advance unscathed, although he was lucky do so; as he led the charge, a Turkish bullet hit the ammunition pouch he wore, exploding the ammunition in it. He was knocked off his feet, but otherwise unharmed. With a handful of men, he achieved the furthest advance of the attack. He became commander of the 6th Battalion the next day. The battalion was then returned to Anzac by a trawler, and shortly afterwards, Bennett's command of the battalion was confirmed and he was promoted to lieutenant colonel.

Throughout June and July, Bennett's battalion occupied the front line during a period of reduced tempo fighting as a stalemate developed. On 7 August, when the Allies launched their August Offensive to break the stalemate, the 6th Battalion was involved in one of the supporting attacks at the start of the Battle of Sari Bair. While the best known attack was made by the 3rd Light Horse Brigade at the Nek, the 6th was required to make a similar attack against a neighbouring Turkish position known as German Officers' Trench from which machine guns enfiladed the Australian positions as far north as the Nek. Two attempts to capture the trench failed. A third attempt was organised and Bennett resolved to lead it himself but the commander of the 1st Division, Major General Harold Walker, after consulting with the corps commander, Lieutenant General William Birdwood, agreed to abandon the attack. The 6th Battalion's losses totalled 80 killed and 66 wounded.

Following the attack on the German Officers' Trench, Bennett's battalion was withdrawn from the front line briefly, before relieving the 1st Brigade, which had successfully captured Lone Pine. The August Offensive failed and a further lull in the fighting occurred. The following month, as reinforcements in the shape of the 2nd Division arrived at Anzac, the original Australian units were relieved on a rotational basis, including the 6th Battalion, which was sent back to Lemnos. While there, Bennett was hospitalised with paratyphoid and during his stay in hospital, he received word that he had been appointed a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG). When the 6th Battalion was returned to Gallipoli, Bennett sought to return with them, but was ordered to sail to England aboard the transport Aquitania for further treatment. As well as his CMG, Bennett was also mentioned in despatches twice for his service at Gallipoli.

Western Front
Bennett spent Christmas in Southampton, before returning to Egypt early in January 1916. There, he rejoined his battalion, which was stationed around Gebel Habeita, defending the Suez Canal. He arrived just as the AIF began a period of reorganisation and expansion, which saw the experienced units of the 1st Division being split to provide cadres to the newly formed 5th Division; as a part of this, the 6th Battalion was split to help form the 58th Battalion in late February.

In March 1916, the 1st Division moved to France as part of the transfer of the AIF's infantry formations to the Western Front. Bennett subsequently led the 6th Battalion through the Battle of Pozières. After the 1st and 3rd Brigades had captured the town on 24 July 1916, the 6th and 8th Battalions of the 2nd Brigade moved in to occupy the ruins where they had to endure a prolonged artillery bombardment. Bennett's battalion headquarters was in a log hut. The hut received six direct hits from shells but survived due to the debris that had accumulated around it. Shortly after Bennett relocated his HQ the hut was finally demolished. On 26 July Bennett protested at the conditions his men had to endure, reporting: "My men are being unmercifully shelled. They cannot hold out if an attack is launched. The firing line and my headquarters are being plastered with heavy guns and the town is being swept by shrapnel. I myself am O.K. but the front line is being buried." In the capture of Pozières, Bennett's 6th Battalion suffered 190 casualties, the least by a considerable margin of the 12 battalions in the 1st Division.

After this, Bennett continued to serve as the commanding officer of the 6th Battalion, as well as acting as the 3rd Brigade commander. In mid-November, Bennett took a brief leave in London, where he was reunited with his fiancée, Bess, who had sailed from Melbourne with her father to meet him. On 16 November, they were married in Chelsea, and after a short honeymoon in Scotland, Bennett returned to the front. On 3 December 1916, he was given command of the 3rd Infantry Brigade and promoted to brigadier general, becoming at 29 the youngest general in the Australian Army. He commanded the brigade for the remainder of the war on the Western Front, leading the brigade through several notable actions, including at Bullecourt, Menin Road, and Passchendaele during 1917, and several actions against the Hindenburg Line in 1918. While Bennett was serving at the front, his wife remained in England; he returned to her briefly in November 1917 and again in July 1918. Just after the war ended, Bess returned to Australia with the couple's 10-month-old daughter, while Bennett remained in Europe until June 1919, briefly touring the Rhine and then viewing the London victory parade, where he escorted Lady Birdwood while her husband, Lord Birdwood, the former commander of the Australian Corps, marched.

For his service on the Western Front, Bennett received many awards. He received the Order of Danilo from Montenegro in 1917, was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath in 1918, received a Distinguished Service Order in 1919 and mentioned in despatches a further six times. His attitude towards regular officers and temperament, as well as his tendency to act without clearing his actions with superiors, though, resulted in criticism from senior officers.

Between the wars
Upon his return to Australia, Bennett lived at Canterbury with his wife and daughter, while he sought to return to civilian life after his appointment to the AIF was terminated. He was offered his old position at AMP back, having been on full-time leave with pay while serving overseas, but was unhappy with this. He was eventually offered a position in the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney and he moved there with his family. Later, he purchased a textile factory and worked as a clothing manufacturer and public accountant before being appointed chairman of the New South Wales Repatriation Board in 1922, in which role he was able to help returned soldiers. In 1928, he was appointed as an administrator of the City of Sydney, along with two other commissioners. He was president of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales between 1931 and 1933 and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia between 1933 and 1934, and was involved in several conservative political groups such as the All for Australia League and the Defence of Australia League.

Bennett remained active in the military, continuing to serve as part of the Militia, which was reorganised in 1921 following the conclusion of the demobilisation process. From then until 1926, he served as commander of the 9th Infantry Brigade, before being appointed to command the 2nd Division. In 1930, he was promoted to the rank of major general and over the ensuing years became increasingly parochial against the small permanent Staff Corps. He was transferred to the unattached list in 1932. In 1937, amidst increasing tensions in Europe, he came into conflict with the Military Board after he wrote a number of newspaper articles expressing his concerns about complacent defence policy and the efficiency of regular officers.

World War II

When World War II broke out in September 1939, although only 52, Bennett was passed over for command of the Second Australian Imperial Force, the position going to General Thomas Blamey. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Brudenell White, seems to have been opposed to Bennett being given an active command. In the Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB), A. B. Lodge, Bennett's biographer, commented: "Because of his temperament, he was considered unsuitable for a semi-diplomatic command, and one that involved subordination to British generals. Bennett was as scathing of British officers as he was of Australian regulars."

Instead, Bennett was given a command in the Volunteer Defence Corps, the Australian version of the British Home Guard. In July 1940, he took over command of the Eastern Command Training Depot. After White's death in the Canberra air disaster in August 1940, Bennett was appointed commander of the newly formed 8th Division, replacing Vernon Sturdee, who was promoted to White's former role.

In February 1941, the 8th Division's headquarters, along with one of its brigades – the 22nd – was posted to Malaya after a request from the British for Australia to contribute troops to bolster the garrison there, amid growing concerns of war with the Japanese, and as part of the plans that had been formulated as the pre-war Singapore strategy. The 27th Brigade was also dispatched in August, but the division's third brigade, the 23rd Brigade remained in Australia. Relations between Bennett and his superiors, and also his subordinate brigade commander, Brigadier Harold Taylor, were not good. Lodge commented: "Bennett's dealings with British senior officers, especially with the general officer commanding, Malaya, Lieutenant General A.E. Percival, were devoid of harmony."

In December 1941, the Japanese invasion of Malaya began. Bennett found himself in command of an ad hoc force known as "Westforce", which included the Australian 27th Brigade – but not the 22nd, which had been transferred to III Indian Corps – and several Indian units. Bennett's command was not engaged in the early stages of the fighting because the initial Japanese attacks fell on British and Indian units around Kota Bharu and the Thai–Malay border. However, as the Japanese pushed the defenders back and advanced into Johore, the Australians fought several actions throughout January. The most significant of those came around Gemas and Muar, in which the Australians experienced some local success before being forced to withdraw to Singapore at the end of the month, along with the rest of the Allied forces.

On Singapore, Bennett's command once again included the two Australian brigades – the 22nd and 27th – which were allocated the task of defending the north-western sector of the island. On 8 February 1942, the Japanese launched an assault across the Johore Strait, concentrating upon the sector held by Bennett's troops. The weight fell on the 22nd Brigade's area and, trying to fend off two Japanese divisions, they were eventually forced to withdraw towards the centre of the island. The 27th Brigade initially managed to hold its sector, but it was subjected to a follow-up assault on 10 February and, as the 22nd fell back, it was also forced to withdraw. Heavy fighting followed over the next week, but eventually the Allied troops were pushed across the island to Singapore's urban areas.

On 15 February, Percival began surrender negotiations with the Japanese. That night, Bennett decided that it was his duty to escape from Singapore rather than surrender. Consequently, he handed over command of the 8th Division to Brigadier Cecil Callaghan and, with a few junior officers and some local Europeans, Bennett commandeered a sampan and crossed the Strait of Malacca to the east coast of Sumatra. There, they transferred to a launch in which they sailed up the Batang Hari River, eventually proceeding by car to Padang, on the west coast of Sumatra. From there, Bennett flew to Java and then to Australia, arriving in Melbourne on 2 March 1942.

The fall of Singapore – the largest capitulation in British military history – shocked Australians, resulting in the capture of almost 15,000 Australians and many more Indian and British soldiers. Nevertheless, Bennett's escape was initially regarded as praiseworthy, at least publicly. Prime Minister John Curtin issued a statement that read:

"I desire to inform the nation that we are proud to pay tribute to the efficiency, gallantry and devotion of our forces throughout the struggle. We have expressed to Major General Bennett our confidence in him. His leadership and conduct were in complete conformity with his duty to the men under his command and to his country. He remained with his men until the end, completed all formalities in connection with the surrender, and then took the opportunity and risk of escaping.''"

However, within the military, particularly its senior echelons, Bennett was criticised for leaving his troops. In April 1942, he was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of III Corps in Perth. At the time, it was an important post but, by 1943, as the possibility of a Japanese invasion of Australia faded, it became a backwater. Bennett was told by Blamey that he would not be given another active command, and Bennett was transferred to the Reserve of Officers in May 1944. He soon published his account of the Malayan campaign, Why Singapore Fell, which was critical of Percival and other British officers, although his opinions were later challenged by several Australian officers, including Callaghan. Blamey unsuccessfully tried to prevent the book's publication.

Upon retirement from active service, Bennett began writing for a Sydney newspaper and was a correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He remained concerned about his soldiers, though, and met the first group of recently freed 8th Division prisoners of war when they arrived in Sydney on the transport Manunda. For their part, the majority of his former soldiers welcomed him, and some even hung a sign over the side of the ship, which read: "We want Bennett". They later put it in his car as a gesture of their support.

Postwar inquiries
The controversy over Bennett's actions became public in mid-1945, when the war ended and Percival and Callaghan were released from Japanese captivity. Percival, who had never got on with Bennett, wrote a letter accusing him of relinquishing his command without permission. Callaghan delivered the letter to Blamey upon his release and Blamey convened a court of enquiry under Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead, and Major Generals Victor Stantke and George Wootten, which found that Bennett was not justified in handing over his command, or in leaving Singapore. Veterans of the 8th Division, who were generally loyal to Bennett, protested against this finding.

In November 1945, Prime Minister Ben Chifley appointed a Royal Commission under Justice G. C. Ligertwood. The Commission concluded that Bennett had disobeyed Percival's order to surrender. Lodge wrote:

"While never questioning Bennett's personal courage, Ligertwood concluded that his action had been unjustified. Bennett's stated reason for leaving Singapore was that he had learned how to defeat the Japanese (but had been let down by British and Indian troops) and he was obliged to communicate his knowledge to military authorities. Yet, he had proved no more proficient than other commanders in Malaya and his tactics were outdated. Just as important to him was his wish to lead the Australian army, a consuming aspiration which had been sharpened by not being given an early command. His prejudice against regular officers and his ambition clouded his professional judgement at the most important point in his career. When his most cherished goals were in tatters, he convinced himself that blame for his failure lay with others."

In 1948, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Fry, a military lawyer, published the opinion: "The Royal Commissioner based his report on an interpretation of international law, and did not discuss General Bennett's action from the standpoint of Australian military law, which placed him under no inflexible obligation to remain on Singapore Island."

Post military and retirement
Bennett later became an orchardist, purchasing a property and living at Glenorie in the Hills district on Sydney's North Western fringe, until 1955 when, due to deteriorating health following a coronary occlusion, he sold his orchard and moved to Dural, New South Wales. He travelled to Singapore in 1957 with his wife to attend the opening of the Kranji War Memorial and then in 1960, travelled to Japan to meet with officers who had fought in Malaya. He wrote a number of articles on military topics and served on the board of a number of companies. From 1960 to 1962, he was Chairman of Directors of MMI Insurance. He died on 1 August 1962 at Dural, survived by his wife and daughter. After a state funeral at St Andrew's Cathedral, his body was cremated. The diary that Bennett kept while serving in Malaya is held at the State Library of New South Wales.

title: Gordon Bennett (general)


text:
James L. Tuck

James Leslie Tuck (9 January 1910 – 15 December 1980) was a British physicist, working on the applications of explosives as part of the British delegation to Manhattan Project.

Tuck was born in Manchester, England, and educated at the Victoria University of Manchester. Because of his involvement with the Manhattan Project, he was unable to submit his thesis on time and never received his doctoral degree.

In 1937 he was offered an appointment as a Salter Research Fellow at Oxford University, where he worked with Leó Szilárd on particle accelerators. In 1937 he married Elsie Harper, with whom he would later adopt two children.

At the outbreak of World War II, he was appointed as the scientific advisor to Frederick Alexander Lindemann, who was on the private staff of Winston Churchill. His research included work on shaped charges, used in anti-tank weapons. For this work in 1944 he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.

Bomb work
His expertise on shaped charges led to his being sent to Los Alamos, where he was a member of the British delegation to the Manhattan Project and helped in the development of explosive lensing and the Urchin initiator. This work was crucial to the success of the plutonium atomic bomb.

In 1946, Tuck took part in the Operation Crossroads atomic tests on Bikini Atoll. At this time, Tuck was informed that he had missed his extended deadline to complete his PhD with the Victoria University of Manchester.

He then returned to Oxford, where he worked at the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford University. However, he found the postwar conditions there difficult and in 1949 returned to the United States, assuming a position at the University of Chicago. A year later, he returned to Los Alamos when he was invited to work on thermonuclear research.

Fusion power
At Los Alamos, Tuck took up research on fusion power, which he had learned about in the UK. Tuck suggested that the Los Alamos group pursue a pinch program similar to the one being carried out in the UK. This was only months after Lyman Spitzer had started work on his stellarator design. Both were invited to Washington to present their ideas, where Spitzer won $50,000 in funding from the Atomic Energy Commission. Returning to Los Alamos, he arranged for a similar $50,000 from the lab's discretionary budget and started a pinch project under the name Perhapsatron.

Like all pinch systems, Perhapsatron failed due to instabilities in the plasma. Theoretical work by Edward Teller and others suggested ways out of the instability problem, either pinching so quickly that fusion took place before the instabilities formed, or by using "cusped" magnetic fields. The former was developed as the Columbus while the latter became the picket fence reactor design, both led by Tuck's teams.

He remained at Los Alamos until his retirement in 1972. Earlier in 1972 he had published a review in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of the book Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Frontiers of Public and Private Science by Solly Zuckerman.

After his retirement Tuck became a prominent public supporter of research into thermonuclear fusion for power generation.

Ball lightning
From the late 1960s onwards Tuck took a keen interest in the phenomenon of ball lightning, probably because of the connection between plasmas and their role in fusion power schemes. In 1980 he appeared in the Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World episode 'Clarke's Cabinet of Curiosities' where he described his experiments at Los Alamos, carried out during lunch breaks, to create ball lightning using a large storage battery of the type then used in submarines.

Later life
Tuck retired in 1973 and died in Los Alamos, New Mexico on 15 December 1980 following an extended illness.

Honours and Service

 * Officer of the Order of the British Empire (1944)
 * Fellow of the American Physical Society (1952)
 * Guggenheim Fellowship (1962)
 * Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1970)
 * Editor, Review of Plasma Physics and Controlled Thermonuclear Research

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: James L. Tuck


text:
Arky Vaughan

Joseph Floyd "Arky" Vaughan (March 9, 1912 – August 30, 1952) was an American professional baseball player. He played 14 seasons in Major League Baseball, between 1932 and 1948, for the Pittsburgh Pirates and Brooklyn Dodgers, primarily as a shortstop. He was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1985.

Minor leagues
Born in Clifty, Arkansas, Vaughan got his nickname early in life, despite leaving Arkansas before his first birthday. He grew up in Fullerton, California.

Vaughan made his professional debut in 1931 at age 19 for the minor league Wichita Aviators of the Western League, where he hit .338 with 21 home runs. When the Aviators became affiliated with the Chicago Cubs after the season, Vaughan was acquired by the Tulsa Oilers, who were affiliated with the Pittsburgh Pirates. On April 7, 1932, Vaughan was acquired from the Oilers by the Pirates.

Rookie year
Vaughan began the 1932 season as the backup to the Pirates' starting shortstop, Tommy Thevenow. Through the first 13 games of the season, Vaughan appeared only twice, once as a late-game replacement for Thevenow and once as a pinch-hitter. However, Thevenow was still suffering the effects of a season-ending ankle injury he had suffered in 1931, which opened up the door for Vaughan to take over the job. When Thevenow returned at the end of May after missing a month, he found himself in a reserve role.

Vaughan, who was the youngest player in the National League in 1932, wound up playing 129 games overall that year, all but one at shortstop. He finished with a .318 batting average and 61 runs batted in (RBIs) in his rookie season. His defense was a bit shaky, though, as he led the league in errors with 46. His year was impressive enough to garner a modicum of support for Most Valuable Player, finishing 23rd in the voting.

Establishing himself
Vaughan solidified his position as the Pirates' starting shortstop in 1933. Improving on almost all of his offensive statistics, Vaughan played in 152 games, batting .314 with 97 RBI, seventh- and fifth-best in the NL respectively. He also led the league with 19 triples. He finished in the league top five in on-base percentage (.388, 3rd), slugging percentage (.478, 5th) and walks (64, 4th). Although he led the league in errors again with an identical 46 to the previous year, due to his increased playing time his fielding percentage improved a bit from .934 to .945. For the second straight year, he finished 23rd in the MVP voting.

Vaughan took his game up another notch in 1934. While finishing fourth in the race for the batting title at .333, he led the league in OBP at .431, helped by his league-leading walk total of 94. Although he dropped from fifth to sixth in slugging, the raw number improved to .511. His performance earned him a spot on the NL All-Star team, the first of what would be nine straight selections. His defense continued to improve as well, as his error total dropped to 41, no longer the most in the league, and his fielding percentage rose again to .951. For the third straight year, he finished 23rd in the MVP voting.

1935
In 1935, Vaughan had what is universally recognized as his best season. Vaughan not only posted career bests in the three Triple Crown categories, he led all of baseball with a .385 average, a .491 on-base percentage, and a 1.098 OPS. His 190 Adjusted OPS as of 2011 still ranks as one of the top 100 single-season scores of all time. His .607 slugging percentage led the NL, as did his 97 walks. His 19 home runs were eighth in the league, his only time in the top ten, and his 99 RBI were sixth. He also earned the first of his six starts in the All-Star Game. Defensively, he finished in the top half of the league in fielding percentage for the first time while finishing second in both putouts and assists.

Although he was third in National League MVP voting behind Gabby Hartnett and Dizzy Dean, he was named Player of the Year by The Sporting News. The season has been called the best ever by a shortstop other than Honus Wagner.

Remaining Pirates career
Over the next six seasons, Vaughan continued to be one of the best-hitting shortstops in the game, batting over .300 in every season, and regularly being at or near the top of the league in most offensive categories. By the time Vaughan reached the age of 25, he had accumulated 1,057 hits, the 18th highest total for a 25-year-old in MLB history. He also continued to improve defensively, as he led the league in total chances in 1938–39 while finishing in the top three in fielding percentage four times. He again finished third in the MVP voting in 1938, when the Pirates finished second and had their best record during his tenure with the team.

In 1940, Vaughan was appointed team captain by new manager Frankie Frisch. Although he led the league in runs scored and triples again, he slumped to a career-low .300 batting average. This prompted Frisch to replace Vaughan as starting shortstop with Alf Anderson to start the 1941 season. However, Anderson didn't hit, and Vaughan was quickly back in the starting lineup. In the 1941 All-Star Game, Vaughan hit two home runs, but was upstaged by a ninth-inning, three-run homer by American Leaguer Ted Williams. Vaughan finished the year batting .316 in 106 games. That would be his last year with the Pirates who wouldn't see a star as bright as Vaughan for almost two decades. The fans were outraged at his trade to Brooklyn and his mysterious death years later helped coin the phrase "The Ghost of Arky" when times got tough.

A new position
On December 12, 1941, after a decade as the Pirates' starting shortstop, Vaughan was traded to the Brooklyn Dodgers for Pete Coscarart, Luke Hamlin, Babe Phelps, and Jimmy Wasdell. It is believed that this trade was in part prompted due to bad feelings between Vaughan and Frisch. Since Pee Wee Reese was already at shortstop for the Dodgers, the plan was to move Vaughan to third base.

Vaughan's tenure with the Dodgers got off to a rough start, as he failed to hit .300 for the first time in his career, finishing at .277 with just two home runs. He also established new lows in several other categories, including a career-worst .348 OBP. He still managed to make the All-Star team as the starter at third base, and actually finished third in the league in fielding percentage, but the season was a disappointment overall.

Clash of personalities
With Reese drafted into World War II, Vaughan was moved back to shortstop in 1943. He rebounded on offense, raising his average over .300 once again at .305 and leading the league in runs scored and, for the first and only time, stolen bases with 20.

However, the season was marred by an incident that would nearly lead to the end of Vaughan's career. On July 10, temperamental manager Leo Durocher suspended pitcher Bobo Newsom for insubordination after Newsom complained about catcher Bobby Bragan dropping a third strike. According to teammate Billy Herman, after reading Durocher's comments about Newsom in the press, Vaughan went into the manager's office, took off his uniform, and "threw it in Durocher's face". After the season, Vaughan left the team, retiring to his ranch. He went on to sit out the next three years.

Comeback
After Durocher was suspended before the 1947 season, Vaughan decided to try a comeback. Serving as something of a utility player, Vaughan played in 64 games and batted .325. He played in his only World Series that season, which the Dodgers lost to the New York Yankees. Vaughan appeared in three games in the 1947 World Series, all as a pinch hitter, reaching base twice on a walk and a double.

Even with Durocher's suspension over, Vaughan returned to the Dodgers in a similar capacity in 1948. However, after batting a career-low .244 in 65 games, he was released at the end of the season. He played the 1949 season with Pacific Coast League's San Francisco Seals before retiring for good.

Legacy
Vaughan retired with 1,173 runs scored, 96 home runs, 926 RBI, 118 steals, a .318 batting average,.406 on-base percentage and .453 slugging percentage. As of 2019, his .385 batting average, .491 OBP, and 1.098 OPS in 1935 are all Pittsburgh team records, and the batting average is a 20th-century record for National League shortstops. Vaughan is the 26th greatest non-pitcher in major league history, according to win shares. He hit for the cycle twice in his career as a member of the Pirates. In 14 seasons, he hit .300 or better 12 times, only missing the mark in 1942 and 1948.

Vaughan was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1985, following which Vaughan's daughter Patricia received this brief, handwritten congratulatory letter:

"I was a substitute tackle on the Fullerton High School championship 130-pound team and remember Arky as our star halfback--fast, hard-nosed and even then a real professional. Sincerely, Richard Nixon"

As early as July 1972, Nixon, then the President of the United States, had named Vaughan the starting shortstop on his "All-Time" National League All-Star Team's pre-war (1925–1945) component, citing as his "sentimental reason" their high school connection while stating his belief that "most experts would include Arky on a team if he were rated on hitting ability alone". In 1981, Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig included Vaughan in their book The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time. In his New Historical Baseball Abstract, published in 2001, Bill James rated Vaughan as the second-best shortstop in major league history, behind fellow Pirate and mentor Honus Wagner. The connection to Wagner makes Vaughan a below-the-radar name in memorabilia circles. In his 2021 book, The Baseball 100, Joe Posnanski places Vaughan at number 61 on a list of the 100 all-time best baseball players of all time.

Personal life
Vaughan married his wife, Margaret, in 1931, and they had four children.

After leaving the Seals, Vaughan bought a ranch in Eagleville, California, where he retired to fish, hunt and tend cattle. On August 30, 1952, Vaughan was fishing in nearby Lost Lake, with his friend Bill Wimer. According to a witness, Wimer stood up in the boat, causing it to capsize, and both men drowned. Their bodies were recovered the next day. Vaughan was 40.

Vaughan's nephew Glenn Vaughan had a brief major league career with the Houston Colt .45s in 1963.

title: Arky Vaughan


text:
Talk:Shikigami

Onmyougi
Are Onmyougi mentioned in the article the same as Onmyoji? Brona 02:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, and it is properly spelled onmyoji (or onmyouji). I also do not think that shikigami can accurately be called oni, which to my knowledge are a specific type of demon. I would say they are kami (神) or spirits. --Anon. 23 July 2004

Death Note
"In the Manga Death Note Light Yagami finds Ryuk's, a shikigami, notebook can kill anyone if you write their name in the book. " That really should go under shinigami and not shikigami.128.195.94.216 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, the phrasing is horribly awkward. I haven't touched it, though; I just corrected the problem with the pun-explanation being cut off half-way through, and fixed a couple of minor typos.  I didn't realise until afterward that the explanation was originally complete (it was mangled in an anon edit on the 9th of May); feel free to revert to Marginoferror's original wording if you like. -- 210.54.3.3 05:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsuzuki Asato
Should it be mentioned in this article that Tsuzuki Asato from Yami no Matsuei can summon 12 different shikigami, like Abe no Seimei? I haven't seen him do more than two or so simultaneously, but I've not seen indication that he couldn't summon all 12, should he so desire. 65.190.52.238 09:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Abe no Seimei and 12 shikigami
Looking at the [Japanese article], it looks like the statement that Abe no Seimei could "summon and use twelve shikigami simultaneously" might be a mistranslation of his having the [Jūni-Shinshō] among the shikigami he used. Thoughts? Kotengu 08:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Moonphase
Don't they also have shikigami in Moonphase? 71.194.136.20 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Change and Spoilers
I changed the link for oni to oni (folklore) because it linked to the disambiguation page, instead of the page directly about oni in Japanese folklore. The only downside, is the article now says oni (folklore) instead of just oni. In anyone could fix that, it would be great. Personally, I would like to see spoiler warnings on the references in anime and manga. I was in the middle of watching that particular episode of InuYasha when they used the word Shikigami, and since I didn't know what it was, I paused and went to look it up. It ruined the whole plot to find out that Kikyo was still alive. Silver 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Seed
Shikigami also appear in the anime series Blue Seed - the Americanized blonde girl Yamazaki Sakura summons them by using ofuda talismans Digitalmustelid (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references
I don't think it's a good thing that nearly every article on Japanese culture consists of 70% of various cartoons that refers to the topic. This is something tvtropes.com, normal people don't care for this in-depth description and it would never be found in an encyclopedia. -M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.240.131.91 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shikigami


text:
Human Rights Protection Party

The Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP, Vaega Faaupufai e Puipuia Aia Tatau a Tagata) is a Samoan political party. It was founded in 1979 and dominated Samoan party politics for decades thereafter, leading every government until their defeat in 2021.

Va'ai Kolone and Tofilau Eti Alesana co-founded the party in May 1979 in opposition to the government of Tupuola Efi. It governed the country from first winning power in 1982 to 2021, except for a brief period in 1986 and 1987 when internal differences forced it into coalition.

The two founders of the early party, Kolone and Alesana, both became Prime Ministers of Samoa.

Former prime minister Tuila'epa Sailele Malielegaoi has led the party since 1998.

The U.S. State Department's 2010 human-rights report (published on 8 April 2011) stated that the Human Rights Protection Party remained the only officially recognized party in the Legislative Assembly of Samoa (the Fono) as of that date.

After the April 2021 Samoan general election the HRPP refused to yield power to the newly elected government, triggering the 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis. The Court of Appeal ruled against the HRPP on 23 July 2021, allowing the opposition to belatedly take power.

In November 2022 MP's Ale Vena Ale and Tuu'u Anasi'i Leota resigned from the HRPP to become independents, saying they did not want to remain in a party led by a leader guilty of contempt of court.

Principles and policies
In June 2017, the Samoan Parliament passed a bill to increase support for Christianity in the country's constitution, including a reference to the Trinity. Article 1 of the Samoan Constitution states that “Samoa is a Christian nation founded of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. According to The Diplomat, "What Samoa has done is shift references to Christianity into the body of the constitution, giving the text far more potential to be used in legal processes." The preamble to the constitution already described the country as "an independent State based on Christian principles and Samoan custom and traditions."

title: Human Rights Protection Party


text:
Charles S. McDowell

Charles Samuel McDowell Jr. (October 17, 1871 – May 22, 1943) was the 10th Lieutenant Governor of Alabama from 1923 to 1927, and was the interim Governor of Alabama between July 10 and July 11, 1924, when Governor William W. Brandon was out-of-state for 21 days. The state constitution requires that, if the governor is out of the state for 20 days, that the lieutenant governor acts as governor until he returns.

McDowell was born in Eufaula, Alabama. He graduated from the University of Alabama and opened a law practice in Eufaula in 1897. He served as Mayor of Eufaula from 1908 to 1912, and was President of the Alabama State Bar in 1915–16. He was elected to the Alabama State Senate in 1918.

title: Charles S. McDowell


text:
Talk:Seneca Falls Convention

Meta text
Does that meta-text really belong in the article?:

 * This Digest places the events of the Seneca Falls Convention within the larger context of American reform movements of the 1840s, discusses the influence of the Declaration of Independence on the Convention, and provides teachers and students with a sampling of social studies curriculum resources such as primary source documents, books, articles, and lesson plans available through local libraries or the World Wide Web.

(clem 20:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

On 2 Nov 06 I found a couple of places where this article had clearly been vandalized, and I fixed those items. I think the damage was done a few weeks ago (didn't check the various drafts very carefully). It'll be interesting to see if this provokes someone to do some more damage. Tei Tetua 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Most of this article seems to plagiarized from the ericdigests.org site. Is this acceptable for wikipedia? - Amorwikipedia 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, it appears okay. The text at ericdigests.org is apparently in the public domain, being previously published by the US government's Education Resources Information Center.  The texts at ericdigests.org are text versions of PDF documents available at the official ERIC site (here's the one used for this article: ).  As far as I can tell, the text is indeed in the public domain, even though we know who the author is.  However, you didn't ask about copyright; you asked about plagiarism.  Public domain states "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism."  The source of the text, the ericdigests.org site, is linked to in the "External links" section, and has been for two-and-a-half years.  Whether that's sufficient to constitute "attribution" or not might be questioned, but it's certainly close.  =)  A more explicit explanation that much of the text came from that source may be in order, however.  Powers T 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Note about Susan B. Anthony and Women's Rights
I've edited this article a couple times to remove Susan B. Anthony's name from it. She did not attend the 1848 Convention, and was not involved in the women's rights movement at the time. She was involved in the temperance movement.

Susan B. Anthony was introduced to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1851 by Amelia Bloomer. Bloomer and Anthony, who were working on temperance issues, came upon Stanton on a Seneca Falls street and Bloomer introduced Anthony to Stanton. A statue in Seneca Falls marks the location where the two women who would become the leaders of the suffrage movement met for the first time. But it was three years after the convention.

It's a great story -- just not the one many people believe! Martymaven (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)martymaven

Was the convention at Seneca Falls specifically focused on women's rights? I believe that the first convention specifically to focus on women's rights took place in Worcester MA in 1850. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seneca Falls was most certainly focused on Women's Rights and has been acknowledged since it occurred that it was the first. There were many other conventions around the country in the succeeding years, as those involved in the movement sought to spread the word. The Worcester convention was an important one of those, but it probably would not have occurred if Seneca Falls hadn't happened 2 years earlier. Martymaven (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)martymaven

Drastic, complete rewriting of article
I just made major changes to the article! I know this large-scale change to the article will needle some editors who were involved in its initial composition and subsequent maintenance, but it was suffering from too many hands, too much disjointedness, a profound lack of focus and too little use of cited sources. I apologize if I stepped on any toes, but I believe the subject should be treated better and presented more clearly. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the dates upon which the convention occurred.
 * Added "Planning" section.
 * Added "First day" and Second day" sections to talk about the meeting itself.
 * Added "Afterward" section to discuss subsequent events and developments.
 * Added "Historiography" section to discuss how later views of the event developed and shifted.
 * Added news clippings from Library of Congress.
 * Added prior political developments affecting women
 * Added contemporary images of Stanton, Gerrit Smith, Douglass, and the historic tea table.
 * Provided inline references for Lerner and Carlacio.
 * Deleted significance of Seneca Falls location; the convention was held there because Stanton lived there and because the Wesleyan Chapel was expected to accept them. It could have been held in Auburn or Waterloo if a venue had been found.
 * Deleted Market Revolution paragraph: nothing about women's rights there.
 * Deleted extensive reference to John Locke as Stanton and the M'Clintock ladies used the United States Declaration of Independence as their model, not Locke. It was Thomas Jefferson who was influenced by Locke, originally.
 * Deleted women's reform societies as unsourced.
 * Deleted some not-very-closely-related "See also" entries
 * Deleted a slew of so-called references that weren't used in the article.

[edit] Resolutions, Declaration, grievances
This statement: "Between July 16 and July 19, at home on her own writing desk, Elizabeth Cady Stanton added a more radical point to the list of grievances and to the Resolutions: the issue of women's voting rights. To the grievances, she added "He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise."[29]" needs to be supported. I cannot find any references that say she added this on her own. [29] appears to only address the "never permitted" portion. Charleebraun (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The note about "never" is in addition to the source saying Stanton wrote the woman suffrage grievance and resolution. Judith Wellman, page 193, The road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman's Rights Convention. Wellman describes Stanton going home and, with no help from the other women, preparing the document for the convention, sharing its contents with her husband (who helped flesh it out), and composing on her own the grievance and the resolution about woman suffrage. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New Main Picture
Is there any way we can get a different picture for this article? For a convention, a picture of a table is not optimal. --Fintelia (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Imagine what a good image would be, and either create it or snap a photo of it. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://andreayoung82.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Women banned from speaking in public?
Article makes claims that are not proven or sourced.

"Female Quakers local to the area organized the meeting along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was not a Quaker. They planned the event during a visit to the area by Philadelphia-based Lucretia Mott. Mott, a Quaker, was famous for her oratorical ability, which was rare for non-Quaker women during an era in which women were often not allowed to speak in public."

Women were often not allowed to speak in public? I call bare assertion on this. I think this needs sourcing, or this claim should be removed. Can people cite any laws in the USA that banned women from speaking in public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.175.80 (talk • contribs)

 * Women were barred by custom from speaking in public, so I doubt laws were needed. The force of society's disapproval was enough. All of this stuff is in the book sources on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One possible book source is Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, by Sally Gregory McMillen in 2008. Something about it is found on page 78.
 * Another book source is Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, by Douglas M Rife in 2002. Rife talks about this on page iv of the Foreword.
 * Jean H. Baker writes the matter on page 3 of Votes for Women: The Struggle for Suffrage Revisited (2002). Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Here is the testimony of a leading participant.  In 1900, at the age of 80, Susan B. Anthony wrote a magazine article that looked back on her lifetime of fighting for women's rights.  In it, she observed, "No advanced step taken by women has been so bitterly contested as that of speaking in public. For nothing which they have attempted, not even to secure the suffrage, have they been so abused, condemned and antagonized.  In this they were defying not only the prejudice of the ages, but also what the world had been taught was a divine command.  This was not because they advocated unpopular doctrines, but it extended even to conventions of school teachers and to prayer meetings themselves.  Bilpen (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seneca Falls Convention


text:
Talk:Franco-Prussian War

Common name?
Going through the sources, and doing a quick google search, it seems that the WP:COMMONNAME might actually be "Franco-German War" (this would be in line with the names in German and French, incidentally); before starting a RM I would like to hear some more opinions, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've always known it as the Franco-Prussian War. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Germany in 1871 became united in the form of an "expanded Prussia". So the name "Franco-Prussian War" is correct. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Duncan Hill and the unnamed user above. In English usage it has always been "Franco-Prussian War". I appreciate that historians sometimes change these naming conventions- compare the various nomenclatures of the English and British wars of the 17th century- but "Franco-Prussian War" seems unchallenged in English usage to date- among the most well established and least likely to have alternative names. Insofar as this is the English Wikipedia, it should follow the overwhelmingly dominant English language usage. A parenthetical note as to what it is called in the languages of the combatants would not go amiss. Random noter (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 * The great merit of 'Franco-Prussian' is it serves to emphasise the fact that Germany as a nation state did not exist until this time. Optymystic (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

aftermath/analysis section
In the 8th paragraph there is a piece of quoted text that calls the war bismarcks miscalculation. The problem is that the quote is presented as fact rather than an opinion. Firestar47 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

War crimes
"These actions, which were not systematically investigated or prosecuted by the Prussian government in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, have been widely documented and condemned by historians and human rights organizations." Number of citations: 0. I'm not saying it didn't happen, because it always happens, but if it is in any way notable surely it must be as widely documented as the article claims? Or is it just propaganda? Which is the appearance the article currently gives without a decent source, and certainly not ideal for anybody involved. Let's also not forget the French were pillaging the German countryside when they started the war and invaded (as stated by the article itself). Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tripped over the War Crimes section looking for something else, and what stuck out like a sore thumb is that it discusses ONLY war-crimes committed by Prussia. It's just impossible that there weren't also war-crimes committed by France, but where are THEY discussed. The non-encyclopedic bias in this sections just gushes off my monitor and fills the room I'm in. What MOTIVE can a person have for discussing ONLY Prussia's war-crimes and not France's? It can't be a GOOD motive.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Christoper Lawrence Simpson

Editorial commentary
Discussion of unnecessary editorial additions to the text from user POV. Random noter (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted this passage: "The question of legitimacy is rather strange for France after the coup d'état of 1851, since Louis-Napoleon himself only overthrew the Second Republic and rose to the imperial throne by means of a coup d'état." after the para describing who did or did not immediately recognize the Government of National Defense. Though witty, arguably even true, it reads like snarky editorial comment from a user POV. It would not go amiss in a monograph by a historian (who might say something as sarcastic but more substantive than "strange") or a magazine article, but in this format is not encyclopedia writing.

From a less purely contextual/format point of view, I might add that it is not in fact strange at all- governments always make decisions about who they do or do not recognize based on their own interests, their expectations of future events, and the values preferences of those making the decision. They are never rote or mechanical or automatic processes.

Beyond that, some may have noted the distinction between Louis Bonaparte's self coup and the events of 1870. The idea of the self coup is well understood now, but even today often is regarded differently under some conditions. In his case, as the president in place he staged a coup and usurped additional powers. On the other hand, he was the president in place and he used French law as his method to do it, by means well within French precedent. In 1870, as emperor he had not abdicated and his overthrow was not exactly done within the bounds of the existing system. Nor did the GND initially have any other mandate that might stand in the place of their having legitimacy under the existing order- say, an electoral mandate, even a bogus plebiscitary one. As the preceding paragraph of the existing article has correctly noted. It is as if the author of the passage I deleted did not deem it necessary to connect the comment to that previous text.

An exact parallel in 1870 to the events of 1851 would have been more like: the members of the Corps legislatif declare the emperor incapacitated, the regency incompetent, and appoint a Government of National Defense for the Empire to take command of the state; that government then seeks a plebiscitary mandate to proclaim a republic. That would be a mirror in 1870 of the events of 1851, with the same mix of legality and usurpation within a period French context. What they actually did was more clear cut usurpation. It worked, to be sure. But it's another reason why whole reams of governments that had recognized the French Empire might delay switching recognition to await events. So, not at all strange. Random noter (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 * If it's actually true, then why delete it? It seems to me that such an action of yours is already strange. So much time has passed since these events, 150 years, that you can already see reality as it is. Prussian-Germany was preoccupied with the issue of justifying the continuation of the war after the fall of the regime of Napoleon III. Prussia-Germany wanted the annexation of the French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. France did not agree with this, and therefore the war continues. Therefore, Prussia-Germany had to justify for itself and for world public opinion the continuation of the war. After the new government announced its desire to end the war and compensate the Germans for losses. 95.25.13.8 (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Napoleon?"
I've found a few instances in this article where a man referred to as "Napoleon" must be Napoleon III. This is really confusing. Not to me, maybe, but to children trying to research a term-paper or something. It's not clear.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

title: Talk:Franco-Prussian War


text:
Phoebe (biblical figure)

Phoebe (Feben , Phebe ) [ Koine Greek: Φοίβη; Phœbē, Фива (Fiva), Փիբէին (P̕ibēin) ] was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. Paul refers to her both as a "servant" or "deacon" (Greek diakonos, which means "servant") and as a helper or patron of many (Greek prostatis). This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.

Background
Paul's letter to the Romans was written in Corinth sometime between the years 56 and 58 69 in order to solicit support for an anticipated missionary journey to Spain. Although he had not yet visited Rome, Paul would have been familiar with the community and its circumstances through Priscilla and Aquila, who were in Corinth, having previously lived in Rome. Biblical scholars are divided as to whether Chapter 16, Paul's letter of recommendation for Phoebe, was intended for Rome, with whose Christian community he was not acquainted, or with the more familiar community at Ephesus.

The name Phoebe means "pure", "radiant", or "bright"; and was the name of a Titan in Greek mythology.

Some scholars believe Phoebe was responsible for delivering Paul's epistle to the Roman Christian church.

Phoebe is the only woman named as deacon (which means "servant" in Greek) in the Bible.

diakonos
Apostle Paul used the Greek diakonos (διάκονος) to designate Phoebe as a deacon. "Deacon" is a transliteration of the Greek, and in Paul's writings sometimes refers to a Christian designated to serve as a specially-appointed "assistant" to the overseers of a church, and at others refers to "servants" in a general sense. In the letter to the Romans, apart from the debated case of Phoebe, it always refers to "servants" in the generic sense, as opposed to a church office. However, at this inaugural stage in the Church's formation, some argue, it is premature to think of offices as being consistent or clearly defined, and activist Rosalba Manes argues that Paul's use of the term "deacon" suggests that, like Stephen and Philip, Phoebe's ministry may have extended beyond charitable works to include preaching and evangelization.

"Likewise the women"
While historically scholars believe Paul restricted the office of deacon to men, modern activists do not base on their interpretation of. When describing the qualities that the office-holders called "deacons" must possess, Paul wrote gunaikas hosautos, which is translated by some as "likewise the women." The "likewise" could indicate that female deacons are to live according to the same standards as male deacons (see also the Apostle Paul's use of the term "likewise" in, , and ). The predominant view holds that this verse refers not to female deacons, but instead to the wives of deacons. See, for example, the KJV rendering: "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

prostatis
In classical Greek the word prostates (προστάτης) (feminine, prostatis) was used to mean either a chief or leader, or a guardian or protector, often in a religious context; it was later used also to translate the Roman concept of a patron. The Apostle Paul's use indicates that its range of meanings had not changed by New Testament times. This suggests that Phoebe was a woman of means, who, among other things, contributed financial support to Paul's apostolate, and probably hosted the house church of Cenchreae in her home, as well as, providing shelter and hospitality to Paul when in the town.

Veneration
The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Episcopal Church in the United States of America place her feast day as September 3 (the latter designating it a Lesser Feast).

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod remembers her later, on October 25. The Calendar of Saints of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America commemorates Phoebe with Lydia of Thyatira and Dorcas on January 27, the day after the commemoration of the early male missionaries Silas, Timothy and Titus and two days after the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.

title: Phoebe (biblical figure)


text:
File:XFIG-generated-supply-demand.png

Licensing
xfig generated supply demand curve

title: File:XFIG-generated-supply-demand.png


text:
LGM-25C Titan II

The Titan II was an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) developed by the Glenn L. Martin Company from the earlier Titan I missile. Titan II was originally designed and used as an ICBM, but was later adapted as a medium-lift space launch vehicle (these adaptations were designated Titan II GLV and Titan 23G) to carry payloads to Earth orbit for the United States Air Force (USAF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Those payloads included the USAF Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), NOAA weather satellites, and NASA's Gemini crewed space capsules. The modified Titan II SLVs (Space Launch Vehicles) were launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, up until 2003.

Titan II missile
Part of the Titan rocket family, the Titan II ICBM was the successor to the Titan I, with double the payload. Unlike the Titan I, it used hydrazine-based hypergolic propellant which was storable and reliably ignited. This reduced time to launch and permitted it to be launched from its silo. Titan II carried the largest single warhead of any American ICBM.

LGM-25C Missile
The missile consists of a two-stage, rocket engine powered vehicle and a re-entry vehicle (RV). Provisions are included for in-flight separation of Stage II from Stage I, and separation of the RV from Stage II. Stage I and Stage II vehicles each contain propellant and pressurization, rocket engine, hydraulic and electrical systems, and explosive components. In addition, Stage II contains the flight control system and missile guidance system. Stage I contained three gyros and the Autopilot. The Autopilot attempted to keep the missile straight during first stage flight and sent commands to the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) on the 2nd stage. The IMU would compensate and send steering commands to the engine actuators.

Airframe
The airframe is a two-stage, aerodynamically stable structure that houses and protects the airborne missile equipment during powered flight. The missile guidance system enables the shutdown and staging enable relay to initiate Stage I separation. Each stage is 10 feet in diameter and has fuel and oxidizer tanks in tandem, with the walls of the tanks forming the skin of the missile in those areas. External conduits are attached to the outside surface of the tanks to provide passage for the wire bundles and tubing. Access doors are provided on the missile forward, aft and between-tanks structure for inspection and maintenance. A removable cover for tank entry is located on the forward dome of each tank.

Stage I airframe
The Stage I airframe consists of an interstage structure, oxidizer tank forward skirt, oxidizer tank, inter-tank structure, and fuel tank. The interstage structure, oxidizer tank forward skirt, and inter-tank structure are all fabricated assemblies using riveted skin, stringers and frame. The oxidizer tank is a welded structure consisting of a forward dome, tank barrel, an aft dome and a feedline. The fuel tank, also a welded structure, consists of a forward dome, tank barrel, aft cone, and internal conduit.

Stage II airframe
The Stage II airframe consists of a transition section, oxidizer tank, inter-tank structure, fuel tank and aft skirt. The transition section, inter-tank structure and aft skirt are all fabricated assemblies using riveted skin, stringers and frame. The oxidizer tank and fuel tank are welded structures consisting of forward and aft domes.

Missile characteristics
The following data is from publication (Dash 1)

Guidance
The first Titan II guidance system was built by ACDelco. It used an IMU (inertial measurement unit, a gyroscopic sensor) made by ACDelco derived from original designs from MIT Draper Labs. The missile guidance computer (MGC) was the IBM ASC-15. Stage I contained three gyros and the Autopilot. The Autopilot attempted to keep the missile straight during first stage flight and sent commands to the IMU on the 2nd stage. The IMU would compensate and send steering commands to the engine actuators. When spares for this system became hard to obtain, it was replaced by a more modern guidance system, the Delco Universal Space Guidance System (USGS). The USGS used a Carousel IV IMU and a Magic 352 computer.

Launching
Titan II missiles were designed to be launched from underground missile silos that were hardened against nuclear attack. This was intended to allow for the United States to survive a nuclear first strike by an enemy and be able to retaliate with a second strike response.

The authority to order the launch of a Titan II was vested exclusively in the US President. Once an order was given to launch, launch codes were sent to the silos from SAC HQ or its backup in California. The signal was an audio transmission of a thirty-five-letter code.

The two missile operators would record the code in a notebook. The codes were compared to each other and if they matched, both operators proceeded to a red safe containing the missile launch documents. The safe featured a separate lock for each operator, who unlocked it using a combination known only to themself.

The safe contained a number of paper envelopes with two letters on the front. Embedded in the thirty-five letter code sent from HQ was a seven-letter sub-code. The first two letters of the sub-code indicated which envelope to open. Inside was a plastic "cookie", with five more letters written on it. If the cookie matched the remaining five digits in the sub-code, the launch order was authenticated.

The message also contained a six-letter code that unlocked the missile. This code was entered on a separate system that opened a butterfly valve on one of the oxidizer lines on the missile engines. Once unlocked, the missile was ready to launch. Other portions of the message contained a launch time, which might be immediate or might be any time in the future.

When that time was reached, the two operators inserted keys into their respective control panels and turned them to launch. The keys had to be turned within two seconds of each other, and had to be held for five seconds. The consoles were too far apart for one person to turn them both within the required timing.

Successfully turning the keys would start the missile launch sequence. First, the Titan II's batteries would be charged up completely and the missile would disconnect itself from silo power. Then the silo doors would slide open, giving a "SILO SOFT" alarm inside the control room. The guidance system of the Titan II would then configure itself to take control of the missile and ingest data to guide the missile to the target. Subsequently, main engine ignition would occur. Thrust would be allowed to build for a few seconds, then the supports holding the missile in place inside the silo would be released using pyrotechnic bolts, allowing the missile to lift off.

Development
The Titan rocket family was established in October 1955, when the Air Force awarded the Glenn L. Martin Company a contract to build an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). It became known as the Titan I, the nation's first two-stage ICBM and first underground silo-based ICBM. The Martin Company realized that the Titan I could be further improved and presented a proposal to the U.S. Air Force for an improved version. It would carry a larger warhead over a greater range with better accuracy and could be launched more quickly. The Martin company received a contract for the new missile, designated SM-68B Titan II, in June 1960. The Titan II was 50% heavier than the Titan I, with a longer first stage and a larger diameter second stage. The Titan II also used storable propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel, which is a 1:1 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer. The Titan I, whose liquid oxygen oxidizer had to be loaded immediately before launching, had to be raised from its silo and fueled before launch. The use of storable propellants enabled the Titan II to be launched within 60 seconds directly from within its silo. Their hypergolic nature made them dangerous to handle; a leak could (and did) lead to explosions, and the fuel was highly toxic. However, it allowed for a rapid launch once the order was received, a significant advantage vs earlier cryogenic ICBMs which could not remain fueled indefinitely and had to be fueled before launch.

The first flight of the Titan II was in March 1962 and the missile, now designated LGM-25C, reached initial operating capability in October 1963. The Titan II contained one W-53 nuclear warhead in a Mark 6 re-entry vehicle with a range of 8700 nmi. The W-53 had a yield of 9 megatons. This warhead was guided to its target using an inertial guidance unit. The 54 deployed Titan IIs formed the backbone of America's strategic deterrent force until the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM was deployed en masse during the early to mid-1960s. Twelve Titan IIs were flown in NASA's Gemini crewed space program in the mid-1960s.

The Department of Defense predicted that a Titan II missile could eventually carry a warhead with a 35 megaton yield, based on projected improvements. However, that warhead was never developed or deployed. This would have made this warhead one of the most powerful ever, with almost double the power-to-weight ratio of the B41 nuclear bomb.

Launch history and development
The first Titan II launch, Missile N-2, was carried out on 16 March 1962 from LC-16 at Cape Canaveral and performed extremely well, flying 5000 mi downrange and depositing its reentry vehicle in the Ascension splash net. There was only one problem: a high rate of longitudinal vibrations during first stage burn. While this did not affect missile launches for the Air Force, NASA officials were concerned that this phenomenon would be harmful to astronauts on a crewed Gemini flight. The second launch, Missile N-1, lifted from LC-15 on 7 June. First stage performance was near-nominal, but the second stage developed low thrust due to a restriction in the gas generator feed. The Range Safety officer sent a manual shutdown command to the second stage, causing premature RV separation and impact well short of the intended target point. The third launch, Missile N-6 on 11 July, was completely successful. Aside from pogo oscillation (the nickname NASA engineers invented for the Titan's vibration problem since it was thought to resemble the action of a pogo stick), the Titan II was experiencing other teething problems that were expected of a new launch vehicle. The 25 July test (Vehicle N-4) had been scheduled for 27 June, but was delayed by a month when the Titan's right engine experienced severe combustion instability at ignition that caused the entire thrust chamber to break off of the booster and fall down the flame deflector pit, landing about 20 feet from the pad (the Titan's onboard computer shut the engines down the moment loss of thrust occurred). The problem was traced to a bit of cleaning alcohol carelessly left in the engine. A new set of engines had to be ordered from Aerojet, and the missile lifted off from LC-16 on the morning of 25 July. The flight went entirely according to plan up to first stage burn, but the second stage malfunctioned again when the hydraulic pump failed and thrust dropped nearly 50%. The computer system compensated by running the engine for an additional 111 seconds, when propellant depletion occurred. Because the computer had not sent a manual cutoff command, reentry vehicle separation and vernier solo phase did not occur. Impact occurred 1500 mi downrange, half the planned distance.

The next three launches Missile N-5 (12 September), N-9 (12 October), and N-12 (26 October), were entirely successful, but the nagging pogo problem remained and the booster could not be considered man-rated until this was fixed. Martin–Marietta thus added a surge-suppressor standpipe to the oxidizer feed line in the first stage, but when the system was tested on Titan N-11 on 6 December, the effect was instead to worsen pogo in the first stage, which ended up vibrating so strongly that unstable engine thrust resulted. The result of this was to trip the first stage pressure switch and terminate thrust early. The second stage then separated and began its burn, but due to the improper speed and attitude at separation, the guidance system malfunctioned and caused an unstable flight trajectory. Impact occurred only 700 mi downrange.

Vehicle N-13 was launched 13 days later and carried no standpipes, but it did have increased pressure in the first stage propellant tanks, which did cut down on vibration. In addition, the oxidizer feedlines were made of aluminum instead of steel. On the other hand, the exact reason for pogo was still unclear and a vexing problem for NASA.

The tenth Titan II flight (Vehicle N-15) took place on 10 January, the only nighttime Titan II test. While it appeared that the pogo problem was largely contained on this flight, the second stage lost thrust again due to a restriction in the gas generator and so only achieved half its intended range. While previous second stage problems were blamed on pogo, this could not be the case for N-15. Meanwhile, combustion instability was still an issue and was confirmed by Aerojet static-firing tests which showed that the LR91 Liquid-propellant engine had difficulty attaining smooth burning after the shock of startup.

Efforts to human-rate the Titan II also ran afoul of the fact that the Air Force and not NASA was in charge of its development. The former's primary aim was to develop a missile system, not a launch vehicle for Project Gemini, and they were only interested in technical improvements to the booster insofar as they had relevance to that program. On 29 January, the Air Force Ballistic Systems Division (BSD) declared that pogo in the Titan had been reduced enough for inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) use and that no further improvements needed to be made. While adding more pressure to the propellant tanks had reduced vibration, it could only be done so much before putting unsafe structural loads on the Titan and in any case the results were still unsatisfactory from NASA's point of view. While BSD tried to come up with a way to help NASA out, they finally decided that it was not worth the time, resources, and risk of trying to cut down further on pogo and that the ICBM program ultimately came first.

Despite the Air Force's lack of interest in human-rating the Titan II, General Bernard Adolph Schriever assured that any problems with the booster would be fixed. BSD decided that 0.6 Gs was good enough despite NASA's goal of 0.25 Gs and they stubbornly declared that no more resources were to be expended on it. On 29 March 1963, Schriever invited Space Systems Development (SSD) and BSD officials to his headquarters at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, but the meeting was not encouraging. Brig. Gen John L. McCoy (director of the Titan Systems Program Office) reaffirmed BSD's stance that the pogo and combustion instability problems in the Titan were not a serious issue to the ICBM program and it would be too difficult and risky at this point to try to improve them for NASA's sake. Meanwhile, Martin–Marietta and Aerojet both argued that most of the major development problems with the booster had been solved and it would only take a little more work to man-rate it. They proposed adding more standpipes to the first stage and using baffled injectors in the second stage.

A closed-door meeting of NASA and Air Force officials led to the former arguing that without any definitive answer to the pogo and combustion instability problems, the Titan could not safely fly human passengers. But by this point, the Air Force was taking a bigger role in the Gemini program due to proposed uses of the spacecraft for military applications (e.g. Blue Gemini). During the first week of April, a joint plan was drafted which would ensure that pogo was to be reduced to fit NASA's target and to make design improvements to both Titan stages. The program carried the conditions that the ICBM program retained first priority and was not to be delayed by Gemini, and that General McCoy would have final say on all matters.

Meanwhile, the Titan II development program ran into difficulties during the first half of 1963. On 16 February, Vehicle N-7 was launched from a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and malfunctioned almost immediately at liftoff. An umbilical cord failed to separate cleanly, ripping out wiring in the second stage which not only cut power to the guidance system, but also prevented the range safety charges from being armed. The missile lifted with a continuous uncontrolled roll, and at about T+15 seconds, when the pitch and roll program would normally begin, it began a sudden sharp downward pitch. Launch crews were in a panic as they had a missile that was not only out of control, but could not be destroyed and might end up crashing into a populated area. Fortunately, the Titan's errant flight came to an end after flipping almost completely upside-down which caused the second stage to separate from the stack. The ISDS (Inadvertent Separation Destruct System) then activated and blew up the first stage. Most of the debris from the missile fell offshore or on the beach, and the second stage impacted the water mostly intact, although the oxidizer tank had been ruptured by flying debris from first stage destruction. Navy crews launched a salvage effort to recover the reentry vehicle and the guidance system from the sea floor. The reentry vehicle was found and dredged up along with parts of the second stage, but the guidance system was not recovered.

The mishap was traced to an unforeseen design flaw in the silo's construction – there was not enough room for the umbilicals to detach properly which resulted in wiring being ripped out of the Titan. It was solved by adding extra lanyards to the umbilicals so they would have sufficient "play" in them to separate without damaging the missile. The flight was nonetheless considered a "partial" success in that the Titan had cleared the silo successfully. The inadvertent rolling motion of the vehicle may have also prevented a worse disaster as it added stability and prevented it from colliding with the silo walls as it ascended.

While N-18 flew successfully from the Cape on 21 March, N-21 suffered another second stage failure after having been delayed several weeks due to another episode of the first stage thrust chambers breaking off prior to launch. This was followed by a launch from VAFB on 27 April when Missile N-8 flew successfully. N-14 (9 May), flown from LC-16 at the Cape, suffered another early second stage shutdown due to a leaking oxidizer line. Missiles N-19 on 13 May (VAFB) and N-17 on 24 May (CCAS) were successful, but of 18 Titan II launches so far, only 10 had met all of their objectives. On 29 May, Missile N-20 was launched from LC-16 with a new round of pogo-suppressing devices on board. Unfortunately, a fire broke out in the thrust section soon after liftoff, leading to loss of control during ascent. The missile pitched down and the second stage separated from the stack at T+52 seconds, triggering the ISDS, which blew the first stage to pieces. The second stage was manually destroyed by the Range Safety officer shortly thereafter. No useful pogo data was obtained due to the early termination of the flight, and the accident was traced to a stress corrosion of the aluminum fuel valve, which resulted in a propellant leak that caught fire from contacting hot engine parts. The next flight was Missile N-22, a silo test from Vandenberg Air Force Base on 20 June, but once again the second stage lost thrust due to a gas generator restriction. At this point, BSD suspended further flights. Of the 20 Titan launches, seven would have required the abort of a crewed launch, and General McCoy had to make good 12 of the 13 remaining scheduled tests. Since the ICBM program came first, pogo suppression had to be shelved.

On the other hand, only Missile N-11 suffered a malfunction due to pogo and the combustion instability issue had occurred in static firings, but not any actual flights. All Titan II failures save for N-11 were caused by gas generator restrictions, broken plumbing, or faulty welds. The trouble appeared to be with Aerojet, and a visit of MSC officials to their Sacramento, California, plant in July revealed a number of extremely careless handling and manufacturing processes. A systematic effort to improve the quality control of the LR-87 engines was launched, which included extensive redesigns of components to improve reliability as well as fixes to the gas generator restriction issue.

Service history
The Titan II was in service from 1963 to 1987. There were originally 54 Titan II Strategic Air Command missiles.

The 54 Titan II missiles were on 24-hour continuous alert with 18 missiles each surrounding three bases: Davis–Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona, Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas, and McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas.

Mishaps
On 9 August 1965, a fire and resultant loss of oxygen when a high-pressure hydraulic line was cut with an oxyacetylene torch in a missile silo (Site 373–4) near Searcy, Arkansas, killed 53 people, mostly civilian repairmen doing maintenance. The fire occurred while the 750-ton silo lid was closed, which contributed to a reduced oxygen level for the men who survived the initial fire. Two men escaped alive, both with injuries due to the fire and smoke, one by groping in complete darkness for the exit. The missile survived and was undamaged.

On 20 June 1974, one of two engines failed to ignite on a Titan II launch from Silo 395C at Vandenberg AFB in California. The launch was part of the Anti Ballistic Missile program and was witnessed by an entourage of general officers and congressmen. The Titan suffered severe structural failure with both the hypergolic fuel tank and the oxidizer tank leaking and accumulating in the bottom of the silo. A large number of civilian contractors were evacuated from the Command and Control Bunker.

On 24 August 1978, SSgt Robert Thomas was killed at a site outside Rock, Kansas when a missile in its silo leaked propellant. Another airman, A1C Erby Hepstall, later died from lung injuries sustained in the spill.

On 19 September 1980, a major explosion occurred after a socket from a large socket wrench rolled off a platform, fell, and punctured the missile's lower-stage fuel tank, causing a fuel leak. Because of the hypergolic propellants involved, the entire missile exploded a few hours later, killing an Air Force airman, SrA David Livingston, and destroying the silo (374-7, near Damascus, Arkansas). This was the same missile that had been in the silo during the deadly fire at site 373–4, refurbished and relocated after the incident. Due to the warhead's built-in safety features, it did not detonate and was recovered about 100 m away. The 1988 television movie Disaster at Silo 7 is loosely based on the event. Author Eric Schlosser published a book centered on the accident, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, in September 2013. Command and Control, a documentary film based on Schlosser's book, aired on PBS on 10 January 2017.

Retirement
The Titan II was originally expected to be in service for only 5–7 years, but ended up lasting far longer than anyone expected in part because of its large size and throw weight. Leadership within the USAF and SAC were reluctant to retire the Titan II because while it made up only a small fraction of the total number of missiles on standby, it represented a significant portion of the total megatonnage that was deployed by Air Force ICBMs.

It is a common misconception that the Titan IIs were decommissioned because of a weapons reduction treaty, but in fact, they were simply aging victims of a weapons modernization program. Because of the volatility of the liquid fuel and the problem with aging seals, the Titan II missiles had originally been scheduled to be retired beginning in 1971. By the mid-1970s, the original AC Delco inertial guidance system had become obsolete and spare parts could no longer be obtained for it, so the guidance packages in the stock of Titan missiles were replaced by the Universal Space Guidance System. After the two accidents in 1978 and 1980, respectively, deactivation of the Titan II ICBM system finally began in July 1982. The last Titan II missile, located at Silo 373-8 near Judsonia, Arkansas, was deactivated on 5 May 1987. With their warheads removed, the deactivated missiles were initially placed in storage at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, and the former Norton Air Force Base, California, but were later broken up for salvage by 2009.

A single Titan II complex belonging to the former strategic missile wing at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base escaped destruction after decommissioning and is open to the public as the Titan Missile Museum at Sahuarita, Arizona. The missile resting in the silo is a real Titan II, but was a training missile and never contained fuel, oxidizer, or a warhead.

Number of Titan II missiles in service, by year:
 * 1963: 56
 * 1964: 59
 * 1965: 59
 * 1966: 60
 * 1967: 63
 * 1968: 59 (3 deactivated at Vandenberg Air Force Base)
 * 1969: 60
 * 1970: 57 (3 more deactivated at Vandenberg Air Force Base)
 * 1971: 58
 * 1972: 57
 * 1973: 57
 * 1974: 57
 * 1975: 57
 * 1976: 58
 * 1977: 57
 * 1978: 57
 * 1979: 57
 * 1980: 56
 * 1981: 56 (President Ronald Reagan announces retirement of Titan II systems)
 * 1983: 53
 * 1984: 43 (Davis–Monthan Air Force Base site closure completed)
 * 1985: 21
 * 1986: 9 (Little Rock Air Force Base closure completed in 1987)

Operational units
Each Titan II ICBM wing was equipped with eighteen missiles; nine per squadron with one each at dispersed launch silos in the general area of the assigned base. See squadron article for geographic locations and other information about the assigned launch sites.

A real Alert Real Response AAFM September 1999

 * 308th Strategic Missile Wing 1 April 1962 – 18 August 1987
 * Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas
 * 373d Strategic Missile Squadron
 * 374th Strategic Missile Squadron
 * 308th Missile Inspection and Maintenance Squadron

 * 381st Strategic Missile Wing 1 March 1962 – 8 August 1986
 * McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas
 * 532d Strategic Missile Squadron
 * 533d Strategic Missile Squadron

 * 390th Strategic Missile Wing 1 January 1962 – 31 July 1984
 * Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona
 * 570th Strategic Missile Squadron
 * 571st Strategic Missile Squadron

 * 1st Strategic Aerospace Division

 * Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
 * 395th Strategic Missile Squadron, 1 February 1959 – 31 December 1969
 * Operated 3 silos for technical development and testing, 1963–1969

Note: In 1959, a fifth Titan II installation comprising the 13th and 14th squadrons at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, was proposed, but never constructed.

Titan II missile disposition
Thirty-three Titan-II Research Test (N-type) missiles were built and all but one were launched either at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, or Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in 1962–64. The surviving N-10, AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 resides in the silo at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 571–7), operated by the Pima Air & Space Museum at Green Valley, south of Tucson, Arizona, on Interstate-19.

Twelve Titan-II Gemini Launch Vehicles (GLVs) were produced. All were launched from the then-Cape Kennedy Air Force Station in 1964–66. The top half of GLV-5 62-12560 was recovered offshore following its launch and is on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Alabama.

One hundred and eight Titan-II ICBM (B-Types) were produced. Forty-nine were launched for testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base from 1964 to 1976. Two were lost in accidents within silos. One B-2, AF Ser. No. 61-2756, was given to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, in the 1970s.

The 56 surviving missiles were pulled from silos and individual base stores and all transferred to the then-Norton Air Force Base, California, during the 1980s. They were stored under plastic coverings and had helium pumped into their engine components to prevent rust. Norton Air Force Base buildings 942 and 945 held the missiles. Building 945 held 30 missiles, while Building 942 held 11 plus a single stage 1. The buildings also held extra stage engines and the interstages. 14 full missiles and one extra second stage had been transferred from Norton Air Force Base to the manufacturer, Martin Marietta, at Martin's Denver, Colorado, facility for refurbishment by the end of the decade. 13 of the 14 were launched as 23Gs. One missile, B-108, AF Ser. No. 66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for the 23G program), went to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon. Finally, B-34 Stage 2 was delivered from Norton Air Force Base to Martin Marietta on 28 April 1986, but was not modified to a G, nor was it listed as arriving or being destroyed at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base; it is therefore unaccounted for within the open source public domain.

Forty-two B-series missiles remained, 41 full and one first stage at Norton Air Force Base, and the second stage at Martin. Of these, 38 and one second stage were stored outside at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC), now known as the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (309 AMARG), adjacent to Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, to await final destruction between 2004 and 2008. Four of the 42 were saved and sent to museums (below).

Air Force Base Silo Deactivation date ranges:
 * Davis–Monthan Air Force Base 10 Aug 82 – 28 June 1984
 * McConnell Air Force Base 31 July 1984 – 18 June 1986
 * Little Rock Air Force Base 31 May 1985 – 27 June 1987

Titan II Movement Dates:
 * Titan II Bs moved to Norton Air Force Base between – 12 March 1982 through 20 August 1987
 * Missiles relocated to AMARC at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base prior to Apr 1994 closure of Norton Air Force Base due to BRAC 1989 action
 * Titan II Bs delivered to Martin Marietta/Denver between – 29 February 1986 through 20 September 1988
 * Titan II Bs delivered to AMARC – 25 October 1982 through 23 August 1987
 * Titan II Bs destroyed at AMARC – 7 April 2004 through 15 October 2008
 * Titan II Bs destruction periods at AMARC – 7 April 2004 x2; 17 August 2005 x 5; 12–17 Jan 2006 x 10; 9 August 2007 x 3; 7–15 Oct 2008 x 18; 2 shipped out to museums, Aug 2009

Official Count: 108 Titan-2 'B' Series Vehicles were delivered to USAF: 49 Test launches, 2 Silo losses, 13 Space launches, 6 in museums, 37.5 destroyed at AMARC, +.5 (one second stage missing B-34)=108.

Titan-II surviving missiles/ Museum locations within the United States:
 * GLV-5, AF Ser. No. 62-12560 top half of Stage 1 was recovered offshore following its launch and is on display at the Alabama Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
 * N-10 AF Ser. No. 61-2738/60-6817 in the silo at the Titan Missile Museum (ICBM Site 571–7), southwest of Davis–Monthan Air Force Base in Green Valley, Tucson, Arizona.
 * B-2 AF Ser. No 61–2756 at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama, in the 1970s.
 * B-5 AF Ser. No. 61–2759 at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio.
 * B-14/20 AF Ser. No. 61–2768 at the Stafford Museum, Oklahoma.
 * B-44/16 AF Ser. No. 62–0025 at the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History adjacent to Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
 * B-104 AF Ser. No 66–4315 at the Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
 * B-108 AF Ser. No. 66-4319 (23G-10 the spare for the 23G program) at the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon.

Titan II launch vehicle
The Titan II space-launch vehicles were purpose-built as space launchers or are decommissioned ICBMs that have been refurbished and equipped with hardware required for use as space launch vehicles. All twelve Gemini capsules, including ten crewed, were launched by Titan II launchers.

The Titan II space launch vehicle is a two-stage liquid fueled booster, designed to provide a small-to-medium weight class capability. It is able to lift approximately 1900 kg into a circular polar low-Earth orbit. The first stage consists of one ground ignited Aerojet LR-87 liquid propellant rocket engine (with two combustion chambers and nozzles but a single turbopump system), while the second stage consists of an Aerojet LR91 Liquid-propellant engine.

By the mid-1980s, with the stock of refurbished Atlas E/F missiles finally starting to run out, the Air Force decided to reuse decommissioned Titan IIs for space launches. The Martin Marietta Astronautics Group was awarded a contract in January 1986 to refurbish, integrate, and launch fourteen Titan II ICBMs for government space launch requirements. These were designated Titan 23G. The Air Force successfully launched the first Titan 23G space launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base 5 September 1988. NASA's Clementine spacecraft was launched aboard a Titan 23G in January 1994. All Titan 23G missions were launched from Space Launch Complex 4 West (SLC-4W) on Vandenberg Air Force Base, under the operational command of the 6595th Aerospace Test Group and its follow-on organizations of the 4th Space Launch Squadron and 2nd Space Launch Squadron. The Titan 23G ended up being less of a cost-saving measure than anticipated as the expense of refurbishing the missiles for space launches turned out to be more than the cost of flying a brand-new Delta booster. Unlike refurbished Atlas missiles, which were completely torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, the Titan 23G had relatively few changes aside from replacing the warhead interface and adding range safety and telemetry packages. The engines were merely given a brief static firing to verify their functionality. Of the 13 launches, there was one failure, when a launch of a Landsat satellite in 1993 ended in a useless orbit due to a malfunction of the satellite kick motor. The last Titan II launch was on 18 October 2003 when a DMSP weather satellite was successfully launched. This flight had been scheduled for launch in early 2001, but persistent problems with the booster and satellite delayed it over two years. A total of 282 Titan IIs were launched between 1962 and 2003, of which 25 were space launches.

title: LGM-25C Titan II


text:
Koeksister

A koeksister is a traditional Afrikaner confectionery made of fried dough infused in syrup or honey. There is also a Cape Malay version of the dish, which is a fried ball of dough that is rolled in desiccated coconut called a koesister. The name derives from the Dutch word "koek", which generally means a wheat flour confectionery.

Koeksisters are prepared by frying plaited dough strips in oil, then submersing the hot fried dough into ice cold sugar syrup. Koeksisters have a golden crunchy crust and liquid syrup centre, are very sticky and sweet, and taste like honey.

A monument of a koeksister in the Afrikaner community of Orania alludes to the Afrikaner tradition of baking them to raise funds for the building of churches and schools.

title: Koeksister