Nuke-Lobbing

SlideGuitar writes "The following is a fascinating article about how the Navy in the 1950s, wanting to assure that it had a carrier based nuclear force, used A1 Skyraider (single engine propellor driven aircraft) to lob nuclear bombs using a manuever called the "goofy loop" (read the article.) The goofy loop put about seven miles between them and a Mark 7 nuclear device at detonation. The pilots knew that (1) they couldn't get far enough away to survive, and (2) if they did survive there probably wouldn't be a carrier to go back to anyway. There are lots of emails from pilots who did the manuever and what they thought about the whole business."

Comments

The Kilrathi do not coexist!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking of a - Wing Commander game? It must've been that; probably Wing Commander III. After the massive cannon ship failed, the only remaining option was to go in on a single fighter and deliver this bomb which shattered the Kilrathi homeworld's tectonic plates, but there was no way to deliver the weapon and escape its blast. Kind of a suicide attack, really.

I think that was the game. But I could be confusing it with Star Control II.

Man. Science Fiction games were cool in the early nineties. Immersive. What happened?

Re:The Kilrathi do not coexist!

[Kumkwat]

Oh thats what happens at the end, I remember just wasting endless cycles trying to shag the cute pilot and mechanic.

emails?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're calling 1950 letters "emails", it's time to leave the computer.

Re:emails?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you imagine the contents of the article and comment on it before reading it, it's time to extend your attention span beyond just skimming bites on slashdot.

Go get some ritalin.

Slashdot goes to war

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that 'war against terror' (or better: the new Roman Empire securing its oil ressources) is taking its toll even from geeks.

Re:Slashdot goes to war

[rpiotrow]

Ok, This is really getting to be enough! How the F#$* does an article on aviation history turn onto another misinformed lefty screed on "All that is wrong with America"? I thought Slashdot was "News for Nerds", not the Berkely channel!

Re:Slashdot goes to war

[Jookey]

Give me a break. Right wingers bitch about "All that is wrong with America" just as much, if not more, than liberals. They just complain about different stuff like: how creationism is not being taught in schools, how welfare is robbing us of our taxes, how america has become morally degregated, or how we don't have enogh guns. Besides all the posts I saw were more on the subject of "All that is wrong with thermoneuclear combat" not america per se. Show me one person that thinks that a nuke war is a good idea and ill show you a lunatic. Another problem with leberals is they dont curse enough like you republicans. When the F#$% did the Slashdot become the misinformed redneck channel.

Re:Slashdot goes to war

[rpiotrow]

Yes, you are right! They just are a lot more likely to do it in the appropriate forum!

Re:Infidels

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only funny the first time.

Nowadays...

[SushiFugu]

Nowadays they use T-Shirt cannons.

Re:Nowadays...

[cperciva]

Nowadays they use T-Shirt cannons.

While this is presumably meant as a joke, it does raise an interesting point. Rocket and ballistic technology is becoming far more available now than it ever was in the past. In a couple decades, ICBMs will probably be within the reach of citizens, rather than restricted to governments; the entire global context of (dis)armament is going to have to change.

Re:Nowadays...

[critter_hunter]

Nuclear devices are legal already. You just have to be careful not to detonate them in Chico, or you'll face a 500$ fine ;)

Re:Nowadays...

[Tablizer]

You just have to be careful not to detonate them in Chico [Calif.] [dumblaws.com], or you'll face a 500$ fine

The scary thing is: most laws are based on actual situations that pissed somebody off enough to make or push such laws.

Re:Nowadays...

[Zelph]

Utah's law is similar regarding this:

"It is illegal to detonate any nuclear weapon. You can have them, but you just can't detonate them."

Re:Nowadays...

[David Gould]

Ah, that would be the "ordnance ordinance", yes?

Physics

[Bios_Hakr]

I have heard of "lobbing" before. If you know the speed of the plane and the angle of the climb, it should be easy to calculate the distance of the "lob". The problem is that it is difficult to repeat the exact conditions repeatedly. One lob might be 7 miles, then next might be 7.5 miles.

I know some of you don't think that a few thousand feet would matter for a nuke, but most smaller tactical nukes are used to take out a specific target. The yeild can be as low as a few hundred kilotons or as high as a few megatons. Missing a deep bunker by a few hundred meters with a low-yeild nuke would mean a lot of collateral damage with almost no effect on the target.

If you are interested in reading more about tactical mukes, do a google for B-61. These are what the Air Force uses today. Or would have/will use(d) in the proper situation. I think the original design purpose was to drop on formations of Soviet tanks in the event they mobilized on Western Europe.

Re:Physics

[Moofie]

Well, the guys who actually did it said that their bombs normally fell within 300ft of their targets.

Airspeed indicators can be pretty accurate.

Re:Physics

[PD]

You've got the cart before the horse. This maneuver was never considered for the small nukes, because they didn't exist. And why were the nukes so big way back then? Two reasons. It was harder to make small nukes. The backpack nuke was really hard to make compared to a multi-megaton monster. The other reason is that with inaccurate delivery systems you need big nukes to destroy a target if you miss it by 3 or 4 miles.

As the accuracy of missile systems crept up, the size of the nuke required went down. Now, we can drop a conventional bomb or 4 right through a specific window, so there's hardly any targets that cannot be destroyed by a conventional bomb.

Nukes are basically obsolete as battlefield weapons.

Re:Physics

[Megahurts]

Well, the guys who actually did it said that their bombs normally fell within 300ft of their targets.

And with the 8-60 kilton yield of the Mark 7 bomb they carried, that's a bullseye.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

But the civilized world still has meganukes for the warm fuzzy feeling of being able to destroy the planet for everyone. If we go down, everybody else goes down too. If there is no winner, can there be a loser?

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can build a Fat Man type weapon, then by making it less optimal it is pretty easy to reduce its yield down to 1.0 or even 0.1 kT. But if you meant physically reducing the weapon's size, that is much more difficult.

Re:Physics

[Troed]

Now, we can drop a conventional bomb or 4 right through a specific window

Out of how many tries?

Last summer the US General Accounting Office (GAO), an investigating body of the US Congress published a report which went a long way in destroying the myth of "smart" bombs. According to this report the accuracy rate of laser-guided bombs dropped by the F-117 stealth fighters was as low as 41%. The Pentagon had claimed an accuracy rate of 80%!! According to the same report, on the first night of the Gulf War in 1991, the "F-117 missed 40% of their air defence targets". The Pentagon insisted in keeping classified the real figures for Tomahawks cruise missiles' success rate, but GAO's report states that the figure was "less than generally perceived". The report also overturns the Pentagon's famous "one target, one bomb" for its laser-guided bombs, suggesting that it took between four and ten bombs to attack targets such as bridges. As the bombing started on December 16th an admission of the inaccuracy of "smart" bombs came from the General Sir Charles Guthrie, UK's Chief of Defence Staff who assured journalists that "weapons which were 50% accurate during the Gulf War have now been honed to 90% accuracy". The problem is that we were already assured in 1991 that the weapons were 99% accurate if not more!! By one irony of history in the very first night of the current round of bombardments one of these "intelligent" missiles went out 25 miles and landed in the Iranian city of Khorramshah.

Don't believe US propaganda.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the nuclear weapons currently held by the USA, Russia, and their nuclear buddies are typically of about 100 kT yield. This is much smaller than those of the 1960s. Furthermore, the US is destroying the last 50 MX missiles, which are the most technologically advanced ICBMs ever built.

But these are mere facts, and so are unimportant in the discourse of this enlightened age.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenotes/mj00nu kenote.html
I feel a lot safer. No more MIRVs. In 2007. Maybe. We can still bomb ourselves to hell and back, but at least there will be only one warhead per missile, which reduces the payload of a missile from up to 3 megatons to laughable 300 kilotons. A few hundred of those shouldn't hurt too much. In order to avoid ruining the peaceful mood, I'll ignore that mininukes make terminal war more likely by filling the gap between conventional weapons and "won't-touch" "end-of-the-world" grade weapons, thus creating a path from conventional conflict to nuclear war.

Re:Physics

[ces]

The figures you cite are what was state of the art in 1991. The weapons have come a long way since then. The JDAM is far more accurate than laser guided bombs. If nothing else look at the Iraqi civillian casualty figures 5,000 or so civillian casualties is VERY low considering the amount of ordinace we dropped on Iraq during the recent campaign. If we had been using "dumb" bombs the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands or millions.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

And for that I'm half grateful. The fact that many Iraqi units garrisoned in civilian areas, and that most of the fedayeen types tend to work from their homes made 'smart ordnance' necessary(I'm still not convinced ANY of this was necessary.Once the idiot put my friends' kids in harm's way, I had to support them, and hope for their successful and safe return home.).

I stand on the conclusion that W looks smarter than he really is.

Re:Physics

[HaloZero]

'Close enough only counts with horseshoes and hand-grenades...'

And apparently when 'lobbing' thermonuclear weaponry!

Re:Physics

[moonbender]

Once the idiot put my friends' kids in harm's way, I had to support them, and hope for their successful and safe return home.

No, you don't. That is, of course you have to hope for their safe return, but you certainly don't have to "support them" if by "support them" you mean "agree to fighting a war". Quite to the contrary, in fact. I don't understand where this idea of obedience comes from. Must be an American thing.

Re:Physics

[homebru]

Don't believe US propaganda.

You tell 'em, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

Re:Physics

[csguy314]

Now, we can drop a conventional bomb or 4 right through a specific window,

Yeah, except that's nonsense. In the NATO invasion of Kosovo and the bombing of the rest of Serbia, a huge number of bombs were not on target. Even if the accuracy rate were 90% (which it's definitely not) given that 10's of thousands of bombs are being dropped, that's still 1000's of bombs off target.
And the accuracy hasn't improved much since the late 90's because plenty of bombs missed their targets and hit civillian areas in Baghdad and other areas of Iraq.
Some of those civillian bombings were also intentional, but that's another story.

Re:Physics

[SubtleNuance]

I know some of you don't think that a few thousand feet would matter for a nuke, but most smaller tactical nukes are used to take out a specific target. The yeild can be as low as a few hundred kilotons or as high as a few megatons. Missing a deep bunker by a few hundred meters with a low-yeild nuke would mean a lot of collateral damage with almost no effect on the target.

Tactical Nukes? HUH? I thought we decided 50 years ago that they were SO brutal and ugly, that no nation would use them. That the humanitarian issues made them an "Unusable" weapon (like there are good weapsons at all) - did someone drop out of the "Mutual Assured Destruction pact" and not send out a memo?

Re:Physics

[lostchicken]

Just nuclear, not thermonuclear. The Mk-7 bomb was a small, pure fission weapon.

Re:Physics

[Fjord]

It doesn't even matter if they are on target, because buildings ted to catch fire when bombed, and fire tends to spread to other buidlings.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

MAD was never a pact. It was simply the logic of the situation. YAD is far better in most cases (Your Assured Destruction).

Re:Physics

[Fat Casper]

...as low as 41%. The Pentagon had claimed an accuracy rate of 80%!! According to the same report, on the first night of the Gulf War in 1991, the "F-117 missed 40% of their air defence targets".

The report also overturns the Pentagon's famous "one target, one bomb..."

You've got to understand that this is incredible accuracy. We've come from repeatedly sending squadrons at a bridge to likely having to send a second or third plane to destroy a SAM sire. I'll take that any day. Because the single bomb is more likely than not to destroy its target, it doesn't make sense to send three or four planes out the first time. Yes, it pisses them off when they have to go back, but it beats bringing bombs back home that could have gone to different targets that night. Things go wrong every day, and every bullet isn't going to hit. Wah. It's simpler to re-target the misses than to have them circle the first target until it's gone before moving on to target number two.

The biggest problem isn't propaganda so much as marketing. As long as "journalism" includes video clips of smart bombs and "look at how neat this tank/boat/plane/MRE is" type specials, the Pentagon is going to have to play to that. Anyone who blindly swallows what you get on TV deserves whatever they get.

Re:Physics

[damien_kane]

did someone drop out of the "Mutual Assured Destruction pact" and not send out a memo?

Yeah... North Korea; and as a result Iran...
Of course I'm sure neither of them were actually in it in the first place, but still...

Even those in the pact didn't follow it. The US still has hundreds, if not thousands, of thermonuclear ICBMs sitting in silos. USSR still has some, altho most of theirs went with the small countries that broke off during the 90's.

In any case, there's more than enough (currently) dormant nuclear ordinance to vaporize a few layers of the earth's surface...

Re:Physics

[sfbanutt]

Actually, it's likely that most of what hit civilian areas in Baghdad was Iraqi anti-aircraft. They were spewing an incredible amout of stuff into the air, and it all had to come down somewhere. That's not to say that a few US munitions didn't go off target, they probably did. It's just that there was plenty of other stuff coming down as well..

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no proof iran or DPRK is making nukes. only amerian accusation, the same agitprop that screamed 9/11 at the government of Afghanistan, WMD at iraq, SH/WMD at Syria

Re:Physics

[SmoothOperator]

a lot of collateral damage

You're talking about nuclear war. There is no "collateral damage" in a nuclear war. There is total annihilation. That is why it is called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Re:Physics

[Troed]

Anyone who blindly swallows what you get on TV deserves whatever they get.

Correct - that was the whole point of my post :) The US military deliberately and repeatedly hides facts about what they can and cannot do (and actually do) - it seemed to me that the person I replied to actually believed that smart boms are accurate today to hit a window with one try.

Re:Physics

[Fat Casper]

...actually believed that smart boms are accurate today to hit a window with one try.

Of course, that's the really telegenic part of these bombs. If you're going to miss the window you're aiming at, something's probably gone wrong enough that you're going to miss the entire building. The video of you actually hitting it won't show previous hits. They are accurate enough to hit everything on the first try, but in the real world, though, something always manages to go wrong. Lasers don't guide well through smoke, and GPS doesn't guide well through interference.

I think PD's more right on this. It doesn't matter that our systems aren't as godlike as the Pentagon wants us to think. What matters is that we don't have to vaporise half of a city to get one target. We can drop a thousand pound bomb and get it cleanly. Who cares if it's not on the first try every time (well, aside from the pilots that have to go back)? we still don't need to turn an entire city into a parking lot to get one target. The next time we use a nuke it will be to send a message, not because it is the most efficient, or only, way we have of destroying the target. Kind of like the last time.

It's a big part of the military's job, keeping outsiders from knowing exactly what their stuff can do. Smart bombs not hitting as often as they ideally could isn't something I'd worry about.

Re:Physics

[PD]

You're right that accuracy hasn't improved since the late 90's, because that's when the laser bombs were supplanted with the GPS bombs. The laser bombs missed more than the GPS bombs.

You're wrong in your claim that we can't put bombs on a 10 foot target. It happens. It happens quite often. It happens more often than not.

Re:Physics

[PD]

I meant making it smaller.

Another example: Check out the sizes of Russian nukes compared to the American nukes of the same period. They were bigger, because their rockets weren't as accurate. On the other hand, they needed bigger rockets to lift the heavier nukes, and that helped them get into space.

Re:Physics

[Troed]

It doesn't matter that our systems aren't as godlike as the Pentagon wants us to think.

Of course it's important when Pentagon lies about the ability to perform "clean strikes". It's ALWAYS important when a government lies to its citizens - and it's very important when the US lies to the rest of the nations in the world (like with the fabricated "evidence" about Iraq wanting to buy uranium .. )

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

And your misunderstanding must be a stupid non-American thing, right? Really, quit the backhanded slights. Makes you come off as a foreign goof instead of maybe a thoughtful person that should be listened to.

The dichotomy in supporting troops while not supporting a war is, more or less, new to Americans. And, most importantly in my mind, singular only TO Americans. There is a less than a handful of countries that will go to bat for another country for their own good, the premise for their own good (whether you agree with those premises or not), or even for profit but for their own good.

So you, as stating "must be an American thing", well, duh! Because it is, because no one else, save some members of NATO (which, frankly, is the main embodiment of the UN's peacekeeping forces save the USSR), have done this.

What you find as a discrepancy, a horror, a wrong, is what most people in the US as a good. We've lost lives on both sides of the campaign (WWII successful; Vietnam not) and understand the nature of war and our choices far better than those that haven't been involved in such choices; we feel compelled to feel the right and wrong of our actions through or government. Do you feel the same way about your government? Unless you're a GB citizen, probably not. We know no one likes someone getting involved in someone else's business, but the last times we tried to stay hands off, millions died. The French and Germans say military strength and superiority is a thing of the past, but they CAN say this because of OUR (theirs and the US's) sacrifices gave them this. w/o military brinkmanship, where the US force is overwhelmingly so (so much so that it seems very Sparta-ish to me), people will have misgivings--but we all feel that.

To simply say it's a matter of obedience undermines the very nature of human thought and complexity of issues. It's not a matter of obedience. It's a matter of past, present, and future. I'm always amazed when someone is willing to badmouth a whole group based on a single or singular incident or premise. (And this paragraph sums up the our/the US's failure in the middle east, particular wrt Israel and the Palestinian state).

For example, *I* agree we should have gone into Iraq. I don't agree with the reason we went in (WMD, terrorism) was enough; that was a stupid political strawman. But I also don't agree we went in for Israel (as some groups state) or just for oil (as many state; oil was of course a factor). I feel sentiments that we went in for occupation are misguided; we could have steamrolled over half the area 12 years ago, we can do so at any time in the future, but we don't want to and to do so would be unAmerican and imperiliastic (claims of iperialisms are stupid; see any other country that has gone on such a course, and our actions of the modern day, with our aramanent, are on the course, if imperialism wanted to be found, with the ancient Greeks, for crying out loud; Alexander the Great conquered more land in shorter time than the US has in the past 30 years).

I feel we went in for due to a culmination of many factors. And I don't think Bush junior is an idiot; this was part of the policy--look at him as a goof, you play into his (misguided?) plan. And while I do not wholeheartedly support the actions or methodology of our deployment, I will support our troops despite have such disagreements and grievances with my government.

To you, I'm an obedient dog. That's your stupid conclusion.

Because, I know, in the future, that military force is what makes the world a better place. Life is not perfect, societies are not perfect, and neither are military actions, and the decisions leading forth and stemming from.

Now you, as a foreigner, have no problem thumbing your nose at the US, because, frankly, you have maybe nothing really better to do or your impotent, like myself wrt my governments action besides letter writing, violence, or similar actions, to do much about it. Antiwar, antiUS, antiBush, that'

Re:Physics

[moonbender]

You're right, my reaction was inappropriate. I apologise.

I do disagree with many things your are saying and also your somewhat condescending attitude, and I stand by my original point (minus the generalisations and the offense). However, I am not about to discuss this matter in a backwater thread on an old Slashdot news item, especially not with an Anonymous Coward who is as likely to read (much less respond to) anything I write as he is not.
Nice write-up, though, I hope you didn't copy/paste it from somewhere. If you do wish do continue this discussion in a non-Anonymous environment, well, I'm not an AC, the UIN I entered works, and finding out my email address is trivial if you use my nickname. (Apparently it's not linked to on my "homepage", jeez.)

Re:Physics

[Paul Jakma]

If you read the emails it seems they, later missions at least, had some kind of mechanical computer that would release the weapon when the required angle and G was reached.

Re:Physics

[Moofie]

Yes, but the CEP will also be a function of when they start the pull-up and how accurately they fly the vector from the IP to the target. Plenty of skill and judgement are still required.

So it's not as easy as, say, pointing a laser and dropping a Paveway.

Re:Physics

[PD]

OK, that would be me. Just to bring you up to speed - I'm a liberal who has forgotten more about military technology than you probably ever knew. That's just a fact. I'm a technology nut, and military tech is some of the best.

So, whatever you might assume about me -- is wrong. Nothing that I wrote said that the bombs never miss.

Want to try again?

Re:Physics

[Mac Degger]

What a wonderfull statement.

The WTC attacks took down less than 3000 civilians and led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq with Syria on the way, as well as to the PATRIOT Act, huge problems in international relations and quite a few dead.

There went your "But they took out US civilians!" argument.

Not only that, but considering the military and the arms industry lied tremendously (a fifty percent(!) lie) ten years ago, don't you think they're doing the same thing now?
Especially if knowing that it's the guy who could do it cheapest is the one who built those things?

Re:Physics

[mesocyclone]

Guys... they were making itty bitty nukes well before this story. My father watched the test of an artillery-fired nuke in the early 50s. They also had a nuclear bazooka. All of this is documented online. Everything that flew could carry nuclear warheads - especially anti-aircraft missiles.

As far as survivability, the A-1 was a tough aircraft, as it showed in the Vietnam War. Keep it out of the fireball and it could probably survive.

Lots of aircraft used lobbing techniques for nuclear weapons delivery. For all I know, they still do.

BTW... for whoever mentioned that tactical nukes got all the way down to a few hundred kilotons. They get down to about 100 tons, not kilotons. A few hundred kilotons is strategic.

Re:Physics

[Paul Jakma]

as i understood from the emails:

The IP is the point at which they pressed the button (pickle) to start the LABS running, the LABS had a timer and would indicate when to begin pull up, release was done by LABS. The timer was set in planning, where pilot would have picked an IP and worked out the needed vector and time from IP to pull-up. So i'd actually say the /planning/ is the critical bit. (and, strangely, this applies to nearly everything in aviation - a lot of the hard work happens on the ground.).

Re:Physics

[ces]

There went your "But they took out US civilians!" argument.

I never made that argument. I was talking about Iraqi civilians.

Not only that, but considering the military and the arms industry lied tremendously (a fifty percent(!) lie) ten years ago, don't you think they're doing the same thing now?
Especially if knowing that it's the guy who could do it cheapest is the one who built those things?

First of all if you think the administration is lying about Iraqi civillian casualties please check the figures from various international humanitarian agencies. The estimates I've seen are very close to the figures released by the US government.

The fact is the civilian casualties are very low considering the tonnage of ordinance dropped on Iraq.

Even if you think the military is lying about the accuracy of the weapons used in Iraq don't you think technology has improved somewhat since then? Would that not increase the accuracy of weapons that incorporate newer technology? Please go do some reasearch on the accuracy improvements in the last 10 years before you go spouting off.

Also over 90% of the ordinance dropped on Iraq recently was precision guided munitions, it was less than 50% during the 1991 Gulf war (sorry I don't know the exact numbers offhand).

Re:Physics

[Bios_Hakr]

Don't listen to what doomsayers are trying to tell you. Read the info on google about the b-61.

No one ever said MAD was the only way to have a nuclear war. In fact, most scenarios favored a short-term exchange followed by a reconcillation period.

Tactical nukes are a reality. They do have a use.

Re:Physics

[Bios_Hakr]

50 years ago, we had no way to make a small nuke. The "MAD Pact" you refer to never existed. It's not like a bunch of world leaders got together and decided to blow up the world.

What happened is that all these peace orginizations saw nothing but large nukes and submarines. They would go into the streets and preach MAD. Behind the scenes, we were developing smaller nukes with specific purposes. By time the public found oput about smaller nukes, the MAD was so ingrained it was impossible to overlook.

Nukes are weapons. They can be used safely. What is the difference between bombing a cave in Afganastan with 100 1000lb bombs or just throwing a 100kiloton nuke in there? The people inside are just as dead. There may be some residual fallout, but it is nothing like GreenPeace publishes.

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

So a few Iraq's get their 70 iraqi virgins. (Ever wonder why there are so many iraqi virgins -- They wear those masks for a reason)

What about the inocent camels?

Re:Physics

[duffbeer703]

The NATO invasion of Kosovo revealed a key problem with laser-guided munitions.

Lasers are beams of light. They are degraded by things like weather, smoke, trees and hills as a plane travels overhead.

GPS bombs are aimed at a specific geographic location. They home on that location regardless of other factors.

The only weather-independent precision munition available for the Kosovo operation were Tomahawk missiles with TERCOM (terrain comparision) technology. These missile use millimeter radar to compare terrain to a map in memory. Only problem is, you need a 24 hour lead time to get the maps uploaded and there isn't a huge number of Tercom tomahawks available.

Re:Physics

[duffbeer703]

Do some reasearch. The DRPK has nuclear reactors and has sold key nuclear weapons components to Pakistan.

North Korea is a cross between Stalin's Soviet Union and Sparta. It is truly a hellish and insane place.

Re:Physics

[Wolfrider]

--You are correct. According to Jerry Pournelle, the Russians never really bought into the MAD "logic" and simply concentrated on continuing to build up their nuke capabilities.

Re:Physics

[Wolfrider]

--The difference would be the NUCLEAR FALLOUT, numbnuts...

--Nuclear weapons and "can be used safely" don't go together in the same sentence. If you drop a few half-tonne bombs, you don't have to worry about the surrounding countryside getting RADIOACTIVE (and all that that implies.)

Re:Physics

[Bios_Hakr]

Don't get all bitchy with me...

Why do you think there will be fallout? Fallout comes from unused fissile material or material contaminated when it cam in direct contact with the material. There is very little unused fissile material in a modern nuke. There is also very little secondary contamination.

I live in Japan. I have visited Hiroshima. Having a nuke dropped on you is NOT the end of life as you know it. You just bulldoze the contaminated waste away and rebuild. With a modern nuke, you wouldn't even have to bulldoze the topsoil, just wait for a bit and the level would drop rapidly.

Dropping a nuke in a cave in Afganistan would be even less a problem. Just cordon off a area in the desert and leave it for a few years. The material won't decay that fast, but it will be reabsorbed into the groundwater and leached into the soil till it falls below detectable levels within a few weeks.

Re:Physics

[Moofie]

Yep. With the later bomb computers, they pickle at some pre-surveyed radius from the target.

But you still have to know where on the ground that radius is. The bomb computer helps, but the human judgement and training is what puts iron on target.

Nowadays it's easy. You point a laser at a target, tell the laser to radio to an airplane "I want this think to make a big ba-da-boom right now", airplane sorta drops the bomb kinda whenever, and the bomb flies itself onto the spot that the laser had designated.

JDAM does not require the laser to illuminate the target, but soldiers do use a laser-GPS device to first get their location (from GPS) and then the laser to get elevation, azimuth, and range to the target. The target's coordinates are then sent to the bomb, which tells the aircraft "Hey, fly over there four miles and I'll be able to hit my target. Thanks."

Especially handy are the new 250lb small-diameter bombs with the JDAM kit. With a properly equipped aircraft overhead, it's like the soldiers have 250lb precision guided hand grenades.

Bombing is getting easy.

Re:Physics

[Paul Jakma]

Well, we dont know if that was 'later', afaict from the emails they had this system by at least 1957. As for "knowing where on the ground this point is", well i think that was precisely my point about "the hard work happens on the ground" - its all in the planning, the pilots would have spent hours surveying maps and photos as part of the planning process.

I'm not denying the airmanship needed, but even this is the result of planning. Training is part of the plan. :)

And actually, its not much different today with JDAMs and other smart munitions. Again, there's tonnes of planning that goes into this - on the crews part alone, even more planning behind the scenes. Also, these bombs generally are /not/ powered, you /do/ still have be accurate with your release point (though these days your planning would determine the release point as a coordinate obtained via GPS, not as a vector,time tuple from an IP).

Anyway, i think you do not appreciate to any significant degree how big a factor planning is in aviation, be it military or civil. Even the simplest aspects require planning, eg just to take-off you generally have to spend at least 5 minutes working out factors such as at what IAS V1, Vr and V2 will occur (which is dependent on weight of airplane, current mercury level (pressure)). And you'll spend at least another 10 minutes on pre-flight checks. Just for takeoff :)

Bombing hasnt gotten "easy", its just the bombs and tactics have changed. Training, planning and ground work is still the biggest part of the job (which is a general truth in aviation).

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

wonderfull is spelled "wonderful", and what does this post have to do with small planes lobbing nukes?

I think that WTC was not nuked so has nothing to do with this. Remember, a bunch of stupid brainwashed animals with a score to settle for Osama bin Laden hijacked passenger planes and flew them into the WTC.

It didn't involve a mushroom cloud or radiation, just rudimentary flying skills and several large jets filled with aviation fuel.

Lets stay on topic shall we? Otherwise this thread will get tactically nuked.

Re:Physics

[sploxx]

> Fallout comes from unused fissile material or material contaminated when it cam in direct contact with the material.

NO, you are wrong. The fission products are highly radioactive. So you can of course "optimize" the amount of U/Pu "burned", but the result is highly radioactive.
There is no clean bomb, sorry.
Don't even speak about thermonuclear weapons, they create lots of neutrons...

Nukes have no "use" for military targets nowadays. They hurt the civilians.

Re:Physics

[Wolfrider]

--Moderators on crack... First of all, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were ATOMIC, not nuclear. Second, having radioactive materials in your groundwater doesn't sound like a good idea for the general surrounding populace!

--If even "tactical" nukes are as harmless as you *think*, we'd be USING THEM.

Re:Physics

[Bios_Hakr]

Please explain the difference between atomic and nuclear.

The 2 bombs were, AFAIK, fission bombs. They were very dirty. People live in both those cities today. This is a far cry from the 50,000 years environmentalists will tell you.

You have radiation in you right now. So does your water, so does your food. After a few weeks of being diluted, the level of radiation from a single nuke would be almost the same level as background. Most people would never know if they had a little more in their water.

As for your last point, the main reason we don't use nukes is that we now have the accuracy needed to ensure a conventional bomb does the same damage as a nuke. If we need a building taken out, we don't nuke the town, we hit the building.

A tactical nuke would be good for taking out isolated targets. A column of Iraqui tanks in the desert would be a great example of a target. But nuking them would take away the fun our Apache pilots had launching Hellfires at them.

Re:Physics

[Wolfrider]

Bah, I'm through trying to educate you. Go away and try to overcome your thick-headedness. :P

Re:Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment and your sig could be the funniest juxtaposition I've ever seen.

It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[The Evil Couch]

Get people so concentrated on doing a specific complicated series of maneuvers to unleash their payload that they don't even have time to worry about the fact that they're probably not going to make it back alive.

For a combat tactic that would likely be an end of the world situation anyways, you might as well get people focused on other things.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[Galvatron]

For a combat tactic that would likely be an end of the world situation anyways...

I doubt it. I don't think we had enough nukes in the 1950's to end the world. That's exactly why these sorts of plans were thought up, because it was still entirely feasible to "win" a nuclear war. Sure, there'd be some ecological contamination, but since most of the ordinance would likely be dropped on Eastern Europe, most of the fallout would probably end up over Russia, leaving most of the world (Western Europe, Africa, most of Asia, and the Americas) essentially unharmed.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[WegianWarrior]

Get people so concentrated on doing a specific complicated series of maneuvers to unleash their payload that they don't even have time to worry about the fact that they're probably not going to make it back alive.

That, and it allowed you to have a standoff-distance of about 7 miles - or about 11 km for us who prefer metrics - from your target. Back in the days before advanced SAMs, you know, when they used guns to plink aircraft out of the sky, that could be the difference between getting your bomb on target and beeing shot down before you got that far. So it all makes sence to me, in so far any use of nukes makes sence at all.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[RighteousFunby]

Sure, there'd be some ecological contamination

SOME?

I quote, from Greenpeace:
Over 2,000 nuclear weapons tests have left a legacy of global and regional contamination. People living near the test sites have suffered from cancers, stillbirths, miscarriages and other health effects. Many had to leave their hometown or island as it became too contaminated to live there.

And the making's ugly too: take a look at this

Two convincing reasons to be a hippie....

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[jareds]

Since over 2000 nuclear weapons tests have occurred without ending the world, that's evidence that the parent post is correct that nuclear war with the weapons we had in the 1950s wouldn't have been the end of the world.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[edinho]

Uhhh... I believe the tests were done in unpopulated areas. I think there will be a slight difference when 2000 detonations are done in highly populated areas with the objective to cause as much harm as possible. Sure it won't be the end of the world, I guess that makes it OK. As long as it is NIMBY, huh?

Cheers, or not,
e.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you confuse mass casualties in target nations with the end of "The World"?
South America might beg to differ. :)

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[ipxodi]

Referencing Greenpeace regarding nuclear weapons is like referencing PETA with regard to animal testing.
You would be better showing statistics from both sides or at least from a somewhat disinterested 3rd party.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[RighteousFunby]

Yeah, but there really isn't anybody pro nuclear war...

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[nolife]

Back in the 50's nuclear weapons were much less powerful and probably still being considered and designed for offensive weapons. Now they are just for a strategic deterent. With that in mind not making it "back" is a concept that any nuclear weapons platform deals with now.
One ballistic missle submarine has the potential capability to wipe out any country in the world. If you actually had to fire any of them, there would be a great chance that once you did come back to the surface, there would be nothing left to go home too. At least in modern times, the weapons detonate at a much further distance from you so you are not killing yourself directly.

Standard Navy Disclaimer: I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on this or any US Navy vessel

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[SubtleNuance]

..what about America? Drop out of the Russia-US nuke treaties, release "tactical nuke" usage scenarios, and start funding the development of a new generation of nukes.

It sounds like they *DO* want another Nuclear war...

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the case, then why would be worried about nukes then?

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

...stats published by Greenpeace, PETA or the US Government are just as likely to be true (in principle) - its an ANALYTICAL reader and transparency that wins authority for their positions, and frankly PETA and Greenpeace work very hard to see that they dont become marginalized by shoddy assertions. Just because you DONT happen to like their Truth, doesnt mean you can malign and try to marganalize their assertions ad-hominum.

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[bofkentucky]

The last "New" nuke program was the ill-fated MX from the Reagan era, the US has concentrated on building a way to stop the enemies weapons from actually making the trip to the lower 48 since then. Star Wars, THAAD, the 747 mounted chemical lasers, and PAC-3 are studies in stoping ballistic missiles from reaching their targets, not launching new and interesting ways to destroy the Earth. Oh and what nuke treaty have we pulled out of?

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[Melantha_Bacchae]

nolife wrote:

> Back in the 50's nuclear weapons were much less
> powerful

The nukes of the mid to late 1950's (H-bombs) may have been less powerful than modern strategic weapons, perhaps, but were by no means safe at seven miles or even seventy miles.

Meet Bravo, a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb. Bravo was detonated March 1, 1954 on the Bikini Atoll. Bravo made a mile-wide crater 240 feet deep, sent a radioactive cloud 20 miles into the atmosphere, and produced a lethal nuclear hurricane that raged over hundreds of miles. The fallout brought death and disease to the crew of the Japanese ship "The Lucky Dragon" and the people of Rongelap Atoll.

On November 3, 1954, Godzilla, son of Bravo, appeared in Tokyo Bay for the first time.

> Now they are just for a strategic deterent.

You wish. With tactical nukes, Bush's mini-nukes, and depleted uranium, battlefields are becoming increasingly nuclear and radioactive. Nuclear weapons are again proliferating, and the strategic deterent factor isn't working well in countries like India and Pakistan that have few enough weapons that they can hope to survive an attack by the other.

> Standard Navy Disclaimer: I can neither confirm nor deny
> the presence of nuclear weapons on this or any US Navy
> vessel

I can though. If Godzilla pauses in the destruction of said vessel to feed on it, its got nukes or at least a reactor. If he just smashes it, it probably doesn't. He's also very good at finding hidden reactors, fission or fusion.

"Our people.. stricken with disease.
You.. you played with the fires of the gods.
And you dare to come here and ask us for help!
You betrayed us! You expect us to trust you after what you have done?"
Infant Island Chief, "Godzilla vs. Mothra" (US Version), 1964

Re:It probably wasn't that bad of an idea

[RighteousFunby]

Just a comment.

Greenpeace have been very reliable with their facts so far, and are generally there to tell the truth.

The truth is nasty: we can't pretend that nuclear power is nice, and clean, and that around reprocessing plants there are daisies and butterflies and little children flying kites.

The reality is that we have a nasty situation-a big lake, which Russians have pumped nuclear waste into for about twenty or more years now, is just about to overflow-this will overflow into a river directly connected to the Arctic Ocean, which means the arctic will have nuke contamination for ages now.

Oh, and there's the mutant babies which have plagued the area for years..

See? The truth is not that nuclear war is nice and clean, and it's just a massive explosion, BOOM, forget about it...there's cancer et al to deal with.

The making makes mutants and horrible environmental consequences. Bad bad BAAAD.

Another good place for getting the truth, btw... Bellona who go from reputable sources. Read there for less mutant-populated descriptions of Russian nuclear contamination...

offtopic

[soliaus]

Did you know that the war in Iraq was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation? Then some government official noticed it spelled "O.I.L."

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't even bother addressing the bulk of your post as just based on the tone of it it's obvious what world you live in.. but hey, do you remember how that whole rome thing ended anyway?

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

>

Wasn't this war begun to liberate Iraqi people from Saddam's dictatorship?
Wasn't this war begun because Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? BTW: where are they?

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Did you notice the post was comparing the differences between Rome's and the USA's? Hmm? No, you didn't even bother to read it, because you assume it was written by a 'merkin.

Re:offtopic

[soliaus]

Yes, thank you, I did. Now, if you would.. please READ THE SUBJECT. Americans enjoy something known as humor. Thats all I have to say, dont want to start a war. Wait...

Re:offtopic

[MillionthMonkey]

So...the operation in Iraq is about oil.

Duh, you think? See, the difference between America and every other "imperialist" nation in the history of the WORLD is that America permits adversarial, even belligerent nations to control a vital strategic resource.

It used to be that only Noam Chomsky referred to the U.S. as an imperialist nation. And now the conventional wisdom has changed- not only are we imperialists now, but even being an imperialist power is an OK thing to be! (Sort of like how massive federal deficits are suddenly OK now too.) Things sure are changing a lot and fast. If you don't pay attention, you won't recognize the country you live in anymore. The language is changing underneath us, too. "Partisan" used to mean something about a bias for one political party or the other. Now it simply means you don't like Bush and therefore shouldn't be listened to. People who do favor Bush are never partisan.

OF COURSE the war in the middle east is about oil. More to the point, it's about protecting the supply of a strategically essential resource.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Well when you put it that way, it sounds so sensible, doesn't it? Which is why it was spoon-fed to you in that form so you could regurgitate it to us here. Something must be wrong with it though, or Bush would have simply told us the truth instead of inventing a crisis about "weapons of mass destruction".

Why can't he just tell us the truth? If there's one thing that I have really disliked about this war, it's the slick glossy marketing, the "psy ops" that are apparently designed to work on us at home instead of people in Iraq, the mounds and mounds of pure bullshit assembled to justify what is essentially an elective war, and the relentless and well orchestrated vitriol aimed at anyone who dares criticize the president during this phony crisis that he insisted on creating in the first place.

I've been trying to figure out for a long time what the motive for this war really is. The official reasons given (9/11, WMD, "he gassed his own people", bringing democracy to the nations in the region, etc.) either make no logical sense, are obvious lies, or are so outlandish that it's clear nobody in the administration takes them seriously. In fact it reminds me of the 2001 tax cut. They wanted the tax cut so badly, but couldn't offer any coherent reason for one. So they proposed the tax cut as a cureall for all sorts of problems. Inflation. Deflation. No matter what it was, the tax cut was going to fix it. The war was the same way. It's always pretty clear what the Bush administration wants, but they never indicate why they want these things. I do know two things about the true motive of the war:

• It has something to do with Israel.
• It has something to do with oil.

I can at least understand a war designed to undermine OPEC. Why didn't Bush just flat out say it? "We want to invade a country so we can gain access to its oil fields." Spare me the bullshit about WMD, the war on terror, spreading democracy, etc. When a president lacks the political balls to announce to the world why he's starting a war, it's usually a sign that the war is a bad idea in the first place.

Re:offtopic

[Flamerule]

If there's one thing that I have really disliked about this war, it's the slick glossy marketing, the "psy ops" that are apparently designed to work on us at home instead of people in Iraq, the mounds and mounds of pure bullshit assembled to justify what is essentially an elective war, and the relentless and well orchestrated vitriol aimed at anyone who dares criticize the president during this phony crisis that he insisted on creating in the first place.

Well said, well said.

I partly disagree with your conclusions about Bush's motives, though. Certainly oil is in the equation, but I don't see Israel weighing heavily on Bush's mind, nor Iraq having much to do with Israel. My own pet theory is simply: misguided continuation of the "war on terror". The administration started that entire, long, drawn-out process of invading Iraq almost a year before we actually did it. So, a couple months after we roasted the Taliban in Afghanistan. Back then, I imagine it was a case of Bush sitting around in his office, pondering who to go after next, and coming up with... Iraq! Hey, they have no links whatsoever to terror, but they're rumored to have WMD, plus Saddam tried to have Poppy killed! Let's get that muthafucka!

Now, obviously Karl Rove wouldn't have let Bush just attack anyone he wanted -- unless it had some benefit. I think the benefit from Iraq has been clear enough: heightened approval ratings for the President. Hey, they need something to take everyone's mind off the economy... especially since Bush's monstrous tax cut (oh sorry, I mean "jobs and growth package") doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything productive except shoring up the Republicans' "death before taxes" political base. Now, it looks like we're going to move on and focus our attention on Syria. Well, 2 years left in the term; that's enough time to conquer a whole crapload of countries.

Re:offtopic

[ces]

The best rationale I can find is in papers and articles from "The Project for the New American Century" a conservative defence policy think-tank.

Rumsfield, Cheney, Wolfawitz, Perle, and several others in the administration were members or wrote articles for them.

In a nutshell Iraq is meerly phase 1 in a larger plan.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, as a denizen in the Netherlands, and paying 42% income tax and 19% VAT on every purchase apart from baby food and nappies, I'd love to have a tax cut!!!

just my 2 eurocent contribution.. Incidentally I hung out today near a highway waving a peace flag, so you guys know how I feel about Papa Bush..

Tot ziens.
A

Re:offtopic

[Stonehand]

No links to terror?

Do a search for the "Arab Liberation Front", which is an openly Iraq-backed group that itself claims to have funneled over $25M from the former Iraqi regime to the next-of-kin of Palestinian martyrs and any other Palestinians affected by the intifada.

Also, do a search for "Iraq" and "Philippines" -- where an Iraqi agent was involved in a plot to attack American interests (not too uncommon; simply do a search...) that actually succeeded in doing some damage (extremely rare).

Re:offtopic

[SubtleNuance]

..another reason: With Iraq emerging from sanctions, with the 2nd largest oilresrves on the planet, SH was going to throw you yankees a curve ball. He had plans to move Iraq to an Oil Trade based on Euros -- as Russia and Venezuala (are?) were discussing -- this spells instant disaster for the US Economy.

With this (most?) vital international commodity exchange NOT conducted in *American Dollars* your industry/economy would have

instantly not been able to control prices domestically (since industry relies on oil, you move your dollar based on your desire to control your economy - this ability is undermined by this shift)

You currency INSTANTLY devalues because people no longer require US$ in order to buy oil from Iraq... sending the dollar lower on currency markets

your debt becomes more expensive to finance

etcetcetc

I personally believe that the "War" has more to do with maintaining American Dollar Hegemony in the Middle East Oil Market (OPEC). Sure, the Oil is good to get to market (drives down prices, allows USAutomakers to continue with the SUV idiocy keeping kyoto(etc) at bay..) but the thought of the collapse of the US dollar, caused by nations who dispise you (rightfully so frankly) is what Bush Co. are up to ..

This "US Dollar" Hegemony allows America to get ALOT of 'free ride benefits' (that I wont go into here) for your economy that OTHER big players are very aware of...The Euro is going to destroy that... watch for it.

So, knowing that, and knowing the self-serving greed America is renowned for, JUST how far do you think it is willing to go? A little war on Iraq is by NO MEANS the beginning. Do some searching on people's opinion of this website look at who wrote it, and what they are (not too subtly) saying... your right in saying Things Are Not As They Seem... but the marks and traits of what is happening; Nationalism, Totalitarianism, Militarism, Ismism :) cannot be defied - even a passing student of history sees what is Going Down... and only Americans can stop it...

Re:offtopic

[SubtleNuance]

I dont see Palestinians as Terrorists. I see them as Freedom Fighters. Isreal is a brutal terrorist regime that slaughteres them with little conscience.

The world is not black and white, war and violence in Palestine/Isreal is not the "fault" of one *OR* the other... everyone needs to stop blaming and plead with our brothers to find peace.

American militarism (like ATTACKING foreign nations (not just iraq and afghanistan... and not just recently) is a VERY BIG ISSUE.

You cannot stick your head up and declare *YOUR* personally justified acts of Terror (like bombing, invading, etc etc) and decrying others for defending themselves... jesus man, wake the f' up.

if you are so concerned by "terrorists", stop; its called "Asymetric Warfare". American Revolutionaries were also TERRORISTS who defied the (then) conventions of modern warefare to undermine the enemy and make effective their miltiary efforts against a force that would (if they engaged them in the manner they wished) would have slaughtered them. Americans, in the War of 1812 killed Women and Children on a raid of York... we burnt down your Federal Capital in retaliation. Isreali Zionists bombed hotels and other 'civilian' targets to win a "Isreali Nation" (exactly what Palestine is doing now) Negroponte (your current UN Ambassador was a central figure in the Iran/Contra affair, where he used his power as a CIA director in Central America to arm, train and direct killing teams who slaughtered priests, villages, politicians, judges who were "enemies" of American Interests in C.America at the time (mostly those Evil Communists(tm)) Some nationas want to see Negroponte tried as a war criminal - I agree.

In short, its called Perspective and Subjectivity... please TRY and understand what is happening and drop the USA vs. Them simplicity.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

No links to "irrefutable evidence" like that presented by Powell at the UN?

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03

Wasn't that a nice announcement for a 'cut and paste' job from a student paper?

Blair-Powell UN Report Written by Student

Re:offtopic

[SubtleNuance]

It's silly to think that the US is imperialist.

A million points to you friend for giving me my first belly-laugh of the day.

You bring to mind at quote that appauled me that Fleischer spat a few weeks ago something like "...those are humanitarian bombs..." when speaking of cruise missles. Terrific. And about their oil, and why the "Imperialists" are bringing Liberation and Freedom to Iraqis (nevermind WMD -- thats LAST months propaganda), while Iraqis were looting the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, The Ministry of Ministries (whichever), their History Musems -- there were a half-dozen military vehicles and 100 marines outside (with barbwire etc) the .... wait for it, wait for it... yep you guessed it:

Ministry of Oil ! Safe and sound for the wonderfull Iraqis to come and Democratically Control it. REALITY: Sell it to US Oil Cos in neo-liberal grandeur... but that isnt in the script for 18 months, long enough for you to forget all this Iraqi Democracy business... oh the wonders of American arrogance, hubris, simplicity and gun-boat diplomacy - let the FREEDOM BOMBS DROP BROTHER! LIBERTY FOR EVERYONE!

Re:offtopic

[Stonehand]

Did I claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one-sided? No. Did I claim that only the Palestinians were at fault? No. Of course, you apparently chose to assume that I did...

As for Palestinian "warfare", if they were actually fighting with even a modicum of intelligence and resourcefulness you'd see far more Israeli military casualties. Instead, the Palestinians rarely even bother to go after even isolated checkpoints -- there's the occasional sniper attack, but not even once a month, apparenlty... According to their tactics, one might suspect that the Israeli threat consisted of cabbies, bus drivers, and the occasional random sleeping settlers.

Re:offtopic

[Alien Being]

"drop the USA vs. Them simplicity."

Right. It's USA+England vs. them.

Re:offtopic

[abirdman]

Let's just call it what it is... a good ol' Texas-sized lynching. I don't believe a lot of strategic, global thinking went into it-- there was a bad guy, and a bunch of people with weapons willing to follow their leader and dispense the justice the rest of the world was too slow to mete out. It appears to have been a successful lynching, too. That's why no one is too concerned that the WMD's haven't turned up.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

And your contention that I'm somehow "spoon fed" my opinion is just ridiculous. You have no idea what information I use to formulate my views, and if you did, you'd know that I have never encountered a similar notion. This idea is mine, and I take full responsibility for it. Minus another zillion points for presumption.


Funny how most of the rush ditto heads came to the same conclusion you came to independently all by yourself. That is quite nice of you to take credit and full responsibility for it.

Unfortunately, these nice little info/opinion packets that everyone likes to repeat and claim responsibility for are sent out into the world by the propagandists, and no you cannot take responsibility for their creativity.

Re:offtopic

[Guppy06]

"The official reasons given (9/11, WMD, "he gassed his own people", bringing democracy to the nations in the region, etc.) either make no logical sense, are obvious lies, or are so outlandish that it's clear nobody in the administration takes them seriously."

Let's put it this way: If the fundamental government in Iraq were changed to a democratic model for other Arabs to follow, we woudln't have the totalitarian regimes in place that breed the kind of terrorism we saw 9/11/01 in the first place.

"It has something to do with Israel."

So we're attacking Iraq instead of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc?

"It has something to do with oil."

So we attacked Iraq instead of Venezuela, Mexico, etc?

"We want to invade a country so we can gain access to its oil fields."

Between how little oil we've been buying from Iraq and the incredibly long distance it has to be shipped from, going after Iraq simply for it's oil is counter-productive. France and Russia need Iraqi oil far more than we do.

And again, if we wanted access to OPEC oil, there's still Venezuela, where most of our foreign oil comes from. Hell, we could have used their recent strike as a precedent.

Re:offtopic

[Moofie]

OK, so the soldiers were guarding the office of a ministry that actually had something valuable, rather than a bunch of nice furniture?

Sounds like they were doing their job.

Yes the war is about oil. No it is not about the US owning the oil. It is about the US ensuring that a stable, relatively non-belligerent foreign power controls the oil, so that the US can buy it, bringing wealth and prosperity to the people of said foreign power.

I defy you to defend your claim that the United States is an imperialist nation. That's just a stupid contention.

Re:offtopic

[00_NOP]

..another reason: With Iraq emerging from sanctions, with the 2nd largest oilresrves on the planet, SH was going to throw you yankees a curve ball. He had plans to move Iraq to an Oil Trade based on Euros -- as Russia and Venezuala (are?) were discussing -- this spells instant disaster for the US Economy.

Why do people on the left in Europe come out with this crap?

The simplest explanation is the best one - US was attacked, thousands were murdered and the US decided it had to eliminate its most aggressive of enemies - namely old mad Sadd himself.

Whether you think that judgement was right or not is another matter, though certainly I think a world wthout Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti is a better place for my kids to grow up in.

It is a foolish thing to link the massive and appalling crimes that have been commited against the Palestinian people with Saddam.

The whole motovation of Abu Amar's take over of the PLO was about the fact that Arab 'strongmen' couldn't deliver - why the change of heart now?

And it is equally foolish to think this was all a war about the euro. The US is going to find it very difficult to finance its trade and domestic deficits in future years regardless and racking up billions of debt to rebuild the nation of Iraq ain't the way to do it! So anybody who thinks that was the reason for the war needs their head examined.

The left should celebrate the end of Saddam - its the end of a small time Stalin and that is a good thing. Thinking up excuses for him isn't what I - a mainstream European social democrat - am about.

Re:offtopic

[grammar fascist]

while Iraqis were looting the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, The Ministry of Ministries (whichever), their History Musems -- there were a half-dozen military vehicles and 100 marines outside (with barbwire etc) the .... wait for it, wait for it... yep you guessed it:

Ministry of Oil!

Let's see...I'd say that most of those ministries have no value for the Iraqi people. (Especially the Ministry of Education. You think education in your country is really bad - and at best, full of propaganda? Check out Iraq's sometime.) And they didn't protect the museum because they were taking fire from inside it.

Looting the Ministry of Oil would have serious repercussions on the country - and upon rebuilding in particular - since oil is nearly the only source of wealth. Sounds like they did the right thing to me.

But friends, we're all predisposed to believe what we want to. You can go right ahead with your "oil grab" theory if you like - just don't get too bitter when Iraq turns out well.

Re:offtopic

[benna]

You make my freinds list! :D

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

US was attacked, thousands were murdered and the US decided it had to eliminate its most aggressive of enemies - namely old mad Sadd himself.

Saddam attacked the U.S? When was this? I seem to remember a war in Afghanistan, but obviously I must have mis-remembered.

If you believe that Saddam and Osama are buddies, you not only need to get yourself educated, you need to stop believing the old "Muslims are baaaaaad!" mantra you've been fed these past few years.

Saddam has never directly attacked the U.S, had no plans to attack the U.S, and would never have had the capacity to attack the U.S. So why did the U.S attack Iraq?

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is going to find it very difficult to finance its trade and domestic deficits in future years regardless and racking up billions of debt to rebuild the nation of Iraq ain't the way to do it!

Forgot to add; this is exactly the way to do it! Open your damn eyes! The U.S Government has borrowed money and taken tax money for the rebuilding of Iraq. This money will be fed directly back into U.S companies in the form of multi-billion dollar contracts. These companies will pay back loans and employ more people; directly stimulating the ecomony.

Your taxes and the national deficit is being used to subsidise corporations and the economy. We only had to kill a couple of hundred civilians to do it, too. Excelent!

Chin up, Citizen. You want to be patriotic, don't you?

Re:offtopic

[Ataru]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Not England.

Re:offtopic

[benna]

I support the giving of money to the families of suicide bombers. There child is dead and they don't have life insurence. If for no better reason than they need the money to live on. Its just the right thing to do. As apposed to when the israelies bulldoze the homes of those families. Thats not right.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

When people say "It's about oil", they're not talking about direct access to pump the stuff out of the ground. Its far more political than that.

Take a look at a map of the middle east. Take a look at the major oil pipelines that run across those areas. Gee, wonder how the U.S could possibly benefit from having a few puppet governments in strategic areas?

So we're attacking Iraq instead of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc?

I believe Syria is next on the list, probably followed by Iran. Oh, don't believe you havn't noticed The Glorious Leader (All Hail!) banging his chest in Syria's direction. Two years before our tanks are all over them.

Re:offtopic

[00_NOP]

Obviously you didn't read anything I said.

First of all, where did I say Saddam had attacked America? I didn't.

Secondly, I am not an American. I've never even been there, never mind paid any taxes there.

Well, if GWB is a Keynesian it has passed me by. I also think he might have decided to pump prime the economy by spending it on projects inside the US if that was his aim.

Re:offtopic

[benna]

That is still no excuse to go to war. What gives the dollar the right to oil. The euro has just as much right to oil trade as any currency. Probobly more since so many more countries use it.

Re:offtopic

[benna]

please ignore that last message for I posted it in the wrong place. I meant the parent made my freinds list.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see that you learned to use the BOLD tag!

You fucking fag.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're telling us that you're homosexual? Okay...

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

So essentially your whole argument is that it is not possible for two independent sources to come up with the same conclusions given the same evidence to work with?

Great! I guess we no longer need to bother to try and independently verify anything since it is impossible.

You sir, are a genious and will be lauded for years to come. Saving us all this time and effort, you must be so damn proud!

I salute you sir, long live your name in the annals of history!

Re:offtopic

[MillionthMonkey]

That's why I put the word "imperialist" in quotes. It's silly to think that the US is imperialist. Minus fifty points for poor reading comprehension.

Well at first that's what I thought you meant. Then you went into this explanation about how the U.S., like any imperialist power, needs to invade other countries to secure vital resources for itself- so maybe you can forgive me for being confused by your post, Moofie.

Of course, it's always "silly to think the U.S. is X" if X has a negative connotation, evidence be damned.

Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Minus a zillion points for citing that psycho.

Well, Chomsky is the guy who has always accused the U.S. of being imperialist. When I suddenly see a number of pro-war arguments implying that "yes, we're imperialist, big deal, what are you going to do about it?" I have to think that someone has been spinning and modifying the conventional wisdom while I wasn't looking. I was just on vacation for a week, and a week is more than enough time for our new "marketplace of ideas" to turn imperialism into something acceptable. Like I said, you have to pay attention constantly or you won't recognize your country anymore.

And your contention that I'm somehow "spoon fed" my opinion is just ridiculous. You have no idea what information I use to formulate my views, and if you did, you'd know that I have never encountered a similar notion. This idea is mine, and I take full responsibility for it. Minus another zillion points for presumption.

If that's the case then I apologize. I came up with this theory on my own as well- although I certainly haven't thought of it as a justification for what's going on. But you're not the first person I've heard this argument from- plenty of people have been saying the exact same thing which makes me suspect that someone on a Clear Channel station is planting the notion in people's heads that $2 a gallon for gas justifies a war.

Even without concerns about WMD and terrorism, the oil issue is sufficient to justify the US's interests in the region, up to and including the use of military force.

This may be your honest opinion, but most of the world would not agree with you (to put it mildly).

Again, the US is different in that the Iraqi people will retain control over their oil fields, and paid well for it. That would not have happened with any other powerful nation in history.

(Stifling my laughter... :) Like the "weapons of mass destruction", I'll believe this one when I see it.

Re:offtopic

[Moofie]

My post explained how the United States is in no meaningful way an "imperialist" power. Such powers have, well, empires. The United States never has, nor do I expect it ever will, control an empire.

No, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines, the Marshall Islands and Guam do not count as an empire. If they did, it'd be the shittiest empire in history.

Chomsky thinks the US is Imperialist. He's wrong. Get over it.

I absolutely loathe what the current administration is doing with its domestic policy right now. Letting Rumsfeld wipe his ass with the Constitution because he thinks terrorists are out to get him is not acceptable to me.

However, the hand-wringers out there who opine that the United States is some sort of bloody-handed dictatorial regime are not thinking clearly. Anybody who thinks Bush (and his crazy reactionary psycho right-wing henchmen) are anywhere near as bad as Saddam is deluded.

The WMD issue is absurd. I'm surprised the administration tried to play that card: It weakens their case. Remove Saddam because he's a brutal oppressive tyrant, and he controls a strategic asset; that's fine. That's justifiable. But haring off after some bunker full o' nasty chemicals...that's a waste of time. And trying to tie this into the "War on Terrorism" is absurd.

When the last US boots leave Iraqi soil, sometime in the next 12-18 months, I'll be waiting for your apology. The US has no reason to colonize/subjugate Iraq. It would be militarily impossible without using unconscionably brutal tactics, and whatever bad stuff may have happened in Vietnam and Central America, the US Military simply doesn't work like that today. It would also be stupid. The cost of maintaining a military presence in combat in Iraq would dramatically outweigh any oil purchase savings that could be realized after the reinstatement of a representative Iraqi government.

Be skeptical...that's good. I'm sure skeptical of the Administration's real agenda here. But I do not doubt that the Iraqi people are going to be better off, safer and happier, for ths process than they would be otherwise. I believe the Iraqi people agree with me.

Re:offtopic

[MillionthMonkey]

Anybody who thinks Bush (and his crazy reactionary psycho right-wing henchmen) are anywhere near as bad as Saddam is deluded.

No, they're worse because they control a superpower. When they're both removed from their power, and considered on their own merits as human beings, Saddam is certainly "worse" than Bush and his neocons. I'd be way more upset than I am now if Saddam were president of the United States. But let's get real. As far as most of the world is concerned (including me as a U.S. citizen), a bad president is in a position to do much more harm than an abysmal Third World dictator. There's just no comparison.

The WMD issue is absurd. I'm surprised the administration tried to play that card: It weakens their case.

It presents a plausible fig leaf to cover the real motives for an invasion. The drawback is that after the invasion is over, you have to produce the weapons of mass destruction after you promised them to the world- but that doesn't happen until after the invasion is over! Who cares! According to an American opinion poll I saw two weeks ago, 58% of us are already saying we don't care if no WMD are ever found, so the issue is moot already. (World opinion is reaching a crescendo, now that it's time to call us on this BS, but you wouldn't know it unless you read the foreign press.)

Remove Saddam because he's a brutal oppressive tyrant, and he controls a strategic asset; that's fine. That's justifiable.

But not really. A country doesn't forefeit its sovereignity by controlling a strategic asset that you want to get your hands on. And there are about a hundred countries around the world being run by assholes. Most of them can rest easy because they lack oil, but about a dozen nations in the Mideast must now consider themselves likely invasion targets. The Iraq war has caused more destabilization than seems apparent, because we are proving just how crazy we are.

But haring off after some bunker full o' nasty chemicals...that's a waste of time. And trying to tie this into the "War on Terrorism" is absurd.

Agreed. One thing that really makes me worry about the future is the number of people who have bought into the WMD propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.

When the last US boots leave Iraqi soil, sometime in the next 12-18 months, I'll be waiting for your apology.

According to a story in today's New York Times:

WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.
American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

I suppose that U.S. troops might abandon their boots and start wearing Nikes. Until they do, don't hold your breath waiting for that apology!

The US has no reason to colonize/subjugate Iraq.

Oh I can think of at least one reason... and if you've been paying attention to the news from Iraq, it's becoming evident that we've just uncorked a new Islamic state. That's what happens with "democracy" in that part of the world- it turns into theocracy because the people there are so right wing. (As it is always threatening to do here.)

It would be militarily impossible without using unconscionably brutal tactics, and whatever bad stuff may have happened in Vietnam and Central America, the US Military simply does

Re:offtopic

[Moofie]

Any and all people who disagree with you are "rush ditto-heads".

And you're not a victim of propaganda, oh no! You're a levelheaded person with your finger on the pulse of the universe. All problems are shallow to your eyes. People bow before your wisdom.

Riiiiiight. And you posted anonymously, why?

The only people dumber and more short-sighted than Rush Limbaugh are the ones who think anybody who doesn't hew to their own philosophy must be poorly informed or mentally deficient.

Lots of people who are smarter than you disagree with you. This is true for all values of "you".

Re:offtopic

[commodoresloat]

As for Palestinian "warfare", if they were actually fighting with even a modicum of intelligence and resourcefulness you'd see far more Israeli military casualties.

Assuming, of course, that that is a significant goal to begin with. But perhaps it has nothing to do with warfare in the traditional sense at all; rather, its strategies are more about appearing a certain way in the international media? As downtrodden, outgunned, pathetic, desperate. A strategy with political rather than strictly military goals.

Re:offtopic

[commodoresloat]

OK, so the soldiers were guarding the office of a ministry that actually had something valuable, rather than a bunch of nice furniture? Sounds like they were doing their job.

Actually, they were specifically not doing their job, as it was explained to them last month by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which was set up to supervise post-war Iraq. The memo specifically identified the museum as a top priority for military protection, second only to the bank.

Re:offtopic

[Mac Degger]

A while back, on Wired or maybe /., there was an article about a leaked email from a woman who had gone to the World Economic Forum to "hobnob with the rich and powerfull".

Later on, this purlitzer prize winning author said that, yes, that email was hers (and a whole lot more on privacy issues besides).

But the scary thing is how accurate some of the quotes and observations in that email where.

Re:offtopic

[Mac Degger]

First off, it's a government the US helped establish in the first place.
Furthermore, only a democratic government which was put in place by the Iraqi people onstead of the US military has any chance of even getting the neighbouring states/kindoms to glance in that direction...and with the rebuilding contracts going out-of-country and a provisional government led by someone with those qualifications...not a hope in hell.
But most likely the bombing of at least 2000 civilians more than got killed in the WTC the US has only bred more hatred throughout the middle east.

Anyway, considering 18(?) of the 20 terrorists on those WTC planes were Saudi Arabian, wtf are you doing in Iraq?

As for Venezuala...have a look into what US policy has been towards it, and the repercussions of the lack of oil coming in from there.

Also, have a look at where the US gets it's oil from and what it pays for it. I really reccomend you do your homework. Maybe start at the OPEC site and move from there.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

I could blast your poor excuse for logic out of the water, but I won't. Its Easter Sunday and mercy should be the operational phrase.

Re:offtopic

[lord_nightrose]

Looting the Ministry of Oil would have serious repercussions on the country - and upon rebuilding in particular - since oil is nearly the only source of wealth. Sounds like they did the right thing to me. You do realize that's utter crap, right? The reason Saddam Hussein has so much money today is that he forced the Iraqi oil companies (if you can even call them that) to give him all sorts of royalties, taxes, etc. That "only source of wealth" didn't even go to the Iraqis in the first place.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Jesus would approve of your silence no matter what day it was.

Re:offtopic

[gadlaw]

Um, dude, there is no earthly reason to 'undermine' OPEC. See, there is this thing called the free market and it determines the price of oil. OPEC has found out that it is not in their interest to raise the price the oil past what the market can bear. See, their income depends on the rest of the world being able to pay a price for the oil. If they destabilize the world economy (which they are a part of) with whacked out oil prices they don't have customers. Sorry, but the reasons for the war cannot be so simplistically and easily stated. It really is about taking out the ability of anyone to create and distribute weapons which any terrorist can use to attack any civilian population center. If you are a terrorist or terrorist group that has demonstrated a ability or desire to conduct such attacks then it's a no brainer that you are not long for this world. If you are a dictator or government that has demonstrated a disregard for the life of people-your own and your neighbors and you have already invaded two countries and tried to assassinate the President of the United States it's not unreasonable to assume that you could recreate chemical and biological weapons (which you have used before) or continue to seek nuclear weapons (a technology developed in the 1940's) and that you are therefore still a danger. Considering the number of people that can be killed at one time by any of those types of weapons and considering that we watched 3000 people killed in two huge buildings by 14 religious fanatics in two jetliners do you really think that President Bush would let such an obvious danger continue to exist? And do you really really think that an oil situation that has continued in a stabilized manner since the oil boycott of the seventies is really the answer for a war in Iraq? Perhaps you do but I recommend you read some history and reconsider your reasoning.

Re:offtopic

[jbayes]

I do know two things about the true motive of the war:

• It has something to do with Israel.
• It has something to do with oil.

You're very close. I'll give you a hint.

Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of a company called Halliburton. Cheney is still receiving large payments from that company. Halliburton has a subsidary called Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR).

KBR was recently offered a contract for putting out oil fires in Iraq, without Congressional approval. The contract has an estimated value of $7 billion, but has no maximum "ceiling" cost. These types of contracts are normally discouraged in the Executive Branch, as they are quite prone to cost padding.

KBR has also recently been awarded other lucrative contracts related to post-war construction in Iraq. These contracts were awarded after KBR was fined $2 million for excessive charges in prior government contracts. KBR and Halliburton also did millions of dollars of shady business with Saddam Hussein in the 90's (while Dick Cheney was at the wheel).

Why would the White House start a war, then in the ensuing chaos award lots of money to companies which in turn are paying money back to those in the White House? Hmmm...you tell me.

I've only scratched the surface here; Representative Waxman gives some more information at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_ contracts.htm. The Houston Chronicle has a decent story about recent developments.

Re:offtopic

[Moofie]

Yeah. Forget the bad guys shooting from cover of the museum. Protect it at all costs!

How do you do that, exactly?

Re:offtopic

[Captain Ed]

Nuke Lobbing really a Half Cuban 8. I was a Banshee pilot (F2H-3) in VF-152 in 1955-56. We had the same nuclear capability as the AD-5 Spads. We deployed aboard the USS WASP in 1956, and cruised West Pac. It was a great experience. VF-152 was originally designated as the night and all weather intercept squadron, but became a dual-mission squadron before we deployed. The reason was that the USAF had come up with the B-36 for Nuke delivery, but the Navy had nothing at that time. The USAF and some idiot in Gubmint declared the Navy obsolete, so we had to do something. Our aircraft had been all black, but were re-painted light grey. Black would absorb too much heat from the blast. NOTE - THIS WAS NOT A SUICIDE MANEUVER. Done properly, the aircraft would escape the blast from the MK-7 nuke. We also carried the MK-8, a penetrating nuke to go after underground targets. There was no real danger to the pilot in this one. It was to be used on runways. It would penetrate, then explode underground, and leave a huge radioactive anthill behind. This was the favorite of the Spad drivers, as they were a bit marginal on the MK-7. It could also be dropped from altitude. Go high, evter a 70 degree dive, and pickle at 20,000'. The loft maneuver was entered at low altitude, about 25-50' above ground, and high speed, around 400kt. if I recall. Fly directly over ground zero, pull up into a loop maneuver at a specified G-Force, pickle when vertical, continue the loop until the 270 point, then roll out a la half Cuban 8, get down to the deck again, and run like Hell! Then you had to find the ship to land. I was a 25 year old LTjg at the time. It gave me a real big head.

Re:offtopic

[zero_offset]

Things sure are changing a lot and fast. If you don't pay attention, you won't recognize the country you live in anymore. The language is changing underneath us, too. "Partisan" used to mean something about a bias for one political party or the other. Now it simply means you don't like Bush and therefore shouldn't be listened to. People who do favor Bush are never partisan.

Funny. On almost a daily basis you can listen to the rightest-of-the-right-wingers himself, Rush Limbaugh, use the word "partisan" to refer to both liberals and conservatives equally.

So tell us again how and why things change a lot, and fast?

Re:offtopic

[hesiod]

Not that I reply to trolls (which are replies to trolls...), but you show your absolute stupidity there.

"You're a fag"

"Huhuh, I know you are but what am I?"

Great comeback there, buddy.

Re:offtopic

[hesiod]

> As apposed to when the israelies bulldoze the homes of those families

Sure, as long as the palestinians give money to victims' families whenever those suicide bombers blow up another fricking dance club.

Re:offtopic

[sgtrock]

I can only speak for myself. However, when I see posthumous a videotape of a pregnant teenage mother praising Allah and proudly proclaiming that she is happily going to be a suicide bomber out to kill a bunch of other women and kids, I don't think I see a representative of a downtrodden, outgunned, pathetic, and desparate state. I think I see a poor, deluded girl who has been systematically lied to by her parents, her teachers, her political leaders, and her priests who is going to kill herself and her unborn child and as many other innocents as possible. She is committing a sin that will stain her soul black when she finally does meet Allah.

In my mind suicide bombers demonstrate the complete breakdown of their society. I frequently think that the Palestinians may be the only true example of an insane society. The Isrealis, for all their faults, have demonstrated over and over that they are FAR more civilized than the psychotic bastards who cynically use their own children to kill someone else's women and kids.

Every suicide bomber story just convinces me a little more that the Palestinian leadership can never be trusted. IMO most of them should be brought to trial as war criminals of the worst stripe.

Re:offtopic

[John Bayko]

The simplest explanation is the best one - US was attacked, thousands were murdered and the US decided it had to eliminate its most aggressive of enemies - namely old mad Sadd himself.

Except Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. had decided to invade Iraq at least as far back as 1998 (and probably earlier) according to this letter:

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Incidentally, according to this comspiracy-oriented web site, plans were under way to invade Ahghanistan well before 9/11 - in fact, even the Clinton administration was considering it seriously, and plans were so complete that when needed, they were just taken off the shelf (which is why the war was organized so quickly):

US PREPARING FOR A WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11...

Re:offtopic

[TheConfusedOne]

Wow, such nice and easy to swallow propaganda. Thanks for removing any and all critical thinking from your analysis.

Let's look at it slightly more clearly.

1) Iraq has only one means of generating income. Oil. That's it. They are lucky in that they can probably be almost self-sufficient agriculturally but the only way the country will have income is from oil.
2) The Ministry of Oil contains the information about their oil sales. This includes both the sanctioned and the black-market deals. How about that little pipeline running into Syria selling black market oil?
3) The US is going to probably spend over $100 Billion between the war and the rebuilding of Iraq.
4) We could have gotten all the oil we wanted out of Iraq (and probably all the sweetheart contracts too) by simply declaring Iraq in compliance and dropping sanctions. (This is what France was trying to do all along and was the reason for the original strong opposition to the formation of UNMOVIC.)

There have certainly been a bunch of bone-headed statements from the White House, but you can certainly stop chalking it up to a "War for Oil" falacy.

BTW, the last thing US Oil Co's want is cheap oil. It'll ruin them. Though I suppose that does kind of present an akward fact for the conspiracy.

Re:offtopic

[MillionthMonkey]

Funny. On almost a daily basis you can listen to the rightest-of-the-right-wingers himself, Rush Limbaugh, use the word "partisan" to refer to both liberals and conservatives equally.

I don't listen to Rush, so I may be wrong as far as the word "partisan" goes. All I can tell you is that in the last dozen or so times I personally have heard it used, it's been used to slap down the more clearly reasoned arguments against the war (which excludes "no blood for oil", etc.). If you can't effectively address a person's arguments on their own merits, just label him as "partisan" and be done with it. Most people seem to believe that a biased opinion must be wrong somehow (which is bullshit). If you can convince your audience that your opponent is biased, you win without doing anything. It's a form of rhetorical cheating. Rush does it all the time when he screams about "media bias". (I've talked to enough dittoheads to know at least that much.)

Re:offtopic

[Magius_AR]

I've been trying to figure out for a long time what the motive for this war really is.

How bout the simple explanation?
Hussein is an insane, cruel dictator who deserved death the FIRST time he launched a massive chemical attack against a neighboring country.
Our administration at the time was too incompetent to finish the job the first time, so we return to do it now.
As such an explanation would never be politcally feasbile, we make something up.
That's my guess, and hope too, because it sure as hell pissed me off the first time when we allowed that asshole to stick around and paid for all his repairs.
I could give a damn what reason is made up to go back in, it should have been long ago, and this is the only administration that had the balls to finish the job.

Re:offtopic

[zero_offset]

Actually it's funny you'd mention the "media bias" thing, as that is another place where I often reference Limbaugh to make a point. And believe me, I'm not an ardent follower of the guy, he just happens to be on the radio during my drive home (I do occasionally agree with him). I find it almost painfully hilarious that the Rush-style far-right and the slashdot-style far-left both complain about the SAME media sources as being biased. However, it probably deserves mentioning that I'm all over the board in terms of whether I'm conservative or liberal, and unfortunately I still have trouble taking that as a sign that the media isn't biased...

Re:offtopic

[benna]

I would actually support that. Unfortunatly the palistians can't afford it and there is no way any government like iraq or iraq etc ever would.

Re:offtopic

[MillionthMonkey]

I find it almost painfully hilarious that the Rush-style far-right and the slashdot-style far-left both complain about the SAME media sources as being biased.

Definitely the scariest channel on TV (if you have cable) is the BBC. The UK is a coalition member (they're the rest of the "coalition") so you'd expect the BBC to at least reflect the interests of the pro-war faction. And for the most part they do- the BBC isn't exactly Al-Jazeera. But you see people in Iraqi hospitals, people in Baghdad bitching about the invasion, interviews with human rights leaders in foreign countries, etc.

You can watch BBC news for an hour, and then change the channel back to CNN or Fox. Yikes! It's like another planet! It's as if we've put the kissass entertainment press in charge of covering the war. We cover it like it's a sporting event. (Fox even sets scenes of bombs falling in Baghdad to classical music.) The only scenes from Iraq you'll see are either glitzy shots of soldiers doing their jobs, or a few repeated shots of that Saddam Hussein statue coming down. Then it's back to George Bush said this today, George Bush did that, following his every move like he's a movie star or in the royal family. An earthquake can kill 300 people in some province in China and the BBC is all over it. Here, something dull like that wouldn't even get covered- especially not on a day when Bush makes a speech at a military base. And compared to the BBC, you hear a lot of opinion in American news, masquerading as news. And especially, far fewer opinions from people in the rest of the world. It's really striking. We don't take the rest of the world seriously at all.

What's with that sig of yours, man? It's creepy.

Re:offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks!

Re:offtopic

[zero_offset]

Your comments about Fox are interesting in light of the fact that I often compare Fox and their global affiliate, SkyNews. It's interesting to see how the same company (essentially) spins the war differently for their different markets.

(My sig is the opening line from the movie Fight Club.)

Re:offtopic

[mink]

We set him up with those chem weapons and told him to "go nuts". The only other country he gassed that I know about is Iran.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crazy days" -- email from the Spadguys
Chapter 1: Spad idiot loops

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:12:54 +1200
From: Norm Davis
Subject: Spad idiot loops

Chapter 2: the pickle button & other details

From: Blake Middleton
Subject: RE: instrument panel
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:27:53 -0500

Chapter 3: "50 feet is life"

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:19:41 -0500
From: Joe Shea
Subject: toss bomb article

Mod me down

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey mod, why on earth would you feed this karma whore? Some people have no concept of humor.

Ah, the old cold war joke

[Galvatron]

Q: What's the difference between a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon?
A: It's a tactical nuke if it lands in Germany.

Seriously though, as others alluded to, by the time we had small tactical nukes, we also had better delivery systems, obsoleting the whole "lobbing" technique. The article suggests that this strategy was doctrine during the 1950's.

Re:New topic: Arms?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you should just go find a website that gives a rats ass about "old Europe" sensibilities. I'm sure that most of us could care less that your delicate sensibilities are offended by even seeing an article related to something that might propel a projectile, be it bullet, t-shirt, or bomb. Grow up and quit trying to live in a reality-proof bubble. If you don't want to read an article, nobody is gonna put a gun to your head and make you read it. Oh, I mean nobody is gonna beat you with a nerf bat. Err... umm.. nobody is going to tickle your feet with a feather? Help me out here... I'm working on my sensitivity...

Erm?

[i_need_no_nick]

The plane executing the goofy loop thing will not survive the complex and inacurate manouvre. The pilots probably know they're going to die. Wouldn't it be better to fly the plane itself into the target? Kind of like an uber-kamikazi?

Re:Erm?

[Anonymous Coward]

well you risk losing the plane and not hitting the target if there's a decent amount of anti-aircraft artiliry around the target. "Safer" to lob from afar.

Re:Erm?

[Paul Jakma]

complex and inaccurate maneuver? Its a half-cuban eight, quite standard and most pilots who've done any kind of introductory aerobatics lesson will probably have done them, combat pilots in dive bombers would have done a lot of them already. :)

Hmmm...

[Black Parrot]

This is the same country that is now so indignant about the Iraqis using suicide bombers to defend against an invader, right?

Re:Hmmm...

[Moderation abuser]

<i><blockquote>
It's sure starting to look like Syria is queued up for the next liberation.
</blockquote></i>

<p>Nah, they don't have large enough oil reserves to make it worth the public relations problems.</p>

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Okaaaaaaaay. Let me just point out a couple of things here. Firstly, we never actually used this technique. Secondly, if we did, I doubt the that the Air Force would have strapped a US citizen to the bomb. That would be the equivalent of a suicide bomber.

And then we have the moron listed above, who is still clinging like grim death to the "war for oil" mantra. Yeah, we're in there for oil. Instead of just buying the oil from Saddam, we thought it would be cheaper to mobilize our army and risk blowing the infrastructure to kingom come.

Re:Hmmm...

[Stonehand]

If the aircraft were masquerading as innocent civilian aircraft in the middle of vast amounts of innocent civilian air traffic (which strikes me as unlikely in a war zone), you MIGHT have a point. Since it wouldn't, you don't.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a small but big diffrence. We denounce all sucide bombsings, but most everyone means the type that attack civilians. Many others denouce all of them. Even if your in the later group, you have to relise that this lobbing manover was designed to give them a chance. If they were a true sucide bomber they would just guide it all the way in. Also this manover wasn't ment to be used in a amry vs army situation. it was ment to be used in a war that could have ment the end of the world, a war that wouldn't have civilians in the traditional sense, everyone would have been involved. People forget that there is a diffrence between the small schirmishes that happen now, and the way war if realy waged. The reason the world is as stable as it is, is because the us has the might to win or stalemate any group the attempts to wage a war on it. So what we see is little armys pecking away what little they can. Just like rome those armies will eventualy cause us to fail if we don't secure our finances... and bam! you understand why we want the oil! with it pinky and the brain can finaly take over the world..... wait... who?

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the porpose of this war was to free a
country from a cruel dictator! how thoughtful of
you! we should all be thankful, I guess like
the people from Chile, or Nicaragua.
I forgot what a great country the United States
is that protects the world from EVIL. It must be
that GOD (not the muslim one) is with you of course.
Yeah Bush does really care about human rights...

Re: Hmmm...

[Black Parrot]

> And then we have the moron listed above, who is still clinging like grim death to the "war for oil" mantra. Yeah, we're in there for oil. Instead of just buying the oil from Saddam, we thought it would be cheaper to mobilize our army and risk blowing the infrastructure to kingom come.

Notice that if we had just bought the oil from Saddam then the profits of the trade would have gone to foreign energy companies instead of US energy companies. With that in mind, read this, and take particular notice of what happened when the Shah of Iran needed the USA to buy more of their oil from him to boost his revenues.

US meddling in the Persian Gulf hasn't historically bene about oil per se, it has been about who profits from the trade of the oil.

Re: Hmmm...

[Black Parrot]

> This is the same country that is now so indignant about the Iraqis using suicide bombers to defend against an invader, right?

I can't help but notice that a couple of people tried to obscure the issue by discussing the terrorists who attack civilians rather than the Iraqis who made suicide attacks against soldiers invading their country (like the pilots were trained to do), and that a couple of others tried their hand at splitting hairs over the definition of suicide, or over which wars make suicide justifiable.

Our species is very good at rationalizing the view that something is OK for "us" but not OK for "them". Should we also discuss the complaints about showing dead soldiers and POWs on television, which both sides did in the recent war?

Give up the nationalism, folks. A nuclear-tipped world can't afford it.

Other Smart Ideas...

[ColaMan]

This reminds me of the

Nuclear armed Jeep.
Basically, a standard Jeep with 40 kiloton nuke with a launcher that only carried the nuke one an a half miles. What the hell were they thinking?!? Might as well have just driven on up to the enemy and said, "here, hold this for a minute, willya?"

Wouldn't want to be the poor sap assigned to that jeep.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[reverseengineer]

I'd like to point out that the Davy Crockett (Best. Weapon. Ever.) which is referenced in my slightly later post (you beat me by 6 minutes) does not fire a 40 kiloton nuclear warhead, it fires a roughly 40 ton nuclear warhead, a difference of three orders of magnitude. The Hiroshima device is estimated at about 15 kilotons; these are about 0.04 kilotons. These are the smallest nuclear warheads ever created, with an explosive power between 2-4 times that of the ANFO bomb that was used to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The equivalent of 40 tons of TNT is still enough to cause a gigantic explosion, of course, and gives you some sort of idea of the incredible devastation caused by a strategic thermonuclear warhead in the megaton range.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[pyrrho]

That sounds like an awefully small yeild. I didn't think they had them that small.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[Alsee]

Nuclear armed Jeep.

I can just imagine a nuclear hand grenade. Pull pin, throw.

Hell, I'd issue TWO nuclear hand grenades to each infantry man. You know, just in case he needs a second one :)

-

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[WegianWarrior]

That sounds like an awefully small yeild. I recall reading somewhere that it was the lowest possible yield they could acchive, but I've not been able to find that page again. I did however find this (curtesy of this page);

Back in the 1960s, American designers put together probably the coolest - yet also most suicidal - battlefield weapon ever built. It was a nuclear bazooka, capable of being operated by a pair of soldiers, and intended to be unleashed against Soviet battalions as they headed for Worthing-on-Sea.

The bazooka was given the patriotic codename 'Davy Crockett', presumably to encourage its operators to risk using it. Basically a scaled-up rifle grenade launcher which could either be hand-carried or mounted on a jeep, the initial Davy Crockett model had a maximum range of only two kilometres, later doubled to four. The minimum range was a suicidal 400 metres.

The tripod-mounted launcher fired a W-54 plutonium implosion bomb, the smallest nuclear weapon ever fielded by US forces. The egg-shaped atomic bomb weighed a portable 25 kilograms and had a selectable yield of either 10 or 20 tonnes. In blast terms that makes it only four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma bombing device, but its wider radiation effects would inflict considerable fatalities. The Davy Crockett warhead had a timer fuse to be primed by its operators, who would have had to work out the time taken to reach its target.

One early firing of the Davy Crockett at the Nevada Test Site was witnessed by US Attorney General Robert Kennedy. From 1961 onwards 400 bazooka warheads were manufactured and deployed. However non-nuclear test firings of the Davy Crockett revealed the design had a targeting flaw and it was retired in 1971.

The W-54 bomb had another application, as an Atomic Demolition Munition (ADM). Planted in hidden chambers beneath Germany - to destroy or block access to Warsaw Pact forces - it could be carried on handles by an individual or a team using mounted poles. ADMs were only finally retired from service in 1989.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[RapaNui]

Uh, no.
The M388 warhead had a selectable yield from 10 to 250 _tons_.
Here's some more info....
Also, take a look at another neat Cold-war toy: The 280mm Atomic Cannon....

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[miu]

In blast terms that makes it only four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma bombing device

So data is measured as a percentage of the information contained in the Library of Congress and bomb yield is rated as a number of Oklahoma City Federal Building truck bombs.

Other measuring sticks from the world of current events: information content of an official statement by number of words is measured in Rumsfeld poems, Jingoism can be measured in "freedom fries", and the likelihood of a simple task being screwed will henceforth be measured in dimpled chads.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[T-Kir]

nuclear hand grenade

Why does this make me think of Starship Troopers? (then a loud voice shouts "MEDIC!")

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[XNormal]

The equivalent of 40 tons of TNT is still enough to cause a gigantic explosion, of course, and gives you some sort of idea of the incredible devastation caused by a strategic thermonuclear warhead in the megaton range.

A megaton device does cause an incredible amount of devastation compared to a 40 ton device, but not as much as you might expect. First, a large part of the energy is spread across a volume of air so the radius of destruction scales according to somewhere between a square and cubic root of the yield. Second, the energy is not spread uniformly so much of it is wasted on (ahem...) "overkill" near ground zero.

I don't mean to belittle nuclear weapons or their effects in any way - just put it in perspective.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[kaoshin]

I know its a joke (may as well throw both and go out with a bigger bang). Imagine for a second though, that the kook who grenaded officers in the tents had access to nuke grenades.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a friend whose job in the Aur Force wa s guarding the SR71's at a base in the UK. His job, if the base was being attacked and overrun, was to take this sachel of high explosives, run into the hanger and under the plane, set the 30 second timer and get out of there. It took aprox 60 to 90 seconds to "get out of there". He also worried about perhaps tripping and falling on hard concrete with high explosives. Needless to say, being a "human bomb" was not his idea of long term fun and he kept asking for a transfer till he finally got one.

Re:Other Smart Ideas...

[pyrrho]

I learn something new every day.

Fallout

[Bios_Hakr]

I can't remember when we (the US) adopted this tactic, but all of our nukes are intended to detonate at altitude. The theory is that the blast will cover more area anyway, and will be less likely to be deflected by large buildings or goegraphic features.

Anyway, after studying this tactic, we found that the fallout was reduced. Building better nukes further reduced the fallout. I don't know if it is just crap or what, but I have heard that a limited exchange would result in almost no fallout. After the inital gama-ray burst, the areas would be relatively safe to occupy. The only casualties would be the people who were incenerated, those who were unprotected from the gama-ray burst, and those that were burned too badly from direct exposure.

Of course, that could just be government BS.

Re:Fallout

[ender81b]

but all of our nukes are intended to detonate at altitude.

not true at all. The US maintains both Air and ground burst nuclear weapons for a variety of reasons. Air Burst are useful for taking out alot of crap over a wide area. However they are not very effective at taking out hardened targets (bunkers, missle silos, etc) so the us still maintains a large arsenal of groundburst weapons for this reason.

While nuclear weapons can be delivered "clean" they also make "dirty" bombs for the exact opposite purpose. The US, and the russians, used to maintain a large inventory of nukes designed to poison crop fields. Detonate 40-50 airburst over Nebraska,Iowa, and Kansas and watch the breadbasket of the US go to hell due to the fallout from these "dirty" nukes.

Also, nuetron bombs might be what you are thinking of. These weapons have almost no blast or fireball. Instead they are designed to simply put out a large amount of short term radiation, essentially killing everything around them but leaving the cities, etc free of damage and radiation. IIRC these weapons are banned by both sides.

Re:Fallout

[RighteousFunby]

can't remember when we (the US) adopted this tactic, but all of our nukes are intended to detonate at altitude. The theory is that the blast will cover more area anyway, and will be less likely to be deflected by large buildings or goegraphic features.

Anyway, after studying this tactic, we found that the fallout was reduced. Building better nukes further reduced the fallout. I don't know if it is just crap or what, but I have heard that a limited exchange would result in almost no fallout. After the inital gama-ray burst, the areas would be relatively safe to occupy. The only casualties would be the people who were incenerated, those who were unprotected from the gama-ray burst, and those that were burned too badly from direct exposure.

Of course, that could just be government BS.

Nuff said.

Re:Fallout

[Anonymous Coward]

40-50 bombs, even of megaton size, do not produce enough fallout to render three large states uninhabitable. If they did, the health effects from the dozens of open air tests of nuclear weapons would have been much more significant and noticable in the nearby populations.

Fallout can of course be quite deadly. But these are very large areas you are talking about. When something is spread, it is diluted, and also the most radioactive isotopes will be gone in a matter of days anyway.

Re:Fallout

[girouette]

Fallout can of course be quite deadly. But these are very large areas you are talking about. When something is spread, it is diluted, and also the most radioactive isotopes will be gone in a matter of days anyway.

This is a fallacy. Allow me to quote from Sakharov's Memoirs (Knopf, 1990), pages 201-202, on the long-term effects of nuclear detonations:

"Bearing in mind that the average humand lifetime is 20,000 days, each roengten of global radiation will reduce this average lifetime by one week! My overall estimate of the number of human victims of a one-megaton detonation was 10,000. Two-thirds of this huge figure was attributed to the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which is formed during both "clean" and "normal" thermonuclear explosions. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5,000 years; its damaging effects thus continue over thousands of years. [...] By 1957, the total power of the nuclear bombs that had been tested around the world added up to nearly fifty megatons. According to my estimates, this would mean 500,000 casualties."

Footnote: "Frank von Hippel of Princeton University has used recent UN surveys of population exposures to atmosperic fallout and the health effects of ionizing radiation to obtain an estimate of 1,000 to 25,000 cancers and genetic disorders per megaton, which is consistent with Sakharov's earlier estimate"

Sakarov's article on the long term effects of atmospheric testing was instrumental in motivating the USSR and the US toward the landmark Atmospheric Testing Ban Treaty.

Re:Fallout

[lostPackets]

IIRC the idea that neutron bombs have almost no fireball is a myth. The neutron bomb was designed to take out Soviet Tank formations that would be relatively protected from the heat and blast effects of standard tactical nukes. It is intended as a theatre area tactical weapon.
Even for unshielded troops the lethal area for the blast/shockwave is still greater than the lethal area for radiation effects.
Anyone with more knowledge care to comment?

Re:Fallout

[damien_kane]

40-50 bombs, even of megaton size, do not produce enough fallout to render three large states uninhabitable

Only if you're speaking only of 'normal' thermonuclear or purely fissile weapons.
Remember back around 9/11 all the talk of 'dirty bombs'? This is what your parent is talking about. 40-50 high-yeild dirty bombs would create a lot of radioactive fallout, as the radioactive elements inside would not be destroyed by fission, but vaporized and spread over a large area by a conventional explosion.

Re:Fallout

[sjanich]

The idea was the Neutron bomb could take out concentrated tank formations. Thus, it would force Soviet battle planners to adopt a more dispersed order of battle for armor. Since the Soviets had a big lopsided numerical advantage in armor that was a good thing for the US and NATO. For the most part, the Soviets propaganda machine was able to enlist the Left in the Western world to oppose neutron weapons, spinning it as neutron weapons were to kill inhabitants of cities. In the only bit of good the French did for NATO, they developed or claimed to develop neutron bombs. So, the Soviets would still have to plan for them, even after the US said they would not build them anymore.

Re:Fallout

[Art Tatum]

In the only bit of good the French did for NATO, they developed or claimed to develop neutron bombs. So, the Soviets would still have to plan for them, even after the US said they would not build them anymore.

Well, I'm certain that both sides continued to work on them. The assurances of your enemies aren't worth the paper they're written on as this latest brouhaha between the U.N. and Iraq testifies.

Re:Fallout

[duffbeer703]

You are completely misinformed.

The "dirty bomb" is an overhyped "weapon" designed to take advantage of america's nuclear hysteria.

All a dirty bomb is an explosive device filled with easy to obtain nuclear materials (like nuclear medicine waste and such) that you blow up in some public place.

If you encased such material in a traditional nuclear device, the materials would be incinerated in the blast.

Re:Fallout

[duffbeer703]

How do you explain the lack of cancer hotspots hundreds of miles downwind from the nuclear testing sites in Nevada?

Also, what does it take to increase global radiation by one roengten?

Re:Fallout

[damien_kane]

However, if you encase a bunch of radioactive material around a conventional bomb, and, instead of carrying it around, dropped it it from a plane or launched it in a missile and airbursted it, you could irradiate a large area very quickly with very little actual damage.

That's twice now you either didn't read or misinterpreted the comment, the first being the one I replied to, and the second time being your reply to me.
Hopefully this response is in simple enough terms for you to understand so you don't get it wrong again.

Re:Fallout

[Sdrawcab]

I wouldn't say it was overhyped at all. Did you see the Frontline episode about them? They wouldn't kill many people but they could do a LOT of economic damage, and for us rich Americans, I bet that is just as frightening.

Re:Fallout

[HuguesT]

I don't know about Nevada, but here in Australia we have very definitely a cancer hotspot around the old nuclear testing ground that the British used in the Australian desert. The hotspot is in the Aboriginal population so for the longest time no one cared, but thankfully now people do.

The people most exposed in Nevada would have been the US military and these guys move around a lot.

Re:Fallout

[duffbeer703]

I probaly should have clarified my statement a little better. The fallout from nuclear testing in Nevada travelled as far as Western Europe.

One would expect fallout to cause cancer hotspots in the midwest and midatlantic states -- except it didn't.

A *very* interesting topic, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I am not getting the point, I really don't see any relationship between a topic like "how-was-I-supposed-to-drop-a-nuke-over-the-USSR" and so called "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters". It just looks like the usual stuff about weapons you see on Discovery Channel.

But well, OK, as an European I am maybe forgetting something very important: you are at war, aren't you?

Re:A *very* interesting topic, but ...

[snarkasaurus]

Point being, this is just one little thing done by the American military, the totality of which resulted in you living in a free country in Europe.

Without these guys training for these incredibly dangerous missions, you'd be speaking Russian. As would we all.

The USA is again at war, for much the same reason. So you can type away on Slashdot and not have to worry about nukes/bugs/chemicals released by some Islamist lunatic in your town. A thankless task, it seems to me.

Get the point yet?

Re:A *very* interesting topic, but ...

[kgarcia]

Notice this is "News for Nerds", not "News for Computer Geeks". The term "nerd" encompasses MUCH more than your standard computer-geek interests. Did you know that it was the Nerds of the 40's and 50's that developed the first Atomic Bombs? It is Nerds that developed the Space Program? Aircraft? etc?. Yes, this IS relevant... and is meant to expand your horizons and broaden your knowledge. That's what Nerd-dom is about......

Those Wacky 50s

[reverseengineer]

Yeah, this is from a very interesting time in the history of military strategy- that period from 1949 to the invention of the ICBM in the late 1950s. In 1949, the Soviets demonstrated that they had entered the Nuclear Age (with a little help from spies), thus ending America's window to conduct "atomic bomb diplomacy"- if you have a weapon that can destroy an entire city, and no one else has one, or any sort of effective countermeasure, you can get pretty far with extortion.

When the Soviets got the Bomb, of course, the Cold War started in earnest, and so plans had to be drawn up to fight the most colossal and devastating war in human history (hot on the heels of that previous most colossal and devastating war in human history where the Soviet happened to be our allies). It was of course feared that in this upcoming war, the Soviets would have a tremendous advantage in conventional forces, and waves of Soviet tanks would roll across Europe. Thus, our rapidly growing stockpile of atomic bombs would become an important asset. The major question was how these weapons would be delivered. The Air Force of course responded by building a fleet of long range strategic bombers, and the Navy a fleet of submarines that could launch nuclear missiles; these measures, however, took years to set up, leading to a variety of interesting stopgap measures. This includes the lovely "idiot loop" maneuver explained here of course, as well as the Army's approaches, which included a 280mm cannon that fired atomic artillery shells, and what is perhaps the most unbelievable weapon in military history (and that includes the insane ideas the Nazis had at the end of WWII like the Me-162), the Davy Crockett. Why yes, that is a nuclear warhead being fired out of a recoilless rifle barrel.

Like I said, these were stopgap measures, born out of desperation. Of course, this period pretty much entered its twilight with the development of the thermonuclear "Super" device, and was utterly swept away with the advent of the ICBM and SLBM to carry it. It became clear that there was no longer any place for tactics on a nuclear battlefield- with thousands of ballistic missiles on each side, most of civilization would be vapor before conventional troops got loaded into the transport plane. Also, the long term effects of radiation were becoming known- how does the traditional idea of territorial control work if in order to gain territory, you have to nuke it? Anyway, some of the ideas that came up in this short period were pretty crazy, but they're pretty much par for the course in military history- whenever a new technology hits the battlefield, strategists go nuts trying to either combat against it, or work it into their plans- compare this period in history, where a weapon of incredible power threatened to make conventional forces obsolete, to a period like the introduction of firearms to the medieval battlefield, or the introduction of the ironclad in naval battles- the old weapons and strategies quickly beome obsolete, and military planners become willing to try absolutely anything to gain the upper hand.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you might think the idea of tactical use of nukes is pretty crazy, but (speaking of goofy loops), your prez and the nuttas in the Pentagon don't. They are asking Congre$$ to authorise the spending of billions on developing new tactical nuclear weapons and are likely to break the test ban treaty too.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[mseeger]

and that includes the insane ideas the Nazis had at the end of WWII like the Me-162

The Me-162 was no insane idea (beside the fact that everything prologing the war would have been an insane idea). The Me-162 was ready for production in 1942 and (by far) the best and most advanced fighter plane used in WWII.

If the Me-162 would have become available in huge numbers during 1943 (which was possible), it would probably have reversed the allied aerial superiority above germany.

The real insane part was instead of producing the fighter plane (they had), the upper echelons decided to go for a bomber (which they hadn't) and delayed the serial production for nearly three years.

This was not the only decision of that kind. The german leaders always went for the offensive waepons. They dropped e.g. small surface-to-air missiles in favor of big surface-to-surface missiles (V1, V2). They (luckily) totally misjudged their power and the overall situation.

Bye, Martin

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

Even crazier on the site you reference is the nuclear land mine. I'd hate to be the poor guy who stepped on that one...

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[DNS-and-BIND]

Last I heard, the North Koreans and Iranians were also increasing their budgets on developing new tactical nuclear weapons.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[Anonymous Coward]

With the USA stomping around the world, supporting the pro-USA rogue state of the day and bombing their president's favorite arch-enemy, wouldn't you look into painting yourself in warning colors and developing venomous skin?

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have some evidence that the Iranians are actually producing tactical nuclear weapons - as opposed to extending their nuclear energy programme - please show it. Otherwise shut up.

Now, I know that the Iranian energy programme is best described as bizarre and bloody dangerous otherwise, but you had better catch-yourself-on with all this axis of evil crap.

Not all countries you dislike (even the ones where you shoot down the unarmed airlines - remember that??) are planning to nuke you off the face of the earth.

North Korea, well that is a different case - but is the answer to the problems there really to buy more weapons? After all you have enough to burn North Korea deep into the mantle, why do you need more?

And before you give me all that cheese-eating-surrender-monkey crap, I supported the war.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[Anonymous Coward]

even crazier is that israel has the golan mined with nukes.. perhaps the shrub should go after the thousand odd nukes in israel's wmd arsenal, not to mention bio and chem, before harassing more arab states..

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[SubtleNuance]

even DPRK is not saying they are developing Nukes - but firing up the reactors in order to get ENERGY as a result of having Bush end the terms of a Clinton treaty (oil for antimilitarism)...

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[damien_kane]

Why is that? With a conventional land mine, the person who set off the mine usually doesn't die... Land mines are meant to wound, not kill, requiring more 'enemy' forces to run through the minefield, endagering their own lives, to rescue their fallen comrade.
A nuclear landmine would kill you (overkill I'd say).

Personally I'd prefer to be vaporized then have my legs blown off...

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[jimhill]

There is no blanket test ban treaty. The US Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The current moratorium on nuclear testing is strictly an executive policy, subject to change at the President's whim.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[Art Tatum]

Stop it! You're screwing up the argument that the U.S. is the origin of all evil in the world! Don't you know that Iran (praise Allah!) and North Korea (praise Marx!) are our saviours from this wicked Bush regime?

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[danielobvt]

I thought they banned internet use to you North Koreans..... Everytime we might sit down with those whackos, the turn around and start saying things like "oh by the way, we are developing nuclear weapons". Not very condusive to bringing us to the bargaining table.

Re:Those Wacky 50s

[HuguesT]

Don't you think the US has a little bit of a head start? Or India and Pakistan (and Israel!) for that matter. Restarting an arm race around that argument may not be a great idea for world peace. Then again, what do I know?

Davy Crockett

[cirby]

The warhead of the "jeep" weapon was no larger than ten or twenty tons, not 40 kilotons.

The web page says 40 tons, but that's a high estimate.

That kind of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you would.. please READ THE SUBJECT. Americans enjoy something known as humor. Thats all I have to say, dont want to start a war

Oh yeah, that great American humor.
Like protecting the oil ministry in
Baghdad and letting hospitals and
museums be ransacked by looters.

Oil ministry an untouched building in ravaged Baghdad

Looters ransack Baghdad hospitals

Re:That kind of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

Looters are not generally interested in stealing oil.

Re:That kind of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they store barells of oil in the ministry? The looters are after computers and office equipment, something the ministry has lots of. If they looted it though, a lot of important oil related information would be lost. Gee, I wonder why no one has looted it?

Re:That kind of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

but Americans are

Mach Effect

[Detritus]

With a properly designed air burst, the shockwave will bounce off the ground and combine with the primary shockwave, producing a stronger shockwave than would be produced by a ground burst, enhancing the blast damage.

Modern nuclear bombs are fitted with very effective parachutes that allow the plane to reach a safe distance before detonation. The weapon can be programmed for "laydown" fuzing, where the weapon detonates after a preset delay from the time of ground impact.

So basically it was an early version...

[Alex Belits]

of a cruise missile minus navigation, plus pilot.

Are You or Have You Ever Been a Member of the CP?

[Anonymous Coward]

.

if you have a weapon that can destroy an entire city, and no one else has one, or any sort of effective countermeasure, you can get pretty far with extortion.

And who exactly did the U.S. "extort" in the interim, you pinko commie?

.

Even "Geeks" Know the Threats (e. g. China) to USA

[reporter]

Even "geeks" know that the world outside of the West is hostile. We need to be prepared to use all methods that are necessary. "All methods" includes dropping nuclear bombs via the "goofy loop", shooting depleted-uranium shells, etc.

Nations outside of the West have no qualms whatsoever in using nuclear force against us. For example, in 1995, the Chinese threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Los Angeles. Please read "Chinese general told threat against U.S. unacceptable". The Chinese have proactively obtained sensitive information about our military technology and national security. They intend to undermine our society. Please read " Military secrets on sale to China" and "Spy Suspect Led an Active, Prominent Life".

Remember these famous words: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Let us not forget our obligations to our fellow citizens in the West even if we are "geeks".

actually, this manuever is still in use today

[StandardDeviant]

It's what the F-16 has to use in order to deliver weapons of this class (probably F/A-18 as well). The standard F-16 has to have physical (bomb attachment point strengthening, etc.) and avionics upgrades to handle it, but in the end it's basically just a faster, more accurate (ooh! software! ;)) version of the 50's manuever. (I googled looking for a link to back this up, but came up dry, probably just not using good enough queries... One bit of unintentional humor was noting the top text ad for "F-16 nuclear delivery", namely "Find a delivery service! Anywhere in the world! www.somedeliverycompany.com" or some such... Heh, I don't think that's what they had in mind...)

IIRC, back in the mid-80's (i think), there was a big stink between Pakistan and India caused by Pakistan obtaining some of these nuclear capable F-16s. Of course, at that time it was only suspected that Pakistan had The Bomb, but when your neighbor buys a shotgun you don't have to see the shells to get a little nervous. (When is there not a big stink between Pakistan and India? Anyway, that *particular* big stink was over Pakistan's nuke-capable fighters.)

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[StandardDeviant]

side note: by "weapons of this class" i mean nuclear-warhead gravity bombs. I don't know if the F-16 is capable of deploying stand-off weapons missiles or whatnot (never has the phrase "stand off" seemed so positive, I know I'd way to stand waaaaay the hell off from anything in that class of lethality ;)).

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that carries bombs is "nuclear capable", but the distinction as used today is wether the aircraft has nuke-specific switches, wiring, etc.
The F-16s sold to Pakistan didn't have "nuclear consent" switches.
The "stink" was for propaganda purposes and both sides knew it. India could just as well have hung gravity nukes off their MiG-21s.

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[Imperator]

Of course, at that time it was only suspected that Pakistan had The Bomb

That's why the current situation on the subcontinent is so dangerous. Until both sides have enough nukes that an exchange would annihilate both countries, there'll be the temptation to think a nuclear war can be "won". It's one of the great ironies of the nuclear world that India and Pakistan will both be safer places to live when the two traditional enemies have enough firepower to destroy all of Asia.

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[xmnemonic]

Lofting is a standard maneuver, and it is not restricted to just nuclear weapons. It's used whenever the pilot wants to add some sort of stand-off capability to a non-stand-off weapon, and requires only that the aircraft have a CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bombing mode (which includes all current U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft). Again, it has nothing to do specifically with nukes.

Here's how it's done; the pilot waits until the horizontal line on the CCRP vertical line blinks, indicating he's within maximum range. Then he increases pitch to 45 degrees and pushes the throttle to mil or afterburner if he's got the fuel. He then holds down the pickle, and the bombing computer releases the bomb once it detects that his aircraft is in a correct firing solution for a successful loft.

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[Anonymous Coward]

...but when your neighbor buys a shotgun you don't have to see the shells to get a little nervous.

What socialist hell do you live in? Why would I be nervous if my neighbor bought a shotgun? What, is the gun going to convince him to go out and commit crime? I have shotguns in my home, and so do many of my suburban neighbors. So far, none of us have threatened to shoot eachother.

More like, when my neighbor brings home hydroponics equipment, I get nervous. Likely he is growing illegal Mary Jane, and we all know what kind of element traffics drugs. That's when I bring home a shotgun.

(A true story. I had a neighbor who had a clandestine pot farm in his barn. He was not a happy peace-and-love hippy either; he was a dangerous psycho.)

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you and your neighbor get in fistfights every morning, noon, and night... You could say that the pattern of aggression combined with a newly destructive element is cause for concern.

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a troll... you are the psychopath. Shotguns are more dangerous than pot. And here's something else--the neighborhood-guns-of-peace are far less common. I'm willing to bet that many more of your neighbors have marijuana than firearms. And every time they toke up, you and your stupid attitude and your stupid guns slide further and further into the absurd innocuous non-reality you represent.

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[mattsucks]

There is a whole series of codes that must be entered, and a very specific timeline that must be followed, to lob a nuke from an F-16. Even after 100s of runs, its not an easy thing. The displays give you very specific directions as to what flight path to take ... the flight cues in the HUD (heads-up display) guide you through the pop and lob maneuver, and a nice flashing symbol tells you when to push the button.

Even in a simulator, it is a very disturbing thing to do. Just the thought of "what might be" ....

background: through the mid-80s I worked in the flight simulation laboratory of a major defense contractor closely related to the F-16

Re:actually, this manuever is still in use today

[HuguesT]

Correct, and you can practice this in the comfort of your own home in various PC flight simulators, Falcon 4 for example (MS-windows required).

1) BS, 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. The MK-7 was a variable yield weapon with a maximum adjustable yield of 61 kilotons. 7 or even 3 miles would be more than enough to escape all of it's harmful effects.

MK-7 picture

Please understand what you are talking about the next time you post your pacifistic drivel.

Oh and by the way, why wouldn't there be a carrier to return to?

This kind of idiocy is typical when nuclear weapons are the subject. Laymen think of them as the end-all of warfare and human existence (greatly contributed to by defeatistic soviet propaganda), when in reality they are just big bombs. All the nuclear weapons in the world are not nearly enough to exterminate all human life on earth. Just see how many athmosperic nuke tests have been done over the years, and surprise, surprise: we're still here.

The High Energy Weapons Archive offers more clues for the clueless:

High Energy Weapons Archive

Re:1) BS, 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

hey moron - I gues you didn't read the artcles where it clearlt states the calculations prove no pilot would have survived. where do ~you~ get your info? yet another ignorant american opening his yap... pacifistic? what are you "warifistic" ? why not take the fist out of your...

Re:1) BS, 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for calling BS in this. You will now be undermodded, or at the very least, ignored. Opposing viewpoints backed up by hard data are not welcome on Socialistdot. Feel lucky that you weren't modded as flamebait, a troll or offtopic.

And don't you love how the anti-nuke crowd points to the ecological disasters in Russia as proof that all nuclear activity should be stamped out. Honestly folks, is the NRC proposing that we dispose of nuclear waste out in the open, in a river?

Re:1) BS, 2) BS

[wcdw]

Although I don't disagree that there is a lot of hype when people start discussing nukes in general, I DO think it's a little idiotic to simply consider them 'just big bombs'.

The number of atmospheric tests which have been done to date pales in comparison to the number destructive tonnage available. Furthermore, those tests have been spread out over time, rather than having been conducted all at once.

Or does anyone really believe that a nuclear confrontation in today's world would involve one plane pitching one bomb, ala WWII?

NO ONE can do more than hypothesize about the effect of multiple, multi-megaton blasts (e.g. 'nuclear winter', etc.), and let's hope no one ever can.

Unfortunately, the more people who regard nuclear explosives as 'just big bombs', the greater the odds that we'll someday obtain empirical evidence.

Re:1) BS, 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this what all the biggest (classified) supercomputers have been up to for the last decade -- simulating nuclear holocaust? Someone probably knows exactly what it would be like... hopefully thats why it will never happen.

Re:1) BS, 2) BS

[wcdw]

That's like saying we can predict the weather because we have had big supercomputers crunching those numbers for decades.

Ok, so the analogy isn't perfect, but then again, what is? :-)

The point is, models are only as good as the data which is fed into them. Somewhere along the line, some human decided what factors should be put into the model and how they should be weighted. How accurate are those assumptions?

Personally, I'd rather not use the traditional technique to perfect those models. :-(

24

[Ulky]

If its still in use then why didn't Jack use it in 24 a few weeks back? :)

Re: 2) BS

[bj8rn]

Oh and by the way, why wouldn't there be a carrier to return to?

Maybe because the fighter was running out of fuel, having flown to the target from a carrier that was far enough from the target so that enemy fighters and bombers couldn't reach it safely?

They US Air Force did this kind of trick when bombing Japan for the first time in WW II - the mission known as The Dolittle raid. The B-25 bombers, having taken of from a carrier and not having enough fuel to return there (landing would have caused trouble, too), were supposed to land in China - which none of them succeeded to do due to bad weather. Only one crew was unfortunate to bail out/crash land over Japanese territory, other 15 made it to friendlier territories. They may as well not have been that lucky.

Re:Even "Geeks" Know the Threats (e. g. China) to

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese have proactively obtained sensitive information about our military technology and national security.

It is naive to think that the USA does not do the same.

They intend to undermine our society.

The Chinese probably think the same about the USA. It is scary: both sides are afraid of each other because of they fear the other guy does the same to them that they themselves are doing to the other.

I'm beginning to understand why we are not in contact with extraterrestrial species. Who in their right mind would like to have anything to do with a species like this...?

moron the new clear crisis in 192003

[Anonymous Coward]

this is what you wanted? we DOWt it.

consult with yOUR creator regarding throwing/dropping dangerous objects at/on one another.

Dream

[peterjhill2002]

Believe me it or now, I had a dream that I was on an airplane that was doing this maneuver for testing, but dropping a real bomb. I was in the back of the plane and when I saw it falling, all I could think about was, we are no way going to get far enough away.

Very strange to wake up, go to /. first thing and see this new article...

Okay, what does it all mean?

Re: 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

wasnt there a movie based upon this? i remember seeing it but dont remember name/actors...

Douglas Skyraiders

[Anonymous Coward]

are probably for the time of their inception, the most badass military aircraft ever. I don't even fantasize that those guys would have gotten out alive, but if any plane could do it it would have been the AD. They have been used for everything except personnell drops, in fact they were, I forget which configuration, the immediate predecessors of the A10 Thunderbolt, aka Warthog. I helped restore a couple that did very well in the OshKosh warbirds competition, the guy was right about how much oil spilled onto the wings and fuselage during flight. Kinda rough on the paint.

Re: 2) BS

[0x0d0a]

The awful Pearl Harbor devoted the second half of its footage to Doolittle's Raid.

Mirror..needed...badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would one of the lucky souls who got through before we killed their server post a stinkin mirror? Now?

They tried this with medium bombers as well

[sielwolf]

(with less success of course). But I was watching Discovery Wings (yes, I have that Digital) and they showed them trying to do something similar with a B-47 Stratojet (if I remember correctly). Needless to say they had some trouble trying to flip a 133000 lbs. bomber.

Re:They tried this with medium bombers as well

[pease1]

There is a very nice article on this topic, including details about B-47 doing the idiot loop in the May issue of Air and Space Magazine.

Eh, not really.

[MtViewGuy]

I don't think the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS) manuever is practiced nowadays.

Mostly because the airplane that delivered the bomb has to make a sharp popup manuever to do this, and that makes the plane extremely vulnerable to ground AA fire and to other fighters. With the advent of parachutes to slow down the bomb drop rate and delayed-action detonation circuits (both of which were developed for the B28, B43, B57, B61 and B83 bombs due to the fact bombers dropped the bombs at very low altitude at high speed), LABS manuevers are fortunately not necessary nowadays.

By the way, one other thing--the weight of modern nuclear bombs are surprisingly low. The variable yield (10 to 250 kT) B61 bomb weighs only about 700 pounds; the 1 MT B83 bomb only weigh just under 1000 pounds! Given that the F-16C and F-18C/E models regularly carry 2,000 lb. iron bombs on a regular basis, the only modification necessary for the F-16C and F-18C/E to carry nuclear bombs is the extra control avionics needed to arm the bomb itself.

Re:Eh, not really.

[PD]

Low end yoeld on the B61 is 300 tons, which is the unboosted yield. (just the fission part).

Good stuff

[dnoyeb]

That was certainly worthly of post here at slashdot. News for the military history nerd. I think that would make an excellent story for the history channel. The poster should contact them about it. it was very interesting.

Those military guys have personality too.

Damn, that's harsh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand on the conclusion that W looks smarter than he really is.

Owww... he looks like a monkey, so that's a pretty serious slam. :)

I'm giving the Democrats sooo much money and time this year. :)

Re:Damn, that's harsh...

[RadioTV]

Owww... he looks like a monkey, so that's a pretty serious slam. :)

You aren't the only one that thinks he looks like a monkey.

Bush or Chimp

Re:Damn, that's harsh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, I guess I really am not the only one! That site is brilliant!

Air Force huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

you sure it wasn't the Army? Perhaps the Air Corps of the Army...

...and the Post-American World

[Anonymous Coward]

There seem to be no doubts that the United States appears to have become the sole superpower capable of overtaking the whole world and bending the entire world to its imperial will. Although ultimately false, this appearance is manifested in the following parameters:...

Appearances, National Decline, and the Post-American World

Didn't Even Have the Peril Sensitive Glasses!

[nutznboltz]

"We didn't have goggles that went opaque until the 1960s. Shut one eye and then open it after the flash was the idea."--Ron Pickett, Phoenix, Arizona

Re:Didn't Even Have the Peril Sensitive Glasses!

[Mr.Phil]

Great Hitchhikers reference. I'm suprised no one commented on this yet.

Suicide bombers

[Anarchofascist]

What a cool article about American suicide bombers! I love suicide bombers. There's something so daring, heroic and tragic about them, don't you think?

What a great guy. He sure must have a lot of guts to be prepared to strap himself into a weapon of mass destruction and hurtle himself at the enemy like that, knowing that he was unlikely to come back alive. How dashing! How adventurous!

To bad there aren't enough people like that in the world today, willing to throw their lives away for a cause they believe in.

Yes, I know, there will always be the lefty naysayers who will complain about "thousands of innocent civilians dead" but this is wartime! You have to expect civilians to be killed (and sometimes even targetted) by suicide troops in the struggle for a greater glory.

[Note for our American readers: Please don your sarcasm-glasses, switch on your ironometers and re-read this post]

You're not targeting Sevastopol but the military airfield on the mainland beyond, to take out the MiG-15s that would otherwise intercept the big bombers of the Strategic Air Command.

Ah that's alright then. It's a military target. He's going to kill the soldiers who would try to prevent our boys from murdering millions of civilians.

Re:Suicide bombers

[Anonymous Coward]

check out Peter Sellers in "How I learned to Love the Bomb". Classic movie fearuring another crazy texan with a bomb up his ..

Re:Suicide bombers

[nochops]

Damn...where's my mod points when I need them? I couldn't have said it better myself. This really should be modded up, so some people can see how hipocritical and silly the sound.

Re:Suicide bombers

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember: suicide bombing is bad when somebody *else* does it, but when the Americans do it, well, that's different.

Re:Suicide bombers

[Jerf]

It's only hypocritical if you falsely assume that everybody today would condone these actions. I don't condone them, whether my ancestors are doing them or living people.

I'd also point out that both the United States and the Soviet Union never did these things, in stark contrast to certain people today who show every sign of being willing to do them, if only they had the weapons. (I always try to remember to credit the USSR as well for not blowing up the world, especially as it became increasingly clear they were losing.)

It's only "hypocrisy" if you deliberately take a naive view of the current world situation to score dubious rhetorical points, and it's the continuing predilection of the left for this sort of rhetorical dishonesty that is further and further marginalizing them, thank goodness.

Re:Suicide bombers

[Insanity]

I don't think you understand the mentality of the pilots who were to fly these missions. They joked about the missions being hopeless, they laughed about the whole idea of nuclear war and the annihilation of a good chunk of the human population, they gave their maneuvers names like the "idiot loop" - but it was all humour, all to keep themselves sane. If you couldn't learn to laugh about it, you probably wouldn't have been able to handle the pressure.

In a firing squad, there is always one man who fires a blank. Every man knows that, statistically, it's very likely that he played a part in the killing of a man, but when his conscience begins to eat away at him, he finds an enormous amount of comfort in the fact that he may have fired a blank. So much so that the man might completely convince himself that he was the one who fired that blank. The human mind will do whatever it can to stay sane.

Likewise, the pilots never thought of their missions as being suicidal. They thought that with luck, or skill, or the grace of god, or whatever they believed in, they would make it home alive.

The military knew it could get twice the range out of an aircraft that wasn't destined to return home. They also knew that you could save yourself a great deal of training and effort if you just told the men to drop the bomb while flying level at 50 feet.

Instead they invented an elaborate maneuver to try to bring their men back alive, no matter what the odds. The military creates soldiers, not suicide bombers.

It is the hope of coming home alive that seperates a brave man willing to take an enormous risk from a deluded psychotic who is willing to detonate a bag of gunpowder and nails tied to his chest.

To compare the two is to misunderstand human nature.

Re:Suicide bombers

[Anarchofascist]

...they laughed about the whole idea of nuclear war and the annihilation of a good chunk of the human population, they gave their maneuvers names like the "idiot loop" - but it was all humour, all to keep themselves sane.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't turn my mind around. I can't metaphorically sit beside people and laugh with them about how difficult it's going to be to kill millions of people. That is not sanity, that is a coping strategy permitting the maintenance of an insane delusion.

True evil is banal. Outside the Iraqi torture centres there was a day care centre where the torturers' children could be kept while daddy pulled people's nails out and ran electric shocks over their genitals. When they were done, they returned to pick up their children and go home to a nice meal with the family. I bet they also had some remarkable coping strategies to "keep them selves sane".

It is the hope of coming home alive that seperates a brave man willing to take an enormous risk from a deluded psychotic who is willing to detonate a bag of gunpowder and nails tied to his chest.

Your deluded psychotic is a brave man. Your brave man is a deluded psychotic. It all depends on the position of the observer.

A well-made weapon can be a beautiful thing. The barrel of a gun pointed at your face is invariably ugly.

Re:Suicide bombers

[HuguesT]

Question for you: do you think there is a daycare center at Guantanamo Bay?

TROED THE TROLL

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Do you ever miss an oppurtunity to bash the US?

Don't forget the Thuds!

[scatter_gather]

Prop planes were hardly the only aircraft that tossed bombs to deploy them. The F-105 Thunderchief, nicknamed the "Thud", was designed to be a fighter/BOMBER delivering nuclear payloads. I was an air force grunt that worked on them in the Viet Nam era and watched a training video showing the aircraft in the strategic (nuclear) mission. It had a fire control computer that was known as the "toss bomb computer" and calculated climb angle, release point, etc. The idea was the same, run in low to the ground at mach 1.2 (the aircraft had a very low radar cross section from the front) and do a half loop and release the bomb in the arc and keep going to roll out back the way you came. Cross your fingers and hold on to your ass. Here is a picture of the delivery.

over-the-shoulder

Me-262 effect is overrated

[A nonymous Coward]

Its engines had an average life of 10 hours, that's 2-3 missions. They were hard to manufacture at all, let alone in quality and quantity.

It had short range, the jet engines of the day were very inefficient and gobbled fuel like crazy. This would have made their fuel supply problems worse.

All jet engines have slow acceleration, the early ones even more so. An Me-262 in landing pattern was a sitting duck. More sitting ducks = more losses, and at low altitude, fewer survivors.

The allies had jet planes, but since they didn't need them, they didn't push production. If the Me-262 had come out in number in 1943, the allied jet fighters would have been out in even larger number in 1944. The P-80 was a better plane than the Me-262. I think the British one was too. Of course, like all jets, it was short range and couldn't have escorted bombers to Berlin.

Re:Me-262 effect is overrated

[mseeger]

Of course, like all jets, it was short range and couldn't have escorted bombers to Berlin.

I think, that this is one of the important points. Up to the battle of Britain, the germans used the Me-110 as bomber escort. It had a pretty decent range, but it was no match for a Spitfire. The Me-109 was on equal footing to the Spitfire, but range limitations gave it little standing power in british airspace.

A proper counter-strategy was to disable the airfields in southern england and therefor force the english fighters to use up more fuel on the way to the battle. By the time the goal was in reach, they switched targets to the citys.

Back to Me-262: Technical problems would have been worked out quickly and they would have (IMHO) achieved air superiority in german airspace (at least for some time). As (correctly) pointed out, they had not a lot of uptime. Once deployed, the Allies would have deployed similar planes too (but not as fighter escort). This equation was probably well known by then too. So the Me-262 was seen as a "defensive" weapon and therefor dropped.

Regards, Martin

Re:Me-262 effect is overrated

[00_NOP]

Plus Chuck Yaeger shot one down, so ye olde Mustang wasn't so badly off - must have been the Rolls Royce engines :->

Re:Me-262 effect is overrated

[PD]

The 262 had a MTBF of about 10 hours. But the point was not to let the engine fail. They really only lasted about 5 hours between overhauls - and the overhauls usually were an entire core change. The entire rotating turbine assembly would be shot from the heat.

Re:Me-262 effect is overrated

[Mr.Phil]

That and Hitler was a fool. He ordered that the ME-262 be built as a Bomber, instead of a fighter. Something like a year after they were struggling to convince him that they needed the 262 as a fighter instead did he finally see it as a fighter plane instead of a bomber.

They were most vulnerable on takeoff and landing, and a majority of our shoot downs were in those moments, as it had no manuverability at low speed.

Lots of research on this plane, building a speed-400 powered electric RC model from Remote Control Airplane News.

Hey Moderators!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

If you check this guy's posts all he does is troll specifically against the US. Being negative about the US is fine but all of the time, 100%, nothing else?

Re:Hey Moderators!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if the US wasn't so keen on being in everybody else's face, it wouldn't draw that sort of reaction.

Re:Hey Moderators!

[Troed]

Check my usernumber. While not one of the really old ones here - I assure you I've contributed with a lot more than just pointing out obvious US lies regarding the war against Iraq :)

Yes - I meant that. It's not "trolling" as soon as you don't agree with the US taking over the world.

Re:Hey Moderators!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Well, you're not contributing anything but complaints now. My point is that you turn EVERYTHING into a rant about the US.
What if I turned everything into a rant about Sweden's position on whaling which I don't agree with?
Seriously, go to k5 where political comments and subjects are encouraged but please don't ruin this site and don't use it to vent your own personal angst about a country's government.
Of course, you could always realize that you're doing absolutely nothing but whine and you could ACT instead of whine on Slashdot. There's a lot more to standing up for your beliefs than posting comments online, man.

Re:Hey Moderators!

[Troed]

Sweden's position on whaling

PLEASE - tell me what our position on whaling is :D

If you looked harder, you'd realise that I didn't start a rant. I pointed out an error in a parent post. Go complain on someone else :)

Re:Hey Moderators!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Here's one the first hits from Google I got for Sweden whaling. Seems like your knowledge is concentrated on the US. Looking at your history, my point remains valid. All of your posts of late on Slashdot are rats against the US. You seem to have no response to my suggestion that your stop complaining online and act on something you believe in.

Re:Hey Moderators!

[Troed]

Again - what is our position on whaling? The link didn't say anything about that :) (And I'm quite sure that you're thinking of Norway and not Sweden)

You seem to have no response to my suggestion that your stop complaining online and act on something you believe in.

What makes you think I don't act? Rest assured - I do :)

Whoa, two mea culpas here

[A nonymous Coward]

Both my and mseeger's mea culpas, we both read Me-262, the jet fighter, whereas reverseengineer said Me-162, which I believe was the rocket boosted glider, which was expected to glide thru a bomber formation on its way back down, firing a few rockets, and the pilots was supposed to bail out before the Me-162 crashed. Yes, that was a goofy waste of resources.

Re:Whoa, two mea culpas here

[mseeger]

Both my and mseeger's mea culpas, we both read Me-262, the jet fighter, whereas reverseengineer said Me-162

Correct...

Re:Whoa, two mea culpas here

[Art Tatum]

Both my and mseeger's mea culpas, we both read Me-262, the jet fighter, whereas reverseengineer said Me-162, which I believe was the rocket boosted glider

Close, but no cigar. The rocket-powered aircraft was the Me-163.

Re:Whoa, two mea culpas here

[reverseengineer]

Better go ahead and toss on another mea culpa for me. I of course meant the Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet , the rocket-powered single-seat interceptor with absolutely unheard-of speed and climb rate, but with about a ten-minute max flight time, and an unusually strong correlation with horrific pilot death. I couldn't remember what the designation of the thing was, and when I typed "Me-162" into Google, I received a number of positive results pertaining to the rocket plane, so I wrote it into my post. I wasn't terribly concerned with this minor issue, as it was only tangential to the subject of the post, and it was also very, very late at night. Later, when I checked back to note the moderation/reply status of my post, I came upon this short thread and was initially confused, because I most definitely did not mean the Me-262, the twin-engine jet fighter/bomber, as that was indeed an engineering marvel and every subsequent jet aircraft owes much to its design. Then I saw the above post, and I found that I was terribly mistaken. A short analysis of the Google results I had earlier suggested that all of the hits I got were from sites that had made the same error. Thus, an unnecessary, though informative and entertaining, thread of discussion was started merely through reverseengineer's boundless stupidity. Guess I had better dust off my copy of "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe," which, by the way, lets you fly the Me-163 Komet. Gah.

Oh, and there was a He-162 Volksjager jet fighter, actually, which I learned about in the course of measuring my ignorance (which turned out to be a set with an infinite number of elements). It was a single-engine fighter of unusual design- the single turbojet sat directly aft of the cockpit, making it strongly resemble a piloted V-1 buzz-bomb (although the similarities were purely cosmetic). Incredibly, it went from blueprint to production in a matter of months (during which time, it suffered a number of horrific accidents, mostly the result of substandard glue keeping the plane together), but only a few saw combat before the war ended.

Re:Whoa, two mea culpas here

[Art Tatum]

It's OK, don't kill yourself over it. :-)

Nice links, BTW.

Re:New topic: Arms?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah, I guess that's why yanks are pretty well universally recognized as loudmouthed arrogant a##holes where ever they gone in the world....

Photo of Pokrovsky cathedral

[jamie]

From the article:

"Then you found an easily recognized landmark to serve as your Initial Point, which today will be Pokrovskiy cathedral in the center of Sevastopol. ... When the onion tops of Pokrovskiy cathedral flash under the port wingtip, you press the pickle button..."

Here's a photo of that cathedral, it's the top one on the page:

Pokrovsky cathedral

Oral History

[Graspee_Leemoor]

The emails from pilots were very interesting, I thought; It made me remember all the "oral history" stuff with WW1 and WW2 veterans speaking of their experiences, and I realized how important it was for future generations that we almost constantly interview people about stuff and write it all down before their memories go.

Or this too anal an attitude on my part? It's like I write a diary entry every day but I hardly ever re-read old diary entries.

graspee

Re:Oral History

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post contains the words "Oral" and "Anal"

What are you *REALLY* trying to say??

Canadians Practiced Nuke Lobbing Also

[frank249]

Our political masters tend to portray the Canadian Armed Forces as only peace keepers but the worst kept secret is our nuclear heritage. We had nuclear tipped Genie, Honest John and BOMARC missiles and from 1961 to 1984 Canadian Pilots based in Germany also practiced for the nuclear strike role with their CF-104 Star Fighter. Known as the 'missile with a man in it' or the 'widow maker' it was very fast -Mach 2.2 - but not very manuverable. 37 Canadian pilots died while practicing low level flying. A friend of mine described how they were briefed on how to use safe corridors to get to the target but the route for the return trip was up to them. Needless to say he figured if he ever had to do it for real, it was going to be a one way fight. He said that there was curtains in the cockpit to block the flash. The starfighter was fast enough to out run the blast but he said once you climbed above tree top level the missiles would probally get you.

I was in the Army in Germany in the 70's and we practiced snowballs or bugging out to get our vehicles as far away from the base as fast as possible before the Russian nukes or chemical strike hit. It is hard to descibe but when you heard those sirens going off at 3 in the morning, you never knew if it was a drill or the real thing. Thank God that no one ever 'pushed the button' for real.

Feed the beast

[Anonymous Coward]

/. should be renamed to WarDot.

RTFA much?

[snarkasaurus]

If you read the article at all, you'd know that these guys were well aware of the likely results. They were the smartest lads in the whole Navy, of course they knew. People are not stupid, particularly military people. Contrary to the opinion of certain Left leaning doofi on /.

You'd also know that they were a bunch of gung-ho super hotdogs and figured if anyone could beat the odds it would be them.

As a general rule, you'll always find a lot more guys lined up for a super dangerous mission than you will for a suicide bomber's vest. Only zealots and lunatics will do that stuff.

As for accuracy, you'll find they were hitting inside 300 ft. Close enough for a nuke, don't you think?

These days they usually hit inside three feet from 5 miles up. Think about that for a second, eh? Which window of this building do we want broken?

Re:RTFA much?

[i_need_no_nick]

300ft is not close enough if you're talking about the fancy small tactical nukes they would use in modern warfare. Want to blow dictator X out of his deep underground bunker? Use a tactical nuke. If you miss by 300ft, your target may live and thoushands of innocents*will* die.

Re:RTFA much?

[snarkasaurus]

Dude, this was the 1950's. MAD and nuclear armageddon and all the bullshit we were brought up with wasn't even INVENTED until the middle 1960's. No such thing as a pin point strike, they -wanted- to flatten the city, town, factory or whatever. Smart bombs not invented yet. Neither were tactical low yield nukes. This is a multi kiloton device at least. Thousands of innocents in the enemy's country is better than thousands back home. Still is, for that matter. For these reasons and many others, 300 feet was more than good, it was awsome.

Re:Even "Geeks" Know the Threats (e. g. China) to

[Anonymous Coward]

From the point of view of the European country
where I live the US looks to me as scary as
the Chinese. But it is even worse, you
are regilious fundamentalists! If my country
were to be invaded I'd prefer it be invaded by atheists, or at least not such god fanatics.
And don't give me that bullshit about freedom and
democracy, please, nobody believes your lies,
ask the citizens of so many countries you
have invaded (Iraq is just the last one, which
one is next, Siria??, yeah they must be an
even greater threat!!!)

I gotta get me one of these.

[rodney dill]

It'll make playing Warbirds a much quicker game with realistic nuclear detonations.

Re:Even "Geeks" Know the Threats (e. g. China) to

[Anonymous Coward]

So far the US is the only nation to have had "no qualms whatsoever" about using nuclear weapons. Don't let that get in the way of your xenophobia, though.

Reminder to Americans....

[SubtleNuance]

Trolling != Anti-Americanism.
Anti-Americanism != Falsehood.
War != Peace

...and once again for Americans; Communism != Fascism.

next...

Re:Reminder to Americans....

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism != Fascism

Yeah, you'd be giving Hitler a bad name to put him on the level of Stalin and Mao.

Re:Reminder to Americans....

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminder to anti-American trolls !=none of this would have happened someone hadn't messed w/ America. Of course, if someone had attacked a European country, NOTHING would have happened and America would have had to step in for Europeans as usual and the European crybabies would have been ungrateful as usual. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

Re:Reminder to Americans....

[Anonymous Coward]

But dead people == dead people, whether the government that made them so calls itself communist, fascist, Baathist, or whatever other -ist you might want to name.

If you think "right" or "left" matters a bit, you're an idiot.

Europeans might want want until they can manage to go a full decade without genocide breaking out before they start lecturing Americans on how "civilized" they supposedly are and how "violent" Americans supposedly are.

30-50 million Europeans were killed by their own governments in the last century. Think about that the next time you want to engage in some reflexive U.S. bashing.

Re:Suicide bombers (A perspective view)

[ronmon]

First, you must take into account the mindset of the era. It was considered to be a real possibility that nukes would be flying around in abundance and WWII was fresh in the minds of most everyone. Having been born in the year that this article covers, I am old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and doing 'duck and cover' drills (what a joke) in elementary school.

Western culture in general and American culture in particular doesn't encourage suicide bombers or kamikazes. The main point being that they had a chance, however slim, to survive. The pilots were well aware of this fact according to their personal accounts. Closing one eye, painting the tail white and the lob maneuver itself were all designed to increase the likleyhood of the pilot coming home.

It seems pretty ridiculous now, but back then it was looked upon as a last ditch 'all or nothing' gamble.

No blood for oil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah! No more Iraqi blood spilled by an insane dictator so PetroFina-Elf can keep making megabucks developing those juicy oil fields.

Or how about no more Iraqi blood spilled for Jaques Chirac's PetroFina-Elf stock options? Or Canadian PM Jean Chretien's stock options, for that matter. (Note to Canadians, Jean's son-in-law is a big cheese in PetroFina-Elf.)

Sure its about oil! French, German and Russian companies guzzling oil from Iraq, aiding and abetting a guy who used Hitler and Stalin as role models.

Grow a brain, kiddies. Anybody who thinks Europe is clean here is dreaming in Technicolour(TM).

Re:No blood for oil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about no more Iraqi blood spilled for Jaques Chirac's PetroFina-Elf stock options? ...

How funny to point at others when half of US administration was working in the oil business before. Even oil tankers got their names.

Now the latest wave is that "freeing Iraqi people" BS. They didn't give a penny before for the freedom of Iraqi people and they won't give it now.

But while the "freedom" wave will soon wash away, look at that other wave coming to clean up those ignorabiles. That wave is mounting and mounting and all those WMDs they own won't help them to defend against that wave. Sooner or later that wave will give a real good wash to that country and will clean up most of that arrogance you can smell now all over the place.

Restatement of the obvious

[SubtleNuance]

It's one of the great ironies of the nuclear world that India and Pakistan will both be safer places to live when the two traditional enemies have enough firepower to destroy all of Asia.
Mutual Assured Destruction does NOT mean that someone might throw their hands up in the air and say "who cares - unleash the nukes" just to spite.

NO NUKES means that NO ONE can do this - it becomes impossible, not improbable.

Therefore, anyone NOT interested in dying in a nuclear war must have a No Nukes opinion, if not, you are welcoming the possibility of them being used.

Re:Restatement of the obvious

[Happy go Lucky]

Therefore, anyone NOT interested in dying in a nuclear war must have a No Nukes opinion, if not, you are welcoming the possibility of them being used.

So, if the US disarms, then enemies like China will follow suit?

I doubt it. The ChiComs are the biggest murderers left on the planet today. And they've already threatened nuclear bombing of the USA once in recent years. I'd rather not find myself at the mercy and dependent upon the good faith of a nation which thus far has not shown any.

You can beat your sword into a plowshare, but you'll be plowing for someone who didn't.

Re:Restatement of the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Your not a very reasoned thinker are you? If we agree, by treaty, to disarm (nukes AND other arms) and agree to inspections for all - universally, and with no hinderance by any domestic government (who already signed the treaty) wouldnt we do away with war?

swords to plowshares are hardly the problem, just 'little thinkers' too busy cowering in their dark caves not ready to put effort into bigger problems.

Re:Restatement of the obvious

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Your not a very reasoned thinker are you? If we agree, by treaty, to disarm (nukes AND other arms) and agree to inspections for all - universally, and with no hinderance by any domestic government (who already signed the treaty) wouldnt we do away with war?

No, the other guys might hold back some nukes (and other arms) until we've finished destroying ours. Then they can say 'Oops, sorry. Guess we still have a military - shall we invdae, or will you just surrender?"

swords to plowshares are hardly the problem, just 'little thinkers' too busy cowering in their dark caves not ready to put effort into bigger problems.

No, the problem is that noone is that trustworthy or foolish.

Re:Restatement of the obvious

[PD]

The concept of mutual assured destruction only works if both sides have the overpowering numbers of nukes AND the capacity and control to used them.

Mutual assured destruction falls apart completely if:

a) you do not have the confidence that the other side will not launch accidentally or on the whim of a madman

b) you believe that the enemy has the nukes but cannot command and control them well enough to use them

Now, do you really think that India and Pakistan have the systems in place to meet those conditions? If Pakistan strikes India with an overwhelming attack, how well do you think India will do in the counterattack? Not well. The US could plan for such a thing, because we had bombers in the air all the time, and subs at sea, and lots of dispersed land silos. India will have none of these things. There will be no mutual assured destruction.

Postmodernism is sooo convenient, eh?

[snarkasaurus]

Postmodern though is so convenient for some people. If "truth" is a hegemonic social construction, you can equate anything to anything and still be "right". Unfortunately Mr Foucault was a publish-or-perish hack and his philosophy does not survive contact with the real world. I ask you sir, what is the difference between a highly trained and motivated pilot performing in practice a mission he hopes and prays he will never be called upon to perform for real, and a suicide bomber who straps on C4 with the sole purpose of killing people he does not know but never the less hates? In truth one cannot equate them at all. There is no connection of method, motivation, or most important, results. Please note that the Iron Curtain is no more and it fell without a shot being fired, but Israel still stands despite hundreds of suicide bombers. There really is truth, it seems.

Re:New topic: Arms?

[Commutative Monoid]

oh yeah, I guess that's why yanks are pretty well universally recognized as loudmouthed arrogant a##holes

Would you be a 'yank' by any chance?

where ever they gone in the world....

Nice writing, Tex.

Not Just in the 50s

[dubner]

This type of nuclear delivery wasn't limited to the USN Skyraiders in the 50s. As late as 1980 (and possibly later) the USAF F-111As at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho and the other models of F-111s at Cannon AFB, NM and in the U.K. practiced nuclear deliveries of two types.

Each type was executed with a 4G pullup some 5 NM short of the target (at 540 KGS IIRC). In both cases, the bomb released at about 45 degrees nose high during the pullup. The toss/loft ended with a 135-degree bank turning split-S type of egress manuver and the LADD (Low Altitude Drogue Delivery) had a roll inverted after bomb release, a pull down to low altitude (200 feet) and straight out egress over the target. The loft delivery was for a "slick" bomb; the LADD for a "retarded" (one with a drogue chute).

What made them exciting was doing them at night using the TFR (Terrain Following Radar) for ingress and egress! The pullup, roll, and pulldown were done manually of course.

Never occurred to us that these manuvers weren't survivable. Of course, F-111 airspeeds were half an order of magnitude faster than the Skyraider but the bomb was a B-61 with considerably more yield.

Re:Not Just in the 50s

[iggymanz]

Why wouldn't the manuver be survivable? The various models of the B61 had adjustable (Dial-a-Yield).

mod 3: 0.3 1.5 60 170 kilotons
mod 4: 0.3 1.5 10 45 kilotons
mod 7: 10 - 340 kilotons
mod 10: 0.3 5 10 80 kilotons
mod 11: 0.3 - 340 kilotons

For a 20 kiloton weapon, severe damage to wood frame houses goes to about 1.4 miles from ground zero. And that distance increases very roughly as the cube root of the yield...for a monster 20 MEGATON bomb, it's 16 miles.
So if you're delivering a 80 kiloton yield, you'd want to be maybe more than 2.5 miles away, which I would hope your F-111 could do in a short time.

Idiot Loop

[roseblood]

This manuver to deliver a nuclear payload is also known as the IDIOT LOOP in the aviation community.

a##holes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, roastbeef. You can spell it out.

Off-Topic

[Transient0]

Well, talking politics on slashdot is a great way to brun karma, but here goes anyways.

If you are happil willing to talk about the war as a direct, unprovoked attempt to wrest away control of Iraqi oil and you approve of it in that sense from a Utilitarian perspective then you have no right to be displeased with Bush's dishonesty.

If Bush had openly said: "We are the richest and have the most military might and should therefore control whatever natural resources we want, regardless of who happens to be currently living above them" he would have brought world opinion down upon the U.S. a hundred times more strongly than it has already fallen. You wouldn't have Canada, France and ermany absaining from the war and hoping to avoid economic repercussions, you would have these countries directly imposing economic sanctions on the U.S.

Because really, once Bush has decided that he doesn't need an excuse in the form of Liberation or Terror in order to go after some tasty resources, how long will it be before he looks North and sees a tremendous supply of Gold, Uranium, Lumber and Fresh Clean Water.

If you are using Utilitarianism to justify aggression (something J.S. Mill was strongly and openly against, mind you), you are required to also use it to justify deception about that violence.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned anyway, from a utilitarian perspective the benefit of low oil prices, U.S. dollar hegemony and international power backed by resource control is much lower than the cost of living my life knowing that these benefits were paid for with innocent Iraqi blood (when I say innocent I am talking about civilians, both killed in combat and mistreated more under U.S. control than they were under Saddam).

Re:Off-Topic

[Moofie]

Your thesis is dumb.

I did not talk about the war as an unprovoked attemp to wrest away control of Iraqi oil. And I can think whatever the hell I want about Bush's dishonesty.

I do not agree with the President's public justifications of the war, but I do believe that justifications exist.

The US wants to buy oil from a stable Iraqi government at fair market prices. Please explain to me how that is bad for the Iraqi people. If, in a year, there are still US soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad and guarding oil fields, then we can talk about imperialism. Until then, you're making stuff up.

And civilians mistreated more by the US soldiers than by Saddam? You're a nut. Prove your case, because on the face of it, it's absurd.

Re:Off-Topic

[Mac Degger]

There's still US soldiers in Afghanistan. How long ago was that?

Re:Off-Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Must post anonymously, because I *am* a Canadian. You would not see any more action from Canada than you did. We know that our economy is linked with the US, and we can't separate it. Of course we will sell anything that the US wants to the US. At their terms. End of story. Oh, and we know that if we get too "uppity", we will get slapped. There was a point in history where Canada actually invaded and sacked Washington (hey, that's why its called the "White House"), but that's a long time ago. Even though there are people who would want liberation from the US, the politicians don't seem inclined (not enough people care).

Don't forget the Thunderstreak either!

[onallama]

The F-84F Thunderstreak was the jet era's first fighter-bomber to carry tactical nukes, and used the same delivery method. Richard Bach's book Stranger to the Ground includes a fairly detailed description of performing the maneuver in training runs, and there's a good diagram of the procedure on the web here. Somewhat less insane than doing it in a prop-driven plane, but still, interesting times.

JDAM less accurate than LGBs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the JDAM is just much more reliable than an LGB, but less accurate...at least that's what they said in a CENTCOM briefing--when they tried to nail saddam at the restaurant, they used 4 LBGs with an accuracy of +- 10 feet instead of GPS bombs with accuracy of +- 40 feet.

So, the LGBs have improved with time as well.

Re:JDAM less accurate than LGBs

[ces]

You're right. The LGB's are much better than they were.

In any case +/- 40 feet is pretty damn good accuracy wise. Of course +/- 10 feet is any better.

One more

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalinism != Communism

Re:One more

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha, you lost that one.

Seriously though...

[WinPimp2K]

The letters from the pilots "suggest" that the Navy still trained pilots in "lobbing" through the mid- 60's. The letters also suggest that most of the pilots believed that using the lobbing method with a real nuke would be a suicide mission.

Of course, remember that the reason for this was to make sure that carrier groups had a "nuclear role" - If the Air Force was the only service to carry nukes on airplanes, that could have a significant effect on the Navy's budget down the road. (The first "Polaris" submarine - The "Gearge Washington" - was launched in 1959, and commissioned in 1960. It took a few years to build a fleet of those subs - and the Navy could still point to the far greater accuracy of their Spads)

Never underestimate the effect of interservice rivalries on the missions that the various services would undertake. (And if the pilots thought the missions were suicide missions, the admirals who came up with the mission probably knew it was - but approved it because those missions would only be flown in a nuclear war where the only goal was Mutual Assured Destruction.)

French were to bomb Russia with no return possible

[Submarine]

I remember reading that in the early days of the French nuclear forces, French pilots were to fly on to Moscow and other major cities and drop their bombs, but they did not have enough fuel to come back. They had to parachute over Finland at the extreme limit of their fuel. It was most likely a suicide mission.

(Interestingly, those forces were developed partly because the French government thought that in case of a Soviet attack over Western Europe backed with a nuclear threat over the US, the US government would not react for fear of retaliation.)

Re:Suicide bombers (A perspective view)

[crisco]

Yeah, I was thinking of the cultural differences between these American pilots and the Japanese kamikaze pilots of the WW2 era. The Americans had to think they had a chance to survive to take the risk. The Japanese were motivated by nationalism and religion to knowingly suicide. Of course, my viewpoint is pretty small on both sides of this, I'm probably at least slightly off base.

Deja View

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen this before, those e-mails. Weird stuff.

Practiced by Navy in '80s

[Anonymous Coward]

About 1982 or '83, someone who had only very recently been an A-6 pilot described the same maneuver with a "delivery package." He was careful to _only_ describe what was released as a "delivery package." But the maneuver was the same.

Terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a right wing organization always a "think tank", while a left wing organization always a "special interest group"?

Most "think tanks" that I've seen produce ideology that borders on Naziism.

Re:Terminology

[hesiod]

And most Special Interest Groups that I've seen produce ideology that borders on completely fucking nuts. Both sides are usually wrong, it just depends on the point of view of the person who wants their wrong ideas heard most.

Re:Terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd rather have the nutbars than the Nazis. The nutbars might kill you by accident, while the nazis would do it on purpose, for simply disagreeing with their line of thought, just like every American's best buddy these days...Saddam!

This stunt was developped on B47s.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was also featured in this month's Simthsonian Air & Space magazine... Actually, this manoeuver was designed to allow safe delivery of nuclear devices with B47. Imagine, a B47 doing a an Immelman loop... But it worked in this case, the plane being fast enough to outrun the blast radius.

The only problem they had with it was to convince the crews that this was a reasonable method to drop a nuclear bomb with a B47 (a largish, weak-structured and rather slow bomber of the early 50s).

That's the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the article, you would know that they didn't have those "small" weapons at the time.
Your trite comment about "300 ft is not close enough" is irrelevant.
It was "close enough" at that time.

Re: 2) BS

[Anonymous Coward]

thirty seconds over tokyo. excellent film & book.

Except they did anyway.

[edunbar93]

If you read further into the article, you'll notice that there was a good deal of talk amongst the pilots about how a) you probably won't survive the drop, no matter how much they told you you would,[1] and b) either your carrier group would be gone when you got back, or much of the rest of the world would be. [2]

This is pretty good proof that noone present was harbouring any delusions about the liklihood of survival, although plan B was always there in the slight chance that they might.

[1] In the letters to the editor, there was one story about how one pilot, in a training run with the full warhead (minus fissionable material) executed the manoevre perfectly, but the warhead only exploded about 1100 feet from his position, meaning that he would have been inside the fireball, had it not been a test.

[2] Some of the pilots made plans to land and hole up in some remote location in a nearby friendly nation for some period of time, without bothering to return to their carrier group to check if it were there or not. There were also real plans made by their superiors to land at grass strips someplace.

Re:Except they did anyway.

[The Evil Couch]

no, I read that. there's a significant difference between intellectually knowing that you're going to die and being able to feeling like you're going to die. if your mind is focused on a specific task that takes your concentration and gives you something to do and think about, then it stands to reason that you'll be able to deliver your payload more successfully than if you were flying straight in, with no reasonable chance of survival.

if you do something the simple and easy way, then you're going to have nothing to focus on but the pain in your ass from flying for hours and the fact that you're going to die.

if you have something complicated to do, then you're going to think about doing that.

the human mind is a wierd thing. sometimes you have to increase the level of stress to produce relaxation.

A few URLs on nuclear toss bombing

[Phurd Phlegm]

Just a random sampling of U.S. aircraft that have been used for toss bombing, though never in anger (thank goodness):

F-100 Super Sabre.

F-105 Thunderchief (this was originally designed for nuclear strike, even though that wasn't what it became famous for).

F-105. F-101 Voodoo (the toss computer was made by Mergenthaler Linotype of all people)!

B-47 Stratojet (a pretty big aircraft for this kind of maneuver).

LABS was obselete by the 1980's.

[MtViewGuy]

I believe that the toss bombing idea went by the wayside when special parachutes that could retard the speed of the bomb rapidly and the use of delayed detonation systems became widely available during the early 1980's on the B57, B61 and soon B83 bombs (the older B28 and B43 bombs were already being phased out at that time).

The USAF Weapons Laboratory seriously looked at retrofitting some B61 nuclear bombs with a small solid fuel rocket motor that would essentially "fly" the bomb well away from the flight path of the bomb-carrying airplane. That way, the airplane drops the bomb, the rocket motor fires and manuevers the bomb at an angle away from the airplane; this allows the airplane to fly one direction and the bomb will fly in another direction, so the airplane will be safely away from the blast effects when the bomb goes off. I don't think the idea ever made it to production, though.

The during the late 1980's the USAF was in serious development of SRAM II missile, which would have replaced most B61 bombs; it would have been a small guided missile with the W-80 warhead from the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) but it would have a range of up to 50 miles from the launch airplane. The end of the Cold War and changes in nuclear warfare doctrine ended that program in the early 1990's.

Whacky Americans

[AutumnLeaf]

Those Whacky Americans and their weapons of mass destruction! :)

Interestingly enough, there was an article on LAB maneuvers in a recent Smithsonian: Air & Space. The navy had another prop-driven plane they could use for very long-range deliver of nukeler warheads. Near the end of life for that mission, the Navy had a chance to test the maneuver with a real version of the bomb they would be dropping (instead of a practice-dummy), complete with everything except the warhead. Test results howed that with that plane, an over-the-shoulder LAB would toss the weapon about a thousand feet, in which time the plane would attain another thousand feet of separation, which was within the fireball.

Didnt you say?

[HanzoSan]

Didnt you say that Africans hate open source?

http://sohne.net/index.html
Listen to this interview

But of course you say they hate open source even when an African in an interview on the radio says they want it.

Re:Didnt you say?

[Commutative Monoid]

Didnt you say that Africans hate open source?

Do you have to work hard to be this retarded?

Breeding terrorists

[John Bayko]

If the fundamental government in Iraq were changed to a democratic model for other Arabs to follow, we woudln't have the totalitarian regimes in place that breed the kind of terrorism we saw 9/11/01 in the first place.

I think there's really big gaps in that idea. Firstly, there are different types of totalitarian regimes - the ideological rulers of Afghanistan are completely different from the secular government of Iraq. As an example, in Afghanistsn gorls weren't even allowed to go to school, while in Iraq, the head of the biological weapons program, Rahib Taha, was a woman, and deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is Christian.

Second, the Stalinist type of dictatorship in Iraq doesn't leave room for any non-official power group (if it can be prevented - that's why secret police are so important). Idological dictatorships do, if it fits the ideology (again, Afghanistan) and certain individual/monarchy dictatorships do because they tend to be more flexible and less controlling (Saudi Arabia and Egypt are that type - the 9/11 hijackers were almost all from those two countries).

Third, terrorists are almost always concerned with their own countries. Al Quaida, for example, is aimed primarily at overthrowing the Saudi Arabia monarchy. The U.S is a target because it spends so much effort propping up that dictatorship - if the U.S had directed its efforts to democracy there instead, Al Quaida as it is now would never have existed. Similarly, Israel is only a terrorist target because of its occupation of Palestine.

Terrorists don't just wake up one day and think "Hmm, I'm opressed, I think I'll go to a large, democratic industrialized country and blow up a building. Japan fits that description...". There is a reason that the U.S is the subject of terrorism, and it's the same reason France or the U.K have been in the past - interfering in domestic affairs of other countries.

Back to the main point, Iraq didn't do the world's terrorists any good. Terrorists are random and uncontrollable - exactly opposite Saddam Hussein's desire for institutionalized power. Terrorists are a terrible tool because of that - witness Yassir Arafat's troubles at stopping them, now that they're no longer serving a purpose, and are just getting in the way.

Dirty Bomb

[john82]

The term "dirty" refers to any nuclear device that produces a significant amount of radioactive waste. Early (1940s/1950s) bomb designs were very ineffcient and tended to create more waste, hence they were considered "dirty".

Although your description of what takes to make a radiological weapon today is accurate, the "dirty bomb" is NOT "an overhyped weapon designed to take advantage of america's nuclear hysteria". The point of a radiological weapon is two-fold: area-denial and panic. Area-denial is a function of the radioactivity of the material involved. It could be a matter of weeks, or it could be years.

A simple search will reveal that the topic of a "dirty bomb" is a recent topic of discussion in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and a host of other countries. The concern arises from the ease in creating such a weapon and the panic it generates in most ANY population.

Re:Dirty Bomb

[duffbeer703]

The area-denial and panic that would ensue from the use of an Al-Queda style "dirty bomb" is nothing but hype.

Nobody would use pluotonium or uranium in a dirty bomb -- these materials are difficult to obtain and used more productively used in traditional nuclear weapons. A dirty bomb would contain radioactive cesium and other easy to obtain isotopes used in medicine and industry.

The 24-hour news coverage of a dirty bomb incident would be the most damaging aspect of it.

Sucide Missions

[praksys]

Come in several varieties.

(1) Missions where death is likely but neither assured, nor the aim. Taking on a mission like this, far the sake of a just cause, has traditionally been considered the paradigm of courage.

(2) Missions where death is assured, but not the aim. Japanese kamekazi missions were of this sort. Even many Japanese had their doubts about whether such missions were morally acceptable or not. To accept such a mission is to make it clear that you regard your own life as less vluable than the cause you are fighting for.

(3) Missions where death is assured and part of the aim (in order to achieve martyrdom). Islamic suicide bombing missions are of this sort. To accept a mission like this is to make it clear that you regard the destruction, as such (i.e. even when it serves no purpose), as a good thing. This sort action has typically been regarded as the paradigm of evil.