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."
BSD dying cowards suck cockBSD
I WISH MY PENIS WAS GIANT kind of like a HORSE because horses have big penises and so should I how big is your penis mine is not very big but it is also small
is it possible for me to download the assbeads for this new distribution of cockBSD? please point them up me so i can experience them. thank you my good sir!
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...
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
Nuff said.
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
Enslave me
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.
it's in my head
God, I'm sick of smug, self-satisfied Old Europe. "Americans are ignorant. They don't read newspapers. They are fat. They're all armed with assault rifles. Yada, yada, yada." Here's a piece of friendly advice: get over yourselves, admit that while historically Europe was once in the forefront of science and culture, two world wars and continent-wide balkanization have pretty much done you in.
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.
Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Minus a zillion points for citing that psycho.
I intentionally avoided mentioning Bush, because I think he's being quite dishonest about what this war is about. I think his handling of the situation is really irresponsible, similar to FDR's handling of the situation with Japan immediately before Pearl Harbor. FDR drew the foul, and Bush is doing the same thing. Minus ten points for putting words in my mouth.
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.
I am thinking about the war strictly as a utilitarian issue. Can it be justified in terms only of the United States' direct welfare? 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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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?
Sure. Lets all plead for everybody to stop fighting, then wait for them to come blow us up.
This is about survival. As such, nobody here gives a fuck about what you say. If you want to fucking die, then go ahead and save some Islamic fundamentalist the trouble. Just shut the fuck up.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!