In article ,
John Smith wrote:
Tell me, what is/are a legitimate argument(s) to keep CW a
requirement, which any sane man/woman could argue with real and
logical conviction?

The real reason for the Morse requirement was, (three quarters of a
century ago or so, after WW I), to maintain a pool of people that could
be inducted into the military in times of war to maintain communications
on the battlefield. Learning Morse is not a natural act. Nor, for more
than a small percentage of the population, very easy. Getting a bunch
of Signal Corps cannon fodder to train themselves was a great boon.

Back about 20 years ago, when Digital Signal Processor ICs were first
coming out, I did a bunch of library research on the possiblity of
building a box that could match the performance of a human operator.
The newest paper I could find on the actual use of CW, in the open
literature, was from 1959. They were no longer interested in using it.
It takes too long to train an operator, and the data transmission capacity
is too low. And if the radio operator gets shot...

(There was, reportedly, a lot of expertise in the NSA and its military
affiliates in automated CW intercepts, as the Soviet Union and third
world still had a lot of tactical comm. in CW at that time).

But at that same time, 20 years ago, I got some insight, (at a job
interview), into what the miltary was planning for the future. It was
automating an entire infantry division with packet radio. Not much
reason to learn Morse code when the field radios had 20 kbps (?) packet
modems built in, and the field officers could just plug the Grid portable
into them.

So the military no longer has any need and it's taken 40 years
for the ham "community" to figure this out.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident