Slashdot Mirror
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."
Seems that 'war against terror' (or better: the new Roman Empire securing its oil ressources) is taking its toll even from geeks.
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.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
This is the same country that is now so indignant about the Iraqis using suicide bombers to defend against an invader, right?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
load "windows7"
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.
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.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
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
..
:) cannot be defied - even a passing student of history sees what is Going Down... and only Americans can stop it...
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
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.
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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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).
lysergically yours
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?
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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'
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.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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...