You know you're over the target when you start taking flak
A comment from the
$47M Released for LANL Plutonium Lab post:
You guys are full of it. LANL is world class in Plutonium research and has some of world’s best management teams in place for nuclear facility management for facilities such as CMRR. There is no better place in the complex to build this facility. The LANS management team in place to manage this facility is second to none. Please do your research before you post such dribble on this blog.
A comment from the $47M Released for LANL Plutonium Lab post:
"The LANS management team in place to manage this facility is second to none. Please do your research before you post such dribble on this blog."
ReplyDeleteI take it this guy has rated LANS management very highly in the recent Employee Engagement morale survey. Figures, because he's probably part of the LANS upper management team.
Incoming flak from LANS management seems to be rising as this blog targets weak points in the LANS armor. Keep the machine guns firing, Frank, and maybe, just maybe, they can be brought down in flames. Yeah, you're on target, all right. Keep a steady hand and a sharp eye on that machine gun.
I'm trying to imagine what our crack Bechtel/LANS management team will come up with for the Plutonium equivalent of the "Big Dig".
ReplyDeleteDon't know what the Big Dig is? Do your research. Here's a hint: it has to do with epoxy. Come to think of it, the Big Dig explains our "second to none" management team's fascination with JB Weld.
Here's a question for you.
ReplyDeleteAs somebody on a previous post commented, Bechtel has plenty of money, politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists in their pocket. How bad will Bechtel/LANS have to fuck up before Congress tells DOE to yank their contract like they did to UC? We know how bad UC had to fuck up (Nanos, on top of 30 years of demonstrated ineptness).
Personally, I think Bechtel/LANS has what it takes to exceed UC's level of incompetence, the question is: will it be enough to get them booted?
"LANL is world class in Plutonium research..."
ReplyDeleteWell, excluding the small group of posters here.
Frank! Did you let someone dribble all over your blog again??
ReplyDeleteIck. You'd think these internet perverts would keep a box of tissues handy. Sick weirdos.
LANL is also "world class" in nuclear weapons. Ever stop to wonder why? One reason might just be that ...excluding the brilliant minds at Livermore who, come to think of it, are now running the place...nobody else is in the running! It is pretty easy to be number 1 in a race with 2 competitors. So while we may indeed have top notch actinide chemists, that hardly means we have top notch chemists.
ReplyDelete"Ick. You'd think these internet perverts would keep a box of tissues handy. Sick weirdos."
ReplyDeleteYes, & leave it to the 15-25 LANL failures to post the truth about LANL.
Nice picture of B-25 Mitchell medium bomber. Where is it located and how did you get inside?
ReplyDeleteJohn M. Pedicini
John,
ReplyDeleteHe paid $350 and got to take a ride.
I'm envious.
--Doug
John,
ReplyDeleteThat picture is from this morning at the Columbia, SC Metropolitan Airport. Doolittle trained here for the famous raid.
Getting inside was a little tricky but getting out was harder. During the flight I crawled back to the tail turret on my knees over the metal floor. Afterwards I could barely walk. And my ears are still ringing.
God bless the men who flew these things.
Gotta love those two huge engines on the B-25. Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials with 1850 hp each. Their noise and vibration alone tells you that the Wrath Of God is com'in down on your head. Well worth a $350 ticket to experience a thrill like that!
ReplyDeleteJohn: A few years ago, there was a display of WW-II bombing aircraft at the Santa Fe airport. While we were there, we saw a B-17 fly in and land, and a B-24 come in from the Los Alamos direction (evidently not on a bombing run) and land, and a B-25 already down. I had a chance to climb aboard both the 17 and the 24. Flights were available. Remarkable pieces of equipment, and remarkably small, compared to what I expected to find. They were men, in those days.
ReplyDeleteA few interesting viewgraphs from Wallace's all-hands last week.
ReplyDelete1-TCP1 is apparently in trouble.
2-LANS increased by 300 employees in FY09. LANS claims 8966 which is way out line with the DOE budget request number of 7940 and 2300 more than DOEs fy2010 number!
3-LANS underspent by $250M in fy09. Others have said the real number may be $750M but the LANS accounting system is so broken nobody can tell for sure.
what the heck is going on at this place?
I saw a hard copy but I hear you can get the viewgraphs from the PADSTE website.
Here is the text of the TW slide on pension contributions:
ReplyDeletePension Contributions
• The Defined Benefits Program
– Closed Program
• 5679 Active Participants
• 187 Retiree
• 725 Terminated/leave
– Value on 8/31/09: 1.37B, return in 09 is 12.7%
• Liabilities
– Service, Age, Salary and COLA
• Must increase the Assets
– Contribution
What caught my eye was the statement "Return in 09 is 12.7%"
Holy securitization, batman! 12.7%? I'm in my early 40's and my "conservative" investment (specifically, my UC DCP account, which I hold in the Fidelity 2030 Target Fund as a benchmark for my "aggressive" portfolio) has shown a 27% return YTD. My more aggressively invested UC 403(b) has returned 46% YTD.
Yes, I know, my funds lost more in 2008 than a conservatively invested pension fund would have. And yes, I know I'm younger than the typical TCP1 plan participant.
My point is, just how conservative should the TCP1 pension investment be? To find an external benchmark for comparison, I looked at the rest of the Fidelity target date funds. The most conservative mix is the Freedom 2000 fund. As the name implies, the fund is designed for people who retired almost a decade ago, with income as its primary goal and asset appreciation secondary.
The Fidelity Target 2000 Fund has returned 14.3% in 2009 YTD. More than the TCP1 pension fund.
With 5679 Active Participants and only 187 Retirees, shouldn't the pension fund be invested a wee bit more aggressively than it currently is? Even if you assume that all of the current TCP1 participants will be retired by 2015, the Fidelity target fund benchmark would be a 22.5% return YTD.
Flame away, my only dog in this fight is if SLR's go up to subsidize TCP1 pension contributions. (Because our cost of doing business isn't high enough already???)
Take a close look at slide 17 in Terry Wallace's presentation. He quickly passed over this extremely interesting slide with little comment.
ReplyDeleteIt shows that the Director's Office (DIR) has increased their highly paid executive staff from about 254 when LANS first took over in June '06 to a level of 521 as of today. Lots of well paying positions were opened up for the new Bechtel managers, I suppose.
Also interesting is the drop of employment in the weapons directorate (PADWP) during this same period of time. It went from 1707 to 1299 today.
Finally, it is interesting to note that PADSTE's ADE (Engineering) directorate has shown huge growth, from 445 to 1161 employees during LANS' 3 year tenure.
Yes, the lab is changing. Much greater upper level management and plant engineering versus much less science is what I see. The Bechtel-ization process is advancing nicely.
"LANS claims 8966 which is way out line with the DOE budget request number of 7940 and 2300 more than DOEs fy2010 number!" - 7:15 AM
ReplyDeleteRemember that mistakenly released figure from LASO during the spring budget planning exercise? You know, the one that they quickly retracted with the statement that it was a clerical error and they only expected to see a goal of 5% attrition for FY2010?
I'll remind you. It said that LANL would need to reduce head count by about 2000 employees during this next fiscal year. That fits in nicely with your observation, 7:15.
We have far too many people at LANL to support the current budget according to NNSA. If massive layoffs don't hit this year, then you can be pretty sure they are probably coming in 2011 unless the budget changes drastically (which it won't). Get ready for further lab downsizing. Bechtelites need not be concerned.
LANL increased employment by 300 this last fiscal year? Where did all of these people get hired? Certainly not within the scientists corp. The ranks of the researchers at LANL are rapidly shrinking!
ReplyDeleteWhy would standard labor rates go up to fund TCP1? Doesn't that imply that pension contributions would be taken out of project funds instead of docking the employee's paycheck? That would be completely unfair to those of use who chose TCP2.
ReplyDelete521 people in the Director's Office?
ReplyDeleteWhsy do they do all day?
Do they wash Mickie's car?
I've heard several cases of older folks who went into TCP2 being harassed by managers who are obviously trying to get them to quit. Have secret orders been issued to get rid of people? One guy I know was going to leave but now decided to hang around a while and harass management right back at them. Its sad how low LANL has fallen.
ReplyDelete10/10/09 11:43 AM
ReplyDeleteLANL increased employment by 300 this last fiscal year? Where did all of these people get hired?
Chemistry division. C-IIAC hired a few folks that worked for the Neu/Runde team and C-NR is currently trying convert a couple of postdocs as well in addition to hiring a few technicians.
External hires: System engineers (facility, not weapons), safety basis, CMRR, cybersecurity.
ReplyDeleteADE grew because desktop and network support were moved into that directorate (now NIE and DCS divisions). Also because of the facility system engineers (ES division).
And some of the growth in the Directors Office may be from moving the National Security Office up there, from PADWP. Also cybersecurity moved up there.
I'm sure y'all noticed that Terry waited until slide 37, when everyone was fast asleep, to slip in the breakdown of the FY09 funding showing $194M for Contract Fees and Gross Receipts Tax. Compare with $8M for the previous UC contract. Way to go Congress!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Congress feels the increased costs of almost $200 million per year for running LANL is well worth the money. Just watch how quickly Bechtel and BWXT lobbyist fill up the Congressmen campaign coffers with new money!
ReplyDeleteCongress is utterly corrupt these days, and that includes both major parties. "Pay to play" rules at all levels, including within our very own Governor's house.
BTW, has anyone been paying attention to how Sen. Reid (D-Nevada) has been working overtime to see that NTS is flooding with new fed money? It's beginning to look like Harry Reid is taking over the title from St. Pete:
"Test site will get name change"
Revision to reflect its 'expanded mission'
Vegas Review-Journal, Oct 6
..That "expanded mission," according to the amendment by Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., will focus on developing methods to verify treaties and reduce nuclear security threats "while continuing to support the nation's nuclear weapons program and other national security programs."
The act provides $89 million for defense-related projects in Nevada but doesn't specify what the new name should be for the place that was first called the Nevada Proving Grounds in 1951 and changed about a year later to the Nevada Test Site.
www.lvrj.com/news/
test-site-will-get-name-change-
63659772.html
Steve Younger and NTS clearly plan on "eating LANL's lunch". From the same article:
ReplyDelete-
Last month, Stephen M. Younger, president of the test site's prime contractor, National Security Technologies, touted a nuclear security center as "the biggest thing at the site in many decades.
-
Steve Younger has the head of the Senate, Sen. Reid, working hard on his behalf. And LANL? We have Sen. Bingamin and Udall. Yeah, time to start worrying!
"Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons" (AFP, Oct 11)
ReplyDeletePresident Barack Obama's Nobel peace surprise was given "primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament," according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."
.. Instead of fantasies about a nuke-free planet where formerly bloodthirsty humans live together in peace, what the world needs is a safer, more stable nuclear umbrella. That probably means fewer nukes in fewer hands - when President Obama talks about strengthening the non-proliferation regime and stepping up efforts to secure loose nukes, he is on the right track. Nuclear weapons are only helpful if they are never used.
But zero weapons is a terrible idea. As bad as they are, nukes have been instrumental in reversing the long, seemingly inexorable trend in modernity toward deadlier and deadlier conflicts. If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb.
news.yahoo.com/s/time/
20091011/us_time/
08599192955300
"If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb."
ReplyDelete10/11/09 12:59 PM
Or, to it's inventors.
"If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb."
ReplyDelete10/11/09 12:59 PM
Or, to it's inventors.
Or, to their investors.
"If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb."
ReplyDelete10/11/09 12:59 PM
Or, to it's inventors.
Or, to their investors.
10/11/09 9:17 PM
Try studying some history, jerk. The inventors of the atomic bombs did not have "investors." They had invested interests, like seeing their home countries saved from German annihilation, including the US. Japan wiped out our Pacific Fleet in one morning. We simply returned the favor, along with saving tens of thousands of US, and Japanese, lives.
You're absolutely correct, 9:40. No DOE contractor has ever made a single cent producing SNM for the US weapons program. I withdraw my "investors" comment. Whatever was I thinking about?
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely correct, 9:40. No DOE contractor has ever made a single cent producing SNM for the US weapons program. I withdraw my "investors" comment. Whatever was I thinking about?
ReplyDelete10/11/09 9:48 PM
Nice try at disingenuation, but your comment was about the bomb and it's "investors," not about DOE contractors. And what's wrong about making money producing material to protect America? You remain a jerk.
11:17,
ReplyDeleteHey, prick-face, I believe you're the jerk. 9:13 was simply noting the capitalistic corporate nature of the military industrial complex that has profited hugely from making bombs.
You sound like a red neck flag-waving Republican shithead. You probably consider yourself to be a "Good Christian" as well.
But what you really are is a shithead.
Feel better now that you've had your chance to raged like a two year old, 6:23 am?
ReplyDeleteToo bad your infantile post doesn't have a single thing to add to this blogs discussions. Keep up the intense anger, 6:23, and it will eventually end up killing you.
It is interesting to note all of the comments on Bechtel-ization, TCP1 shortfalls, and the increase in management (ie overhead). Hmmm...perhaps, there could be a link? I have heard Bechtel managers openly bragging about their sweet LANL retirement plan. Apparently, Bechtel managers are brought here, work two years, then retire in the the TCP1 program, which is better than their Bechtel plan. This reduces the burden on the Bechtel pension fund, while draining the LANL pension fund. This of course is coupled with LANS management pressuring long time LANL employees to leave, thus reducing their "service credit" for
ReplyDeletecalculating their TCP1 payout. It seems to me that the GAO should be talking a look into this. I'm sure it legal; however, I'm sure Congress did not intend to subsidize Bechtel's pension fund.
Can anyone else verify 11:58 AM's claim regarding Bechtel's pillaging of the TCP1 pension with their own employees?
ReplyDeleteIn particular, is it true that the incoming Bechtel implants are able to get into the TCP1 pension after only 2 years of service at LANL?
"I have heard Bechtel managers openly bragging about their sweet LANL retirement plan. Apparently, Bechtel managers are brought here, work two years, then retire in the the TCP1 program, which is better than their Bechtel plan. "
ReplyDeleteI have heard the exact same thing
and it may be legal but very sleazy.
"All your bases are belong to us!"
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org/wiki/
All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
- RILEY BECHTEL
I know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL. For example, I think I saw that Mike Mallory recently had his 30th service anniversary as an LANL employee. Yeah, you heard me right...
ReplyDeleteI know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL.
ReplyDelete10/15/09 4:42 PM
Wow. That is criminal that some worthless Bechtelian scum can obtain service credit on LANL property. Disgusting.
10/15/09 6:30 PM
Yes, parent company employees (e.g., UC) were able to transfer service credit under the contract. So what's the big deal. all you former UC employees?
The big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.
ReplyDeleteThe big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.
ReplyDelete10/16/09 6:30 AM
So former Bechtel employees should be denied rights under the LANS contract that other parent company employees enjoy because you think that Bechtel is a parasite? Just out of curiosity, even if that were true, why would anyone with integrity choose to work for a parasite?
"So former Bechtel employees should be denied rights under the LANS contract that other parent company employees enjoy because you think that Bechtel is a parasite?"
ReplyDeleteA better question is whether former
Bechtel employees have anything to improve LANL?
A better question is whether former
ReplyDeleteBechtel employees have anything to improve LANL?
10/16/09 9:38 PM
You must recognize when you've asked a meaningless question that can have no rational answer. What do you mean by "have anything'? Who will decide whether anything that satisfies the meaningless first question will "improve" LANL? Really, you need to think a little harder before you post.
I know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL. For example, I think I saw that Mike Mallory recently had his 30th service anniversary as an LANL employee. Yeah, you heard me right...
ReplyDeleteMike Mallory. Now there's another worthless "individual" that Mikey hired. Another con artist from the get go; what the hell has Mallory accomplished since he got here? Formed from the same sphincter that Brett Knapp and Bill Reese came from. Mikey has cut these asses "so to speak" loose with their guns blazing on people directing workers to leave their jobs and positions on the spot. Quite frankly, these lame excuses for "managers" nauseate me. So now your telling me these jerks prior service was transferred to LANS regardless of where they worked? This place is as CORRUPT and PUTRID as they get.
"You must recognize when you've asked a meaningless question that can have no rational answer. What do you mean by "have anything'? Who will decide whether anything that satisfies the meaningless first question will "improve" LANL? Really, you need to think a little harder before you post.
ReplyDelete10/16/09 11:44 PM"
WTF??? Are you drunk?
The question is trivial but I guess you cannot think of a single thing. For fun let us try.
(1) Have business practices improved?... No they cannot figure out how much money we have spent.
(2) Is the place more cost effective?...No overhead has increased and we where in the hole deep enough to get people to retire.
(3) Has paperwork been streamlined?... No, paperwork and bureaucracy have dramatically increased.
(4) Has the scientific productivity increased?...No, by all measures it has decreased and more good people have left.
(5) Are we better at doing our programs? ... No we are getting worse.
(6) Are we safer?...No we got rid of our bottled water and make people drink poisoned water and the same number of big incidents keep happening.
(7) Are we more secure?... Hell no, every computer person I know says that the cybersecurity policies are only about giving the appearance of security when in fact they create innumerable security holes.
(8) Is the workforce empowered and happy?...No.
In short the whole place is now a big con to bilk money out of the government. It is not just the fee, but they do many other tricks as well. So again I ask you the simple question...What has Bechtel done to improve LANL? At this point if may very well be better if we close down LANL and LLNL.
"This place is as CORRUPT and PUTRID as they get." - 6:05 AM
ReplyDeleteAmen, brother! Keep preaching the word!
LANS isn't just inept with their "for profit" management directed largely by Bechtel and Mike's Livermore mafia. That would be bad enough.
It's the corruption that is exceptionally egregious to the remaining staff. LANS can issue all the PR they want to the public, but many lab employees know what is really going on inside LANL.
Those poor poor "parent company" pukes. Can anyone name a single Bechtel transplant who has accomplished anything of substance since the hostile takeover? Just one? The silence is telling.
ReplyDeleteI nominate 10/17/09 9:27 AM for the comment of the week. Factual, accurate description of LANL under LANS. The rest of the story indeed.
ReplyDelete10/17 3:46 pm: "Those poor poor "parent company" pukes."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the ex-UC employees? Like Mikey, and, presumably, you?
"Yes, parent company employees (e.g., UC) were able to transfer service credit under the contract. So what's the big deal. all you former UC employees?"
ReplyDeleteThe big deal is that vested UC employees are the only parent company employees that transferred money into TCP1. It should be a closed fund for UC employees whose contributions and vested valuations funded. A Bechtel employee probablydid not transfer funds from a Bechtel pension fund into TCP1. This means Bechtel employees get a pension funded by UCRP funds calculated from former UC employees. If Bechtel(or other parent company) transfers retire soon enough they can even leave before even a dime of employee contributions are started for TCP1.
As an aside, for UC inactives and retirees the UCRP annual report should soon be released showing the market losses and % funded status. This should be the first year to test the UC/DOE agreement memo to calculate the DOE liablities back to UCRP for the LLNL and LANL portions of the UC pension fund. It would be nice to get the % funded numbers from UC for the three groups since they are differentiating LLNL, LANL, and UC.
Should be interesting numbers in the UC annual report. UC also seems to be 18 to 24 months more current than the minimal reporting of TCP1. Weird that Terry W. shares select TCP1 info on Vu graphs but there is nothing official or current reported to ALL TCP1 members from benefits or LANS management.
Ruthless business. Move Bechtel transfers to retire on the UC funds, keep any Bechtel pensions funds intact, and hide these facts and report only the minimum information as late as legally compliant.
11:42 am: "A Bechtel employee probablydid not transfer funds from a Bechtel pension fund into TCP1."
ReplyDeleteYour argument rests entirely on the word "probably" above. If you don't know the answer, someone should be able to enlighten you. I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect the scenario you pose is illegal, since under the LANS/NNSA contract, TCP1 is in fact a "closed fund."
Great point about probably. I don't know any Bechtelians or others to ask if their parent pension transferred any funds. Would the employee know? Would anyone in LANS HR leak that information? TCP1 can't be very "closed system" since the numbers of TCP1 members has increased since June 2006.
ReplyDeleteTCP 1 Members
ReplyDelete" Here is the text of the TW slide on pension contributions:
Pension Contributions
• The Defined Benefits Program
– Closed Program
• 5679 Active Participants
• 187 Retiree
• 725 Terminated/leave
– Value on 8/31/09: 1.37B, return in 09 is 12.7%
• Liabilities
– Service, Age, Salary and COLA
• Must increase the Assets
– Contribution"
If that TW slide is correct that is 6,591 TCP1 members. From the Segal report Feb.2007 (see below) the total UC transfers into TCP1 was 6552. There are 39 new TCP1 members I assume from parent companies. Did they bring funds from parent co. pensions?
Here are the numbers from Segal( Feb '07 and the UC documents Mar '07. Also the agreement outlined for UCRP and DOE/NNSA about funding UC retirees and inactives at 100%.
Segal valuation report Feb. 2007
There were 6,532 active members who elected to transfer to LANS. As described earlier, we have continued
to value these members as active UCRP members.
There were also 20 members who terminated prior to the valuation date and elected to transfer to the LANS
defined benefit plan. These members were valued as either terminated vested or nonvested members in this
valuation, depending on each member’s circumstance.
UC Regents meeting notes
Office of the President
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION:
ACTION ITEM
For the Meeting of March 15, 2007
TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA RETIREMENT PLAN (UCRP) TO THE LOS ALAMOS
NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN AND
AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ONGOING OBLIGATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO REIMBURSE THE UNIVERSITY FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UCRP
Following the Formula results in a May
31, 2006 market value of assets to be transferred (with adjustments as set forth below)
from UCRP to the LANS Plan of $1,278,762,851 (“A minus B”). The transfer of assets
and liabilities from UCRP to the LANS Plan is proposed to take place on or about April
2, 2007. The LANS Plan will then assume the liabilities transferred from UCRP effective
as of June 1, 2006.
The DOE/NNSA has agreed to a target funded ratio for the LANL Segment within UCRP
of 100%. Any year that the segment is underfunded (using UCRP actuarial assumptions),
DOE/NNSA will begin seven years of level payments in an amount projected to restore
full funding by the end of the seven-year term.
Comments? Concerns? Information about these issues?
Thank you for reading and posting.
So, TCP1 has mysteriously grown with the addition of about 40 highly paid Bechtel employees at LANL. And the Bechtelites didn't have to transfer any of their corporate pensions assets into the TCP1 pot or serve the required time to be fully vested?
ReplyDeleteSounds like Bechtel has finally found an effective means to raid the LANS pension. No wonder employee contributions will soon be required!
And the sheeple at LANL all said: "baa-baa". I'm sure DOE/NNSA find this whole situation hilarious.
And the sheeple at LANL all said: "baa-baa". I'm sure DOE/NNSA find this whole situation hilarious.
ReplyDelete10/19/09 10:42 AM
HaHaHaHa! That "sheeple" thing is still hilarious. You are so clever; please post your personal information so that I can meet you for sex.
"You are so clever; please post your personal information so that I can meet you for sex."
ReplyDelete10/19/09 9:31 PM
Hey, anytime, 9:31 pm! A person like you is just the type I'm looking for to star in my next big movie, "2 Girls 1 Cup - Act II":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Girls_1_Cup
You'll fit in just fine. Just be sure to bring along a mega-sized mug!
China's Dongfeng-21 missile is the world's first that can take out a large moving target at sea:
ReplyDeletehttp://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/dongfeng-21-anti-ship-missile.html