Mark:

Your logic and facts, as you present them, are well taken. Indeed, I
am anxious to see any arguments which are posed to the contrary...

John

"Mark Zenier" wrote in message
...
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