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."
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.
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!
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.
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