DOCSLIB.ORG

Fall Flair Arm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fall Flair Arm THE FALL FLAIR ARM CONFIGURATIONS WIDTH DEPTH HEIGHT 61409 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR CORNER CHAIR 41IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61410 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR ARM CHAIR 44IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61411 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM CHAIR 38IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61412 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM CHAIR 38IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61413 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR ARMLESS CHAIR 31IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61415 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR WEDGE 51IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61420 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LOVESEAT 67IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61421 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM LOVESEAT 61IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61422 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM LOVESEAT 61IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61423 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR ARMLESS LOVESEAT 54IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61430 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR SOFA 94IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61431 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM CORNER SOFA 100IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61432 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM CORNER SOFA 100IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61433 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM SOFA 88IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61434 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM SOFA 88IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61435 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR APT SOFA 74IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61436 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM APT SOFA 68IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61437 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM APT SOFA 68IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61438 CRAFTED - FALL FALIR ARMLESS SOFA 81IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61439 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR ARMLESS APT SOFA 61IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61460 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR CHAISE 46IN. 64IN. 38IN. 61461 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM CHAISE 40IN. 64IN. 38IN. 61462 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM CHAISE 40IN. 64IN. 38IN. 61463 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR ARMLESS CHAISE 33IN. 64IN. 38IN. 61471 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT BUMPER 41IN. 85IN. 38IN. 61472 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT BUMPER 41IN. 85IN. 38IN. 61480 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LARGE SOFA 104IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61481 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR RIGHT ARM LARGE SOFA 98IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61482 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LEFT ARM LARGE SOFA 98IN. 41IN. 38IN. 61483 CRAFTED - FALL FLAIR LARGE ARMLESS SOFA 91IN. 41IN. 38IN. EST. 1989 // AUTHENTIC HAND BUILT FURNITURE // THOMASVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA THE FALL FLAIR ARM 119" 119" SHOWN 61437 LEFT ARM APT SOFA 61415 WEDGE 61436 RIGHT ARM APT SOFA FALL FLAIR ARM 1:115 SCALE SHOWN 61409 CORNER CHAIR 61410 ARM CHAIR 61411 R ARM CHAIR 61412 L ARM CHAIR 61413 ARMLESS CHAIR TOTAL W41" D41" H38" TOTAL W44" D41" H38" TOTAL W38" D41" H38" TOTAL W38" D41" H38" TOTAL W31" D41" H38" SEAT W 23" D23" H 19" SEAT W 30" D23" H 19" SEAT W 30" D23" H 19" SEAT W 30" D23" H 19" SEAT W 30" D23" H 19" ARMS --- --- --- ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- --- 61415 WEDGE 61420 LOVESEAT 61421 R ARM LOVESEAT 61422 L ARM LOVESEAT 61423 ARMLESS LOVESEAT TOTAL W51" D41" H38" TOTAL W67" D41" H38" TOTAL W61" D41" H38" TOTAL W61" D41" H38" TOTAL W54" D41" H38" SEAT W 55" D23" H 19" SEAT W 54" D23" H 19" SEAT W 54" D23" H 19" SEAT W 54" D23" H 19" SEAT W 54" D23" H 19" ARMS --- --- --- ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" 61430 SOFA 61431 R ARM CORNER SOFA 61432 L ARM CORNER SOFA 61433 R ARM SOFA 61434 L ARM SOFA TOTAL W94" D41" H38" TOTAL W100" D41" H38" TOTAL W100" D41" H38" TOTAL W88" D41" H38" TOTAL W88" D41" H38" SEAT W 80" D23" H 19" SEAT W 77" D23" H 19" SEAT W 77" D23" H 19" SEAT W 80" D23" H 19" SEAT W 80" D23" H 19" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" 61435 APARTMENT SOFA 61436 R ARM APT SOFA 61437 L ARM APT SOFA 61438 ARMLESS SOFA 61439 ARMLESS APT SOFA TOTAL W74" D41" H38" TOTAL W68" D41" H38" TOTAL W68" D41" H38" TOTAL W81" D41" H38" TOTAL W61" D41" H38" SEAT W 60" D23" H 19" SEAT W 60" D23" H 19" SEAT W 60" D23" H 19" SEAT W 80" D23" H 19" SEAT W 60" D23" H 19" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- --- ARMS --- --- --- 61460 CHAISE 61461 R ARM CHAISE 61462 L ARM CHAISE 61463 ARMESS CHAISE 61471 RIGHT BUMPER TOTAL W46" D64" H38" TOTAL W40" D64" H38" TOTAL W40" D64" H38" TOTAL W33" D64" H38" TOTAL W41" D85" H38" SEAT W 32" D47" H 19" SEAT W 32" D47" H 19" SEAT W 32" D47" H 19" SEAT W 32" D47" H 19" SEAT W 23" D69" H 19" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- --- ARMS --- --- --- 61472 LEFT BUMPER 61480 LARGE SOFA 61481 R ARM LARGE SOFA 61482 L ARM LARGE SOFA 61483 LARGE ARMLESS SOFA TOTAL W41" D85" H38" TOTAL W104" D41" H38" TOTAL W98" D41" H38" TOTAL W98" D41" H38" TOTAL W91" D41" H38" SEAT W 23" D69" H 19" SEAT W 90" D23" H 19" SEAT W 90" D23" H 19" SEAT W 90" D23" H 19" SEAT W 90" D23" H 19" ARMS --- --- --- ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- H 26" ARMS --- --- --- EST. 1989 // AUTHENTIC HAND BUILT FURNITURE // THOMASVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592
    Technical Data Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592 Topic Page Description 2 Heater Element Selection Procedure 2 Index to Heater Element Selection Tables 5 Heater Element Selection Tables 6 Additional Resources These documents contain additional information concerning related products from Rockwell Automation. Resource Description Industrial Automation Wiring and Grounding Guidelines, publication 1770-4.1 Provides general guidelines for installing a Rockwell Automation industrial system. Product Certifications website, http://www.ab.com Provides declarations of conformity, certificates, and other certification details. You can view or download publications at http://www.rockwellautomation.com/literature/. To order paper copies of technical documentation, contact your local Allen-Bradley distributor or Rockwell Automation sales representative. For Application on Bulletin 100/500/609/1200 Line Starters Heater Element Specifications Eutectic Alloy Overload Relay Heater Elements Type J — CLASS 10 Type P — CLASS 20 (Bul. 600 ONLY) Type W — CLASS 20 Type WL — CLASS 30 Note: Heater Element Type W/WL does not currently meet the material Type W Heater Elements restrictions related to EU ROHS Description The following is for motors rated for Continuous Duty: For motors with marked service factor of not less than 1.15, or Overload Relay Class Designation motors with a marked temperature rise not over +40 °C United States Industry Standards (NEMA ICS 2 Part 4) designate an (+104 °F), apply application rules 1 through 3. Apply application overload relay by a class number indicating the maximum time in rules 2 and 3 when the temperature difference does not exceed seconds at which it will trip when carrying a current equal to 600 +10 °C (+18 °F).
    [Show full text]
  • Experience a Lower Total Cost of Ownership
    EXPERIENCE A LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP Timken® Spherical Roller Bearings are engineered to give you more of what you need. Lower Operating Temperatures Rollers are guided by cage pockets—not a center guide ring—eliminating a friction point and resulting in 4–10% less rotational torque and 5ºC lower operating temperatures.* Less rotational torque leads to improved efficiency, lower energy consumption and more savings. Lower temperatures reduce the oil oxidation rate by 50% to extend lubricant life. Tougher Protection Hardened steel cages deliver greater fatigue strength, increased wear resistance and tougher protection against shock and acceleration. Optimized Uptime Unique slots in the cage face improve oil flow and purge more contaminants from the bearing to help extend equipment uptime. Minimized Wear Improved profiles reduce internal stresses and optimize load distribution to minimize wear. Improved Lube Film Enhanced surface finishes avoid metal-to-metal contact to reduce friction and result in improved lube film. Higher Loads Longer rollers result in 4–8% higher load ratings or 14–29% longer predicted bearing life. Higher load ratings enable you to carry heavier loads. Brass Cages Available in all sizes; ready when you need extra strength and durability in the most unrelenting conditions, including extreme shock and vibration, high acceleration forces, and minimal lubrication. Increase your operational efficiencies and extend maintenance intervals. Starting now. Visit Timken.com/spherical to find out more. *All results are from head-to-head
    [Show full text]
  • The Maintenance of a Capable, Credible
    he maintenance of a capable, size of the deployed strategic arsenal B61 nuclear gravity bomb, carried by credible nuclear deterrent shrinks and the US reviews its nuclear the B-52 and B-2 bomber fleets. seems to have consensus gov- requirements. In the near future, officials want to Ternmental support. Defense and Energy Department lead- consolidate the number of warheads to Despite heavy investment in the nu- ers want to streamline and standardize the curb costs and accommodate an evolving clear mission over the last few years, Air maintenance of the nation’s warheads—a concept of nuclear deterrence, which Force and senior defense officials say process that has long been unpredictable may be far different from the policies much work lies ahead for the nation’s and irregular, according to a senior USAF and assumptions that dominated the Cold stockpile of nuclear warheads. official working in the Air Staff’s nuclear War. The task is to bring the nuclear Not long ago, ambitious plans were deterrence shop. weapons complex—the nation’s nuclear on the books for a new nuclear earth- warheads and the laboratories and facili- penetrating weapon and the first new- Consolidation ties charged with their care, testing, and build warhead since the Cold War. Then, “We are in a period of transition,” said maintenance—into the 21st century. Administrations changed and the budget Billy W. Mullins, the associate assistant As a result, over the coming decade- crunch hit. chief of staff for strategic deterrence plus, the National Nuclear Security In the aftermath of the New START and nuclear integration on the Air Staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support
    Wave 56 Influencer Poll Update January 2018 Public Release Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support 1 Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service 80% 71% 70% 71% 70% 66% 66% 66% 67% 63% 63% 63% 64% 61% 63% 60% 50% 46% 47% 47% 45% 44% 42% 43% 42% 39% 38% 40% 35% 32% 33% 34% 34% 30% 20% 10% Likely to Recommend: % Likely/Very Likely Likely to Support: % Agree/Strongly Agree Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Likely to Recommend Military Service Likely to Support Decision to Join § Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military increased significantly from 67% in 2015 to 70% in 2016. § However, Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military remained stable in January–March 2017. = Significantly change from previous poll Source: Military Ad Tracking Study (Influencer Market) Wave 56 2 Questions: q1a–c: “Suppose [relation] came to you for advice about various post-high school options. How likely is it that you would recommend joining a Military Service such as the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard?” q2ff: “If [relation] told me they were planning to join the Military, I would support their decision.” Likelihood to Recommend Military Service By Influencer Type Likelihood to Recommend Military Service 80% 70% 63% 59% 59% 60% 58% 60% 57% 56% 57% 55% 54% 53% 48% 55% 50% 54% 47% 52% 51% 44% 51% 47% 42% 42% 42% 49% 41% 43% 42% 45% 45% 46% 40% 42% 37% 41% 39% 41% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 39% 34% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 32% 33% 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 20% 25% 25% 24% 31% 29% 10% % Likely/Very Likely Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Fathers Mothers Grandparents Other Influencers § Influencers’ likelihood to recommend military service remained stable in January–March 2017 for all influencer groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Farquhar
    1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees November 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Has Taken Steps to Prepare to Restart a Program to Replace the W78 Warhead Capability GAO-19-84 November 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Has Taken Steps to Prepare to Restart a Program to Replace the W78 Warhead Capability Highlights of GAO-19-84, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Department of Defense and NNSA The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have sought for nearly a decade to has taken steps to prepare to restart a life extension program (LEP) to replace replace the capabilities of the aging the capabilities of the Air Force’s W78 nuclear warhead—a program which was W78 nuclear warhead used by the U.S. previously suspended. According to NNSA officials, these steps are typically Air Force. NNSA undertakes LEPs to needed to conduct any LEP. Therefore, they can be undertaken despite the refurbish or replace the capabilities of current uncertainty about whether the final program will develop the warhead for nuclear weapons components. In fiscal the Air Force only or for both the Air Force and the Navy. Specifically, NNSA has year 2014, NNSA was directed to taken the steps described below: suspend a program that was evaluating a capability that could • Program management. NNSA has begun to establish the program replace the W78 and also be used by management functions needed to execute a W78 replacement program, as the U.S. Navy. NNSA’s most recent required by NNSA’s program execution instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR WEAPONS Action Needed to Address the W80-4 Warhead Program’S Schedule Constraints
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees July 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS Action Needed to Address the W80-4 Warhead Program's Schedule Constraints GAO-20-409 July 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS Action Needed to Address the W80-4 Warhead Program’s Schedule Constraints Highlights of GAO-20-409, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found To maintain and modernize the U.S. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized nuclear arsenal, NNSA and DOD agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), has identified a range of risks conduct LEPs. In 2014, they began facing the W80-4 nuclear warhead life extension program (LEP)—including risks an LEP to produce a warhead, the related to developing new technologies and manufacturing processes as well as W80-4, to be carried on the LRSO reestablishing dormant production capabilities. NNSA is managing these risks missile. In February 2019, NNSA using a variety of processes and tools, such as a classified risk database. adopted an FPU delivery date of However, NNSA has introduced potential risk to the program by adopting a date fiscal year 2025 for the W80-4 LEP, (September 2025) for the delivery of the program’s first production unit (FPU) at an estimated cost of about $11.2 that is more than 1 year earlier than the date projected by the program’s own billion over the life of the program. schedule risk analysis process (see figure). NNSA and Department of Defense The explanatory statement (DOD) officials said that they adopted the September 2025 date partly because accompanying the 2018 appropriation the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 specifies that NNSA included a provision for GAO to must deliver the first warhead unit by the end of fiscal year 2025, as well as to review the W80-4 LEP.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-20-703, Nuclear Weapons
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program GAO-20-703 September 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program Highlights of GAO-20-703, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) did not consider cost and NNSA restarted a program in fiscal estimates in early major design decisions for the W87-1 warhead because it was year 2019 to replace the capabilities of not required to do so, but NNSA has since changed its guidance to require that the aging W78 nuclear warhead with cost be considered, according to a May 2019 NNSA review of program the W87-1. NNSA made key design documentation. The design decisions that remain for features that would achieve decisions for this weapon from 2010 either minimum or enhanced requirements for the W87-1 could affect cost, until the program was paused in 2014. according to NNSA officials (see table). We found, however, that NNSA did not NNSA estimated in December 2018 yet have study plans for assessing the costs and benefits of the remaining that the W87-1 would cost $8.6 billion decisions consistent with best practices as detailed in NNSA’s analysis of to $14.8 billion, which could make it the alternatives business procedure. NNSA does not require and only recommends most expensive warhead modernization program to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Sgs01fenstermacher.Pdf
    - ! ,:. Sciena & Global Security, 1990, Volume I, ppo187-223 Pbotooopying permitt£d by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C>1990 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SoA. Printed in the United States of America The Effects of Nuclear Test-ban Regimes on Th ird -generation-wea pon I n novation Dan L. Fenstermache~ The primary reason that we are pursuing nuclear directed energy weapons is to understand the Soviets' capability to design and deploy similar weapons,which would put the US strategic deterrent force or a future defensivesystem at risk. Former US Energy Secretary John S. Herrington' It is by no means certain that a Comprehensive Test Ban would prevent the Soviets from developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, although that would assuredly be the effect of a total testing ban on the US. Former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Donald Kerrt Under the rationale of assessing potential Soviet threats, several third-generation- weapon concepts are being actively studied in the US. This paper presents a technical analysis of the physical principles and likely capabilities of three nuclear directed-energy concepts (x-my lasers, nuclear kinetic-energy weapons, and micro- wave devices) and describes the implications for their development of threshold test bans at thresholds above and below 1 kiloton, Inertial Confinement Fusion, special- ized non-nuclear weapon effects simulation, and seismically quiet containment a. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Princeton University. Princeton. NJ 08544 Some of ftJ/s research was undertaken while on feUol,I,Shlpat ftJe Center for Science and International Affairs. Kennedy School of Government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Weird Nukes of Yesteryear
    The Cold War produced some oddball weapons. Here are three of them. The “Davy Crockett,” shown here mounted on a tripod at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, was the smallest nuclear warhead ever developed by the US. The Weird Nukes DOD photo end of a series of thermonuclear bombs initiated in 1950. This followed the Soviet detonation of an atomic bomb of Yesteryear in 1949, several years before Western By Norman Polmar and Robert S. Norris intelligence agencies expected such an event. y the time the Cold War reached some concern about whether they could It was the era of “bigger is better.” its height in the late 1960s, the be carried in aircraft, due to size. The The zenith of “big bombs” would be American nuclear arsenal had “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima seen on Oct. 30, 1961, when the Soviet grown to more than 31,000 tipped the scales at 9,700 pounds, and Union detonated (at Novaya Zemlya in Bweapons. The Army, Navy, Air Force, the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki the Arctic) a thermonuclear bomb that and even the Marine Corps worked weighed 10,300 pounds. The immediate produced an explosion equivalent to to acquire weapons for the “nuclear follow-on bombs were about the same 58 megatons—the largest man-made battlefield,” whether in the air, on the size or smaller. explosion ever achieved. Soviet Premier ground, on water, or underwater. However, the development of ther- Nikita Khrushchev would later write Three of the more unusual—and in monuclear or hydrogen bombs led to in his memoirs: “It was colossal, just the end impractical—of these weapons much larger weapons, with the largest incredible! Our experts later explained were the enormous Mk 17 hydrogen US nuclear weapon being the Mk 17 to me that if you took into account the bomb, the Navy’s drone anti-submarine hydrogen bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Available Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Classes for Fall 2021
    Schedule of Available Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Classes for Fall 2021 Course # CRN Title Schedule Type Primary Instructor Start Date End Date Days Meet Begin Time End Time ACC101-W81 33847 INTRO TO FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Svarc, Dominique 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ACC102-W80 31425 INTRO TO MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Busto, Lisa 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ACC112-CW8 31433 QUICKBOOKS Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Mago, Michael 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ACC155-W80 31434 PAYROLL ACCOUNTING Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Pekar, Sharon 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ACC261-W80 32902 TAX RESEARCH Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Pekar, Sharon 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ACC281-CW8 32952 CPA REVIEW COURSE/AUD Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Wayne, Christine 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ARC117-W80 30826 ARCHITECTURAL CAD II Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Dittburner, Carl 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 ARC125-W80 30828 CHICAGO'S ARCHITECTURAL HIST Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Roth, Thomas 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 BIO110-W80 33741 INTRO TO BIOLOGY AND SOCIETY Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Barna, Kelly 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 BIO136-W80 30571 INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN DISEASE Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Cheng, Tong 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 CAS125-W80 30282 ACCESS 2019/OFFICE 365 Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Schmitz, Kathleen 18-Oct-21 12-Dec-21 CAS205-W01 33039 ADVANCED WORD 2019/OFFICE 365 Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Amodeo, Aluana 8-Nov-21 17-Dec-21 CAS215-W01 33043 ADVANCED EXCEL 2019/OFFICE 365 Online ANYTIME (Asynchronous) Merritt, Jennifer 8-Nov-21 17-Dec-21 ECO211-W82
    [Show full text]
  • Fielding the Long-Range Standoff Weapon Prevents a Dangerous Gap in the U.S
    BACKGROUNDER No. 3580 | JANUARY 6, 2021 CENTER FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE Fielding the Long-Range Standoff Weapon Prevents a Dangerous Gap in the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent Patty-Jane Geller s part of its long-overdue effort to modernize KEY TAKEAWAYS the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the United States is developing the Long-Range Standoff weapon The U.S. must modernize its nuclear air- A (LRSO) to maintain the ability of nuclear-capable launched cruise missile to sustain the air bombers to hold targets in well-defended areas at leg of the nuclear triad as adversary air defenses advance. risk. The LRSO will replace the Air Force’s current nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), the AGM-86B, which has been in service since 1982— Fielding the Long-Range Standoff and is becoming increasingly obsolete against enemy Weapon will ensure the U.S. maintains the air defenses. The LRSO will play an important role in ability to hold defended targets at risk, maintaining the nuclear triad because it will sustain helping deter adversaries and assure allies. the nuclear ALCM capability that enables the triad’s critical air leg. Fielding the LRSO will also sustain the Congress and the next Administration nuclear ALCM’s unique attributes that contribute to must work together to back the full both the credibility of U.S. deterrence and the United procurement of the LRSO and its accom- States’ extended deterrence commitments to allies. panying warhead. Finally, the LRSO will provide a hedge against both This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3580 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
    [Show full text]