[Milsurplus] Chinese 102/139 set

[Peter Gottlieb]

Two things:

One, Trump does not care at all about our measly hobby, and,

Two, the cost to demil is tiny and in most cases borne by the buyer of the scrap. It would bring in almost nothing (in the scheme of defense dept costs) and incur high costs for sorting, compliance and management. Then of course the problem of diversion to enemies or some stupid journalist trying to score points about finding how we are selling military equipment to our enemies (never mind the real cases of doing this directly).


Peter

> On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Robert Meadows <rpmeadow at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> That is correct Jim, unless we can get the ear of one Donald John Trump and convince him of the present bad “deal” for the better deal of just selling the antique radio equipment for what would actually be a profit, as the cost to “demil” is quite high.
> R
>  
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jim Whartenby
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 8:47 PM
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Chinese 102/139 set
>  
> Is this concern for Chinese surplus the result of the lack of military radio surplus in the US?  
>  
> In exchanges with fellow list members, it appears that just about all US military electronic surplus now has a DMIL D requirement.  I suspect that even the remaining R-390A now have that requirement, along with every other other piece of vacuum tube based military electronics.  
>  
> So I guess that only the equipment that is already in the hands of the public is all that will ever exist as US military surplus radios?
> Comments?
> Jim
>  
> I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore the 90% they agree on?
>  
> 
> From: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>
> To: Mike Morrow <kk5f at arrl.net>; "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Chinese 102/139 set
>  
> And this was a fairly recent policy change. The H.K. fellow was as puzzled as well as to the thinking behind the apparent reversal, but less puzzled than we, at least having closer insight into Chinese nationalism. ( and "social control". )
> If you see differently and indeed I'm wrong and such eqpt is still being exported, I welcome  learning more. 
> -Hue
>  
>  
>  
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20181010/5171c5e2/attachment-0001.html>