Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Balloon Battle

mw2040 writes "Slate reports on a little-known method used by the Japanese during WWII - hydrogen-filled paper balloons with deadly payloads floated without a guidance-system across the Pacific. Both amazing low-tech warfare and a cautionary tale about censorship during wartime. More links (even one for our neighbors to the North) (shamelessly stolen from the article)."

567 comments

  1. Little known?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless you actually read a book or watched Discovery channel in the past 20 years. I've seen that on there tons of times. And I read a story about it in high school which was almost 6 years ago. Maybe little known if you only know a little?

    1. Re:Little known?? by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Next headline on Slashdot:

      "What hath God wrought?"

      To be quickly followed by an article on how to transmit such digital singals without wires.

      KFG

    2. Re:Little known?? by will_die · · Score: 1

      You missed the article a few days ago about how businesses are placing permanent phone in locations ; totally removing the need for cellular phones.

    3. Re:Little known?? by sledgehog · · Score: 2, Funny

      simpsons did it! sorry, just figured i'd hop on the "not-news!" wagon :]

    4. Re:Little known?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bradbury is a psychotic old crank.

    5. Re:Little known?? by philbert26 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unless you actually read a book or watched Discovery channel in the past 20 years. I've seen that on there tons of times. And I read a story about it in high school which was almost 6 years ago. Maybe little known if you only know a little?

      Exactly. The fact that hardly anyone knows about it says more about the ignorance of the American population than about the evils of censorship.

      This reminds me of a recent survey of English schoolkids that found most were ignorant of D-Day. Perhaps the guys at Slate think that's because of government censorship too.

      I think censorship is almost always bad, but this article seems like a weak case against it.

    6. Re:Little known?? by Corbets · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This wasn't exactly news to me, but then, I actually read a little history for my classes back in 6th grade. I don't want to flame (this time), but if you're gonna submit an article like that, try to do so without the dose of paranoia about censorship. ;-)

    7. Re:Little known?? by dmitri2060 · · Score: 1

      Better lesser known still was the dreaded kamikaze ballon squadron.

    8. Re:Little known?? by NatasRevol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Heh, Moore is just a younger one...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Little known?? by Nyhm · · Score: 1

      I admit, I had never heard of this either, until I saw a display at the Canadian War Museum (Ottawa). They have a nice description of the incindiary intent of the weapons, as well as a map of bombs that were found along the North American west coast (most were probably lost at sea). I think only one casualty for the entire effort - a US farmer who tampered with one he found.

      The museum even had one of the devices! (Reproduction?)

    10. Re:Little known?? by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      how to transmit such digital singals

      I thought /. users already transmitted Sin Gals digitally... in .jpg and .gif format. ;)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    11. Re:Little known?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe little known if you only know a little?

      Whoa, calm down there Spanky. We're not all WWII history buffs like you are.

      If this were another rehashing of the story of how Microsoft ended up providing the OS for the IBM PC, you might be justified in complaining that it's a story we all know already. But some obscure strategical plan from a war that was fought before 90% of us were born???

    12. Re:Little known?? by tenasius · · Score: 1

      Dammit! Since when has the Comic Book Guy started posting on Slashdot?

    13. Re:Little known?? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! /. users don't use eevil .gifs :)

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    14. Re:Little known?? by bugmenot · · Score: 1

      In Oregon, at least, this too is common knowledge. The incindiary ballons of Project Fu-Go were intended to start fires in the forests of the Western US, but they generally failed. A balloon bomb did kill five children and a woman on a church picnic in Oregon in 1945; see this Seattle Times story for details. Calling this all "little known" is simply a display of ignorance. Schoolchildren in Oregon still learn of the balloons in grade school, and the ballons appear high in the FAQ lists of many WWII web sites. Any time you ask someone about US domestic casualties in WWII, this is what you'll hear. -drl

      --
      This account has been seized by the GNAA. That is all.
    15. Re:Little known?? by exhilaration · · Score: 1

      Are you refering to this wonderful comic from only a few days ago?

    16. Re:Little known?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a frickin' genius.

  2. Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC (or it may have been Channel 4 in the UK) did a programme about these balloons, explaining how the Japanese used the Jet Stream, and a clockwork mechanism to drop sandbags allowing the balloon to drop out of the stream once over the States - I believe many ended up in Canada.

    1. Re:Balloon by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As part of the British Empire, Canada were also at war with Japan (although I don't know how much fighting occured directly between the two countries), so accidentally attacking Canada probably still counted as a success for them.

    2. Re:Balloon by random_culchie · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I remeber seeing a list of countries that declared war on Japan 2 weeks before the war ended. Way to hop on the band wagon

    3. Re:Balloon by Trent05 · · Score: 2

      We only tested the atom bomb a couple weeks before we dropped it on Japan. Even after we knew it worked we were planning a full-scale invasion. We had been fire-bombing their cities for months and they hadn't surrendered after that, there was a good chance they wouldn't surrender now.

      Given, I'm sure these other countries wouldn't have played a huge role in the invasion, but I'm sure they did it for more than moral support.

      Except for the Soviets, they had a damned non-agression pact with them till almost the end of the war.

      Commies...Grrrrr :P

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    4. Re:Balloon by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yes so not only are these widely known nowadays(by anyone who's even slightly intrested in history) they were quite sophisticated(hitech).

      slashdot: inaccurate news from last century!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Balloon by will_die · · Score: 1

      Canada declared war indepentaly on germany almost a week after england declared war.
      Some canadian women where killed by the germans in uboat attack.
      As for attacks in the pacific field, main ones were at hong kong, however canadians were also at wake field at a few others.

    6. Re:Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like America in the first world war...

    7. Re:Balloon by laurensv · · Score: 1

      I saw it as well, they did more than that. They remade one of the balloons and tested it in Switzerland. I tried googling like crazy but did even find the name of the show. If anybody knows, please post it here.

    8. Re:Balloon by Araneas · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ask the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles how much fighting they did with the Japanese. Then ask about the time they spent as slave labourers working for what are now Japanese multi-nationals. Then ask why the Japanese and Canadian governments have ignored the suffering these vets went through.

    9. Re:Balloon by matt_wilts · · Score: 2, Informative

      The program was called "Crafty Tricks of War" and was shown on BBC2 earlier this year. Very entertaining.

    10. Re:Balloon by Proaxiom · · Score: 1

      Canada declared war on Japan on December 7, 1941. The United States did not do so until the next day. Japan invaded Hong Kong the same day they attacked Pearl Harbour (and the Philippines). Hong Kong was defended in large part by Canadian troops. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (but before the Nagasaki bomb, IIRC). That was purely political.

    11. Re:Balloon by biglig2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, I say that whatever your plan is, damaging Canada is always going to be a bonus.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    12. Re:Balloon by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      At Yalta, Stalin negotiated a deal with the US and Britain, wherein the USSR had a period after the war with Germany ended, before the USSR was supposed to get involved in the war with Japan. That time was supposed to be needed for absolutely critical rebuilding of the Russian Heartland after what the Germans had done to it. The US didn't know that Stalin was already aware of the progress in the development of the A-bomb, and perhaps didn't look hard enough for ulterior motives. The USSR was therefore able to jump into the pacific war at the very end, while simultaneously claiming they were more than fufilling their promises and not incurring any real costs.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    13. Re:Balloon by DJTodd242 · · Score: 1

      As part of the British Empire, Canada were also at war with Japan (although I don't know how much fighting occured directly between the two countries), so accidentally attacking Canada probably still counted as a success for them.

      US troops retook Attu in furious fighting, May 11-30, 1943. Thirty-four thousand US and Canadian troops landed to retake Kiska on Aug 15, but found the island had been evacuated. Both sides had discovered that bad weather prevented further major attacks on the other's mainland from a northern route.

    14. Re:Balloon by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      No, that time was to shift armies from Europe to Siberia. It is not a trivial exercise. The "absolutely critical rebuilding" you refer to is probably the railroads needed to move the armies.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Balloon by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union declared war on Japan the same day as the first nuclear bombing. It was not political, there was a large Japanese Army in Manchuria of around 800,000 crack troops who had been beating back the 6-8 million Chinese troops who opposed them. The need for the Soviet attack was to pin down that army so they couldn't pull back to the Japanese Home Islands and reinforce the already growing Japanese Forces.

    16. Re:Balloon by obby.net · · Score: 1

      ...wouldn't dropping sandbags cause it to gain altitude?

    17. Re:Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the Soviets, they had a damned non-agression pact with them till almost the end of the war.

      However, the possibility of Russia turning its attention towards Japan after Germany surrendered probably played no small part in Japan's surrender.

    18. Re:Balloon by hesiod · · Score: 4, Funny

      > around 800,000 crack troops who had been beating back the 6-8 million Chinese troops who opposed them.

      Imagine how much better they would have done if they were meth troops instead.

    19. Re:Balloon by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > wouldn't dropping sandbags cause it to gain altitude?

      Yeah, sorta. A problem with atoms/molecules as small as Hydrogen is that they're pretty hard to keep herded in a paper bag. It constantly seeps out, meaning the sandbags had to drop off to keep it flying -- especially for the LONG flight across the Pacific. Supposedly it was calculated how much hydrogen to use & how many bags would have to drop off at what time so that it would start to come down when it reached/neared the U.S. border. By that time, all the sandbags were gone, so the remaining escaping Hydrogen caused the balloons to fall & deliver their payload.

      It's funny, I learned this because my father owns a balloon store, and helium seeps out of latex balloons rather quickly (usually a matter of days). Hydrogen is smaller than helium.

    20. Re:Balloon by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I think Canada was responsible for Sword or Gold beach at Normandy and the fighting was pretty heavy there. IIRC the US had two beaches, the UK had two and Canada had one.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    21. Re:Balloon by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I think Hydrogen exists in 2 atom molecules while helium is monoatomic. As a result while individual H atoms seep quickly the gas seeps slower than He. But chemistry was some time ago.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    22. Re:Balloon by Opie812 · · Score: 0

      Canada had Juno Beach.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    23. Re:Balloon by Opie812 · · Score: 0

      Troll?

      Come on now. That was funny.

      -- Opie a Canadian with a sense of humour.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    24. Re:Balloon by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      My facts are hazy, but if I recally correctly:

      The Soviet Union agreed to denounce the 1941 Neutrality Pact with Japan in the Yalta Conference and enter the war as soon as possible. The Soviet Union and Japan had fought a series of border clashes in Siberia in 1939; Marshal Georgi Zhukov commanded the victorious Soviet forces, introducing many of the doctrinal innovations the Soviets adapted as a whole later in the War. The treaty was the result of this Soviet victory.

      The Soviets agreed to enter the war with Japan no later than three months after the surrender of Germany. Three months later, on August 8, the Soviets declared war on Japan and began operations the next day.

      The Soviet campaign against Japan's Kwantung Army is a masterpiece of Soviet tactics, including attacking in depth, the use of artillery to annihilate overrun units, and speed.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    25. Re:Balloon by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      Canada declared war on Japan on December 7, 1941.

      Boy, I bet the Japanese really shat their britches when they heard that! It was probably their greatest fear, second only to Andorra declairing war on them.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    26. Re:Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Canada's military wasnt a joke back then... right?

      Didnt think so
      go away troll

    27. Re:Balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the end of the second world war, Canada was the worlds forth largest power.

      If you want to be ignorant of history, fine. But then don't comment on it.

  3. Little-known? by AndyChrist · · Score: 4, Informative

    I heard about this in my world history classes in high school and college, in my Japanese history class (well no shit I'd hear about it there), and on several occasions since, and I've never once gone actively looking for this information.

    I think it's more well-known than most minor elements of WWII.

    1. Re:Little-known? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I heard about this in my world history classes in high school and college, in my Japanese history class (well no shit I'd hear about it there), and on several occasions since, and I've never once gone actively looking for this information.

      I learned of it in school also, and I'm in Australia. We were however directly attacked by Japan more than once in WWII, so perhaps it's not so surprising we should hear of similarities with the US.

    2. Re:Little-known? by DZign · · Score: 1

      well I'm in Europe and never heard about this..
      so here it probably isn't a known fact

    3. Re:Little-known? by madman101 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. There have been stories on all the TV news magazines, and a program on the History channel. This is hardly "little known".

    4. Re:Little-known? by Hugo+D.+Zappo · · Score: 0

      Most of Europe was a bit busy dodging Jackboots and/or allied bombs at that time.

      The only way it would have made the newsreels is if it were spectacularly successfull, killing multitudes or destroying vast areas of forest.

    5. Re:Little-known? by aallan · · Score: 1

      well I'm in Europe and never heard about this..

      I'm a Brit, and I knew about this, I'd even heard the story of the minister and his wife and kids before...

      so here it probably isn't a known fact

      Known? Yes? Well known? No, not particularly. But then it's not exactly the Battle of Midway, or Pearl Harbour. There is lots of (wierd, interesting) stuff like this that went on during WWII that, if you go looking, you can find out. Although I think I actually first read about this one as a footnote in a text book on jet stream dynamics. Odd huh?

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    6. Re:Little-known? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in my Japanese history class (well no shit I'd hear about it there)

      Ironically, world war 2 is little known in Japan itself.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Little-known? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      There was definitely concern about additional bombing, Boeing covered the roof of their building with houses and streets to throw off any manned bombers.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:Little-known? by Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 1

      I had an air-raid siren in my front yard when I was growing up in Ventura, CA (1982).

      Up in the Five Cities area they still use them as warning sirens for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

  4. Not exactly ..... by liamo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the pinnacle of the science of precision bombing. Can't really see it catching on.

    1. Re:Not exactly ..... by random_culchie · · Score: 1

      I can see it catching fire though. Whooooosssh!!!

    2. Re:Not exactly ..... by AndyChrist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Modern technology could improve the precision. Put a gps device (something like this ought not be too expensive in that kind of volume.) in it which would cause it to drop when it reaches a certain region. Calculate where the winds will take it depending where you release it.

      Or do it on the really cheap and have some sort of string or something which would weaken over time and cause the payload to drop, after roughly the right amount of time.

      At the very least you could VASTLY increase the number of balloons which made it to North America.

      I would not be surprised if you could pick your target within 100 miles, if you were really careful.

      Considering the low cost and low risk of this approach, it could very well be worthwhile.

      Try this on for size: a chemical laden balloon launched from a suburban area, carried by the prevailing winds into downtown until it smacks into a building, or some timer set to go off at roughly the right time (what, an hour or so), drops the payload. During a major event, of course. (New Year's in a major city. You could do it at night.) You could do this and not even come close to being caught. You'd probably have to release a few to hit the crowds with just one, though, even if you had figured out where it would go.

    3. Re:Not exactly ..... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precision isn't always a major requirement. For example dropping thousands of bomblets that are designed to detonate upon handling on a city could have a devastating effect on morale whilst doing relatively little damage to buildings and infrastructure. Kids love picking up unidentified stuff, and people get scared when there's a good chance that they might pick up something that's going to blow up.

    4. Re:Not exactly ..... by jepaton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Explosive, incendiary or poisonous (fake) currency would have a greater affect than curious bomblets. Everyone would pick them up with great harm to themselves, general morale and the economy.

      IANAT (I Am Not A Terrorist)

    5. Re:Not exactly ..... by zbuffered · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, you can get arrested for this shit. You could even get CmdrTaco in trouble. Haven't you been watching the news? Patriot act.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    6. Re:Not exactly ..... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Why do something as difficult as this to spread chemicals in a city?
      A little after after all the scare about chemical attacks someone went and placed a soviet chemical dispenser putting out a white spray in busy traffic areas in various cities, people just ignored it.

    7. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever there was a post that should have went AC, this is it dude, I seriously hope Jonny Ashcroft doesn't come knockin' on your door. You sir, are a braver man than I.

    8. Re:Not exactly ..... by ultrasound · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to know more.

      Are you saying that you live in a country where you are scared of being overheard discussing an idea?

      Where you can get arrested for a thought.

      In Soviet Russia... big borther watches you

      In the USA.... its the same

    9. Re:Not exactly ..... by ultrasound · · Score: 1

      Bother bother bother. Brother. Brother. Brother.

    10. Re:Not exactly ..... by MaynardJanKeymeulen · · Score: 1

      Well, only if he lives in the US I would think..

      --
      "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
    11. Re:Not exactly ..... by Araneas · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Germans ran operation Bernhard which attempted to flood the UK with counterfeit 5 pound notes.

    12. Re:Not exactly ..... by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or better yet there was a DARPA project to make bomblets that were 1/2 the power of a hand grenade with proximity sensors . scatter thousands in a area and instant maiming minefield.. I also believethere is a secondary payload for cruise missles that will lay anti-personell mines of this type on it's way to a target.

      anyways, the last days of berlin our bombs were unguided and were simply dropped by the bombadier by the thousands doing what was called carpetbombing. we laid waste to the whole city with heavy firebombing where some cellars were sealed and opened day's later the contents burst into flames upon contact with oxygen because the temperatures were so high.

      Hell, a old WW-II submarine with unguided WW-II ordinace is still one of the most deadly weapons today and can easily take out the highest tech and largest ships on this planet... an american aircraft carrier.

      the technology of the weapon means nothing, it's the abilities of the men behind the weapon.

      why do you think that terror/gurellia warfare works so well? they certianly are not using laser guided GPS corrected bombs.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this website is served from the US... maybe it's time Mr. Taco moved to Bermuda.

    14. Re:Not exactly ..... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Dude, you can get arrested for this shit. You could even get CmdrTaco in trouble. Haven't you been watching the news? Patriot act.

      Discussing hypotheticals can get you INVESTIGATED.

      There is a difference. Hell, I've been investigated by the FBI for being a member of a medievalist group that didn't display the US flag--and that's as far as it went.

    15. Re:Not exactly ..... by johnjay · · Score: 1

      Great! And I was worried about the time when Chinese-made UAVs started showing up in arms bazaars for terrorists to use as remote-controlled bombers. Silly me for being so complicated and technical in my nightmare senarios ;-)

    16. Re:Not exactly ..... by lboxman · · Score: 1

      Sounds interesting. Documentation?

      --
      Regexes are like cocaine. The first hit is pretty good, but afterwards you try to use them to solve all your problems.
    17. Re:Not exactly ..... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In an unfortunate coincidence, US made cluster bombs looked very much like, and were the same color as, the "meals ready to eat" packages we air dropped for humanitarian missions. It went poorly. They've since changed the color of the bomblets.

      -B

    18. Re:Not exactly ..... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative
      Insightful?

      Last days of Berlin? Soviets were doing the work there...and unguided bombs? When, exactly, were guided bombs used during WWII?

      As an aside, "carpet bombing" was never a military term. It's a loaded word used by journalists.

      A WWII submarine would never get within 100 miles of an aircraft carrier before being sunk by a helicopter or another sub. You could do some damage against cargo ships, assuming they'd even notice that they'd been torpedoed. A modern container ship is nothing like a Liberty ship of '44.

      Either this was a halfassed troll or a profoundly ignorant individual. If it's a troll, more effort should have been put in to it, really.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Not exactly ..... by zbuffered · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Real Domestic TerroristsThis guy was arrested, put in jail for a year, his wife and kids deported, then found innocent and set free.

      It's gotten pretty widespread press this week. Democracy Now | Jury Acquits Idaho Webmaster Charged With Terrorism For Hosting Anti-American Websites

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    20. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey mister brain-dead... try reading the entire message thread... he was responding to another post.

      gawd it's morons like you that make slashdot a pita.

      and YES a WW-II Uboat can nail a Us carrier. helicopters are not magical and automatically identify and locate a submarine just because it is a submarine. and the other sub's would have trouble identifying it as the sound database would CERTIANLY not have it on file.

      get a clue moron. someone with "primitive" weapons can easily kick a US military ass... it's being done every day in IRAQ.

    21. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > IANAT (I Am Not A Terrorist)

      This is how Bin Laden escapes capture- he has a card that says this on it, and he keeps it with him at all times.

      Cop: [stares at card] - Alright, you can go Mr., uh Ben Layton.

    22. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      someone with "primitive" weapons can easily kick a US military ass... it's being done every day in IRAQ.

      Must be this new definition of kicking ass which is 'taking 10-100 times the enemies casualties and going nowhere fast'.

    23. Re:Not exactly ..... by tigre · · Score: 1

      That would just speed our migration towards a cash-less society. 95% of my transactions are done without the slightest hint of green. Not saying this is totally a good thing, but it is happening for certain.

    24. Re:Not exactly ..... by mikael · · Score: 1

      I dunno - now that I'm a student again, I've stopped using my credit card for food and clothes shopping - it's strictly cash only. And I avoid putting around $200 every month onto my monthly bill. while employed I would pay off the entire lot each month.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    25. Re:Not exactly ..... by kevlar · · Score: 0

      What the Japs were doign was a pathetic attempt to fight an enemy who was a giant in comparison to themselves.

    26. Re:Not exactly ..... by Kalgash · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod this funny but decided to reply...

      I suppose these bills should be laced with SmileX?

      My only question is where where where is the Batman!!!
    27. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the sort of fool Terry Pratchett writes about...

      "...whose idea of military tactics involved subtracting your own casualties from the number of enemy dead. If the number was positive, then it was a Great Victory"

    28. Re:Not exactly ..... by Tuck · · Score: 1
      When, exactly, were guided bombs used during WWII?
      Well, the Germans had the Fritz-X, a radio-controlled guided bomb. It was used to sink a a battleship (Roma) and a cruiser (Spartan) and damaged several others. They apparently built around 1400 of them.

      The Allies had Azon/Razon guided bombs, which apparently could be IR, radar, optically or wire guided. They were used for precision attacks (bridges and the like) but apparently weren't very successful.

      --
      $ find /pub -beer "James Squire Amber Ale" -drink
    29. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Kids love picking up unidentified stuff, and people get scared when there's a good chance that they might pick up something that's going to blow up.

      Incidentally, that very same thing happened. (I watched a history/discovery channel detailing this weapons program). A minister's wife and child out camping/hiking came upon one of these un-exploded firebombs, and he had the terrible experience of watching it explode as they dragged it from the woods.

      On another note, the 'news=worthiness' or this is pretty debatable. Its widely known, (albeit apparently not to the mod or submittor) and it happened during world war 2!

    30. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you've never been an OT and have no experience with ASW?

    31. Re:Not exactly ..... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      and YES a WW-II Uboat can nail a Us carrier. helicopters are not magical and automatically identify and locate a submarine just because it is a submarine. and the other sub's would have trouble identifying it as the sound database would CERTIANLY not have it on file.

      Actually I highly doubt that. For starters the typical WW2 sub has a top speed of about 8-9 knots submerged. They needed to make surface approaches in order to keep up with their targets. Do you really think they could pull this off without being detected by modern radar and sonar systems?

      And let's not even talk about being detected. Assume they approach the American carrier without being discovered and attack her -- you are firing an unguided WW2 torpedo at a modern target that will instantly detect it and take evasive action -- the odds of actually scoring a hit would be small -- and the sub crew wouldn't live long enough to attempt another shot. Furthermore one hit probably wouldn't take the carrier out of action, let alone sink her.

      Of course all that assumes they would get close enough to attack without being detected -- a virtual impossibility unless they had outside help to locate the carrier and tell them where she was going so they could get there first then submerge and wait for her. There's no way in hell they could gain a firing position without this outside help -- and I'd further point out that this outside help would require them to use radio communications that would be intercepted and reveal the location of the external platform providing them with the targeting data.

      I would grant you the point that submarines are the greatest threat to aircraft carriers -- in the present day and historically speaking. But saying a boat with 60 year old technology could nail a modern warship (let alone the most protected warship in the World -- an American Aircraft Carrier) is complete stupidity.

      Learn something about Naval warfare before you open your mouth.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Not exactly ..... by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      "Why do something as difficult as this to spread chemicals in a city?"

      Sure. I am sure most cities have a perfectly good system to distribute meth and crack!

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    33. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      helicopters are not magical and automatically identify and locate a submarine just because it is a submarine.

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    34. Re:Not exactly ..... by dustinbarbour · · Score: 0, Troll

      Silly Afghans can't tell the difference between a weapon and an MRE.. See what happens when your nation is governed by religious fanatics?

    35. Re:Not exactly ..... by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

      Because it would offer an even lower chance of getting caught.

      Hey, if you don't care about getting caught, you can do just about anything.

    36. Re:Not exactly ..... by nlindstrom · · Score: 1

      For example, the Russians widely employed explosive matryoshka (nesting) dolls as IEDs, costing countless Afghanistan children their hands, arms, and even lives.

    37. Re:Not exactly ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the sake of reference, this is the best pair of pictures I could find. Notice that the humanitarian ration is square, and about four times the size of the cylindrical cluster bomb. (The pictures are in very different scales, unfortunately.) They're not quite the same yellow, but close enough. You'd certainly want to get a good look before grabbing anything about this color.

      (Oddly, there were a great many sites that harp on this cluster bomb/food package gaffe, but none of them saw fit to bother to educate viewers with pictures of actual cluster bombs to help them avoid the problem.)

      Some readers may recall that back in the 80s, the Soviet Union was accused of manufacturing mines to look like toys in order to attack children. Third from the top is a picture of the "butterfly" mine in question.

    38. Re:Not exactly ..... by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

      That didn't display the US flag? Uh....why the hell would that result in an investigation?

      I really want to hear this story.

  5. Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Amgine007 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interestingly, one of these was also found in California.

    (That page says the device was taken to Moffetf Field in Sunnyvale CA, but Moffett is and always has been in Mountain View. I believe it was sometimes described as being in Sunnyvale because the military guys were sensitive to the perception of 'Mountains' being anywhere near their airship base. No reference, just remember this from many an airshow..)

    1. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you look at a Map of Sunnyvale and Mountain View, you'll see that Moffett Federal Air Field is right next to Sunnyvale Municipal Gold Course. So the airfield must be right next to the city boundary. I can't imagine what it must be like when a Hercules transport planes flies over during take off or landing.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Amgine007 · · Score: 1

      It is true that Moffett lies on the boundary; highway 101 is adjacent the golf course and the airfield, and the airstrip is roughly perpendicular to the freeway. In fact, there are runway lights on the golf course property!

      Incidentally, I've often passed that golf course and been told that "golf is a deadly sport" -- it was always rumored that some golfers had been killed by a plane crashing into them there. This is the most confirmation I can find, but no ground casualties...

      FWIW :)

    3. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by mikael · · Score: 1

      I did a google search for "plane crashed" "golf course". It becomes immediately obvious that small planes are attracted to golf courses like tornadoes to trailer parks.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Hugo+D.+Zappo · · Score: 0

      Pilots are taught to look for a good place to land "just in case". Golf courses are better to land on than freeways or other roads because there are no utility or power lines criss-crossing the fairways.

      Next time you drive down the road, think about putting a plane down in traffic, between overpasses, and under the wires.

      Then think about just buzzing a few golfers. Easy choice!

    5. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It becomes immediately obvious that small planes are attracted to golf courses like tornadoes to trailer parks.

      What better place to land a small plane with engine trouble? Also, this is why all Air Force bases have large golf courses around the runways.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at Moffett Field, it has it's own post office and does not have a Mountain View or Sunnyvale address. However, on one side of it is Sunnyvale (typically where a lot of the base housing is at) and only slightly borders Mountain View.

      So, Moffett Field is not in Sunnyvale or Mountain View, it's a separate entity. You may be thinking of the other airbase which is right down the road which is in Mountain View.

    7. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is why all Air Force bases have large golf courses around the runways.

      Really? My friend the U.S. Marine told me it was because the Air Force would be given money to build a base, and they'd build cushy living quarters, a state-of-the-art hospital, a golf course, and any other luxuries they could think of until they ran out of money. Then they'd go back and say they needed more money to build the airfield. Well, obviously the Air Force needs airfields, so they'd be given more money! I think maybe the Marines, with their handed down fighter jets and "make do with less and still be the best" attitude don't think very highly of the Air Force (in a high school football rivalry sort of way).

    8. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine what it must be like when a Hercules transport planes flies over during take off or landing.

      Loud. Very loud.

      WHAT!?

      I SAID IT WAS VERY... nevermind! ;)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    9. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      The nearest military airport to my home is in a city with ~700k people. Residential zoning on all sides (of course, the military zone is fairly large). I've seen Hercules aircraft flying over the city on a regular basis (just this week, in fact). What's your point?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Living next to Langley AFB in Virginia, I can tell you: It's LOUD! But you get used to it...

    11. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine what it must be like when a Hercules transport planes flies over during take off or landing.

      Usually not so bad, since I haven't seen a maneuver yet that requires them to buzz the neighborhoods. It's only when we get some asswipe pilot who thinks he's Maverick that it gets loud, Hercules or fighter jet.

      And since Moffett is mostly used by NASA now, the traffic is very light, not counting the airshows.

    12. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by mikael · · Score: 1

      I rented an apartment in Sunnyvale (North Mathilda Avenue), and the planes were loud there. I could only imagine what the noise intensity would be like at the golf course.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:Saw this on Discovery Channel ~6 years ago by TrackDaddy · · Score: 1
      As someone who grew up in the flight path for Moffett, I can tell you... not bad.

      Now, a C5A Galaxy on the other hand? Whoa momma!

      --
      Run! There's a lobster loose!
  6. Fire hazzard? by random_culchie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hydrogen filled Paper Ballons? That sound like a floating fireball to me..

    1. Re:Fire hazzard? by niew · · Score: 1
      Hydrogen filled Paper Ballons? That sound like a floating fireball to me..

      If your payload is a bomb, the fire hazzard is a bit of a plus! ;)

    2. Re:Fire hazzard? by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      The balloon was actually coated with magnesium powder that was lit at the end of its flight to decrease the amount of evidence left over. They were designed with burning up in mind.

  7. The only mainland US casualties from the war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sure I read somewhere (or saw on Discovery) that the only mainland US casualties from WW2 were caused by the bombs carried by these balloons.

    They managed to cross the pacific by using the jetstream IIRC.. at a time when that particular weather system was relatively unknown.

    Bum, I can't log in.. I'm normally MegatronUK... too many damn passwords...

    1. Re:The only mainland US casualties from the war? by Kredal · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you had actually read the slate article, you would have noticed that they mentioned the "only mainland casualties" report.

      But of course, RTFA'ing is a lost art.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:The only mainland US casualties from the war? by bobcave · · Score: 2, Funny

      wouldn't that be "But of course, R'ing TFA is a lost art"?

      --
      There is no such thing as 'chocohol' or 'workahol'.
    3. Re:The only mainland US casualties from the war? by monkease · · Score: 0

      I've heard the same thing; something about an old lady in Idaho.

      In James Bradley's book "Flyboys" (a good read, by the way) the author talks about a proposed last-ditch attempt by the Japanese (Especially their medical experimentation unit, Unit 731 based in Harbin, China) called "Cherry Blossoms at Night". You see, the Japanese had this thing for infecting Chinese people with the plague, and they thought it might be fun to do the same to the US. The balloons that did make it over were merely test-runs for an initiative that was supposed to devistate the entire west coast.

      ...from the same country that brought you Pokemon, tentical pr0n, & Dance Dance Revolution.

  8. The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The news was squelched in America in order to make then Japanese enemy believe that their efforts had completely failed. Similarly, in Great Britain during the buzz bomb attacks, news reports often gave false information as to where the bombs had landed so that the enemy would mis-adjust their targeting when they re-calibrated based on the false reports.

    Nothing wrong with censorship during a war for survival. First order of the day is always to survive.

    1. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First order of the day is always to survive.

      If that was true, the obvious solution would be to accept the Germans / Japanese as the new overlords. Nobody killed.

    2. Re:The need for censorship by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that, aside from the physical inability for any government agency to ever really keep a secret, this is the only way to fight and win a war against terrorism.

      What if, after the Madrid train bombing, or the Bali night club bombing, the newspapers were covered with stories about how the explosions were the result of this or that natural occurance/mechanical failure/etc. And anyone that tried to claim ownership of the incident was immediately disproven and dismissed?

      Deny terrorists their public infamy, terrorism loses it's purpose.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:The need for censorship by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Philippines and China. Your historical revisionism is disgusting.

    4. Re:The need for censorship by wjsteele · · Score: 1

      Right... tell that to the Millions of Jews and Chinese that were killed just because they were Jewish or Chinese.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    5. Re:The need for censorship by DZign · · Score: 2, Insightful

      then we live in a situation as on the former communistic countries.. maybe still now in China, Cuba, North Korea.

      So no thank you, I prefer to live in a country where there's a little less censorship (as far as I know..)

    6. Re:The need for censorship by laurensv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately we see quite the opposite, when there's a technical or mechanical failure, terrorism is always there as a quick explanation.

    7. Re:The need for censorship by skyhawker · · Score: 1
      It certainly was a war for survival for them...
      Tell that to the Chinese, who were playing "hosts" to two million Jap soldiers when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped.
      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
    8. Re:The need for censorship by b-baggins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tell that to the Americans alive during the time. For the first few years of the war NOBODY knew whether or not we could win it. The Japanese and Germans were quite successful. It wasn't until Midway that things started to turn in the Pacific.

      It's easy for you to sit 50 years in the future, loook back and say, well, duh, the U.S. was never at risk.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    9. Re:The need for censorship by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also, it's worth pointing out that this was WW-freaking-II. The death of these children was tragic, obviously, but to point to one isolated incident to make a sweeping criticism of the entire US security policy during the war seems a bit -- well, it's precisely why it's a good thing the current US media mentality wasn't in place in the 1940's.

      And of course, the other datum on which the author relies "The balloon bombs were erased not only from our national awareness, but from our collective history. We believe it never happened, just as our children might have been led to believe Abu Ghraib never happened." is false to the point of ludicrousness.

    10. Re:The need for censorship by carcosa30 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In the stage of the war during which the balloon bombs were used, Japan was no longer a conventional threat to the United States.

      It was kind of the United States to "liberate" the Philippines, especially after the American occupation of the Philippines earlier in the century wherein we massacred hundreds of thousands of islanders.

      Was the war on Japan a war of survival for the US? It was certainly necessary for us to remove them as a threat. Would we have given a damn about their invasion of the Philippines, Burma etc. and the Rape of Nanking if it were not for Pearl Harbor? I think not.

      Your emotional and idealistic view of history is quaint.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    11. Re:The need for censorship by The+Dark+P · · Score: 1

      It's all about point of view. Empiricaly, from the point of view of everyone else, the Japanese were an agressive foreign power, who were hell bent on taking over most of Asia. However, the reason for this was that, from Japan's point of view those areas were "essential for their survival", now, from our point of view this was patently not true, but they saw these areas as within their sphere of influence and felt threatened by America. So it is not historical revisionism, just a different point of view.

    12. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan had their own superweapons. Including the more horrible of all the superweapons, weaponized biological agents. And a plan to use them which fortunately took too long to throw into practice. To say nothing of the improvements on German Jet technology that didn't make it into the war. The japanese got what they deserved and not a moment too soon, or too late.

      How about you go to a library and read some of the microfilmed newspapers on what the people of the day thought about the brutal Japanese conquest of asia. Just because an ass-clown in a hemp cap hands it out in a pamphlet doesn't make it fact.

    13. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe the Japanese shouldn't have gone off and attacked America.

    14. Re:The need for censorship by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Informative
      Would we have given a damn about their invasion of the Philippines, Burma etc. and the Rape of Nanking if it were not for Pearl Harbor? I think not.

      The US applied economic sanctions on Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. Some in the US government in 1931 were in favour of actions in response to the invasion of Manchuria, but Hoover decided against them. In July 1939, the Roosevelt administration abrogated the Japanese-American Treaty of commerce, and in July 1940 introduced a licensing system for exports of petroleum and scrap iron to Japan. In July 1941, the US froze all Japanese funds in the US, and suspended all trade.

    15. Re:The need for censorship by murdocj · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of missing your revisionist point here... Initially, it wasn't a "war for survival" for either in the US or Japan. In 1941 neither could directly threaten the survival of the other other. By the end of the war, yes, the loser was struggling for survival. Sort of like every war.

    16. Re:The need for censorship by jarnhestur · · Score: 1

      The parent should be modded up. The US sanctions are what caused the Japanese to attack Perl Harbor. It's ironic though, that the US gets critized because it 'wouldn't' have gotten involved (the grand parent post) when today it get critized for getting involved.

      Of course, since the grandparent poster clearly hates the US, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda thing.

    17. Re:The need for censorship by atari8 · · Score: 1

      Without commenting on the truth or falsity of the theory, there are those who believe that the destruction of TWA flight 800 was a terrorist act and that the September 11, 2001 attacks occured on the scale they did so as to make it impossible to deny the involvement of the terrorists.

      Even if you don't believe that TWA 800 was a terrorist bombing covered up by the Clinton Administration, you should consider the idea that the enemy reaction to being denied publicity might be to make it impossible for them to be denied, doing so at an even greater cost in life.

    18. Re:The need for censorship by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      And the aggression versus China, which prompted the US sanctions, leaves Japan blameless? Nice.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:The need for censorship by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know nothing about history. Stop pretending you do. Japanese Imperial aggression was legendary in the mid to late 30's. Only after Japan had to fight a war on two fronts (sound familiar) and its military blunders at Midway among other places did the tide turn in favor of the United States. Japan's interest in world conquest as an imperial power was more than well known, it was practically trumpeted. Considering their pact with the Germans, it was only a matter of time that it would've been a desperate fight for our very survival. Why wait until that happens? You seem to think it'd be more "honorable" or "moral" to wait until we were the last free nation on earth to stand against the Nazis and Japanese. That's stupid. Thank your grandparents for not being as dumb as you, or you'd be speaking German right now and praising the fall of the zionist state of America.

      My rhetorical question is, how can you know nothing about the size and scope of Japanese aggression in the Pacific? In 1945, the Japanese were sitting on their island, defeated by the Allies, refusing to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were their incentive.

      Your view of history sickens me. Creep.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    20. Re:The need for censorship by jarnhestur · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding my point...

      Japan was 100% to blame for the sanctions the US levied on it. It's own Asian conquest was the reason for the US's sanctions. Then, after the sanctions were levied, Japan attacked the US and forced the US to again respond.

      I don't see where you think I'm saying Japan was blameless for it's role in WWII.

    21. Re:The need for censorship by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      Midway was only six months after Pearl Harbor, and they lost four carriers, so there was little doubt they would lose the war after that.

    22. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look everyone, can we at least all agree that during the period of WWII the Japanese were a crazy mass of fanatical, suicidal, crazy-arsed buggers, who were above all insanely cruel and possessed a xenophobic, facist, and simply evil worldview? Surely we all can accept that basic premise (except the Japs and otaku among us).

    23. Re:The need for censorship by retostamm · · Score: 1

      I understand this Censorship is worth mentioning because the Press was doing it in coordination with the govenment -- voluntarely.

      That's why it is often mentioned.

      http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no3/article1 0. html

      That's different from a gag-order.

    24. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We need breathing room"
      Earth, Hitler 1939

    25. Re:The need for censorship by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was quite a bit of doubt about the American and Commonwealth ability to defeat the Japanese, all the way up to the summer of 1945.

      It is my opinion that in China, Malaya and the Japanese Home Islands that the remaining Japanese Military, while strategically out-maneuvered and out-numbered, had not been defeated on a tactical or unit level by time that the planning phase of Downfall began and therefore, would constitute a serious impediment to the forces attacking Kyushu and Singapore. The forces, to be arrayed against the Japanese home islands and Singapore, would take high casualties as well as inflict vast casualties upon the Japanese Military, armed civilians, non-combatants as well as Allied Prisoners of War in Japanese custody.

      Throughout the campaigns the United States conducted in late 1944 and early 1945, the Japanese military on the ground showed an increasing ability to judge the American threat correctly. Before the American assault on Okinawa, the Japanese correctly estimated the American ground force size, the size of the American beachheads, the duration in which the Americans would remain in their beachheads, the American breakout tactics, and the focus of the American attack. This is remarkable because, for the most part, no Japanese leaders who encountered American forces in the field after 1943 ever survived to teach lessons to other Japanese staff officers on American tactics and communications between Italy, Japan, and Germany and were limited in this regard.

      The Japanese tactic to end the war in a way that was favorable to Japan was to use the Japanese Army and the Japanese people to bleed the American military to the point where it was politically unacceptable to fight further. All the way up to the day after the Hiroshima bombing there were members of the Japanese government's inner circle who advised the Emperor that the Americans were on the verge of defeat.

    26. Re:The need for censorship by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      The Emperor was looking for a way out as soon as the Suzuki Cabinet was formed.

      Without carriers, you can't have an effective navy. So you can't stop the Allies taking islands to base bombers on, thus the mainland was firebombed quite effectively. The Emperor certainly knew the bombing of Tokyo had killed 100k+ people, and many more would die, even without the atom bomb.

      Yes, China was a disaster.

    27. Re:The need for censorship by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Your emotional and idealistic view of history is quaint.

      When you start a war with a country, you had better be prepared to end a war with that country. People tend to get emotional about being bombed.

      The US wasn't about to finish off the war with Japan by saying "well, now that we finally recaptured the territory that you stole we'll just tell you politely not to try that again". Oh, and could you pay us $x in reparations. (If x is small it isn't a serious penalty, and if x is large you end up with post-WWI Germany.)

      The idiots in charge of Japan during WWII decided that taking over half the world was a good idea. The US wasn't about to leave those idiots in charge once they were done.

      When you catch somebody doing something wrong it is not sufficient to merely right the wrong. You also have to punish the offender for even trying to inflict the wrong. Otherwise there is no incentive to be peaceful.

      There is no such thing as a "humane" war. War is war - it is you against them. If it gets to the point where people are afraid of getting bombed or killed, then all rules go right out the window. If you knew that a bunch of ethnic cleansers were coming through your neighborhood and you were a target, and you had a gun in the basement, you wouldn't worry about whether the gun was registered or if the ammo met Geneva convention guidelines.

      War should be avoided at all costs. However, if you're stupid enough to start a war, then you should be aware of the risk of things getting out of control. And the leader who gives the order to fire is putting their own life on the line, and not just their followers' lives.

    28. Re:The need for censorship by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just news reports. The British had managed to detect and turn nearly every German agent in Britain, and used them to funnel back reports saying that the V-1s were overshooting their targets. The Germans then adjusted the range a bit downwards, and the V-1s would then fall short.

    29. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely, the US military shot it down and covered it up. Evidence points more to this than terrorists. If the "truth" ever comes out, it will be that is was terrorists, but I think the real truth is the US Navy did it.

    30. Re:The need for censorship by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Also, it's worth pointing out that this was WW-freaking-II. The death of these children was tragic, obviously, but to point to one isolated incident to make a sweeping criticism of the entire US security policy during the war seems a bit -- well, it's precisely why it's a good thing the current US media mentality wasn't in place in the 1940's.
      Rand Simberg has been writing satirical accounts of WWII using modern media mentality and liberal jargon for a couple of years now. Check out 'readers favorites' in the left hand menu.
    31. Re:The need for censorship by Otter · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I had to read that Slate article a couple of times before being sure it wasn't one of those "If Dan Rather had been at Normandy" parodies. No, it genuinely presents "FDR lied, five people died!" as an indictment of US security policy in WWII.

    32. Re:The need for censorship by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      It would also have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Japanese been successful at Midway. Not saying I want to see, just be interesting, would have been a different war methinks. But then again, in war there are always tons of things that could have changed the course.

    33. Re:The need for censorship by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Those are quite amusing. But, speaking as an historian, it doesn't prove anything about the justness of current wars one way or the other - nor does the opposite of tactic of reworking WWII propaganda posters into satirical comments on contemporary US policy. Saddam was the merest shadow of Hitler, and Iraq was certainly no Germany, so the fact that a straw-man liberal critique of WWII comes across as ludicrous does not mean invading Iraq was justified or smart. (And although my area is modern British history, I think it is fair to say that the most notable contemporary American critics of participation in WW2 were on the right - Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, etc.) However, I do agree with the grandparent post; the Slate article is making a contemporary mountain out of a historical molehill.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    34. Re:The need for censorship by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1

      Initially, it wasn't a "war for survival" for either in the US or Japan. In 1941 neither could directly threaten the survival of the other other.

      US military action was not the greatest threat to Japan's survival in the 1930's-early 1940's.

      Lack of resources was. Lack of resources was severely limiting Japan's ability to industrialize, and for a country that desired to have status and power like Great Britain and the US, this was a serious issue. In its own view, Japan's survival was threatened if it was unable to stand with the other major powers.

      That is why Japan became increasingly aggressive as the 1930's wore on: to acquire the resources it desperately needed. That is also exactly why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: to blunt the inevitable US reaction to the grab for resources which Japan simultaneously executed in southwest Asia and the Pacific.

      Japan went to war in a misguided attempt to assure its own survival (on the terms it was willing to live with). If that isn't a "war for survival" ... what is?

    35. Re:The need for censorship by ktakki · · Score: 1
      It would also have been interesting to see what would have happened had the Japanese been successful at Midway.

      I think it would have been the same war, only about a year longer.

      Let's posit that the Japanese sink two of three US Navy carriers, only lose two of their own, and that Midway is occupied.

      Take a look at this map. Midway is within range of USAAF land-based bombers flying out of Hawaii. It's also a long way from the Home Islands, which entails a supply line problem. In 1942, US Navy fleet submarines were still plagued with defective torpedoes, but that problem was solved within a year. 1943 would have been an unpleasant year for Japanese troops on Midway: starving, thirsty, and living in bombshelters.

      Retaking Midway would have been difficult, no doubt, and would have drawn assets needed in the Southwest Pacific, but it would not have been as hard as Tarawa or Iwo Jima, places where the terrain favored the defender, and the Japanese had years to dig in and prepare for an invasion.

      The loss of two carriers would have been quite a blow to the US Navy but, to put this into perspective, by 1945 the United States had built 137 carriers (around 30 full sized hulls and the rest smaller escort carriers). The Japanese built 13. The US had a commensurate advantage in aircraft production and the training of personnel.

      Finally, there was the matter of the US having broken the Japanese JN-25 naval code, part of the reason the US Navy could anticipate Japan's moves towards Midway. Even after this defeat, the Japanese Navy didn't change their codebooks, leading to the intercept of Admiral Yamamoto's transport plane in 1943. A victory at Midway wouldn't have changed this.

      Now, I do admit that this raises the question as to whether the war in Europe would have been lengthened by a setback at Midway. Would Berlin have been the target for the first atomic weapon? Would the Soviets have stopped at the Elbe? The Soviets adopted a stance of neutrality towards Japan until 1945; would they have entered the theatre earlier?

      The Cold War battle lines were drawn by WWII. I think that adding 12 to 18 months to the war changes those lines.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    36. Re:The need for censorship by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "The Emperor was looking for a way out as soon as the Suzuki Cabinet was formed."

      Not really.

      If the Japanese were trying to surrender why did they begin to massivly increase the number of troops in the Japanese Home Islands? From 300,000-700,000 from August 1944 to August 1945 in Kyushu alone.

      Febuary 1945 Hirohito meets with advisors and they told him to fight on until the end. Prince Konoe didn't agree with the continuation of the war. Two factions in the military were looking towards a Military Dictatorship.

      In 1945 Print Konoe warned of a threat to the Kokutai by Control Faction and the Communists.

      2.14.45 Konoe wanted the Emperor to sue for peace lest there be a Communist revolution.

      By June 1945 over 3 million homeless in Tokyo alone, yet the government was planning a massive system of defense for Kyushu and the Tokyo Plains

      If they wanted to find a way out, why did they keep making poltical moves to stay in?
      After Tojo resigned in July 1944 - That authority went to Hirohito who then told Kido what to do
      Failed ploy to get the Soviets involved
      Rejection of Postdam
      Japanese trying to add conditions to the surrender
      Not surrendering after Hiroshima, it was only after the first atomic bombing that the Emperor would seriously consider surrender.

    37. Re:The need for censorship by murdocj · · Score: 1
      Japan went to war in a misguided attempt to assure its own survival (on the terms it was willing to live with). If that isn't a "war for survival" ... what is?

      Well, by that definition Nazi Germany's attempt to conquer Europe was also a "war of survival". They also need lebensraum, oil, etc. That's a very broad definition of "survival".

    38. Re:The need for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The late (as of 01/2004) John Toland disagrees. Perhaps he is more sympathetic to the Emperor than you.

    39. Re:The need for censorship by ocie · · Score: 1

      Interesting stuff. What I wonder about is if Japan had been taked by conventional forces from the US, UK and Russia, would we have goten a divided country like with Germany? A Communist North Japan and a democratic South? Would there have been a "Tokyo wall"?

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    40. Re:The need for censorship by ktakki · · Score: 1
      Interesting stuff. What I wonder about is if Japan had been taked by conventional forces from the US, UK and Russia, would we have goten a divided country like with Germany? A Communist North Japan and a democratic South? Would there have been a "Tokyo wall"?

      There is in fact a Russian-Japanese dispute over the Kurile Islands, the most northern part of the Japanese archipelago. And Russia has a claim on Sakhalin Island that dates back a hundred years.

      As for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands by US and UK forces, at the time of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plans were being finalized for Operation CORONET and Operation OLYMPIC, the invasions of southern Kyushu and central Honshu respectively (late '45 and early '46). Losses were projected to be in the order of 250,000 Allied casualties. In anticpation of these invasions, the Japanese government intended to arm civilians with antiquated small arms, bamboo spears, and satchel charges for disabling armor (basically suicide bombings, Kamikazes without planes). Figure one or two million civilian casualties.

      Allied plans also called for "softening" the invasion beaches with nuclear weapons. Conventional aerial and sea bombardment hadn't been very effective at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

      And though the Soviets declared war on Japan on the very day that Nagasaki had been nuked, there is some question as to whether they would have been able to mount an effective seaborne invasion. Two factors come into play: experience and infrastructure. The US had been in the invasion business for three years, since Guadalcanal. The US Navy and the UK Royal Navy had a cadre of experienced personnel and a fleet of landing craft unmatched by any other armed forces. Though the Soviet Red Army had some limited sealift capacity, chances are that they would have played to their own strengths and consolidated their gains on the Korean Peninsula and in Manchuria. For all their shortcomings with amphibious landings, the Red Army were unmatched when it came to a land war.

      I'm not saying that the Soviets couldn't open a northern front in the Japanese archipelago, since they did have a foothold. I do think that they would have gone for the low-hanging fruit on mainland Asia.

      k.

      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  9. Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing you will not find in Japanese schoolbooks is an historical account of the massacre at Nanking. In 1937, the Japanese attacked China and killed thousands of innocents in Nanking. Today, it's as if it never happened. In fact, I have never learned of this myself until very recently.

    This kind of censorship is what we need to be aware of today. Historical records must not be skewed so that they may not tell all sides of the story - always make sure you know where your sources are coming from. This is one of the many reasons why history repeats itself.

    1. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

      Surely the best way to do this is to stop the hollywood history lessons.....

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    2. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by mikael · · Score: 3, Funny

      The part that really makes me unhappy is hearing about the fatalities caused by this technology.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Alranor · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 5, Funny

      One Bit of censorship I think is funny is the number of times the Canadians burned down the Whitehouse.

    5. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Sethus · · Score: 1

      Yea I know excactly what you mean. The Chinese kids these days (I've met a couple) for a large part arn't told about Tienanman square, in fact I asked my friend specifically about this, and he said that none of his friends believed him when he told them back in China, till they all asked their parents.

      Another unknown story in American history is when we invaded Canada up by the Maine border (I think it was) at the end of the Revolutionary war. We (I'm American) actually got beaten back pretty badly, it was just some stupid land grab by a foolish leader as I remember, but thats certainly not taught in American schools :P

      Its pretty terrifying, and I often wonder if there weren't any massacre's that happened here in the USA or done by the USA that arn't written in our textbooks so therefore no one knows really much about them (as I'm sure there are).

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    6. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the same kind of censorship that lead many Koreans to complain to the Japanese govt. that they left out a few facts about their occupation. They took many Koreans back to Japan as slaves and about 160,000 "comfort women", as well as nearly deforesting the entire country.

      Just one of many available links

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Abundantes · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you ask me, you'll see more of this in the future, since George W. and his bunch are heavily into discrediting natural sciences in favour of religious contents in school... I mean you didn't elect him in the first place so you're hardly accountable, but I'm really happy that I don't live in the US. In case you wonder, have a look at www.iht.com and www.nyt.com on topics like sciences in schools... If I were you I'd have a serious word with my representative. It's your country after all.

      --
      This is good for nothing. Ignore it or send it to the Customer Care Dept.
    8. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      In fact I WAS taught about the canada invasion in an american public elementary school. The spin was that it was a stupid idea.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    9. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Oh, piss off. One can't remove informaton from the Net nowadays. Yes, it *is* our country. Who the hell do you think is reversing decisions like the Kansas board and all? Glad you don't live here also.

    10. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by ultrasound · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mods, put down those crack pipes.

      Why the hell is the parent modded Funny? Read the link, its about some of the fatalities that occurred,

    11. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      One Bit of censorship I think is funny is the number of times the Canadians burned down the Whitehouse.

      which is why we dont have you guys over for parties anymore...

      sheesh, get a few kegs of beer in you guys and holy crap things get wild....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Temporal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Canadians never did burn down the White House. The British did, however, in 1812 (long before Canada existed as a nation). Contrary to popular belief among Canadians, this fact is reported in American textbooks. No one remembers it, though, because no one in the US cares about the war of 1812. It was just a silly grudge war between the US and Britain without any real results. The British burned down the White House. The Americans drove the British out. Whoop-dee-doo.

      Canadians, on the other hand, seem to love bringing it up whenever they can, as if it were their nation's finest hour or something. Alright, well, great. You burned down the White House. Good job. We don't care.

    13. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Hugo+D.+Zappo · · Score: 1, Funny

      And they wonder what is holding up their applications for statehood......

    14. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Hugo+D.+Zappo · · Score: 0

      I remember in 1980 seeing the trees that escaped the deforestation. They were revered as national monuments.

    15. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by wiredog · · Score: 1

      Even today one of the quickest ways to get the shit beat out of you is to call a Korean a Jap.

    16. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by TwoPumpChump · · Score: 1
      Historical records must not be skewed so that they may not tell all sides of the story
      Napoleon Bonaparte was once quoted as saying "History is a set of lies agreed upon."
    17. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by elchuppa · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong about its censorship in Japanese schoolbooks. Although I'll have to disagree with the statement that it's as though it never happened. In fact, in most other school systems it's well documented. I'm surprised that you only just learned of it. Also, most Japanese learn of it sooner or later simply due to the controversy. Speaking of censored and skewed histories, if the Japanese had won the war they probably would mention Nanking in their history books. As a battle in the deliverance of the promised land from the worthless natives. Much like the US currently documents the systematic invasion and ethnic cleansing of the north american continent.

    18. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      more censorship in the US is the curious omission these days of the fact that during the rape of nanking, the US had battle ships off the coast and troops in the embassy. Even though the gov. was aware of what was going on, it could not intervene because of the anti-war groups. One of the ships was even bombed by japanese aircraft and this was explained away as an accident ..

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    19. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one remembers it? Really? Then WTF is the line in your national anthem "the rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air" all about? Oh, right, its about US buring down YOUR capital.

      But I guess so long as no one remembers it.....

    20. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by mbbac · · Score: 1

      I thought it was just once. And it was the efforts one only one of the provinces, not the country of Canada, right?

      --

      mbbac

    21. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by retostamm · · Score: 1

      That probably exists in every country. I doubt for example that US Schoolchildren are taught that from ~1900 to ~1940 Euthanasia fairs where held in the US, and "inferior" people (some voluntarely, some, with mental diseases, involuntarely) would remove themselfs from the Genepool in order to better the average of the US. This was by means of Castration or voluntary abstinence. It seems to have worked since it only rarely gets mentioned (affected people are now dead and have of course left no kids.

      I understand this was a reaction to Darwin (survival of the Fittest) and Medicine (we can make you survive even if you are not so fit). People thought it was the right thing to do.

      Various believes that are now known to be false have been followed. For example, "criminal properties" where "Inherited", and so criminals often ended up in the "non-voluntary" category. Also, poor people and racial minorities have been affected.

      Naturally, the US does not suppress this information. But it's also not pounding it into every schoolchilds head. I believe that happens only in Germany now, with mixed results.

    22. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      Actually, our national anthem was writting during a battle at Fort McHenry, which is closer to Baltimore than DC. Correct war, though :)

    23. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by littlewild · · Score: 1

      Neither will you know if the victims are speaking the truth. It is undeniable that the Japanese soldiers have commite atrocious war crimes when they occupied numerous parts of south east asia. But each side will tell their own story.

      For example, in the rape of Nanking, the Chinese government list a death toll of more than 300,000 people. However, according to various sources (including John Rabe, the chairman of the Nanking Safety Zone Committee) there couldn't be more than 300,000 people left in Nanking when the Imperial Army arrived. So the death toll given by the Chinese authorities are rather dubious.

      History is always written by the winner. The reason why history repeats itself is not because we don't know about it but rather because we can't be bothered to prevent it.

      And you are right, always make sure where your sources are coming from.

    24. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly, ignorant Canadians... don't know about their southern neighbor and can't even remember when they become a country ;-)

    25. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      This was part and parcel of "Eugenics", which at that time, was a fashionable idea. Over much of the world.

      Eugenics quietly dropped out of sight after the Nazis' implementation of the idea pretty much offended/appalled everyone.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yup, and it's extra funny, as genetically speaking, the 'Japanese' (as opposed to the native Ainu people) are, well, Korean.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    27. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... because no one in the US cares about the war of 1812.

      Tell that to the Navy and the US ship-building industry. The war of 1812 established the US as a source of excellent ships and commanders. The British Navy had their first real fight in a long, long time. It was a subtle shift, like our problems with the Viet Cong's style of warfare that are bubbling up again.

    28. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who was setting up a plant in Korea and the company had a huge budget for bribes. Apparently it was illegal to import anything made in Japan. Try finding scientific and electronics gear back in the 80s that didn't contain any Japanese parts...

      Nobody actually obeyed the rule - it was mainly a way of the govt thumbing their noses at the Japanese. And it worked out nicely for customs officials who got a nice supplemental income...

    29. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Even better, try renting this movie (if you can find it). Better than "120 Days of Sodom"!

    30. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > a battle in the deliverance of the promised land from the worthless natives. Much like the US currently documents the [Native American Genocide*].

      I don't see that at all. The way it was presented was that some Europeans came over & killed them & forced them back to take over their land. I've never, EVER read or seen any documentation, in textbooks or otherwise, claiming it was a good thing.

      I hear people claiming that American textbooks are full of lies & gloss over bad things or promote them as good, but I rarely see any opinion presented in them (at least the ones I used). Sure, there wasn't as much detail in the grade school texts, and they didn't get into the scale of gore, but grade school is for basic info -- High school is where the details get filled in, and they were.

      * (My words)

    31. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Eugenics quietly dropped out of sight after the Nazis' implementation of the idea pretty much offended/appalled everyone.

      As an aside, Hitler said that his best Eugenic ideas came directly from the U.S. and he lauded them for it.

    32. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      There was no country per se. Troops came from both Upper (southern Ontario) and Lower (southern Quebec) Canada, although many of them were imported from Europe. Here is a fairly comprehensive and realtively unbiased link.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    33. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      more censorship in the US is the curious omission these days of the fact that during the rape of nanking, the US had battle ships off the coast and troops in the embassy. Even though the gov. was aware of what was going on, it could not intervene because of the anti-war groups. One of the ships was even bombed by japanese aircraft and this was explained away as an accident ..

      The USS Panay. It wasn't a battleship -- it was a river gunboat. It was a Battleship you can bet that a war would have resulted. In either case history seems to judge that the sinking was intentional. What's new? Anybody care to talk about the USS Liberty? Sometimes it isn't worth going to war over -- and the United States wasn't materially ready (nor was the population) for a war with Japan in 1937.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Sure! Back then, Eugenics was Science! It was the wave of the future!

      It was, well, pretty much like genetic engineering is viewed now. A way to improve the world, all upside, no downside.

      Didn't work out that way though. And wouldn't have worked out, even if the Nazis hadn't given it a reputation that would stink to the heavens for the rest of history. Because they didn't know enough to do it right.

      Any more than we know enough to do the genegeneering thing right. Someday we'll know it all. Now, we don't. If we're not careful, we'll get back to eugenics with genetic engineering as the guise to win acceptance. Then, in 50 years or so, we'll have a nice, unpleasant, world war, and get over the notion again for a time...until we find a new guise for "playing God"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    35. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Zarquil · · Score: 1

      LOOK!

      Bob and I apologized. Get a couple more kegs and next time we'll bring a couple girls along with us.

    36. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      As long as its Canadian Beer.
      US beer is like water.

    37. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese tortured and raped my grandmother (and other memebers of my family) while she was pregnant in a POW camp. Later, after the child was born a fellow POW smuggled in medicine for the now sick child. He was found out and executed in front of the entire camp. They forced a fire hose down his throat and turned it on, the force of the water made his torso explode, but didn't kill him immediately. Were it not for this unknown man's sacrifice I would not be alive today.

      My grandmother lived in fear for the rest of her life and passed away only recently.

      If Australia is ever to be involved in a war with Japan, I wil extract revenge by slowly and painfully killing any Jap I lay my hands on.

    38. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Hmm, it's a while since I've read up on the history of eugenics but I'm pretty sure castration wasn't a favoured method, but rather surgical sterilization (ie cutting the tubes) was used instead. Otherwise, nice post. An always fun fact is that until the Nazis made eugenics their own, the United States led the world in eugenic sterilizations (IIRC, some 70000 in total, the majority in California I think). And it continued in some asylums until the late 1960s or early 1970s.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    39. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where are you when we need you?

      Stop sitting around on your duffs (or Molsons) and burn the place down again, already!

    40. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Zero. It was soldiers of the British Empire that burned down the white house in 1812. Yes, they were operating out of Canada, but Canada was still a British colony, and every person living there was still therefore a British subject.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    41. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Australia is ever to be involved in a war with Japan, I wil extract revenge by slowly and painfully killing any Jap I lay my hands on.

      Wow. You're as evil as the "Japs" you hate. The people who did this to your grandmother are DEAD. Give it up.

    42. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm also fairly certain that not many Japanese learn about the fact that Between 1932 and 1945 Japan experiments included testing biological weapons on humans, and attacked 11 Chinese cities with biological weapons.

      Not many Americans know about our testing with Syphilis and radiation. We all have our dirty little secrets.

      What's your point?

    43. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by abb3w · · Score: 1

      While perhaps one can't remove information from the Net, if you don't learn how to do research effectively, and to distinguish the truth from the lies in what you find, you'll never find and believe the information. Not to mention you have to consider looking for it in the first place. "Critical thinking" is not high on Dubya's list of education priorities.

      Yes, some of us in America do think, and some of us even actively oppose turning "One Nation, Under God" into "One Police State, Under the Religious Right"... but I'm far from convinced we'll win.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    44. Re:Speaking of censorship.... by Abundantes · · Score: 0

      *apologizing mode on*
      Just reread my comment and it looks a lot ruder than i really intended.
      well.
      What I wanted to say is:
      Basically I like the US. But I have got the impression that the American political system is on the verge of sliding into a plutocratic aristocratiy.
      Reason for this is the way the political right seems to try to unbalance the system so they can act uncontrolled but control all others, namely their own citizens and their political reps.

      To me that looks too much like something that happened some 60 years in my country's northern neighbour, Germany, and lead to a bunch of my relatives sitting in not so nice places a little later.
      Well. the US is the one and only military power in the world. And guess what scares me here.

      If you wonder why, take a map and have a look where there are US Military bases now that havent been there 10 years ago, and be a little paranoid about it.

      But aside from that: The point is that they maneuver around the law as they can if it suits them. If the Government does that there's real trouble, if you ask me, because that is dangerous in a 3rd world state, but even more so in the sole Superpower we've got left.

      Hmm..
      enough rambling.

      I hope you see that I do think about the US alot, and I do care (even if on the paranoid side), and therefor accept the aforementioned apology.

      --
      This is good for nothing. Ignore it or send it to the Customer Care Dept.
  10. Low technology against high technology by Pelops · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More and more people thinks that high technology is much more efficient to win a war. I don't think it is necessarily true.
    On the contrary, i think that low tech can be much more lethal because of their simplicity. High technology requires people to be trained and efficient, while low tech can be done nearly by everyone, increasing the deadliness and the frequency of those attacks.
    Again, don't underestimate the use of high technology devices as a simple low tech weapon. For instance, dropping a PC on someone can be deadly :)

    Pelops

    1. Re:Low technology against high technology by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I saw a documentary about this as to why the AK-47 beats the M-16 in real combat. It basically came down the the fact that the M-16 was a rifle with autofire capabilities, while the AK-47 was a machine gun with rifle capabilities. The AK-47 worked much better in real combat, because it almost never jammed, and was quite easy to use, which is good if you don't have time to train soldiers. The AK-47 was also a lot heavier. Which allowed it to be used much more effectively at very close range. (AKA, using it to club the guy over the head)

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Low technology against high technology by robotim · · Score: 1

      I agree. Rusty farm tools can also be deadly. Battle of Puebla, anyone?

    3. Re:Low technology against high technology by galo · · Score: 1

      What's more important is good tactics.

    4. Re:Low technology against high technology by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Informative
      Other simple reason is fire power. While the AK-47 is less accurate then the M16 the sad fact of war is that most soldiers are not really taking carefull aim during the heat of battle.

      Sticking your head up, sighting along the barrel and aiming at the target then gently squeezing the trigger and adjusting as neccasry also means you spend a lot of time being a target, a non-moving target.

      Look at historical movies of engagements in vietnam and you will that often the soldier just aims his gun in the general direction of the eneme and shoots. Not very accurate but a lot safer for the soldier involved and just maybe it will keep the enemey down.

      The AK-47 has the advantage here. Its bullet has more of a change to travel through cover then the M16 had. Simply put an M16 soldier shooting at an AK47 soldier behind wood cover would be very likely to only hit wood. The AK47 soldier on the other hand would shoot straight through the wood and kill the M16 soldier or at least wound.

      It says enough about the M16 that a lot of american troops in vietnam switched weapons when they had the change. If the soldier in the field prefer the weapon of the enemey (wich has the risk that your own side might identify you as the enemey in confused situations by the sound of your gun) then you done something badly wrong.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    5. Re:Low technology against high technology by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I also remember high-speed video footage of an AK shooting right through a tree. Very impressive. And very useful when there's evil doers hiding behind trees.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Low technology against high technology by Ripp · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but it makes a very distinct sound when fired at you! (chews on cigar butt)

      --
      Blech. Signatures.
    7. Re:Low technology against high technology by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Simply put an M16 soldier shooting at an AK47 soldier behind wood cover would be very likely to only hit wood. The AK47 soldier on the other hand would shoot straight through the wood and kill the M16 soldier or at least wound.

      You're misinformed.

      While the 7.62x39mm cartridge will penetrate more than the 5.56x45mm, the difference is not THAT great (the 7.62 bullet is generally heavier at 122 grains, vs the 5.56's 55 or 62 grain weight, but the 5.56mm is a much higher velocity cartridge, which offsets the weight difference.)

      Both rounds are fairly wimpy as far as rifle rounds go. When fired into wood, they will perform similarly.

      It says enough about the M16 that a lot of american troops in vietnam switched weapons when they had the change. If the soldier in the field prefer the weapon of the enemey (wich has the risk that your own side might identify you as the enemey in confused situations by the sound of your gun) then you done something badly wrong.

      Sadly, most of the early problems with the M-16 were due to troops not properly caring for their weapons. The M-16 wants to be nice and clean, and almost dripping wet with oil. Because the oil actually attracts dirt and debris, the M-16 has to be cleaned often in order to remain functional. The troops weren't doing that, so their weapons malfunctioned, usually at the most inoportune times, with bad consequences for all involved.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    8. Re:Low technology against high technology by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The Kalishnakov on the other hand, never needed cleaning. And would continue to fire even when it got extemely dirty. I'm pretty sure that the reason the American soldiers weren't cleaning their rifles is because they were too busy being shot by AK's that never had to be cleaned.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Low technology against high technology by Hugo+D.+Zappo · · Score: 0

      5 guys with flintlocks will take out one guy with any full auto. All you need is enough guys with flintlocks to winn a war of attrition. Hell all you need is 31 guys with knives to take out one guy with an M-16 the last guy alive kills the gunner as he is reloading. The Soviets in the Fulda Gap area of old East Germany had a 12 to 1 advantage in tanks. THey used t-72 tanks little changed from WWII tank design. The US has the M60-a3 and the FRG had the Leopard, both vastly superior to the t-72 but if the baloon would have gone up, the best trained crew could only stop one or two t-72s before the rest knocked them out and rode over the position.

    10. Re:Low technology against high technology by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..the accuracy depends HEAVILY on what flavour/clone of ak-47 is used(on the materials).

      Can't speak for other flavours but rk-62(finnish clone of ak-47) is good enough that anybody with normal sight could shoot within 15cm diameter at 150m with 30 mins of training(so, basically anyone who listened to the training could hit the targets, even me with my pretty fucked up eyesight after some ~10 calibration shots).

      clip size & all matter too.. not to mention that ak 47 clones are cheap cheap cheap on the market if you're an army buying.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:Low technology against high technology by jabberjaw · · Score: 1

      It says enough about the M16 that a lot of american troops in vietnam switched weapons when they had the change.
      Where is this documented? I can see special forces doing this, but not regular troops. The two weapons sound rather different and in the heat of battle one would run the possibility of being shot by their comrades. You are more or less trading off one evil for another, no?

    12. Re:Low technology against high technology by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Tell someone slogging through a jungle or desert that they have a choice: Clean their gun daily (or more) to prevent it from jamming during a firefight, or steal an enemy gun and never have to worry about cleaning it and see which one they choose.

      The AK-47 is superior for the role it was designed for: combat.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    13. Re:Low technology against high technology by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Tell someone slogging through a jungle or desert that they have a choice: Clean their gun daily (or more) to prevent it from jamming during a firefight, or steal an enemy gun and never have to worry about cleaning it and see which one they choose.

      Professional soldiers (or professionals in any field, actually) maintain their equipment properly. Part of the problem was, of course, that a fairly low percentage of troops in Vietnam were professionals--the vast majority were draftees who just wanted to go home.

      Given that fact, I'd have to agree that something like the AK-47--designed for poorly trained conscripts--would certainly have been a better choice.

      I will, however, also offer a counter-example: Somalia. Instead of draftees, well trained troops using well maintained M-16s against untrained "conscripts" using AK-47s...

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    14. Re:Low technology against high technology by dwillden · · Score: 1
      Don't forget that a prime reason the weapons were thought to not need cleaning is that they were told they didn't need to clean the weapons.

      As designed they shouldn't have needed nearly as much care, but then the DOD decided to switch to a cheaper gunpowder which left a greater residue behind. When using the powder the weapons were designed for they needed far less care and maintanence. With the new powder they need far more.

      That issue was primarily fixed with the M-16A1 which increased the ruggedness, as well as by training the troops on the importance of cleaning and oiling the weapons. Which is always wise in a humid jungle theater of operations.

      After those two changes, the troops realized they could pack a lot more ammo when using the smaller 5.56 rounds and the weapon recovered in popularity.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    15. Re:Low technology against high technology by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      The Kalishnakov on the other hand, never needed cleaning. And would continue to fire even when it got extemely dirty.

      While the latter is true, the former is not. EVERY rifle needs to be cleaned in order to remain functional. Sooner or later, you'll have some sort of failure.

      I'm pretty sure that the reason the American soldiers weren't cleaning their rifles is because they were too busy being shot by AK's that never had to be cleaned.

      Mostly it was morale, leadership, and training--or the lack of any and all of the above.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    16. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When shooting through cover, there is no comparison between the two rounds, the 7.62 wins hands down. The 55 grain .22 bullet is so prone to deflection, that a simple twig can deflect the round (not to mention cross winds). The much heavier 7.62 round has a much better chance of heading in the same direction that you started it in after contacting brush. Small and fast is good for energy, and good for accuracy when there are few outside factors to deal with (such as cross winds, or obstacles), however, slower and heavier is much better for real world combat shooting. A rifle that shoots flat out to 400 meters is great on a range, but very few combat situations will arise for an infantry soldier where a clear 400 meter shot presents itself. Inside of 100 meters, give me that heavy slow slug anyday.

      Case in point. Sharpshooters, snipers, whatever you want to call them, rarely use any caliber smaller than 308 (7.62). The top of the heap in weapons is the 50 cal, for long (and I mean LONG) range shooting. The 50 cal has been wildcated (think "case mod") to take a 5.56 projectile, but no one in their right mind would try a 2300 meter shot with a 55 grain bullet. The windage adjustments would make the shot near imposible. However that big, fat, heavy assed 50 cal slug takes far less windage adjustment over the same range.

      The M-16 is a beautiful weapon on a range, the AK(insert flavor here) is ugly, but it ALWAYS works, clean, dirty, it just doesn't matter.

    17. Re:Low technology against high technology by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      the DOD decided to switch to a cheaper gunpowder which left a greater residue behind.

      It's been a while, so I might be misremembering this, but IIRC it wasn't DOD but rather congress that mandated both the powder changes (not to something cheaper, but something that had already been purchased and was sitting in warehouses) AND the original 1:12 twist rate of the barrel.

      It's a good object lesson that people who don't understand a subject shouldn't be making critical design decisions (sounds alot like IT, doesn't it? )

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    18. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understood they used the "squad automatic weapons" (long barreled AK-47 with 40 bullets magazines) instead of the M-60 SAW. As a side note, at least in Operation Flashpoint, the AK-47 machine-gun was better overall than the machine gun (or SAW) of the US (the M-60, IIRC).
      I can very well understand the need to use as machine gun a higher calibre machine gun.
      And one more thing, the north vietnamese were restricted in ammunition and weapon number, not in combatants number. It would have been good to collect all the AK-47.

      Calin

    19. Re:Low technology against high technology by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Where is this documented? I can see special forces doing this, but not regular troops. The two weapons sound rather different and in the heat of battle one would run the possibility of being shot by their comrades. You are more or less trading off one evil for another, no?

      I don't know about vietnam, but the guys in Iraq sure seem to like the AK.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    20. Re:Low technology against high technology by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      When shooting through cover, there is no comparison between the two rounds, the 7.62 wins hands down. The 55 grain .22 bullet is so prone to deflection, that a simple twig can deflect the round

      Sure, but neither I nor the OP were talking about that--it was an issue of penetration.

      BTW, even heavy rounds can be deflected fairly easily by intervening objects like brush.

      Inside of 100 meters, give me that heavy slow slug anyday.

      I actually agree with you. My carry guns are .40 and .45 for that reason.

      The top of the heap in weapons is the 50 cal, for long (and I mean LONG) range shooting.

      I've been hearing about people playing with 20mm necked down to .50 (to avoid problems with the NFA and having their rifles labelled a destructive device) for REALLY long range shooting. There's always something bigger and better. :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    21. Re:Low technology against high technology by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I don't know about vietnam, but the guys in Iraq sure seem to like the AK.

      The AK-47 and clones are cheap, and widely available, manufactured in countries and by companies with even fewer scruples and sense of responsibility than your typical American gun maker. So naturally the AK-47 has become the weapon of choice for terrorists and other rabble around the world. That doesn't make it a better weapon.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    22. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the AK-47 (and later the AK-74)uses a full-metal jacket bullet with lead filling near the base and an air pocket near the tip.

      End result? Upon impact, the lead dislodges, the bullet loses stability, and travels sideways through the target.

      The new AK-74, with its 5.56mm ammunition, achieves maximum wound channel expansion first at 10cm depth, then again at 40cm depth, when fired into ballistic gelatine.

    23. Re:Low technology against high technology by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      It says enough about the M16 that a lot of american troops in vietnam switched weapons when they had the change

      /laughs

      In WW2, the USArmy used the Tommygun as their SMG of choice. The Grease Gun was a distant second. The Germans used the various Erma SMGs. The Soviets used the PPSh (? - I think that was the basic designation).

      In general, American soldiers were quite willing to pick up an Erma when they could, to replace their greaseguns, and sometimes to replace tommyguns.

      At the same time, the Russians were tossing PPSh's into ditches and picking up Ermas when they could get hold of them.

      Sounds like the Erma was a hell of a gun, doesn't it? While the Americans and Russians were picking up Ermas, the Germans were tossing Ermas into ditches and picking up PPSh's, and occasionally tommyguns/greaseguns (American SMG's were less popular with Germans because the /45 ACP round was harder to come by - it had to be captured along with the gun).

      In other words, the grass is always greener. Only time this rule doesn't apply is when one side or another has a clearly superior weapon. Even then, soldiers will sometimes toss the "superior" weapon they were issued for an "inferior" weapon that had some characteristic they liked - M1 Garands were the best rifles used in the war, except the Sturmgewehr-44 toward the end, but were tossed aside for tommyguns and M1 carbines (which latter was a crappy little rifle, but soldiers march more than they fight, and it doesn't weigh much, so it was very popular)

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clint Eastwood is awesome :D

    25. Re:Low technology against high technology by immel · · Score: 1

      The guns also got screwed up because the original design did not incorporate a chromium-plated firing chamber. The GI's said they needed chromium plating, but the Wiz kids @ DOD said that the M-16 wasn't designed with plating, thus it didn't need it.

      --

      10 Bits= $.25
      100 Bits= $.50
      110 Bits= $.75
      1000 Bits= 1 byte
    26. Re:Low technology against high technology by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1
      The AK-47 worked much better in real combat, because it almost never jammed, and was quite easy to use, which is good if you don't have time to train soldiers.

      There is a huge amount of hearsay and legend surrounding the AK47 and M16, usually propagated by people without the experience or context to have an informed opinion.

      For a well-trained soldier, the M16 system is vastly superior to the AK47 in just about every way. And the US has "well-trained" soldiers. In a more general sense, the AR15/M16 system is one of the finest rifles of its class ever fielded and has numerous advantages that aren't immediately obvious unless you've had to do extensive live fire combat training with both. Beside being a very nice rifle to shoot and handle, the M16 has the distinction of being one of the quickest combat rifles out there, while the AK47 is one of the slowest. By "quick" I mean how fast you can you drop some number of multiple random targets at random ranges. The M16 is blindingly quick for fast and furious engagements, the AK47 is not. After using an M16, it feels like you are trying to shoot using something with the handling and aiming characteristics of a cinderblock. In a firefight that is all about you shooting the other guy before he shoots you, this matters a lot.

      As for jamming, that is largely mythology. There was a problem in the 1960s where some Army supply person decided to ship ammo that was out-of-spec for the engineering of the rifle because it was cheaper without checking with the designers. That caused a lot of problems. The rifle was quickly redesigned to be more tolerant of out-of-spec ammo. As a result, jamming hasn't been a problem for about 30 years. In the field where the dirt is, rule of thumb is that the typical modern M16 will function flawlessly for about 1500 rounds without cleaning. That is a LOT of ammo, and several times the max load that an infantry soldier normally carries.

    27. Re:Low technology against high technology by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 2, Informative
      The AK-47 has the advantage here. Its bullet has more of a change to travel through cover then the M16 had. Simply put an M16 soldier shooting at an AK47 soldier behind wood cover would be very likely to only hit wood. The AK47 soldier on the other hand would shoot straight through the wood and kill the M16 soldier or at least wound.

      Oh hell, mod this guy down. This is factually dead wrong and they apparently know exactly nothing about terminal ballistics and its relation to cartridge design.

      The AK47 has lousy penetration and short effective range due to the cartridge selection. The very low sectional density combined with relatively low velocity of the 7.62x39 makes it one of the poorest penetration performers of any military cartridge in common use today. The M16 cartridges that have been in use for the last decade or two (M855) will actually out-penetrate most everything else, particularly through hard materials, including the 7.62x51 (.308) NATO cartridge.

      Sectional density * velocity = penetration, with some bonus points for bullet design. The 7.62x39 has neither sectional density nor velocity, the 5.56x45 has moderate sectional density and high velocity.

      I can't believe the drivel that is being modded as informative. It is a big steaming pile of urban myth nonsense.

    28. Re:Low technology against high technology by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Sadly, most of the early problems with the M-16 were due to troops not properly caring for their weapons. The M-16 wants to be nice and clean, and almost dripping wet with oil. Because the oil actually attracts dirt and debris, the M-16 has to be cleaned often in order to remain functional. The troops weren't doing that, so their weapons malfunctioned, usually at the most inoportune times, with bad consequences for all involved.--

      Also, some of the first M16's didn't have chrome lined bores. This was not good for jungle fighting to say the least. The 5.56mm is not inferior to the 7.62. It kicks less impoving accuracy in full auto and weighs less meaning the soldier can carry more rounds and finally the Russians went to a 5.56. I like the Russian 5.56 better than the US round for it's greater stopping power at the same weight per round.

    29. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Sadly, most of the early problems with the M-16 were due to troops not properly caring for their weapons. The M-16 wants to be nice and clean, and almost dripping wet with oil. Because the oil actually attracts dirt and debris, the M-16 has to be cleaned often in order to remain functional. The troops weren't doing that, so their weapons malfunctioned, usually at the most inoportune times, with bad consequences for all involved.


      That's a damning indictment of the AR15.
      The fact that it needs to be perfectly clean in extreme conditions means that it's not the best weapon for combat. If you're stuck behind enemy lines, you mgiht not have the opportunity to clean the gun... which means you're dead meat.

      A modern gun should not be designed to need excessive amounts of cleanliness unless it's a sport gun for target shooting.

      If you carry it into battle, it should function when you've fallen into the swamp, and have encountered an enemy patrol, not jam.

      IIRC, the M16 were jamming in the desert as well... being used by a trained non-conscript US army...

      And don't the US SOC use the M14 preferentially?

    30. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      For a well-trained soldier, the M16 system is vastly superior to the AK47 in just about every way. And the US has "well-trained" soldiers. In a more general sense, the AR15/M16 system is one of the finest rifles of its class ever fielded and has numerous advantages that aren't immediately obvious unless you've had to do extensive live fire combat training with both. Beside being a very nice rifle to shoot and handle, the M16 has the distinction of being one of the quickest combat rifles out there, while the AK47 is one of the slowest. By "quick" I mean how fast you can you drop some number of multiple random targets at random ranges. The M16 is blindingly quick for fast and furious engagements, the AK47 is not. After using an M16, it feels like you are trying to shoot using something with the handling and aiming characteristics of a cinderblock. In a firefight that is all about you shooting the other guy before he shoots you, this matters a lot.


      But wouldn't you rather have an M14?

    31. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. A rifle that needs scrupulous cleaning isn't a good choice for jungle warfare...

      Same story with the M60 machine gun. (First hand experience from Australian Army Reserve in '70's). F*cked up American copy of the German MG42 that had to be scrupulously clean to work; I remember one NCO saying he'd seen an M60 jam because of a single grain of sand on the bolt! "F*ck these are useless weapons": quote from an NCO when an M60 jammed (again...)

    32. Re:Low technology against high technology by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 1

      EVERY rifle needs to be cleaned in order to remain functional.

      You'd be surprised what they're doing with small arms these days...

      http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-c ar bines/xm8.html

      "Unlike the current M4/M16 direct gas system with gas tube, the XM8 gas system does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's receiver during firing. This greatly increases the reliability of the XM8 while at same time reducing operator cleaning time by as much as 70%. This system also allows the weapon to fire more than 15,000 rounds without lubrication or cleaning in even the worst operational environments. A cold hammer forged barrel will guarantee a minimum of 20,000 rounds service life and ultimate operator safety in the event of an obstructed bore occurrence."

    33. Re:Low technology against high technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in the .au Reserve in the mid '70s the impression I got from Australian Vietnam vets was that they regarded the M16 as little more than a toy; too fragile and finnicky to be a real weapon and small-bore ammo.

      The Australian troops used the SLR rifle. It was semi-automatic, but with half a matchstick in the right place you could turn it into a full-auto in a couple of minutes. Guess what just happened to just about every SLR sent to 'Nam :-)

      Upshot of this was that the SLRs we got in the reserve were mostly *very* stuffed!

      One exception to the use of SLRs was for scouts, who apparently (contrary to international conventions) frequently bought themselves automatic shotguns! Can't blame 'em though, being out in front in the jungle with zero visibility.

      (Quote from Corporal drilling battle tactics with unit I was in. "What's the first thing that happens on Contact Front?" Scout replies: "Scout gets shot!")

    34. Re:Low technology against high technology by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Somolia is considerably drier than Vietnam. If you have to travel through a wet jungle to get where you're going, then your gun is going to get messy whether you are a professional who knows this is a bad thing or not. Knowing that you should clean your gun as soon as you get a chance is unhelpful if the enemy chooses to attack you right after you've been slogging through wet mud. He won't wait for you to clean your gun first.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    35. Re:Low technology against high technology by indiechild · · Score: 1
      Look at historical movies of engagements in vietnam and you will that often the soldier just aims his gun in the general direction of the eneme and shoots. Not very accurate but a lot safer for the soldier involved and just maybe it will keep the enemey down.


      Random sprayed gunfire is useless. Yes, you do want to achieve fire superiority and pin the enemy down, but to do that you actually need to aim your shots :)

      The ideal standard infantry weapon is one that will allow rapid, accurate semi-automatic fire and also has the ability to go fully automatic for close assaults. The M16 and AK47/AK74 both meet these requirements.

      While the AK-47 is less accurate then the M16 the sad fact of war is that most soldiers are not really taking carefull aim during the heat of battle.


      Soldiers who don't aim and shoot properly in battle usually end up dead pretty quickly if the other side has got it together!

      The interesting thing is that from what I have read, the AK47 is "designed" to be fired on full auto. In fact, the fire selector switch goes from safe to full auto, then to single fire! Whereas on the M16 (and most assault rifles) the order is: safe to single shot to full auto.

      Of course, you'll never be as accurate on full auto as semi auto, but I guess that's how Russian fire doctrine works.

      I've never understood how the Russian troops can afford to go full auto the whole time. They must burn through ammo like crazy! Sure, intermediate caliber ammo is lighter these days, but it still is a pain to pack enough ammo for a decent firefight.

      Most professional armies (Western armies?) teach their soldiers to shoot on semi-auto most of the time, only switching to full auto for close assaults. This maintains fire discipline and helps ensure the troops don't run out of ammo too soon.
    36. Re:Low technology against high technology by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 1

      Read "Inferiority" by Arthur C. Clarke. He wrote it 40 some-odd years ago, but it's just as true today, and illustrates many of the points you've made via short story. According to the intro, it was (at one point) required reading at MIT. Unfortunately, the ideas you've expressed are quite foreign to many companies (not mine of course... [cough]), so they are doomed to getting their butts kicked by "lower tech" (and more agile) companies while they wallow in leading-edge bug fixes.

      Tim

  11. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Haha. Maybe you forgot about the American firebombing of Japan? Those didn't cause theoretical killings, innocent people actually died. Don't even get me started on the atomic bombs.

  12. Watch out for space applications by IrishMist · · Score: 1

    Don't want anyone getting ideas about payload delivery from inflatables in space.

    1. Re:Watch out for space applications by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      You still have to ship the payloads up to orbit. That's a lot of work for little results. (Although water-balloons from orbit might be fun.) Maybe we should be on guard against people converting those Origami Folding Robots over to war-production?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Watch out for space applications by Alranor · · Score: 1

      (Although water-balloons from orbit might be fun.)

      Aaaagh, run for your lives, it's the wettening!!!

  13. Little Known??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Only if you've been stuck in a cave for the last 70 yrs. This has been published countless times previously. What the hell makes it news for Nerds, or stuff that matters???

  14. At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by foidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Japanese had created an interesting bio-weapon during WWII, though they only "tested" it on the Chinese. They figured out a way to create a bomb that would explode scattering plague infested fleas everywhere. It was quite an engineering marvel, even if the results were sickening(to this day, parts of rural China will still periodically get outbreaks of the plague because of these weapons labs), they figured out how to make a bomb explode without killing the fleas. However they never really used it against the Americans, maybe in fear of what the retribution would be.
    As the case with Nazi scientists, the head Japanese scientists who worked on Japan's bioweapons during the war avoided war crimes prosecutions by coming over to the US after the war to help in the new "war" against the Soviets.

    1. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, I wouldn't have done it either. The Americans might have hit back with nukes.... oh wait.... :/

    2. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by foidulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gah! Yes the nuking was a terrible thing, but you don't realize how much worse the other options would have been. Guess what August 6th, 1945 was? It was 90 days after the official end to the war in Europe. Guess what that meant, that meant the Soviets could now enter the war. The Soviets were already destryong what was left of the Japanese army in Manchuria, and Stalin was rushing as many troops as he could to East. He wanted to take Japan regardless of the number of casualties, Russian or Japanese. This would of also forced the Americans to try to capture as much territory as possible. There would have been mass civilian casualties as well as military casualties.
      Seriously, put yourself in Truman's shoes. Would you be able to face the war widows knowing that you had a way to prevent the deaths of American soldiers? Would you think it was a good idea for Japan to be divided in half like Germany was? Hindsight is 20/20, and we tend to forget about the circumstances that led to the dropping of the bomb.

    3. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      There's a 90 day mandatory waiting period between wars, or what's the significance of it being 90 days?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was quite an engineering marvel, even if the results were sickening(to this day, parts of rural China will still periodically get outbreaks of the plague because of these weapons labs),

      Yes, China and India still have plague outbreaks from time to time. But it's absurd to blame that on Japanese weapons of 50 years ago rather than the more obvious lack of sufficient sanitation in rural areas.

    5. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yeah, except Japan wanted to surrender and stop the war.

      But no, that wasn't good enough for the US. They had to have the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.

      There was no reason to drop the bomb.

    6. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know all this, not to mention the political stretching of muscles it showed to the russians. Such is the way things are :/ Just saying they could have used em with nasty nasty consequences.

    7. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Stalin agreed to help the US fight Japan 90 days after the war in Europe ended(I can't remember the name of the conference) You can find out a little bit more here I don't have time to do more research, but if you are really interested, dig, it's in there

    8. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by foidulus · · Score: 1

      There are outbreaks at the sites of the former labs(I'm not saying they are responsible for country wide outbreaks), that would tend to make me believe that the lab is at least partially responsible.

    9. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US didn't know this. Radio reports from the Japanese claimed on many occasions that they were preparing to surrender but nothing ever came of them. On the night of one of the bombs being dropped the emperor was however recording his surrender speech for the nation. Other elements in the army were trying to start a coup although this was fought by the opposing elements which supported the emperor. There was a very interesting TV documentary made about this a while back.

    10. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      There are outbreaks at the sites of the former labs(I'm not saying they are responsible for country wide outbreaks), that would tend to make me believe that the lab is at least partially responsible.

      But what is the claimed mechanism? Are the Chinese running those labs today or something? The agent of plague isn't a virus or a spore-forming bacillus like anthrax -- it's a normal enteric bacterium and thus needs to be maintained in culture to survive. An abandoned plague lab would contain nothing infectious.

    11. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was a terrorist strike plain and simple - drop the bombs, scare the shit out of everyone and get what you wanted. Couldnt they have atleast dropped the bombs somewhere where everyone would know about them but few or none would be harmed? they could at the same time drop a parachute crate over hiroshima with a big American flag on it just to proove that they could have dropped the bombs anywhere. Or maybe America does support terrorism, just like they support torture..

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    12. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "maybe in fear of what the retribution would be"

      Yeah, they were probably scared of getting nuked or something. oh well.

    13. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by eXtro · · Score: 1

      It wasn't terrorism, it was war. I don't agree that it was a necessary act but it wasn't terrorism. Japan tried to bring the war to the American homeland as well. If they had it wouldn't have been terrorism either.

    14. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However they never really used it against the Americans, maybe in fear of what the retribution would be.

      we killed most everyone in hiroshima with one bomb as a demonstration of power only... if the japenese played that card we would be talking about the burned islands that were known as the Japanese Islands and about the people that once lived there and why the people that live there now are sickly and dont live long.

      in the late 40's we would have nuked the ever living hell out of them.... and as an american that sicken's me that our leaders would have certianly done that.

      Now on the other hand, I am pissed that we are simply screwing around over in the middle east... we either needto pull out and let them return to the stone age or we need to go at it with every single resource we have with the idea to win...

      unfortunately the latter wont work as even our "allies" are not trustworthy over there..

    15. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Here is an eyeopener for you: Terrorism is always war.

      Does that justify it?

    16. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Informative

      That option was considered and rejected. You have to understand that Japan at the time was a terribly brutal military theocratic dictatorship. I've spoken to people who were alive at that time. One was 9-year old boy who would do bayonet practice every morning before classes. He was told that he had to throw himself at US soldiers, hopefully tying up several Americans as he died. This was to help the Japanese soldiers. Women were instructed to throw their babies at American GIs then throw themselves on the bayonets. This was better than having the GIs boil and eat their babies and rape and kill them, which is what they were told was common practice by Americans.

      This same man related how his teacher committed ritual suicide because he fumbled over a word in the morning prayer to the emperor. He told many stories of students being beaten for looking or acting irreverent during morning prayers to the emperor.

      I'm telling you, the religious fanaticism and anti-American hatred of WWII Japan makes Al Qaeda look like a women's summer reading group. You just don't drop a big bomb on the horizon and tell them: look what we can do, now surrender.

      No, the spirit of the country had to be broken, and an unconditional surrender gained or we would have been right back in the same mess in another twenty years.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    17. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Yes, China and India still have plague outbreaks from time to time.

      As does the US, from time to time.

    18. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Sounds exactly like september 11th to me!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    19. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by danharan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It wasn't terrorism, it was war.
      Who gets to decide whether something is a war or terrorism?

      After 9/11, Bush talked about a crusade -a war, a religious war- and before 9/11 there had been attacks against the US. Al-Qaeda saw it as a war... a religious war.

      So I guess all this is just OK, since it's not really terrorism, but just war, right?

      I'm not saying this to troll, I just want to point out that language is an important part of this, and the definitions are fuzzy.

      Trying to make a distinction between war and terrorism will lead us to a path of justifying mass murder that is meant to only kill, while condemning mass murder that is meant to paralyze by fear. You could say both feed the other, but they are not always very easily distinguished. Could we commit mass murder without scaring people? Will we really scare people if we reassure them we don't want to kill or hurt them?

      It's a lot easier in my mind... I view war as inherently wrong, an obsolete way of dealing with conflicts, which are a natural part of human society. Not all conflicts are bad or avoidable, but organized violence shows a monumental failure to manage and/or transform them.
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    20. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by littlewild · · Score: 1

      It did happen. Sometime ago a 50 years old chemical weapon was discovered in a rural village in China and serveral people died because it was activated somehow.

    21. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Teancum · · Score: 1

      IMHO, Yes, absolutely!

      And it came with a big huge Red, White, and Blue flag which we were proud to wave saying we did it as well.

      The thing that almost everybody forgets right now is that terrorism (especially the state-sponsored terrorism that is being done through Al-Queida and Hezbollah) is really a series of acts of war when you don't have the resources necessary to get involved in a full-fledged military confrontation.

      The problem with these terrorist groups is that they hide behind anonitity (like Anonymous Cowards) when they conduct their military campaigns. If they wore a Syrian flag or were otherwise connected with some actual real-estate, that country would have to face the possibility of going to war with whoever is the targe of attack. Pure and simple.

      Look, I don't mean to justify war. War is a very ugly thing that should be avoided, but when people insist on going to war it should be sent back to those individuals with all its fury, if for no other reason than to keep others from trying to do it as well.

      Nut cases like McVeigh can never be stopped in total, but that was a lone individual. When countries are involved, the only way to deal with them is to send a message that the leaders of that country are vunerable to having the same treatment going back at them.

      Using nukes was a clear way that the Japanese leaders knew they couldn't run away from the war, and with that knowledge, they simply had to surrender.

    22. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you're doing it, it's war; if they're doing it, it's terrorism.

      But for a more objective viewpoint, if it has an 'immediate' and 'direct' valid military value, it's war; if it doesn't, it's terrorism. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had direct military value; 'shock and awe,' which is a trite phrase, but valid strategy, demonstration of weapon capability and political will to use it, demonstration of ability to strike at territory with impunity, and so on.

      September 11 didn't, however, have military value. It was just intended to kill random people, and make people sad. If, however, there had been a war on, it probably could have been considered a valid attack against economic infrastructure.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    23. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Who wanted to surrender, exactly? The soldiers who were charging American lines armed only with bayonets? The kamikaze pilots driving their planes into ships? The civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs to avoid capture?

      There is a theory that the Emperor and higher levels of gov't wanted to surrender, but if they'ed tried, then in all likely hood, they'd have been deposed, and the hardline military would have continued the war.

      The war also had to be decisively ended to keep Stalin from either taking or splitting Japan, and to demonstrate the nuke to the world.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    24. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by danharan · · Score: 1

      That's a very subjective viewpoint. Through diplomatic back-channels, it was communicated that Japan was ready to capitulate. Shock and Awe is another way to say terrorism. How many civilians? How much infrastructure was bombarded? Was not the objective to paralyze them through fear, aka terror?

      The "terrorists" sought to demonstrat in 9/11 strikes that they had courage - which they claim you lack. They claim the people killed were incidental to the destruction of the symbols that were targetted.

      War is politics by other means. You can always find justifications for your own side, and dismiss those of the adversary. Your first definition is 'bang-on'

      Both figthing sides are terrorists and murderers.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    25. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      It did happen. Sometime ago a 50 years old chemical weapon was discovered in a rural village in China and serveral people died because it was activated somehow.

      But that's totally different -- I can believe that a chemical weapon can last 50 years -- believing that vegetative cells of a bacterium can last 50 years is something else. Anthrax can survive because it can form spores. Plague can't.

    26. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Politics is simply the externalization of internal desires. You want an ice cream, but mommy won't let you have one? Politics. You want the oil in that country over there, but they won't give it to you? Politics.

      That's a very subjective viewpoint.

      All viewpoints are; I don't believe in the concept of 'objective truth.' There is no such thing as an absolute value. Absolutely. :-)

      Through diplomatic back-channels, it was communicated that Japan was ready to capitulate.

      As I said in a different comment, who exactly was ready to surrender? The Emperor? The heads of the military? The civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs to avoid the shame of being captured?

      Shock and Awe is another way to say terrorism. How many civilians?

      Actually, it's an element of basic animal combat response. See, every social animal other than Man has some pretty well ingrained blocks against killing their own species; if at all possible, there will be dominance/submission displays, 'ritual' combat and the like. The wolf who exposes his belly and throat is left alive, knows his place, and keeps it.

      Studies show that humans are much the same; in combat (until recently, as in WW2 onwards recently) humans were more interested in posturing and intimidating than in actually killing. Read Grossman's 'On Killing' for some fascinating arguments and facts here. I don't agree with his conclusion that playing Doom turns you into a murdering psychopath, but most of the book seems solid enough.

      POINT BEING that given Japan's culture at the time, you know, samurai, bushido, and so on, and given all the other factors, for Japan as a nation to surrender, it can be argued that a display of force that powerful was required.

      How much infrastructure was bombarded? Was not the objective to paralyze them through fear, aka terror?

      Lots of infrastructure, but removing infrastructure is valid military strategy. Besides, it was shown both in the blitzes against Britan, and the firebombing of Dresden that, curiously enough, that sort of terror attack on civilian populaces simply doesn't really work.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    27. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Fucking submit button. Sorry, this is a follow on to the above post.

      When Japan surrendered after WW2, it wasn't because they were terrified, or terrorized, or didn't want to die. They were quite happy to die.

      Japan went into WW2 because they'd decided that they were inherently superior to everybody else, and really should have an empire to prove it. America proved that Japan wasn't top dog, so Japan backed off and tried a different approach.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    28. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Both figthing sides are terrorists and murderers.

      I liked the way you put it -- that's "bang-on."

      Except in extreme cases of personal self-defense (not preemptive military strikes), every person who kills another person is equal. Regardless of whether they do it in the name of some "greater cause" or just to watch him die, they do it to invoke fear and to deprive the other of their life.

    29. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Sounds exactly like september 11th to me!

      Before calling troll, I'll assume you have some basis to this, as the way it was presented, it sounds NOTHING like 9/11.

    30. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by danharan · · Score: 1
      Try Googling Hiroshima surrender diplomatic

      Whether the bombing was necessary is open to question.

      Lots of infrastructure, but removing infrastructure is valid military strategy. Besides, it was shown both in the blitzes against Britan, and the firebombing of Dresden that, curiously enough, that sort of terror attack on civilian populaces simply doesn't really work.
      Look, if it's militarily useless, it can't be valid military strategy. Have you any idea how many electric generation plants we bombed in Iraq in GW1, and ever since? Or water treatment plants, sewerage, hospitals, etc? Shock and Awe was more of the same against an already decimated infrastructure. If it had no military use, it was an attempt at posturing much like you describe it with wolves. Worse, it's militarily deadly if you later have to occupy the country: had the US not decimated the infrastructure, they might have been able to win the peace.
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    31. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse bombing City X to destroy the railyards, or the industrial factories, or the dam, or whatever, and bombing City X to kill civilians in an attempt to weaken their will to oppose you.

      Unfortunately, to the victims, it's all the same.

      So, Al-Queda crashing a plane into the Pentagon would be one thing. Hell, crashing a plane into Wall Street would be an interesting move. But bringing down the WTC didn't actually accomplish anything; it was a symbolic strike. It was bearding the lion, so to speak. Well, all that usually gets you is a lion which is beardless, perhaps, but very, very pissed. And cold.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    32. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But no, that wasn't good enough for the US. They had to have the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.

      I'm sorry I didn't know we were obligated to give them a conditional surrender after they lost a war that they started by launching an unprovoked sneak attack on an American Naval Base without a declaration of war.

      Besides it wasn't an unconditional surrender in anything but name. We allowed Hirohito to live to a fat ripe old age and escape the war crimes trial that he so rightly deserved in exchange for a peaceful occupation.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Couldnt they have atleast dropped the bombs somewhere where everyone would know about them but few or none would be harmed?

      Considering that the Japanese military was still debating whether or not to end the war even after the second bomb was dropped, I'd say no, it would not have worked. It took an action by emperor Hurohito himself to end the war, and even then the military tried to stop it, and it was only because Hurohito had enough forces still loyal to him that he survived and was able to put a stop to the madness. Had the military taken over the country, they may have continued the war, and the US would either have had to turn more of the country into smoking radioactive ruin or risk millions of casualties on both sides in a ground assault.

      Consider this as well: while dropping these bombs on cities was barbaric (war is seldom anything less), it served a purpose. Instead of having only scientific studies, theory, and supposition as to the long-term effects of a nuclear war, we got to see it for real on a small scale, right in our face, no way to deny or cover up. It made the prospect of using these things again too horrifying a concept for any nation to consider.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    34. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by danharan · · Score: 1
      So, Al-Queda crashing a plane into the Pentagon would be one thing. Hell, crashing a plane into Wall Street would be an interesting move. But bringing down the WTC didn't actually accomplish anything; it was a symbolic strike. It was bearding the lion, so to speak. Well, all that usually gets you is a lion which is beardless, perhaps, but very, very pissed. And cold.
      I'm sure that if they had targetted Wall Street, you'd be complaining that it was only a symbolic strike. I should remind you that many foreign corporations - including French ones- lost their entire presense on US soil. People did not hang out at the WTC for fun- they worked there. It had a strategic importance in the day-to-day business of the US economy, and IIRC, some intel operations. Therefore it could have given a military advantage.

      It's not all about you, either. Targetting the WTC meant they could boost the morale of their combattants. That could make it militarily justified... though not morally so.

      If the US hadn't bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, or embassies, hospitals and media outlets... I'd have more sympathy. But as it is, the other side is fighting a lawless enemy that is willing to bomb their civilian infrastructure.

      Don't confuse bombing City X to destroy the railyards, or the industrial factories, or the dam, or whatever, and bombing City X to kill civilians in an attempt to weaken their will to oppose you.

      Unfortunately, to the victims, it's all the same.
      Pfft... I'm not confusing them. There are shades of grey, to be sure. Neither side is good in this affair. If this was just about posturing and imposing your will, there would be no reason to make moral distinctions between psychological and industrial targets. As it is, WTC attacks are morally akin to Shock and Awe, yet war remains the supreme crime.

      As someone who predicted terrorist attacks against the white house (by remote controlled plane, I thought...) one month before 9/11, let me tell you this: your country is so filled with people that are so damned self-righteous, that have no clue what the enemy wants (it isn't all that irrational), and are shockingly ignorant as to your vulnerability.... unless you guys wake up a bit and see it from a different perspective, you're pretty much doomed to see more attacks. And you can't possibly win against terrorists by becoming like them.

      So maybe this is why I'm tearing my hair here... your distinctions between legit war and terrorism are like theological discussions of how many angels you can fit on a pin-head. They're going to get your country hurt, and some of us would rather that not happen. And believe you me, you are more vulnerable than most imagine.

      9/11 I was surprised by the audacity and brilliance of the execution. I wasn't surprised like many of your country-folk that terrorists attacked, nor did I hold any absurd belief that it was because you're free and prosperous that people somehow hate you. I'll be surprised by the means, but not that they carried out another attack. Trans-Alaska pipeline? SPR? Dirty bomb? Those aren't even the most nightmarish!

      Anyhow, I'll stop my rant now... must get to work and learn about XUL :)
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    35. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that if they had targetted Wall Street, you'd be complaining that it was only a symbolic strike. I should remind you that many foreign corporations - including French ones- lost their entire presense on US soil. People did not hang out at the WTC for fun- they worked there. It had a strategic importance in the day-to-day business of the US economy, and IIRC, some intel operations. Therefore it could have given a military advantage.

      It is true that the WTC attack did have some 'infrastructure destruction' to it, but there were better places to hit. They meant it as an attack against a famous landmark, nothing more.

      It's not all about you, either. Targetting the WTC meant they could boost the morale of their combattants. That could make it militarily justified... though not morally so.

      And here we get to the meat of the matter; as I said, bearding the lion. This sort of gesture, however, is somewhat meaningless; it needed to be followed up upon. "I fear we have awakened the sleeping giant" and all that.

      your country is so filled with people that are so damned self-righteous, that have no clue what the enemy wants (it isn't all that irrational), and are shockingly ignorant as to your vulnerability

      Actually, Canada is quite clueful in this regard; but then, that's probably why most of the world doesn't hate us. I assume, though, you're referring to America, and you're right; people hate the fact that America doesn't even know why they're so hated.

      your distinctions between legit war and terrorism are like theological discussions of how many angels you can fit on a pin-head

      I make no distinction, really; war is when you do it, terrorism is when they do it. However, some actions are more easily defined, from an objective viewpoint, as one or the other; Germany rolling tanks into Poland in '39 was an act of war; the camps, however, were acts of terrorism.

      9/11 I was surprised by the audacity and brilliance of the execution. I wasn't surprised like many of your country-folk that terrorists attacked, nor did I hold any absurd belief that it was because you're free and prosperous that people somehow hate you. I'll be surprised by the means, but not that they carried out another attack. Trans-Alaska pipeline? SPR? Dirty bomb? Those aren't even the most nightmarish!

      Again, I don't think Canada was particularly surprised. Hell, I was disappointed with the uselessness of 9/11; it's something you get to do once, and they could have done so much more, really.

      But then again, anybody who's read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor knows that.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    36. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      But it obviously can spread through carriers (fleas on rats) just like it did in the good old days.

      I'm sure every once in a while, some kid encounters an abandoned well and kicks up some plague fleas. Or something similar.

      Yes, poor sanitation allows the plague bacteria to linger. But the labs put it there in the first place. Blame who you will.

    37. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say September 11th was more "shock and awe" than anything since the a-bombs. And if they're fighting a war, it did have immediate military value. Crippling the economy of your enemy is very valuable. Sounds to me like 9/11 was a valid strategy.

      You may not think you were fighting a war, but someone was fighting one against you, and they saw it as a chance to strike at their enemy, and took it.

      You can say that Osama Bin Laden is a butcher, but I'm sure he's no different then the generals, the commanders, who ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Same goes for Saddam. Same goes for todays generals and leaders in any army. They're all the same.

    38. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Well America under Bush is becoming a "terribly brutal military theocratic dictatorship". Obviously its no where near Japan was but the Bush administration has some disturbing traits of their own.

      The attacks on the world trade center/pentagon had no real strategic value (imagine it was war) but destroyed moral. It wasnt a case of stealing some empty airliners and crashing them in the deseart to say "look what we can do" they killed real people who were mostly civilians and targeted places to cause maximum damage, shock and media coverage. The people who did it or organised it believed that they were right and they needed to do this for their cause.

      There are attacks to kill people and attacks to make people fear you, both can cause each-other but usually they are intended one way or another. Which way was the atomic bombing?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    39. Re:At least they didn't load them with bio-weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except they were not in the stone age before the first gulf war. GF1 put them there, and GF2 will keep them there. This is what America wants.

      What should be done is someone should put a bullet in GW's head. I believe that's how rabbid dogs are handled, unless Ole Yeller lied to me, and TV wouldn't do that. Then, every person in iraq should be rounded up and put up in some luxury island, then the USofA should go in there, rebuild the place to where it once was, then every person should be returned to Iraq, the UN should create an election system, watch over the first election, perhaps also the second, then everyone should just back the hell out of there.

  15. Not safe anywhere by Analogy+Man · · Score: 4, Interesting
    To a degree both the Japanese and Germans wanted to bring some of the fight to us. It would make us tie up more resources on domestic defense. Trains would require air support, factories would need to be more heavily guarded etc.

    To this end the Germans disassembled a light bomber, brought it to the arctic in a sub...put it together and tried to hit a munitions facility north of Minneapolis. It ran out of fuel and crashed within 10 miles of the suspected target. Imagine the psychological impact of a heartland attack like that.

    Of course there is the well known U-boat activity from Florida to Maine. People living on the coast saw many instances of ship aflame.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    1. Re:Not safe anywhere by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Imagine the psychological impact of a heartland attack like that.

      We don't have to imagine it... the U.S. did the same thing via the Doolittle raid, though that was more to boost the morale of the U.S. citizenry after Pearl Harbor than to strike fear into the Japanese.

      ~Philly

    2. Re:Not safe anywhere by CdBee · · Score: 2

      To this end the Germans disassembled a light bomber, brought it to the arctic in a sub...put it together and tried to hit a munitions facility north of Minneapolis.

      Link, anyone? Google can't find this...

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    3. Re:Not safe anywhere by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Upon further review, it seems that the Doolittle raid is actually what prompted the Japanese to begin using the balloon bombs.

      Learn something new every day. Thanks, Google!

      ~Philly

    4. Re:Not safe anywhere by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      Of course there is the well known U-boat activity from Florida to Maine. People living on the coast saw many instances of ship aflame.
      Actually, it went along the Gulf Coast as well. I know there were tankers attacked and sunk off Galveston by U-boats. In Fact, there remains to be seen a bunker on the Galveston seawall (I think the San Luis Hotel is built on top of it) where heavy guns were placed. And, if I recall correctly (haven't googled for it to refresh my memory) there were U-Boats sunk in the Gulf as well.

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    5. Re:Not safe anywhere by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      OK... went to check Google on my post. There is a book called "Torpedoes in the Gulf: Galveston and the U-Boats 1942-1943" published by Texas A&M University Press.

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    6. Re:Not safe anywhere by iCharles · · Score: 2, Informative

      Germany also looked into a suborbital "Amerikabomber." It would skip across the atmosphere, and attack, say, New York.

      Another concept was built by the Japanese. A floatplane bomber was to be launched against the West Coast from a submarine. One sub was built, with three aircraft. The war ended before it could be launched.

    7. Re:Not safe anywhere by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      I Googled myself and could not find it. I had a teacher relay the story to me in high school. I lived close to the site of the incident and the memory is very vivid as you can well imagine. There is a large arsenel in the vacinity of Arden Hills / Shoreview. The plane came down in the Coon Rapids area. It may be a tough google as so many sites appear to be for veteran organizations in Minnesota and stories about events in Europe.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    8. Re:Not safe anywhere by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      While his writing style is a bit too conceited for my tastes, and you have to take things he says with a hefty block of salt, according to Winston Chruchil's history of WW2, in 1942 the japanese were unsure whether to pursue a policy of holding what they had obtained and defending it well, versus expanding even further outward past their original planned expansion. According to his history (which, again, I don't know how much accuracy I would give it) the Doolittle raid is what made the Japanese choose the policy of further expansion - to try to hold a frontier out past aircraft range. And it was this policy of further expansion that made them push into terrirtory that the US was still strong in, and thus it led to the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway, which pretty much threw away their naval dominance.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  16. photos by bjpirt · · Score: 4, Informative

    photos and more info here and an interesting photo of them being shot down from a plane.

    Intersting stuff.

  17. No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three words: "Body of Secrets." Bamford reveals a lot, and it's worth the time it takes to read his dead-tree books.

  18. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That means that the Japanese weren't targetting military targets or even American heavy industry with these things, but were aiming to kill as many innocent Americans as possible

    And what exactly did the American's do, when they neatly delivered two guided N-bombs, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they targeting Japanese military facilities? Talk about double standards!
  19. Balloon Battle? by News+for+nerds · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No it's the Balloon Fight

  20. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You're aware that Allied forces pioneered bombing civilian populations as a tactic of warfare in World War II, right? Japan wasn't even responding in kind.

    Anyway, these bombs weren't intended for a civilian population (the chance of hitting somebody directly would be astronomically low), they would be useful to start forest fires.

  21. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, you might want to check this out.
    Notice that China had the 2nd highest number of dead civillians(behind the USSR). Guess who was killing these civillians? Not the Americans. Now I know that eye for an eye isn't the way to go, but I don't see your similiar outrage over the rape of Nanking or the countless other Japanese atrocities against Chinese civilians committed during that war.
    If you are going to respect human life, respect it no matter what country the people came from.

  22. Trolling? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm finding it hard to believe that this comment isn't a troll.

    Either that or it displays a very real ignorence of the eithics of bombing during WWII.

    WWII was an ugly war. Every nation involved did thing which were, then and now, considered unacceptable. Nations still do today. Unfortunatly many still operate on the principle that the end justifies the means. I think this is actually one of the tenents of Neoconservatisim.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Trolling? by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

      Also applies to left-wing liberals

    2. Re:Trolling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think this is actually one of the tenents of Neoconservatisim.


      It is? I wasn't aware they had a manual out. (cue the clever little link to the PNAC document.) Seriously, Neoconservatism is just a word it isn't actually a well defined political philosophy. Initially it was used to differentiate secular republicans fromt he religious right. Then it was used to describe the wolfowitzs of the world and now it is used to mean republican in general.

      You need to educate yourself before putting your foot in your mouth.
  23. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grandparent post wasn't pointing out that Japan is perfect, but that the US can't claim a higher moral stance on the issue, having itself attacked Japanese civilians as its primary method of war.

  24. Brits were ready to send Pidgeons by RoyalCheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems that ingenious Brits were ready to send pidgeons over the front line on balloons as well. I can't quite remember what for - they were either carrier pidgeons for use by secret agents or they carried tiny bombs on them to cause havoc amongst the enemy forces (and I guess they wanted to be sure those ones weren't carrier/racing pidgeons..
    I wish I could find a website for you.. maybe another Brit /.er can find it!

    1. Re:Brits were ready to send Pidgeons by murky_lurker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The plan you speak of was to send out explosive-laden suicide pigeons to crash into searchlights and outposts. Undoubtedly more bizarre (though more off-topic) was B.F. Skinner's Pigeon -based Guidance system.

  25. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but attacking the Japanese probably saved a lot of other civilian lives. War isn't clean, it isn't simple. Yeah it's easy to say, "attacking civilians is bad", but it's a lot harder to say that on the front lines, and even harder when members of the country you are attacking are themselves attacking civilians. I'm not a general, I don't pretend to be, but I somehow doubt McArthur got some type of sadistic glee from bombing civilians.

  26. Re:Have pity it's an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice misspelling of 'legendary' there, chief.

  27. Old news by Angry_Admin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has been reported many times over the past few years.
    Some of the interesting facts regarding this is that the Japanese discovered the Jet stream during the war, using it to distribute the balloons to the US.
    Another interesting fact is that the US traced where exactly the balloons were being launched from by small samples of dirt that had contaminated the payloads. The US used pre-war mineralogical surveys to find the exact beach they were being lauched from, and eventually took care of it, so to speak.

    --
    Wait a minute. I got it. You could play with your magic nose goblins.
  28. Censorship is BAD m'kay by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Governments give out all kinds of excuses for censorship. That it will "aid the enemy" or "induce panic". In reality they just don't want bad press.

    Censorship is a very thorny issue, but we need total freedom of the press for our society to remain free. The story of "embedded" reporters during the Iraq war was a case in point. Embedded was a euphamisim for censored and reporters felt this. Their skewed reports helped continue the culture of lies and exaggeration that prevailed in the lead up to the war. People were misinformed about that war. From start to finish. Far better for us all to get the story , warts and all, rather than have it dripped and filtered to us by biased parties.

    Interestingly, the prevailence of high tech media helped retard the effect of censorship during the war. It was difficult, but no impossible, for the army to censor reporters for very long. The press center in Quatar became redundant as feeds were transmitted directly from the field.
    High tech media is also the ONLY reason that we are seeing images of torture from prisons in Iraq.

    The media also practices self-censorship by limiting the coverage of disturbing imagery. I think they should give people more credit and stop listening to the easily offended.

    The truth is never more distorted than during times of war. But this is the most critical time in which the truth needs to be shown, in all its
    truth. We might like like the truth, but we NEED to hear it. We have to hold a mirror up to ourselves. Otherwise we'll start to believe all the rethoric and that would be a vert bad thing.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Censorship is BAD m'kay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any government that feels it needs to keep secrets from its citizens in order to protect them has failed, and is no longer a government of its citizens, but of itself.

    2. Re:Censorship is BAD m'kay by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Japan was launching a weapon where the only way they could know if it worked at all was through feedback from the American press. (Barring agents, and since the balloons were landing any old place, it wouldn't be worth exposing a spy network to make vague reports.)

      It's all endless shades of grey. Censorship is bad, but so is getting a special explosive delivery because the local radio station broadcast that it would be lovely bomber-flying weather tonight over the railway switching yard.

      There's a big difference between censoring news that would directly aid the enemy, and news that will make the people in charge look bad in the polls. Sadly, the people in charge rarely see that difference.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Censorship is BAD m'kay by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sorry but CNN broadcasting troop movements and locations is not a smart idea.

      a certian FOX news reporter over in Iraq has no respect from the troops as he put many of them in danger all for only his typical Shocking journalizm style...

      some censorship is very important... like I am not going to tell you my credit card numbers, my bank account numbers and the combination to my safe or the location of my porn cache..

      I expect the news to self censor when their "broadcast" or "news" will cost lives.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Censorship is BAD m'kay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. 'Embedded' has nothing to do with censorship. It just means the reporter is travelling *WITH* a military unit seeing what is happening first-person real-time, as opposed to sitting at a base hearing about events from a general giving press coferences.

      And yes, since a reporter in such a situation does have access to real-time troop actitivites, it is entirely reasonable for him to avoid broadcasting information which might put that unit in danger, wether he does so because he's ordered to or because he has the good sense to recognize the danger to the unit (which would include the reporter, too)

  29. Re:Have pity it's an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an American that made your parent post. You're obviously from someplace that's known for it's arrogance.

  30. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by echucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just as unguided as the 1000 plane raids staged over Germany. As unguided as the incendiary raids over Japan. Just because we're th good guys didn't mean we didn't do the same thing.

  31. Re: Japanese Balloon Battle by manavendra · · Score: 0, Troll

    Was this the original Battle Royale? :-)

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  32. Re:Old news by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    Another interesting fact is that the US traced where exactly the balloons were being launched from by small samples of dirt that had contaminated the payloads.

    They didn't have to go over the balloons to find dirt samples, it wasn't quite so "CSI" as that... the balloons had several sandbags to provide ballast, and the sand that filled those is what gave away the launch location via the mineralogical surveys.

    ~Philly

  33. "Balloons Of War" by LISNews · · Score: 4, Informative

    John McPhee wrote about this in The New Yorker, 29 January 1996, 52:60. It's a really neat story on how Geologists figured out where exactly in Japan the balloons were being produced based on the sand used in the ballast the ballons held to make the long float across the Pacific.
    This is how we first learned about the jet stream as well.

    I'm pretty sure the story is in Annals of the Former World, a 1996 book by McPhee, all about geeky geology stuff, but it's a really interesting read.

    1. Re:"Balloons Of War" by jefu · · Score: 1

      Good story that (as is usual for John McPhee). The article included a couple of stories about forensic geology. Fascinating read.

  34. It was common knowladge in Indiana where I am from by thbigr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My father told me stories about these ballons when I was a kid, during WWII. The ballons where kind of a running joke at that time. At least that is how he made it sound. Apperently some did actual explode, but of course the NEVER hit anything.

    There was no mention from him or any one else in the room about cencership. Which leads me to wonder was there REALY any goverment cover up? Or was it just not importent enought for any one to realy care, one way or the other.

    There are many much more IMPORTANT things that where covered up. Like the U.S. army company whiped out by thier own troops durring a landing.,
    anon, anon, anon

    Who cares about ballons?

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  35. Trolling? No, just a sad reflection by mulesex · · Score: 1

    Every nation involved did thing which were, then and now, considered unacceptable.

    And ironically, these days we consider ourselves 'more civilised'.

  36. You ignorant American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese had the civil war among themselves in WWII days, between the Communist Party and the National Party. That's what you see in the number (sigh).

    1. Re:You ignorant American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese had the civil war among themselves in WWII days, between the Communist Party and the National Party. That's what you see in the number (sigh).
      Riiiiiight, and the rape of Nanking was just havin' a little fun. Same with the Korean comfort women. Same with the persecution of anyone even suspected of being a member of the resistance.
      You are the ignorant one, first of all you assume that I am an American, Secondly, you assume that I don't know about the Communists versus the Kuomingtang, I do. But guess what, the Japanese were responsible for a large number of civillian killings as well.
      So please, next time you want to make a hasty generalization based on your own deep seated irrational hatred of a nation and it's people, do it somewhere else.
      Oh and btw, please do a little research next time, 'k?

  37. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After the Rape of Nanking, its very hard to have any sympathy for any Japanese. [my emphasis]

    Because all Japanese supported it? I was under the - apparently mistaken - impression that pre-war and wartime Japan was a dictatorship. Or is this another stunning example of generalising to avoid making real points?

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  38. Is this the slowest slashdot post ever? by areve · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this news not 60 years old?

    1. Re:Is this the slowest slashdot post ever? by will_die · · Score: 1

      At least it is not a dupe.

    2. Re:Is this the slowest slashdot post ever? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Just wait a bit, the dupe is coming. Of course if I were a /. editor I would be tempted to dupe this one just as a joke.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  39. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by thbigr · · Score: 1

    The pacific war start post 42. Germany was bombing London before that: 1940 - 1941. It was the BIG man Hitler, who realy started.....

    Sadly, we just finished it....

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  40. The Adams Plan was cooler by General+Wesc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not that it worked out very well, but I still think the American's bombing method was much more interesting, and probably a little less well-known. (Though not at all arcane. The last time I mentioned it at least one fourteen-year-old already knew of it.)

    1. Re:The Adams Plan was cooler by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about the same thing. Though i remember it as dropping the bats in a large container which would open at some altitude (think of the pods used to scatter bomblets over a wide area). I dunno about the individual parachute thing. I could be wrong, as it would mean they'd need to warm the bats up in their container before releasing them. The idea was to drop the bats at dawn, which would force them to seek shelter under the eaves of the predominantly wooden structures (think civilian homes). I believe they used acid timers.

      It's funny how they misjudged how far some of the bats would travel, skipping the mock houses set up for the test and burning parts of the airbase.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    2. Re:The Adams Plan was cooler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Adams Plan? Is this something like the Alan Parsons Project?

    3. Re:The Adams Plan was cooler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did they get such wonderful toys?

  41. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

    Because of the thousands of Japanese troops that took part in it. And don't give me the stupid argument that they were just following orders.

    --

    --
    What would Bill Clinton do?
  42. Jet Stream Badassity... by SuperChuck69 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The really cool part (and the science part, IMO) is that what made the baloon bomes possible was the Japanese discovery of the jet stream. At the time, no one knew it existed

    Only by coincidence did the Yanks discover that the bombs really were coming from Japan. The sand used in the sandbags was analysed and turned out very unique. However, as the Americans had done a complete survey of Japan's beaches (your granddad's tax dollars at work), they were able to narrow it down to a sand composition at a single beach in Japan.

    Curious, a couple planes were sent to investigate...

    So until 1940-whatever... No idea the jet stream existed.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Jet Stream Badassity... by laurensv · · Score: 1

      But a bit later on, when they tried to fly higher with the american bomber, the noticed that they didn't get as far as they taught with the fuel. At that time they discovered the jet stream as well.

  43. Mainland casualties in WWII by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought the balloon bombs were pretty famous, simply because they caused the only casualties (from enemy action) on the mainland USA during the whole of the war. A picknicking family found one of the bombs, which hadn't gone off, and er...tampered with it until it did, killing them.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  44. Re:It was common knowladge in Indiana where I am f by will_die · · Score: 1

    They were not designed to hit anything. They were design to drop and explode causing a fire in forest. Doing this would of caused a diversion of resources. They did cause a few small fires, it was a wet year.
    IIRC under 10 American civilians did die because of picking them up and it exploding on them. Big news at the time because it was the only successfull attack on the US main land.

  45. Neighbors to the north? by asb · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean the Norwegian?

    --
    Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
  46. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan wasn't even responding in kind.

    Yes, the Japanese were pretty much the Ewoks of WWII. They never killed, raped, or enslaved anyone, especially the Chinese.

  47. Re:It was common knowladge in Indiana where I am f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    but of course the NEVER hit anything.

    That is true of course, as long as we don't count the pregnant wife and group of children who where killed as "anything".
    From the article...
    the Rev. Archie Mitchell and his pregnant wife, Elsie, took a group of children from his church on an outing to Oregon's Gearhart Mountain. Mitchell let the kids out of the car before he went off to park. His wife got out, too, to supervise. Mitchell found a spot up the road and pulled over. As he was getting out, he saw his charges clustered around a large white object on the forest floor. One of the kids tugged at it.

    The bomb exploded, killing all the children and Mrs. Mitchell.
  48. One such baloon is on display by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Canadian war museum, http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/cwme.asp has one on such captured balloon on display. They also have a map showing where each balloon landed. The source of the balloons were eventually tracked down by studying the sand they used for ballast - it had a unique composition particular to one area in Japan. From this information they were able to later able to pinpoint the location the factory and put it out of commission.

    The Japanese were the first to discover the existance of the jet stream, and take advantage of it.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  49. Of the WWII ... by unknown51a · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...weapons i would have to say that the pigeon guided missile is my favourite.

    --
    I had an imaginary sig once, he said I was a loser and ran off.
    1. Re:Of the WWII ... by Monkey · · Score: 1

      The Russian military also trained suicide dogs during WWII. The dogs (half starved) were loaded with explosives, and trained using the Pavlovian method to seek out food under large vehicles. A trigger device attached to their explosive backpacks, would depress on contact with the underside of a vehicle causing an explosion capable of cutting through the steel under belly of a panzer.

      In one day, alone, in the Izyum sector, these canine tank busters destroyed nine tanks and two armored cars.

      It is said that the dogs were so feared by the Germans, as soon as they heard barking and saw the running dogs, they would frantically turn their tanks around and head back towards their own lines, knowing from experience what was in store for them.

    2. Re:Of the WWII ... by unknown51a · · Score: 0

      wolfgang

      --
      I had an imaginary sig once, he said I was a loser and ran off.
  50. Ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Unfortunatly many still operate on the principle that the end justifies the means. I think this is actually one of the tenents of Neoconservatisim.

    Who's trolling now? How many hundreds of millions have died under communism?

    Why is Hillary's doctoral thesis still under wraps? Could the rumors be true that it's a treatise on how "ends justify the means" in order to advance the cause of Communism?

    Heck, for the most recent example of "ends justify the means" from the left, just look at the 2000 election - Gore wanted to toss the pre-election rules in order to justify his election. That's probably the most salient example of "end justifying the means" ever in US politics - someone trying to use a state court system to impose an ex post facto change in election rules to game the outcome of a Presidential election.

    1. Re:Ends justify the means? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      As opposed to someone using the federal court system to impose an change in election rules to game the outcome of a Presidential election? The change being that you're actually meant to count the votes correctly (remember: the 'Time'-sponsored recount showed Gore won those counties in Florida after all)

      Just curious.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    2. Re:Ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time _might_ have shown that, but a coalition of florida newspapers (and other major media outlets) showed that bush won by about 500+ votes. do a search and see what really did happen.

    3. Re:Ends justify the means? by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

      As I recall, Gore made carefully calculated challenges in counties that favored him, not necessarily in all counties with voting irregularities. The moves over absentee ballots were rotten, too.

      That's when I knew that we would be having a son of a bitch for our president.

    4. Re:Ends justify the means? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Which just says that they should have recounted in all counties, or at least in those counties that either candidate thought important.

      However, denying recounts (espcially when the concerns were later shown to be justified) was a decision made by the Supreme Court, largely in response to a carefully targetted challenge by the Bush campaign.

      As the old saying goes: it doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician still gets in.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  51. One example by karzan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Plutonium Files is an account written by the journalist who uncovered and eventually forced the declassification of the story of about 60 years of secret radiation-exposure experiments by the US government on thousands of unknowing civilians and military personnel, including e.g. feeding pregnant women at a hospital a 'new infant formula' to test the effects of radiation on the foetus. These programmes have now actually been declassified and apologised for by the Department of Energy under Clinton, but few people actually know about them and they are definitely not written about in textbooks!

  52. Japanese wanted to surrender? Why didn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then why the hell didn't they do so until August 15, 1945 - a full six days after Nagasaki.

    If they had wanted to surrender before that, they would have. The fact that they didn't would have to be considered the only fact that really matters.

  53. some are still out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's estimated that 1,000 of those World War II balloons reached North America. To this day, only 286 have been found. Here's hoping the next hiker who finds one has heard the news."

    kinda scares me...

    1. Re:some are still out there? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny
      kinda scares me...
      Over the course of the War's last year, the air balloons traveled as far east as Michigan in the U.S., Manitoba in Canada and as far south as Mexico.
      There might be 714 sixty year-old bombs in that area, so you're within that zone, immediately get up, then quickly and carefully leave! Don't stop to pack, hurry! ;)
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  54. Two words sure do: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pearl Harbor

  55. Re:It was common knowladge in Indiana where I am f by thbigr · · Score: 1

    That is an accident. I wonder what I ment by "hit anything...." Hmmmm.....

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  56. Hadn't heard about casualties by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

    I too had heard about this before - not sure where, possibly in history class in school actually!!!

    I hadn't heard about the casualties before.

    Until the US govt. starts setting up a national firewall like China, there's not much excuse for people not getting to the bottom of news stories. There's all sides available on the Net, and quite often the original source! Hey, I mean, even Satellite TV is like this (and is presumably less blockable unless Satellite dishes or pointing them in certain directions is banned). During the Iraq war I had my domestic Irish anti-war bias TV, the balanced but not always comprehensive BBC, the scary channel (FOX News) and I could even switch to Al-Arabiya (and Al-jazeera at that time) on Sky Digital for the reports being rebroadcast on Sky News and others! Ominously, one can't receive the Arab channels "in the clear" anymore.

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    1. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The casualties are noteworthy because they're the only people killed inside the United States by a foreign military since the Brits burned DC in 1812. There was fighting in Alaska and (obviously) Hawaii during WWII, but they weren't states yet.

      -B

    2. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The casualties are noteworthy because they're the only people killed inside the United States by a foreign military since the Brits burned DC in 1812.

      Didn't the Canadians come after us later in the 1800s after we failed to properly invade them>

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by cluckshot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The war was a bit more substantial than we heard in the press regards domestic deaths. There were several locations where U-Boats shelled both costs, At Battery Park in New York is a monument to the war on the east coast with a name or two (Thousands) that were killed by German actions near or on shore.

      These myths and the argument for security are just nuts. The internet has ended any such secrets. I do think some wisdom in presenting is in order but frankly the day of doing something secretly is OVER!

      My parents witnessed one of the Jap bombs hit a hillside in S. San Francisco and set it ablaze. During the war much in the way of massive forrest damage was done by these bombs. My family includes parties who fought the fires.

      All of this stuff is like the Bush Administration's current cry that "The story is just not getting out" on the rising economy. Well people get notice every week or two of the facts and it's called a paycheck. You can lie all you want but the paycheck tends to bring in the truth. Why do these people never get the story streight? Propaganda is not going to work for long. It matters little what Bush or Kerry says on the economy, the paychecks will carry the truth right to the door of the voters.

      In the modern world not telling a story is often much more dangerous than telling it. This old way of thinking that secrets are valuable is generally just not useful.

      I for example knew (by working in my garden and looking up into the sky seeing aircraft passing the local airport) at least 10 hours before US forces landed in Haiti recently and a good 24 hours before the media got the story. I told family at the time! Telling me that they were not going at that time would have made a liar or fool of the party trying to tell me otherwise.

      The Russians who kept every secret well would not let any clues to their people about the Afghanistan situation out. Well the people got the bodies and death notices and were visited by comrads of the slain. The effect was much worse than just reporting the facts would have been. Americans are trying to run a Russian model here and it will not work. It will not even work in Russia.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    4. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      That was the war of 1812. The US president at the time invaded Canada, was beaten off by our military. Then in retaliation, Canada went to Washington, and burned down the presidential palace. Rather than fixing the damage, they white-washed it, and dubbed it the White House

    5. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by nyekulturniy · · Score: 5, Informative

      As one who has contributed significantly to the Wikipedia article on the War of 1812, I need to clarify this. It was the British forces, not Canadian militia, who landed in Maryland, defeated the DC militia at Bladensburg, burned the public buildings, and then moved to take Baltimore. At Baltimore the landing force was soundly defeated at North Point, and the ship force could not crack Ft. McHenry, so they withdrew.

      The Canadian militia performed very well, but they, like the American militia, faced problems when dealting with regular soldiers. General Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown led a regular US column into Ontario in 1814, mauling both Canadian and British forces at Chippewa. The British victory at Lundy's Lane in July 1814 was due more to Scott and Brown's wounding and the horrific casualty rate on both sides. The American forces actually took the Canadian and British guns, but were too weak to stay. They then mauled the Canadian militia at Fort Erie, Ontario, and moved back over the Niagara, guaranteeing a stalemate in the Northern campaign.

      The War of 1812 was one of those rare wars where both sides accomplished much of their war goals. The US did not annex Canada, but the gateway to the Southwest opened up, enabling us to move westward into Spanish/Mexican territory. The British began to give American positions more respect internationally, including a preference to negotiate agreements rather than fight. Canada became a nation, though Quebec and the Red River settlements were both problematic. There are reasons why both nations celebrate it as a victory, though technically it was a draw.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    6. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! Wikipedia. Now there's an authorative source! haha

    7. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by LSD-25 · · Score: 1

      There have been other deaths in the US during foreign wars. In 1916, a raid by Pancho Villa on Columbus, New Mexico, killed 18 Americans. In the Mexican-American War, there were American deaths in Texas.

    8. Re:Hadn't heard about casualties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the US attacked and were kept back, so the British/Canadians won... even though the US achieved some of their goals.

  57. Invading Canada.... by cmholm · · Score: 3, Informative
    Not taught in American schools? Depends on which school. My high school US history instructor opted to go a bit more in depth on the War of 1812, including the part where Upstate New Yorkers burned down what's now Toronto... then called it a day and marched home. It's suggested that the torching of Washington D.C. was retaliation.

    As for land grabs, while there were a number of prominent Americans that advocated annexing Canada in those days, President Madison wasn't one of them. Rather, it was rabble rousers west of the Appalachians and south of Mason-Dixon.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Invading Canada.... by dbleoslow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was it the same rabble rousers that are always on South Park? "Rabble rabble rabble" God that cracks me up.

  58. You forgot one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Japan is probably the most racist society on the planet.

    Look at how they have rules for how many foreigners are allowed to play on their baseball teams, of all things.

    1. Re:You forgot one thing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The rules about foreigners playing on the ball teams is more because of the national origan. It isn't racisit but more to keep the sport japanese rather then american or whatever. Differences in economics as well as social circumstances might hamper thier abilities to find "as qualified" tallent in japan as aposed to other countries. I see nothing wrong with that unless they are saying that "no outsiders can play" or "everyone but blacks or rusians" or somethign simular.

  59. Include the submarine attack on California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There was an oil refinery near Santa Barabara that was shelled by a Japanese U-boat during WWII, as well. Just because the government says it didn't happen, doesn't mean it didn't actually happen.

    1. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Japanese U-boat? "Did you say, 'over?' Nothing is over until WE decide it is! Was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1
      I also heard of a bunch of Nazi spies being landed on the East Coast in 2 groups. They had all kinds of sabotage and terrorism planned, but were brought down by one of them being a defector (IIRC).
      • This one looks really interesting. It's a book about a German spy tasked with taking down the Manhattan Project.
      • This is a good summary of WWII-related activities in the US (by Germany and Japan). They only provide a handful of links for more information though.
      • Wow. Another great link. Read this.
      No more links. Just look it up yourself. I wasn't able to find a good link for the story.
      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    3. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm a zit, get it?

    4. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by iocat · · Score: 2, Informative
      The nazis who landed, out of uniform, were tried and executed after a (very rapid) Supreme Court appeal. It is that case that provides the precedent for the US executing -- not that we have yet -- prisoners who are convicted by military tribunals at Gitmo.

      There's a great synopsis in a book review here , and the book looks pretty good too.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    5. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by istartedi · · Score: 1

      "A lot" is two words. You wouldn't say "alittle", would you?

      Only sometimes.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1
      [In the] Spring of 1942 Nazi Germany sends a team of eight saboteurs to the United States for purposes of causing havoc in America and crippling their new enemy's war industries.
      Good summary (see parent for link). It is exactly what I was looking for to back up what I said:
      Saboteurs George Dasch and Peter Burger revealed to each other that they were ready to go over to the U.S. side.
      The sentences were all carried out, again in secret, except that Dasch and Burger were rewarded with a commutation to life imprisonment, and returned to Germany after the war.
      It's amazing how lucky we were. If the Nazis had been a little more careful and did not turn themselves in, they could have done some serious damage. Look at how inept we were:
      Dasch called the New York FBI, but they thought it was a crank call. He eventually traveled to Washington, went to the FBI building, and started telling his story. J. Edgar Hoover bombastically grandstanded by claiming credit for the FBI's breaking the case, skipping over the fact that the FBI had come to dead ends until it reluctantly started interviewing Dasch.
      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    7. Re:Include the submarine attack on California by werfele · · Score: 1

      Here's a very good audio link to a story on This American Life. The argument is that while the German government was quite serious about sabotage, the would-be sabateurs themselves were by-and-large not fully committed.

  60. Re:Old news by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    I thought some of the ballast was seawater. The navy had a large collection of samples (mainly pre-war) from various ports and could identify the launch location that way. I could see sand being shipped with the assembled balloon some distance to the launch location, but not water.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  61. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just because we're th good guys


    These days I wonder if we really are the good guys.

  62. Why is it? by east+coast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do most mainstream news articles seem to censor themselves by giving us six paragraphs of patting one self ( the author that is) on the back and rhetorical questions before hitting the meat of the story?

    About half way down the article they finally mention the balloon bombs but by that time I was already bored to death. Maybe the Japanese should have used dullard journalism on us... it would have been more effective.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Why is it? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
      Why do most mainstream news articles seem to censor themselves by giving us six paragraphs of patting one self ( the author that is) on the back and rhetorical questions before hitting the meat of the story?

      Umm... because it wasn't a news story? A little help with definitions: "news" is reporting on stuff that JUST HAPPENED, and contains the who, what, where, etc, right up front. "Analysis" is talking about stuff that (usually) happened long enough ago that there's been some time to think about it. It frequently requires some rhetorical "setting up" before it comes to the point.

      Make more sense now?

      Sean

  63. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

    Dictatorship or not, says nothing about public support of the military and the war.

  64. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    After the Rape of Nanking, its very hard to have any sympathy for any Japanese. -- O.B. Laden.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  65. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

    They were busy in Nanking

  66. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    After the Rape of Nanking, its very hard to have any sympathy for any Japanese.

    After My Lai, it's very hard to have any sympathy for any Americans.
    -- O. B. Laden

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  67. Re:Balloon - Troll? by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your US-centricity is showing. Canada just had a 60th anniversary for D-day in which the Canadian troops were able to drive further into the mainland than any other troops. The US is not the only one who fought and died in WW2. Note that this article is made by a Canadian whose Grandfather fought, Geez!

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
  68. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    Indeed. But under a dictatorship - and under the pre-war military dictatorship in Japan - opposition to the military tends to be aggresively put down. I'd suggest it speaks volumes about the Japanese character that from earflier epsiodes in China and Korea, up to as late as 1945, there was some - understandably limited - opposition to the military.

    Live in a dictatorship for a while - then criticize the silence of those who suffered it. As others have said, it's not always easy to speak out when you're afraid.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  69. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Ralconte · · Score: 1

    Yeah, according to wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloons], by the time the US analyzed the sand in the weights for diatoms and were sure they were from beaches in Japan, the staging areas were already bombed. Oh, and I really like the people drafted to fabricate them eating the yam paste because they were starving -- classic.

  70. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by thbigr · · Score: 1

    Actually of course I should say it started for the USA in 42. Japan was having all kinds of fun before that.

    Actually come to think of it I am pretty sure that Japan bombed civilian targets in China, long before the Germans.

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  71. Re:It was common knowladge in Indiana where I am f by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Who cares about ballons?

    Biowarfare was the big worry. As a carrier for a livestock or agriculture disease (or even people), one successful payload could have caused a lot of disruption. Look at what one case of Mad Cow disease did recently. The allies were certainly doing their own research into stuff like Rinderpest and delivery systems, so they knew it was possible.

    Hmm, interesting. I just Googled and rinderpest to check the spelling. I was about to search on "rinderpest biowarfare" and it occured to me that if I was running things (eek), I'd make sure searches like that got filed somewhere.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  72. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thousands of Japanese troops who took part deserved to be tried for war-crimes.

    The reamining million Japanese civilians who were either (a) ignorant of Japanese crimes, even actions, in Nanking, (b) opposed to Japanese occupation of part of China, or (c) apathetic should not be lumped together with those who commited crimes. By the same token, "all US citizens should be condemned for My Lai". Bullshit. The original post was a generalisation: God, I hate fools who extrapolate and deal in stereotypes.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  73. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep,

    A little known fact, Juno and Sword were actually on the Japanese main island!

    Dude, at least get with the context here. The discussion is the Pacific campaign, NOT the Atlantic. Now if your grandfather also served in Hong Kong you have something to talk about.

  74. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    I believe that one Nazi bomber made a mistake, and dropped its bomb-load in the wrong area. Churchill (who had no way of knowing that it was an isolated incident) responded, and the Blitz began.

    Hitler was evil, but he was also a pragmatist (or at least was surrounded, in the early years of the war, by smarter people than he). His goal was to invade Britain, not waste munitions bombing soft targets. He wanted hard targets - airfields and radar stations, etc - taken out ready for Operation Sealion.

    Of course, later on in the war, Hitler was more than happy to wreak "vengeance" on Britain with the V-weapons. By then pragmatism was irrelevant.

    If there's one lesson I've taken from the Blitz it's the obvious one: In Wars, Innocent People Die.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  75. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dresden.

  76. Still being used today... by Boiner · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We had a fella from Wyclyffe Bible Translators come out and give a demo of what technology is being used in the missionary field. One of his exhibits was a red plastic bag -- looked somthing like a WalMart bag, that had the entire book of John printed on it. Missionaries are filling these bags w/ helium and sending them into Korea and other places.

    1. Re:Still being used today... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Hee! Korean man to his wife: "I read this thing today on a baloon that fell out of the sky, and it really spoke to me."

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Still being used today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think they'd rather have food....

  77. Catchphrases by fnj · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately many still operate on the principle that the end justifies the means.

    Heaven knows I'm not singling you out, but catchphrases like this are devoid of meaningfulness. They are about as meaningful as "The gostak distims the doshes".

    Some ends justify some means. Some ends justify more means than other ends do. News flash. There are shades of grey.

    So let's say you think "it is wrong to kill" (humans, that is). So an innocent 6 year old girl is taken hostage and is about to be beheaded slowly and painfully, then the body abused. You know this from prior deeds, and because the perpetrator announces he will do it.

    You have a clean shot, almost guaranteed to instantly kill the perpetrator and free the unharmed girl. Do you do what you say is wrong, "kill"?

    For all I know you might be a Quaker or other pacifist. If you answer "no", that is your choice, but I am thinking here, chances are your answer will be "yes".

    I think one means just became justified by one end.

    1. Re:Catchphrases by Rogue+2 · · Score: 0
      "Some ends justify some means. Some ends justify more means than other ends do. News flash. There are shades of grey."

      I agree. Robert McNamara raises some great questions about this in the Fog of War documentary. He mulls a bit over how much evil is required to do good, the ethics of bombing civilian targets, etc. He was actually fairly involved in the later bombing campaigns that razed most of Japan's cities to the ground. Now, you may think he's a monster, and well, maybe he is. But throughout the interview he remains unapologetic and tries to come at all these questions very objectively. Fascinating to watch.

  78. You tried to invade us! Of course it's important! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You even had boastful generals claiming they could walk over the country in weeks. We have a right to be proud of the time we repelled an invasion!

    And if you call the soldiers who burned the white house down British, you might as well call all Canadians of the time British. Sheesh!

  79. neighbors to the North by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's neighbours, eh.

    1. Re:neighbors to the North by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about Jim Neighbors! Well Gawwwwwly, Sarge!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  80. A likely story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The event was just a physical manifestation of our opinions re: how much we want you guys to fuck off.

  81. War of 1811 by goldspider · · Score: 1

    Not many people know (well maybe they do, I dunno) that the U.S. invaded what is now Canada in 1811. We probably would control that territory today if the British invasion of 1812 hadn't interrupted and diverted our troops.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:War of 1811 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you hadn't diverted the troops, you'd have lost chunks of territory.

      It was a pointless war, and both sides finally realised it.

    2. Re:War of 1811 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      .... and now we are just biding our time...

      Afganistan and Iraq were just practice

    3. Re:War of 1811 by wasme · · Score: 1
      Well, actually, the American invasion of Canada in 1812 (it started in 1812 ... hence the name: War of 1812) was completely stalled at the border. In the south a force consisting of a British military garrison, the Canadian militia, and aboriginal warriors captured Fort Detroit and the American invasion army there, which would remain in British/Canadian hands for most of the rest of the war. A short time later the American army was stopped again by British troops and the Canadian militia along the Niagara River.

      In 1813 the Americans would have slightly more success, burning York (now Toronto, then captial of Upper Canada) and destroying the British fleet on the Great Lakes, but they never managed to hold onto any signifigant amount of territory in Canada. The war largely ended in a draw, with neither the Americans capturing much of Canada nor the British capturing much of the US (British attempts to capture Baltimore and New Orleans were horrible failures). ... Of course, the British were sort of busy in Europe at the time, and only sent relatively few re-enforcements. The war ended because the war in Europe ended and the American became afraid of battle-hardened British troops from Europe arriving in North America. Britian, on the other hand, didn't really want to spend the money to continue fighting the war.

    4. Re:War of 1811 by jc42 · · Score: 1

      This war does get a few pages in most American history texts. It's called the "War of 1812", though. The more-or-less conventional explanation is that the US government saw the UK, France and Spain involved in a war, figured that they wouldn't be able to spare troops to defend their North American colonies, and sent troops to places like Canada and Florida in an attempt to grab a bit more territory. Unfortunately for them, the British government decided that they could spare the troops.

      It's also fairly common for historians to suggest that this was what persuaded France and Spain to sell some of their colonies to the US in the following decades. Better to get some money from the Americans now than lose the colonies in the next European war.

      As far as I know, this is mostly conjecture and interpretation; the "smoking gun" docs don't seem to exist (and probably never did). But it's all fairly straightforward politics.

      It is true that most Americans couldn't tell you a thing about the War of 1812 other than its name. One of the funnier bits of evidence was the general lack of ridicule some years back when Nixon told us that he didn't want to be the first president to lose a war. A few historians and other educated people called him on this, but the general population didn't much notice. To all but a few history buffs, the entire subject is supremely uninteresting.

      One of my favorite conspiracy theories is that the schools knowingly try to instill the idea that history is boring. This is so that most of the population will never learn anything from history. They have been rather successful at this. But there's the contrary advice that one shouldn't attribute to malice that which may be explained by incompetence. Except for a few narrow subject areas (e.g. evolutionary biology ;-), the schools' abysmal teaching of history is mostly due to incompetence (and underfunding) than anything else. Still, it's fun to argue the anti-history conspiracy theory.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    5. Re:War of 1811 by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The war wasn't over control, but over (believe it or not) trade rights. Remember the complaints the colonists had with the trade policies of the British Empire - that finished goods manufacturing was the provedence of Britain only, and that materials had to be traded with Britain only? Basically, after becoming a seperate nation, the new USA found that it was disallowed from trading with the British colonies that still remained under British control - in other words, "Canada". Faced with similar policies from other European mother countries, the US wasn't being allowed to trade with any neighboring countries, because they were all still colonies of European powers. This was the complaint that was being used to spark the war. The thought was that the only way to have any ability to have a functioning economy for the new USA was for was to break the control of Europe over its other colonies. Since there was still resentment with Britain, the British colonies to the north seemed like the place to start this practice. (Whether it's the real reason or not is, of course, the sort of thing that pundits will argue about back and forth. It became moot after 1812 because the European powers started relaxing their imperial trade policies, under the realization that they wouldn't be able to excercise tight control over them anyway, as the colonies became more built-up and more eager to trade with each other.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:War of 1811 by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      One of the funnier bits of evidence was the general lack of ridicule some years back when Nixon told us that he didn't want to be the first president to lose a war.

      The War of 1812 was a draw. The attempts by the US to take over land in what later became Canada didn't get far. The attempts by the British to take over cities in the US also didn't get far. The reason they burned the white house was because they knew they had to make the operation a hit-and-run and they would be driven out once the armies were gathered if they tried to stay in the capitol.

      In the end, Britain signed a treaty that gave the US the area that was to become Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, and the US agreed to stay out of Canada. It was very much a draw.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  82. Re:Old news by Angry_Admin · · Score: 1

    ahh, I thought it was just some dirt that got in the payload. Didn't think about the ballast, which makes more sense.

    --
    Wait a minute. I got it. You could play with your magic nose goblins.
  83. Re:Balloon - Troll? by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

    I'm English actually. I didn't mean to imply that Canadian troops didn't fight and die in WW2, I just wasn't aware of any examples of battles between Canadian and Japanese soldiers (this reply says they did happen.) I'm well aware that countries other than the US and UK declared war on the axis countries, and people from neutral countries fought for the allies, like my Irish grandfather who was in the British RAF. Both my grandfathers were in the military in WW2, the Irish one was involved in the planning of operation Overlord and the other fought in France from D-day+14.

  84. People don't seem to like the original sources by ianscot · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Until the US govt. starts setting up a national firewall like China, there's not much excuse for people not getting to the bottom of news stories. There's all sides available on the Net, and quite often the original source!

    The part that makes me scratch my head is, people actually express a mix of indignation and boredom over the original sources. What they seem to want to watch instead is talking heads -- "pundits" -- spewing nonsense.

    Imagine the difference with something like this balloon story. You could interview the Japanese policy makers and have them describe why they chose to do it when they did. You could look at blueprints and documents, talk to the makers, and see how the things worked. You could compare this to other intercontinental weapons -- interesting angle -- to see how their (potential) use might be different. World War II as the genesis of "strategic" weapons and the end of the distinction between combatant and non-combatant populations, you know?

    But no, we'd put lots of bilious fools on TV to remind us that the Japanese hated America, or some such stupidity. Because supposedly, the other stuff, the real history, is boring. Or so our TV ratings would seem to suggest. Cut to political ad in which Japanese face "morphs" into the face of myu political opponent. It's depressing.

    But then, I actually watch C-Span...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:People don't seem to like the original sources by mpe · · Score: 1

      The part that makes me scratch my head is, people actually express a mix of indignation and boredom over the original sources. What they seem to want to watch instead is talking heads -- "pundits" -- spewing nonsense.

      Hardly confined to this piece of history. You can see the same thing going on related to much more recent events. Including "reporting" which is a mixture of spin and conspiracy theory. Together with so called "experts" who don't know that much.

      Imagine the difference with something like this balloon story. You could interview the Japanese policy makers and have them describe why they chose to do it when they did.

      About as likely as interviewing the average Iraqi about what is going on in their country...

      But no, we'd put lots of bilious fools on TV to remind us that the Japanese hated America, or some such stupidity.

      Are these the same people who go on about Arabs hating America?

  85. How can I not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, balloon pops you!

  86. That would need to be one awfully big balloon! by daBass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You need a lot of chemicals to kill any number of people. It took over 1 tonne per soldier killed in WWI.

    And remember the Tokyo subway gas attack and how ineffective it was? The same amount of C4 in a place as crowded as that would have done a lot more damage.

    Why do you think terrorists stick to explosives and guns?

    1. Re:That would need to be one awfully big balloon! by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

      You know, you're right. But I'd make sure it spread flames while we're at it. And (nice and lightweight) aluminum carpet staples.

  87. Re:You tried to invade us! Of course it's importan by slackerboy · · Score: 1

    Ummm, they were British citizens. Just as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. were British citizens until the revolution. Canada was still a British colony at the time (until 1867).

    --
    Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
  88. Spy Pigeons by sam_van · · Score: 1
    Also, those wiley Brits attached cameras to the homing pigeons. They'd take them behind enemy lines, releasing the birds so they'd fly directly over strategic targets. The cameras simply had clockwork timer mechanisms to take the photos. At the spy museum in DC, they've got a display of some of the photography where you can see some interesting aerial photography (with the pigeon wingtips at the edge of the photo.)

    Pretty ingenious!

    --
    Thinking of starting a business in Minnesota? Me too! mnsmall.biz
  89. Re:Balloon - Troll? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Yes, as an American, I pine for the days in which you could count on the Canadian Forces, when they punched far above their weight.

    Sadly, those days are over. Canada's military is a joke, milquetoasts like Sweden and Finland are better these days.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  90. What's a "pidgeon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it a pigeon that speaks pidgin?

  91. whose quisine will reign supreme? by chrish · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just me and my coffee-addled sensibilities, but when I saw Balloon Battle! I immediately thought of Kitchen Stadium

    I'd like to see what Iron Chef Chen Kenicihi could make out of those. Go Chen-san!

    --
    - chrish
    1. Re:whose quisine will reign supreme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at a guess, we'd wind up with Balloon Salt Crust Grill and possibly Balloon Ice Cream. Perhaps some Crispy Balloon Strips, Plum Sauce Flavor as an appetizer.

  92. Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by lone_marauder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Though this article was intended to demonstrate the dangers of wartime censorship, the actual history demonstrates a quite different viewpoint.

    The ballon attack plan was never to cut power lines and blow up family picnics. The Japanese had been working for many years on the effective use of biological weapons, and had every intention of using them with the balloons once they had some idea of whether they were reaching the US. Blowing up picnics should have provided them immediate, specific targeting feedback through the US media - much better targeting intelligence than would have been provided by a bizarre outbreak of bubonic plague in the Pacific Northwest.

    Slate's having compared this to burying memos and hiding prisoner abuse scandals, secrets that are kept solely to protect political interests rather than military ones, demonstrates not only a catastrophic failure to understand history, but further weakens the credibility of anyone speaking out against that very same modern politically driven censorship.

    Nice going, Slate.

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    1. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A remark further up noted the author took several paragraphs to get to the meat of the story...the balloons. Actually, the story really was not about balloons...that was just an attention grabbing headline to allow the actual payload to be delivered: an attack on our own country. "Torture memos, torture photos, and chatter in the system must not be erased. Otherwise, we may never understand what we were fighting for." I agree completely...though surely not in the borderline treasonous manner the author intended: we should expose the torture documents, photos, videos, personal accounts, mass graves, and attacks against civilians so that the whole world will know what we were fighting -against-...a brutal dictator in Iraq and terrorist regimes wherever they are found.

    2. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by bitrott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA. Really, the author CLEARLY notes that the balloon incident is clearly an arguable reason for wartime censorship. He's trying to give some context to the debate. He never makes it "comprable" to the abuse scandals. It's always clear that he's speaking to the "public memory" about these issues. Despite what snarky /. history buffs believe, these kinds of things aren't widely remembered. They SHOULD be remembered BECAUSE they give context.

      I think you've suffered a "catastrophic" failure in readin comprehension. You're one of those people that forget, 1/2 through reading anything that they author CLEARLY stated his intentions and goals in writing such a document.

    3. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      Despite what most on the left would like to believe, the difference between being right or wrong about something is not a matter of enthusiasm, a reality demonstrated quite well by your post.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    4. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      from the Slate article:
      "The administration needs to do a better job of providing us with the kind of information that will truly help us--not just this summer, but in decades to come..."

      "This administration...in the decades to come". In the author's eagerness to propagandize he ignores the fact that even if Bush is relected to a second term the administration will remain in office for only another four years, not for decades. It is a pitty that he had to go and spoil an interesting historical anecdote by injecting nonsensical expressions of political bias.

      Not only by referring to the Bush administration does he commit a factual mistake, but he also implies a double standard; Its not ok for a Bush adminstration to keep some Abu Ghraib photos private but it would be ok for a Kerry administration ?

      Instead of:
      "The administration needs to do a better job of providing us with the kind of information that will truly help us--not just this summer, but in decades to come..."

      Try this:
      "Government needs to do a better job of providing us with the kind of information that will truly help us--not just this summer, but in decades to come..."

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    5. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by YouAreCorrect · · Score: 1

      Not only by referring to the Bush administration does he commit a factual mistake, but he also implies a double standard; Its not ok for a Bush adminstration to keep some Abu Ghraib photos private but it would be ok for a Kerry administration ?

      The all depends on how the economy is doing.

    6. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torture memos, torture photos, and chatter in the system must not be erased. Otherwise, we may never understand what we were fighting for." I agree completely...though surely not in the borderline treasonous manner the author intended:

      Calling treason! Great way of killing off freedom of speech.

      Amen to you!

    7. Re:Slate's legendary objectivity strikes again by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Polemics For Dummies anyone? PUHLEASE! I'm at best a moderate and often a social liberal (although, if my girlfriend had her way, I'd be voting for Nader *shuddeR*) Your partisan BS is stinking up this thread. Deal with the issue at hand, make up a response that is actually... I dunno, A RESPONSE? What I demonstrated : A calm, rational response to the coffee house musing of one political correspondent. What the parent thread brought to the conversation : Jack and Shit. It's not THEM vs. YOU. Liberal/Conservative = All in your head....

  93. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by thbigr · · Score: 1

    No, once again read your history. The blitz of LONDON a civilian city started in 41.

    Yes you are making good points. Yes in the yearly part of the Blitz, Airfields where on top of the list, followed by other stratigic targets.

    Hitler went "crazy" and wanted to break the Londoners spirit by bombing them into the stone age. This was in 1940-1941. All of this did happen before we fire bombed Germany, Before V-Weapons, before Pearl Harbor, (It was horrible).

    But I am just sort of upset about your comment that the alies invented this, when it realy isn't true.

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  94. Re:Balloon - Troll? by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boy, now you are just getting me depressed. Now if all major conflicts could just be determined on the ice we could really kick ass.

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
  95. Re:Balloon - Troll? by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a troll.

    Until our (u.s.a) ill-planned assault on the Iraqi people, it's highly likely Canada would have stood by the U.S. even if Britain had declared open war on us.

    Fat chance of that now, with people like you bashing them at every opportunity.

  96. obligatory google link to Santa Barbara Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:obligatory google link to Santa Barbara Attack by rworne · · Score: 1

      And Spielberg made this wonderful documentary about it back in 1979 starring John Belushi. He got the year wrong though.

      Major General Joseph W. Stillwell: "Bombs! I don't hear any bombs! Now they're up there. They came all the way from Asia. Don't you think they'd bring a few bombs along?"

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  97. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have the distinct feeling I have been trolled. However I will continue regardless.

    Firstly, Little boy and fat man were both A-bombs, the N-bomb was developed far later and never used in actual warfare. Secondly they wern't guided, they were parachute retarded. Thirdly one of the reasons Hiroshima was chosen over Kyoto as the target of the first bomb is that Hiroshima had a larger amount of military infrastruture.

    Forthly, the Japaneese started the war in the pacific. They invaded China, Malasia, Singapore and New Guinea amongst others. They sunk British and American merchant ships, they murdered millions of chineese civilians in cold blood, they carpet bombed Darwin, they starved POWs and they torpedoed American warships without declaring war. Basically they started an evil war, and the Americans had to nuke them in order to get them to stop. This is a little different than sending baloons over the pacific in order to help their tyranny over Asia to continue.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  98. Another word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guernica.

  99. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You quite succintly expressed a very common sentiment up here.

  100. Killing wildlife to spread Bible verses by Secrity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scattering Bible verse covered plastic bags is littering. Beside being unsightly, plastic bags can also be deadly to wildlife. Littering Korea (either North or South) with plastic bags is not constructive.

  101. more secret weapons: Grimsby Butterfly Bomb by Willard+B.+Trophy · · Score: 3, Informative
    News blackouts during wartime aren't just a US thing.

    On June 24 1943, the English fishing port of Grimsby was bombed with experimental "butterfly" anti-personnel bombs. A total news blackout on this raid caused the Luftwaffe to abandon butterfly bombs after one raid, since they thought that the devices were ineffective. Quite the opposite was true -- many people were killed or injured by the butterfly bombs. Unexploded devices were still being found in and around Grimsby until quite recently.

    In March 1941, the Scottish town of Clydebank was razed by German bombers. The first news that people in the nearby city of Glasgow heard of it was when survivors started walking in from Clydebank.

  102. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by stanmann · · Score: 1

    30/= thousands.
    how can you compare the actions of a battalion or army to the actions of a platoon or squadron??

    do you see the difference.

    War is constantly changing. As weapons grow more precise, the death tolls rise and fall. They rise when weapon technology makes existing tactics very high in manpower cost and fall as tactics change to account for new tech. Imagine for a moment, fighting a 18th century pitched battle at 30 m using modern bolt action or even lever action weapons?

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  103. Re:irreversible? we'll see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wrong topic buddy

  104. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish I had some points to do so m'self.

  105. They even managed to bomb Nebraska with them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Omaha, and there's a little plaque outside a store near my house describing how one of the bombs went off in the night sky right overhead. The local papers supressed the story, thinking the Japanese would use the information to more precisely "target" future balloon attacks.

  106. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    My point is: that one should not condemn an entire nation for the actions of part - even all - of the armed forces. I'm not sure I understand the additional points you're raising about whether I understand the difference between actions commited by {arbitrary quantity of soldiers} and {another arbitrary quantity of soldiers}.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  107. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I don't feel so bad about dropping those A-Bombs....

  108. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    Indeed. The event I was refering to occured in 1940, as part of the build up to Operation Sealion (the abortive invasion of Britain that never occured).

    PS. I studied history in a British University. Does that count? Though I appreciate you telling me that London is a civilian city... ;)

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  109. Little know if you dont read the paper. by baomike · · Score: 1

    Every so often one of the local papers has a article
    about the balloon bomb that killed a family in southern Oregon.

    Fort Stevens (Astoria) was also shelled early in the war.

    Part of local folklore:
    balloon bombs
    Fort Stevens
    exploding whale crushes car
    Columbus Day storm

    1. Re:Little know if you dont read the paper. by bedel · · Score: 1

      the whale is real!
      I have an mpeg of it happening!

  110. Chemical no, Biological yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bueaty of many biological war agents is that they are contagious. While it may not be practical to unleash a biological agent in a war where you will be coming into contact with your enemy, as a terrorist agent it is perfect. It would only take a small amount released inconspicously to infect say... 25 people in a mall. If each persons spreads it to 6 other people and it is a relatively unseen disease, by the time anyone figures out what it is there could be a large pandemic on hand.

    It is something that would scare people (because it you can't see the disease coming) and it causes double the work (the # of people sick plus a large # of people to take care of the sick).

  111. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn.

  112. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we're on the subject of feeding trolls, people should do some research on what would have happened if the allies invaded the main Japanese Islands.

    For example: http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

    The ensuing carnage would have made Iwo Jima look like a summer picnic. My guess is at least another 10 million Japanese would have been killed. Which body count would you rather have?

  113. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by thbigr · · Score: 1

    So then you still believe that:

    You're aware that Allied forces pioneered bombing civilian populations

    Hu? I can accept that we where first in the pacific theater. But in general, Bombing of civilian populations, was not done by the allied side first.

    Its just a strange statement and not accurate.

    -Richard

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  114. A few tidbits about AK-47 vs. M16. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that Mikhail Kalashnikov--the designer of the AK-47--really lucked out when he designed that famous assault rifle.

    Despite his denials, I still believe that Kalashnikov may have seen captured examples of the Sturmgewehr 43 and 44 weapons that the Germans used during World War II and applied some of the German weapon concepts into the AK-47. But the AK-47 incorporated one thing that made it famous: its firing chamber mechanism was designed to be extremely reliable even in the worst conditions of mud, snow and high humidity. The result was a superb weapon, one that was much-lauded for its extreme reliability and reasonable accuracy in the long-barrel versions.

    Meanwhile, the M16 was designed to such tight tolerances that it made the weapon quite susceptible to firing chamber jamming in poor operating conditions, as the Americans found out much to their chagrin in the mud and high humidity of Vietnam. That's why the M16 evolved into the much more reliable M16A1, which had a number of design changes to improve its reliability under poor conditions.

    By the way, the appearance of the M16 made to Soviets want to develop an assault rifle that used smaller caliber ammunition; the result was the AK-74, another outstanding weapon, though one that was developed surprisingly with some opposition from Mr. Kalashikov, who thought going to the 5.45 mm calibre cartridge wasn't such a good idea.

    1. Re:A few tidbits about AK-47 vs. M16. by fugspit · · Score: 1
      I think that Mikhail Kalashnikov--the designer of the AK-47--really lucked out when he designed that famous assault rifle.

      He may well have gotten lucky with the design but whilst listening to a radio show about him the other day, I learnt that apparently the designer of the M16 got paid, something like 10cents for every M16 made and ended up with millions. Mr Kalashnikov got the grateful thanks of his fellow commrades.

    2. Re:A few tidbits about AK-47 vs. M16. by airdrummer · · Score: 1

      a few yrs ago russian war booty was on display @ the r.r bldg in d.c.: hitler's desk w/a glass globe w/ a swastika etched on it, military banners displayed on the floor (very symbolic, that;-) in front of ww2 photos of the banners, great stuff...

      and there was a comparative display of german & russian weapons: the german guns were beautifully machined, the russian were stamped steel, looked like toys, but they could crank 'em out, much like the u.s. advantage of many sherman tanks vs. fewer panzers...

      and each german gun took a round specially designed for its intended use, while all the russian guns, from pistol to machine gun, took the same round...u can imagine logistical advantages of that;-)

      funny, isn't it, that the u.s. has adopted the german design philosophy (better but fewer) while the russians went 4 mass quantities...

  115. Re:You tried to invade us! Of course it's importan by laura20 · · Score: 1

    It's not the fact that *you* think it's important that bugs people, it's that we keep seeing Canadians claim that the fact that the White House was burned in the war of 1812 is some great secret. Dolly Madison hightailing it out of the White House as British troops closed in, George Washington's portrait under her arm, is one of the most retold incidents in American history. "Why is the White House white?" (because it was repainted after the burning) is a common trivia question.

    We know. Really.

  116. Canada's military is no joke by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    They just know when and how to use it, meaning that they don't use it often.

    Have you forgotten that Canadians died helping us (USA) in Afganistan (you know, our war that was actually necissary)?

    Also I can say, as an america amatuer pilot, who has recent experience working in the aerospace/defence industry (I did F22 engine development), who has great pride in the abilities of our air force, that Canadian pilots are probably the best trained, most skilled bunch of aviators on the planet.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  117. scary concept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now imagine 4-5 small teams of terrorists criss-crossing the Western US during the extended drought we are experiencing randomly setting forest fires. The cost in lives, damage and control measures costs could be huge!

  118. trite quotes by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is /., so I'll trot out the trite quotes.

    In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
    -- Sir Winston Churchill.
    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  119. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    That wasn't my comment, though I did say that Allied forces - inadvertently - were the first to deliberately bomb civilians: after one Luftwaffe bomber released its bomb load in error over a civilian area (Braintree in Essex, I think).

    Just to clarify: the Luftwaffe during 1940 were targetting RAF fields, and did not want to waste munitions bombing civilian targets. (RAF) Bomber Command also did not want to attack civilian targets - partly due to humanitarian concerns, partly due to the sheer lack of munitions in Britain at the time. Bomber Command's policy changed once it was believed that the Luftwaffe were deliberately attacking civilian targets.

    Lest I be accused of being an apologies for Hitler, I condemn whole-heartedly Nazi attrocities. The Luftwaffe has already bombed cities in Spain, Poland, the Low Countries and France. The reason they didn't - yet (1939, 1940) - in Britain was due to Hitler's perverse idea that Britain could be "swayed". Fortunately he was wrong; unfortunately it didn't matter in the long-run. And that's the moral: In War, Innocent People Die. No matter how careful either side is.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  120. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is an annual canoe tournament between Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and US Navy Seals. To the best of my knowledge, the US Navy Seals has never finished better than fourth despite carrying better and more expensive equipment than any other participant nation.

    Would be interesting to have the Russian Spetsnaz participate in that tournament as well, for nothing else than to demonstrate how easily they would win I suppose.

    Mod me as troll and see if I care...

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  121. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Punko · · Score: 1

    The bombs were dropped on Japan for two reasons: 1) quick way to end war in Japan to avoid massive American casualties 2) clearly demonstrate that the US had nuclear capabilities to deter Stalin.

    --
    If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
  122. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course, the Canadians didn't have the same level of resistance on their beach that the Americans experienced on Omaha beach - so your point that the Canadians were somehow 'better' is false.

    However, they would have their own trial taking Caen (was supposed to be taken on D-Day - but wasn't secured for 6 weeks, I believe) - running up against SS Panzer units in a drawn out slugfest that ended up leveling the city and bloodying the Canadians badly.

    Later, the Canadians would make a name for themselves during intense fighting in Holland, earning the 3rd Canadian division the name 'Water Rats'.

    Everyone who fought on the Allied side in WWII should be commended for their sacrifices, regardless of what country they come from. Taking some isolated situation out of the context of history, and trying to use that to bolster a falacious argument does not do them justice.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  123. how about assault bats? by zogger · · Score: 1
    no, not baseball bats, halloween styled flying critter bats. When the US was contemplating invading the japanese home islands, one of the schemes cooked up was to strap on some tiny incendiary bombs to little bats, drop them over various japanese cities, where they would fly down all over and seek nests under eaves, etc. The idea was to cause thousands of random fires, spread out all over cities, making it impossible to fight them all. The project, according the short review in the link below, came to a halt when ther bats burned down some US air force base, testing I guess.

    Here's an amazon page with a book on the subject

  124. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Photar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, lets not forget that Russia lost more people in WW2 than every other country combined.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  125. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn.

    Past bedtime for little trolls?

  126. It's spelled "balloons." by JessLeah · · Score: 1

    It's spelled "balloons", not "ballons".

    1. Re:It's spelled "balloons." by thbigr · · Score: 1

      My dad was an English teacher. I got enough of this stuff at home. Can I please be at peace on this web site?

      --
      Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
    2. Re:It's spelled "balloons." by JessLeah · · Score: 1

      No. I'm getting really bloody sick of the incredible lack of English knowledge exhibited by 'Netizens.

    3. Re:It's spelled "balloons." by thbigr · · Score: 1

      So you are sick of it. Why do I have to hear about it? Isn't that realy your problem? Why do you think you can make it my problem?

      Ego, Ego, Ego...

      --
      Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
    4. Re:It's spelled "balloons." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just his problem. You're an idiot if you think it isn't mostly YOUR problem. You think you get much professional respect if you can't spell worth a damn? You think it doesn't hurt your job prospects and your future when you can't spell simple words? It's your loss more than anyone else's.

      And it's "really."

  127. One of these bombs hit Omaha, Nebraska by puzzled · · Score: 1


    One of these bombs landed near the intersection of 50th street and Underwood in Omaha, Nebraska. There is a commemorative plate on the drugstore at that corner describing the event. I can maybe take a picture of the plate later today and post it if people would like ...

    FYI this location is about six or seven blocks from Warren Buffet's house.

    --
    I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
    1. Re:One of these bombs hit Omaha, Nebraska by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I can maybe take a picture of the plate later today and post it if people would like ...

      I would love to see that. Could you post a link here or send me a message on AIM if you do this?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  128. The Really Huge Press Failure of Today by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Prisoner rape in US prisons is the huge story that isn't being reported by US press. This is for a variety of reasons, but when the Slate article says:

    We believe it never happened, just as our children might have been led to believe Abu Ghraib never happened.

    They are acting as the press always does: Protect the US government from the public becoming aware that sexual sadism toward prisoners started here, against US citizens.

    If there is anything worthy of the term "terrorism" it is the fact that the US government acts like a serial rapist that simply cannot control himself when it comes to the very demography that not only must "comply" with a vastly disproportionate tax burden, but which also makes up a disproportionate number of the deaths on the Iraq occupation: white males.

    From Human Rights Watch "No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons":

    Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison. These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch's own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse. Although many whites reported being raped by white inmates, black on white abuse appears to be more common. To a much lesser extent, non-Hispanic whites also reported being victimized by Hispanic inmates.

    Other than sexual abuse of white inmates by African Americans, and, less frequently, Hispanics, interracial and interethnic sexual abuse appears to be much less common than sexual abuse committed by persons of one race or ethnicity against members of that same group. In other words, African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: "only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano." Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim's group would retaliate against the perpetrator's group. A Texas inmate explained, for example: "The Mexicans--indeed all latinos, nobody outside their race can 'check' one without permission from the town that, that person is from. If a black dude were to check a mexican w/out such permission & the mexican stays down & fights back, a riot will take place."The causes of black on white sexual abuse in prison have been much analyzed. Some commentators have attributed it to the norms of a violent black subculture, the result of social conditioning that encourages aggressiveness and the use of force. Others have viewed it as a form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society. Viewing rape as a hate crime rather than one primarily motivated by sexual urges, they believe that sexually abused white inmates are essentially convenient surrogates for whites generally. Elaborating on this theory, one commentator surmised that "[i]n raping a white inmate, the black aggressor may in some measure be assaulting the white guard on the catwalk."

    Some inmates, both black and white, told Human Rights Watch that whites were generally perceived as weaker and thus more vulnerable to sexual abuse. An African American prisoner, describing the situation of incarcerated whites, said:

    • When individuals come to prison, they know that the first thing that they will have to do is fight. Now there are individuals that are from a certain race that the majority of them are not physically equip to fight. So they are the majority that are force to engage in sexual acts.

    Another African American inmate, while generally agreei

  129. This is so last war! by vDiver · · Score: 1

    Uh, I've seen tons of stuff on these... of course I'm in OREGON, where one of these things actually killed several members of a family.

  130. American use of AK47s in Iraq by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    I think what he was talking about was American soldiers using confiscated AK47s in Iraq.

    As the insurgency grew, more armor/artilery/other non-infantry units were being used for infantry type duties. I believe the 4 man crew of a M1A1 tank gets 2 M-14s (shorter version of the 16) and 4 pistols. Americans were picking up AK47s because they were the only automatic rifles they could get their hands on in short order. Many american soldiers also like the AK47 more than their M16s because it has more "stopping power" at close range (particularly when the enemy does not have body armor). And when you are fighting street corner, to street corner, you don't need the increased accuracy of the M-16, you need to make sure who you shoot goes down, and stays down.

    There was a story about this on NPR(?) a month or so ago.

    Don't get me wrong, the M-16 is a great gun, but it is not superior to the AK47 in all ways (nor is the AK47 superior to the M-16 in all ways). Get the right tool for the job.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:American use of AK47s in Iraq by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Many american soldiers also like the AK47 more than their M16s because it has more "stopping power" at close range (particularly when the enemy does not have body armor). And when you are fighting street corner, to street corner, you don't need the increased accuracy of the M-16, you need to make sure who you shoot goes down, and stays down.

      Interesting. Maybe for close-up work, our guys should get these...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    2. Re:American use of AK47s in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      type duties. I believe the 4 man crew of a M1A1 tank gets 2 M-14s (shorter version of the 16) and 4 pistols. Americans were picking up AK47s because


      The M14 is _not_ a shorter version of the M16. The M14 is a battle rifle, the M16 is an assault rifle.

      The M4 carbine (also not an assault rifle) is the shorter smaller variant of the M16.

      The M14 uses heavier bullets, is more accurate, and is the *better* rifle of the two. It also doesn't have that pesky self-jamming feature the M16 has.

      In a battle, choose an M14 or an AK47, not an M16, and definitely not an M4.

    3. Re:American use of AK47s in Iraq by indiechild · · Score: 1
      In a battle, choose an M14 or an AK47, not an M16, and definitely not an M4.


      to see what the better weapon is, look at what the US elite use. They're mostly using M4 series carbines now. Sure, M14s and AK47s get used too, but it sure looks like most operators prefer the M4, especially if they don't need the long-range capability of the M14.

      The bigt achilles heel of the M4 is its shorter effective range (compared to the M16), so it's not quite the perfect all-round weapon. But for short and medium range it's ideal, and probably a better compact choice in many situations than a SMG like the MP5.
  131. terrorism vs war and democracy by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    September 11 didn't, however, have military value. It was just intended to kill random people, and make people sad. If, however, there had been a war on, it probably could have been considered a valid attack against economic infrastructure.

    They were striking the decision making body of the United States (the people, as in "We The People..."). To demostrate that we are vulnirable to their attacks, and to state that the policies of our governement (elected by We The People) were unacceptable to them. Also to Bin-Laden and company, the war had already been on for about 10 years.

    They understand what most americans rambling on and on about attacks against the "innocent" don't. In all contries with a representative democracy (By The People..) the populus is no more "innocent" than the government, or the military, as the governement and the military are just extensions of the peoples will and power. The only people who are truely "innocent" in the USA are those who are too young to vote. If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.

    The blood is on my hands too.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      It was a valid strike, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't 'military' in any sense of the word.

      They understand what most americans rambling on and on about attacks against the "innocent" don't. In all contries with a representative democracy (By The People..) the populus is no more "innocent" than the government, or the military, as the governement and the military are just extensions of the peoples will and power. The only people who are truely "innocent" in the USA are those who are too young to vote. If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.

      That would be true if America was a democracy, which it isn't. America is a representational republic specifically designed to remove decision-making power from the masses.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      That would be true if America was a democracy, which it isn't. America is a representational republic specifically designed to remove decision-making power from the masses.

      Decision making is buffered from the masses, but the masses are still ultimatly responsible for the decisions, anything else is dictatorship.

      If you think the people are not ultimatly responsible for the governments actions, ask yourself if we would be fighting in Iraq if Gore had won the election.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      If you think the people are not ultimatly responsible for the governments actions, ask yourself if we would be fighting in Iraq if Gore had won the election.

      If the people were responsible, America would not be in Iraq regardless of who is President.

      That having been said, the worst way to run a group is by pure democracy; 'the will of the masses' is far too fleeting and uninformed a thing by which to run a country.

      Besides, that's a bad choice, because as far as I'm concerned, Bush didn't win the presidency, and there was outright treasonous fraud going on in Florida. But that's another conversation, for another time. :-)

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.

      So there is blood on my hands even though I vocalized my discontent with every single thing the government has done to cause the bloodshed?

      Simply stating something does not make it true.

      There is no blood on my hands, and probably none on yours, really. Just because a majority advocates something, it is not the responsibility of all, and certainly not the fault of the minority being overshadowed.

    5. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by Warlok · · Score: 1
      If you think the people are not ultimatly responsible for the governments actions, ask yourself if we would be fighting in Iraq if Gore had won the election.


      It think that proves the opposite point - a majority of the American poeple voted for Gore in the last election. The Supreme Court gave the election to Bush the Younger.


      Now ask yourself if it was worth it. What changes has it made in your life? Is your life any better or worse? Has government done what it is chartered to do by the Constitution by waging this war? How about the open-ended undeclared wars on terror and drugs?


      Now ask yourself if we went to war to free the Iraqi people, why haven't we done the same for the Tibetan people, or the Timorese people, or the North Korean people, or the Cuban people, or any other people around the world who aren't free? Once you figure that out, ask yourself why Iraw again, and then re-ask yourself whether the costs of this war cover the gains.


      At this point the only effective method the American people have of stopping their government is to read, understand, and follow the words in the Declaration of Independence that says "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to [the rights of people], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
    6. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      That is all true, but the supreme court wouldn't have been able to hand it to bush if it hadn't been so fucking close in the first place, meaning that a large number, even if not a majority, did want bush.

      I don't think that another violent american revolution is nessisary if the american people can be convinced of the issues you spoke of. If that was the case the type of politicians we have would change... (and if they can't be convinced, then the revolution would fail).

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    7. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      I perhaps overstated the case; I certainly feel that you and I have less blood on our hands, but...

      Did you do everything in your power to stop the war? Was there nothing more you could have done?

      I know that I might have been able to convince one more person to go to a protest, I could have gone to another protest myself. If all of us had done a more, we could have persuaded enough people that this was a bad idea and an imoral thing in the first place, and then maybe the war wouldn't have happened.

      So yes, I do feel that I bear some responsibility for what happened (but not as much as all of the supporters of the war).

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    8. Re:terrorism vs war and democracy by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Did you do everything in your power to stop the war?

      Touche, good point. No, I didn't. So, I suppose, you are right.

  132. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting! There is also an annual NATO competition which typically involves an amphibious landing followed by a two day trek through snow (all of these events happen at a high latitude like Greenland, Iceland, or Scandanavia) to "rescue" a hostage being kept at a base in the mountains.

    En route to, or at the base, the teams are met with full on resistance (every once in a while someone is killed and just about every time someone is seriously injured). Once the hostage has been "rescued" there is another two day trek back to the pickup rendez-vous which requires swimming over one mile from shore in freezing water and strong tides to a vertical recovery point.

    The U.S. SEALS have never failed to win this competition!

  133. yes, the need to float in a new generation of .... by zogger · · Score: 1

    Liberator Pistols, as used in ww2. Just make them better than those original ones, and use whichever caliber is most prevalent in north korea. The little comic that came with the original one was pretty stark and to the point. It showed joe oppressed person sneaking up to some local soldier of the heinous regime (back then obviously the nazis), popping him in the head, then taking the now "liberated" rifle.

  134. Yup Big Time by ericlp · · Score: 1

    We can put better stuff on /. I am sure.

  135. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, here's something worse: Americans poured millions of tonnes of what is known as Agent Orange on Vietnam, which contains some of the worst toxins ever known.

    This in spite of knowing a few years ago that the chemical would do widespread damage to civilians. Today many Vietnamese and their children live with birth defects and other disease.

    You think Chemical Ali is bad? Sorry, this is worse. And very sad.

    Apparently, Agent Orange is a herbicide and was to be used to clear the jungles as part of a US strategy. See the BBC article.

  136. funny stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is hilarious. Who knew that those cute little slant eyed gooks could be so smart. Those ape-nosed niggers just kill me with their kooky games and bukakki!! Long live the yellow people!

  137. do you REALLY think by zogger · · Score: 1

    the various people other than americans on the ground over there AREN'T aware of what the troop movements are? The only thing that media censorship does nowadays is to keep US civilian population uninformed and brainweashed by only getting approved propoganda, it doesn't stop one iota of data getting to anyone else who wants it "over there". Think about if they had as complete a lock on media and communications as they had in ww2, we wouldn't know about the torture cases right now. Look how many people are still connecting iraq weith 9-11, because of offical US government FUD, lies, propoganda and the willing compliance of some of the mass media initially. If it was censored completely, they would still be getting away with all the lies they used to start the war, as it is now, because we have cracked censorship, at least some of the truth is getting out and people can be free-er to make some hard choices.

    The deal is, the US government is as big a pack of liars and murderers as any other government out there, therefore, people need to know what's going on so they can cease being brainwashed and get some more points of view and some more data to decide if what we are doing as a nation is correct or not. I mean, just how many exposed lies is it going to take to get the point across that they ARE liars and there's a lot more going on than what they admit to? The day after 9-11 we had the worlds sympathy and support, now we have the worlds condemnation and disgust and mistrust, and it's preciely FROM various peoples around the world being able to beat back government censorship that this has come about. It's GOOD to be able to counteract red chinese FUD, lies and cernsorship, and it's GOOD to be able to do it in other places like the USA and england and everyplace else. Enoughs enough on the national jingoism and on wars for profit, and being proud of being brainwashed, save it for the sports games, not for something as important as wars and national policy, no matter who starts them, no matter which "party" says what, more good info = better. Fighting censorship is the best way to start to end this forced madness that infests generation after generation.

    1. Re:do you REALLY think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US government is as big a pack of liars and murderers as any other government out there,

      nahh, if they were then IRAQ would be a big glass bowl with a 7/11 in the middle of it.

      they would have no problems using nukes, considering that ther is no opposition on the planet to them right now that can even try to retailiatate.

  138. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah.. Reminds me of the joint training operation between Swedish armed forces and NATO forces in the mountain range between Sweden and Norway (was told this by my Captain when doing military service).

    A platoon of 'Mountain Seals' (Fjälljägare) from Sweden (probably Arvidsjaur) captured the whole company of NATO troups (Seals outnumbered about 6:1) in less than 24 hours. Gives me SOOOO much faith in NATO troupes I positively glow.

    I suppose it just goes to show that having significant financial backing doesn't automatically make good soldiers.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  139. Re:One such baloon is on display (in Tokyo) by aggles · · Score: 1

    The Edo Museum in Tokyo has a great exhibit that shows the Japanese view of WWII. There is a balloon bomb hanging from the ceiling, and a map of where they think they hit. Most of the impacts on their map are in Canada (sorry about that, eh). There is also plenty to see about the firebombing, and a mockup of a home, with "wishful thinking" fire fighting equipment. The museum is a must see if you are Tokyo, and is beside a Sumo museum. -aggles

  140. This used to be a great bar bet by AKAJack · · Score: 1

    ...before the Discovery Channel stuff.

    "I'll bet you the Japanese bombed the U.S. MAINLAND during WWII and innocent civilians were killed because of it."

    The answer (copied from some random web page):

    "The only fatalities from enemy activity on the mainland of North America occurred May 5, 1945, in Bly, near southeastern Oregon's Fremont National Forest, when a church group encountered one of the explosive bombs from a balloon. The explosion resulted in six deaths of civilians."

  141. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been googling for the "canoe" competition you mentioned and I haven't found any references to it. Do you know where I could read more? What is involved in the competition?

  142. The *current* japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The current Japanese administration and people could apologize for it, but they insist on pretending that it never happened.

    Just like with the Korean "comfort women". These women were captured into sexual slavery in WWII, taken to Japan, where they still will not be recognized, compensated, or even granted Japanese citizenship. Not ever their children, who were born in Japan!

    I don't peg the ills of one generation on their children, but it is the current people in Japan who don't seem to have a problem with living this lie.

    Contrast this with Germany. They faced their evil past, dealt with it, and have gone on with their lives with well-deserved pride.

  143. Re:Speaking of censorship... It's more like denial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >For example, in the rape of Nanking, the Chinese government list a death toll of more than 300,000 people. However, according to various sources (including John Rabe, the chairman of the Nanking Safety Zone Committee) there couldn't be more than 300,000 people left in Nanking when the Imperial Army arrived. So the death toll given by the Chinese authorities are rather dubious.

    Actually, I believe Nanking was a major city like, say Chicago, and had millions of people living in it. It might be a bit hard for all those people to get away when the Japanese army was attacking. Not saying you are wrong, Just saying the official account might be true.

    I once read a book by someone who survived the massacre as a little kid. He hid and saw Japanese soliders tossing Chinese babies up in the air and practiced their sword swings (for the officers)and bayonets stabs(soliders) - apparently the Japanese army was very frugal with ammunition. After two days, he crept out in the night and saw dead bodies everywhere, mostly mutilated.

    I think the Japanese government goes beyond censorship. It venomously denies all the atrocities committed by its army in Korea (slavery), China (massare, biological/chemical experiments on civillians), Southeast Asia (massare) and so on, even in the face of all evidence. Probably because a lot of former WWII generals became powerful figures in the government.

    possible flamebait: Personally, judging by the younger Japanese people I have known, I can't wait for the old diehards to kick the bucket and let more enlighten people take over. That goes for almost all the government in the world actually.

    Oh, on the other hand. I think dropping atomic bombs on civillians was also a war crime. So Japan has its share of the pain. People should just remember war is never right. Doesn't every major religion tell you 'thous shall not kill' (don't know for sure, I am not religious). It's not 'thou shall not kill with thy own hands'. If you order someone to drop a bomb, you are killing.

  144. This would explain.... by xgamer04 · · Score: 1
    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  145. Don't Bother, just another Abu Ghraib rant by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Some slightly interesting information meant to lure you in so you can listen to a rant about Abu Ghraib.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  146. Re:Balloon - Troll? by PW2 · · Score: 1

    Alliances change over time for better or worse -- they'll get over it one of these decades

  147. Canadian tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worth noting that the government program that produced this particular site has been axed. "Canada's Digital Collections" http://collections.gc.ca/ has about three more months online before all these historical articles go bye-bye.

  148. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A platoon of 'Mountain Seals' (Fjälljägare) from Sweden (probably Arvidsjaur) captured the whole company of NATO troups (Seals outnumbered about 6:1) in less than 24 hours. Gives me SOOOO much faith in NATO troupes I positively glow.

    And which units comprised the NATO troops? I can see some of your supposedly elite guys capturing a normal unit; by your use of of 'Mountain Seal' I suppose they are of high calibre. If they are experienced in unconventional warfare it's all about doing your job.

    On the other hand, why don't you go head to head with the SAS, Delta, or a Seal Team? I'll tell you why, because your soft-bodied little self would have his soul owned at 1000 meters by a Barrett .50.

  149. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, not having been in real combat since the Napoleonic Wars means the Swedish miliary is not battle-proven, no matter how some war game may have turned out.

  150. All Your Balloons Are Belong To Us by Vexler · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Nuff said.

  151. Unexploded bombs in USA? How about the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kinda funny to see people worrying about the few bombs over the vast land of US. When I lived in the UK. The next door neighbour dug up an unexploded bomb in the backyard that was about half of grown man. My girlfriend and I totally freaked out when the bomb squad people told us what happened and told us to leave the house for a while.

    My co-workers laughed when I told them and enlightened me to how many of those are dug up each year because Germans dropped tons of them. In US and Cananda, WWII is ancient history. In Europe, you see the effect of it still.

  152. Re:yes, the need to float in a new generation of . by Secrity · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do with missionaries littering a country with plastic bags. Do the N. Koreans shoot litterbugs? The Liberator Pistols, although crap, seem to have been built just fine for their intended use. The most prevelant handgun ammunition in N. Korea would be either 7.63mm Mauser or 9x19mm. The prevelant caliber of ammunition in N. Korea is probably irrelevant as the 10 .45 cal. rounds included with the Liberator Pistol are probably more than adequate for the pistol's intended use. The oppressor depicted on the instruction sheet was much more likely to have been Japanese than Nazi as most of the Liberator Pistols were distributed to China and the Phillipines.

  153. Re:Balloon - Troll? by mal3 · · Score: 1

    Nope, sorry. A team from a state with no natural ice just beat Calgary Flames for the Cup.

    --
    Non gratis rodentus anus
  154. British Incendary Balloons in WW2 by Catmeat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Japanese Fugo balloons are indeed widely known. However what is little known is the use of balloons in WW2 by the British.

    In 1940, an anti-aircraft barrage balloon was ripped loose by a storm and drifted to Sweeden. The drifting steel wire caught on a power cable and shut down most of Stockholm's metro system. From this came the idea for Project Outward.

    The balloons were much smalled than the Japanese Fugos as they only needed to cross the North Sea. Each carried an incendary bomb intended to start forrest fires or a trailing steel wire intended to short-out and destroy power grids. Several tens of thousand were launched from Harwich in eastern England from 1941 to 1944. AFIK, no serious fires were ever started but at least one German power station was overloaded and destroyed.

    Full details are in The Moby Dick Project: Reconnaissance Balloons over Russia by Curtis Peebles. This book mainly deals with the Cold-War American Genetrix spy balloons but has a chapter on the Fugos and Project Outward.

  155. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    well damn! now we don't have the Canadian military to back us up if we're attacked! whatever shall we do!?

  156. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sigh, I guess if a battle ever hinges on canoeing speed the Seals will have to outsource the job :(

  157. Balloons were intended to drop plague bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Japanese sent the balloons over with incendiaries to start fires. The Japanese hoped these would be reported in the American media so they could trace air currents with sufficient accuracy to use plague-balloons against populated areas. Given the Japanese willingness to use biological weapons, the internment of Japanese enemy aliens living in the western USA was indeed justified.

  158. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I believe that one Nazi bomber made a mistake, and dropped its bomb-load in the wrong area

    Well, I certainly don't have a fine British liberal education, but let me just mention a couple of places I happen to have heard of given my inferior, biased, insular American education so often lampooned on Slashdot.

    Guernica: April 26, 1937.

    Rotterdam: May 14, 1940


    There seem to have been a lot of careless German bombers accidentally dropping their bombs in the wrong place all together early on in the war, even before the RAF reached their "just drop them anywhere; at least you'll kill some Germans" phase.

    The Blitz on Britain was not the first occurrence of terror bombing even in WWII. But let's not forget about the earlier world war, and the famous Zepplin raids.


    It was the Germans who first grasped the psychological implications of bombing a civilian population. Using mostly zeppelins in the early years, they instilled fear and panic in the people by flying over their cities. This became a regular practice and made the Germans seem much more powerful and omnipresent in the minds of their enemies.


    More on early WWI bombers.

  159. not Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were Jews, they'd be raking in billions, for "reparations".

    1. Re:not Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that most Jewish families from Germany didn't deserve to be compensated for having lost their belongings and property?

      What a fucking bigot.

  160. Re:minister's wife...Didn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's in there.

    gewg_

  161. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    I googled for it as well, coming up with nothing. I was told about the tournament by a class-mate that did the Seal (Kustjägare) training during military service. I will try and locate more information about said tournament. I was in looking through www.armen.mil.se earlier, but got distracted, so will look for stuff about this tournament later.

    What is in the tournament? They are dropped off, somewhere in the archipelago outside Stockholm, given a destination and an objective, and then they are on their way. Two guys, one canoe per team and whatever equipment they have elected to take with them. Not sure if there are other troups looking for these guys while they are 'in transit'.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  162. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "assault on the iraq people"? what the fuck is wrong with you? its the WAR ON TERROR.. we're not killing women and children (at least not on purpose), we're killing terrorists.. you know, the guys that DO kill women and children on purpose! remember 9-11? REMEMBER 9-11! fucking whiny pussy bitch ass faggot

  163. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    > the Swedish miliary is not battle-proven

    Tell that to the guys doing UN service in Kosovo. I have lost a close friend that I did military service with, down there.

    I resent your remark about the skills of the Swedish military. We might not have a salaried professional military, that is still no reason to underestimate it. Just FYI, there are only two pilots in the world that has managed to get a missile lock on the SR-71 Blackbird, one is an American pilot, the other pilot just so happens to be Swedish.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  164. Biological Weapons Delivery Was Next by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not exactly the pinnacle of the science of precision bombing. Can't really see it catching on.

    Imperial Japan intended to switch from incendiary payloads to biological payloads. Anthrax spores, fleas infested with plague. Imperial Japan committed thousands of atrocities in China researching these weapons. And by "atrocities" I don't mean the modern definition of humiliation and emabarassing photos, I am using the real definition of the word as in dropping infested fleas on a village, when the plague took hold sending doctors to "help" the sick, and performing live vivisection (cutting into living animals for scientific research) without anesthesia on these victims back at the lab. A secondary delivery system developed was using submarine launched aircraft. A ceramic bomb casing was used so that a smaller explosive charge could be used to disperse infected fleas, the smaller charge permitted more fleas to survive. I think San Diego or San Francisco were early targets, but I am not sure. The atomic bombings preempted these attacks. You may debate whether the atomic bombs or the Russian invasion of Manchuria prompted the surrender, but the atomic bombings left little doubt in the minds of those researching a biological attack on the US what our response would be.

    Unfortunately the US let those involved with the atrocities in China go. These criminals traded their excellent notes for their freedom.

    The balloon delivery is still feasible today. "Funny" is the last thing anyone with half a brain would label your comment.

  165. Re:You tried to invade us! Of course it's importan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subjects.

  166. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    > And which units comprised the NATO troops?

    Fairly standard units I would imagine if they let a whole damn company get captured without inflicting any loss on the opponents.

    > by your use of of 'Mountain Seal' I suppose they are of high calibre.

    The "Mountain Seals" are not your average Joe Soldier, that is for sure. They are the type of guys that will parashute in behind enemy lines, hide for a few weeks, fire a single shot (usually to take out some high officer) and then ski back to friendly territory just to do it all over again. I have more respect for these guys than I have for the Navy equivalent.

    > On the other hand, why don't you go head to head with the SAS, Delta, or a Seal Team?

    The SAS (UK Special Forces) are very very good, that I will not dispute. They also have a characteristic that I admire very much. They are not arrogant stuck up twits just because they are elite troups.

    > I'll tell you why, because your soft-bodied little self would have his soul owned at 1000 meters by a Barrett .50.

    In the duty I performed in military service, the .50 Barrett would not have concerned me particularly much. RSV grenades or AT mines would be higher on my list of things to worry about.

    The stock response to .50 cal fire would be to saturate the area with 7.62mm machine-gun fire until cannon was loaded with correct grenade.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  167. Re:Balloon - MetaTroll? by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1

    Your US-centricity is showing. Canada just had a 60th anniversary for D-day in which the Canadian troops were able to drive further into the mainland than any other troops.

    That's great: Canadians should rightfully be proud.

    But, remind me again exactly what Canada's participation in D-Day at Normandy had to do with their participation in the war against Japan, which is clearly what the OP was referring to.

    Perhaps your "The only WWII that mattered was in Europe"-centricity is showing?

  168. The 90-day thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start here.

    gewg_

  169. Re:Balloon - Troll? by pianophile · · Score: 1

    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.

    This bit of Daoist(?) wisdom was more elegantly (or at least more succinctly) stated by Joseph Campbell, who said, "He who says he knows, doesn't know. He who says he doesn't know, knows".

    Yes, offtopic. Sorry.

    --

    'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
  170. Only casualties on US soil?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if you don't count places that were possessions of the USA but hadn't yet gained statehood.
    Dutch Harbor and Fort Mears (Note the page title.)
    Attu

    I also liked the part where they took down Hanford for 3 days.

    gewg_

  171. Rarely talk about war deaths within North America by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    I think there's been some amnesia about war deaths that occured within North America. This perhaps contributed to the feeling that we're safe here in the US- the enemy kills "over there." A good sense of "it's rare, but it can happen here" would have been more useful than the "it can't happen here" feelings that existed pre-9/11.

    Post 9/11 I remember commentary on how this was the first major strike in the US from an enemy-- as if that whole British/Canadian invasion and burning down the White House hadn't occured. But that's old history.

    But more recently, during WWII German submarines made it fairly far up the St. Lawrence Seaway. One of my grand-uncles was killed on Canadian soil by German soldiers from a sub. I don't know if this also happened to American soldiers- if it did I didn't read about it in my history books.

    In addition, the Germans came fairly close to being able to bomb Canada and the US from the north. German subs were going into James Bay and dropping off portable metal runways: economics kept them from finishing that project and bringing in special planes. Had they finished, German planes could have hit Chicago or Toronto from a remote launch point less than 700 miles away. (Another of my Canadian relatives saw the remants of these German runways when he was growing up in northern Ontario, which is how I heard of it. Again, not through a history book.)

  172. Japanese Fire Balloons by Macgoon · · Score: 1

    If anyone would care to see the payload from one of these devices, visit the RCMP Museum in Regina Saskatchewan - at least it was on display last time I was there.

  173. Being from Oregon It was common knowledge out here by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    I think the reporter picked a bad example of lost history. The ballon attacks are very well known here in Oregon where it happened. I've also seen several documentaries that mention the ballons. In fact only a week ago, I visted a small museum in that area that had an exhibit dedicated to that very subject.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  174. Re:yes, the need to float in a new generation of . by zogger · · Score: 1

    It is somewhat relevant as to the "floating in"part. Rather than floating in a tract on a plastic bag, they could float in something useful to help those people liberate themselves, and they could include a tract along with the instruction sheet-graphic. And you use what ammo is readily avaialable in that nation, so the pistol doesn't become useless after the original supply of ammo is exhausted.

    I've only seen one of them, the little cartoon showed a soldier in a fritz helmet getting popped.
    I'm pretty much against almost all the wars lately, a non interventionist, but in the case of north korea, I wish we had gone in there and finished the job way back in the 50's, even if it meant war with china at the time. We waited too long, IMO, now both red china and north korea have nukes and huge amounts of conventional warfare capability, and they haven't changed a bit when it comes to their ideals of world totalitarianism, let alone their obviouspersecutions of various religions beyond "cult of the leader" which is the only religion tolerated in those nations.

  175. No by zogger · · Score: 1

    No, they didn't want to use a lot of nukes, because that would have negated their purpose of going in. They didn't go in to liberate the iraqis or to remove terror threats, they went in to STEAL THE OIL and to establish a permanent large military presence on the ground there, which they have done, so they can go from country to country and keep stealing the oil, and make the mideast safe for zionism, as most of the administration is composed of israel-firsters, and are quite racist to boot. They are as crazy and jingoistic as the most radical mullah, IMO. Fundamental nutjobs are the same all over the planet, it doesn't matter which creed they adhere to. They become fundamentally restricted from seeing any point of view other than their own, and their usual reaction is to kill/demonise/whatever those who oppose their particular paranoiacal views.

    And they pulled this off by lying about the purpose and about iraq, and they murdered over 11,000 civilians so far in doing it. That makes them liars and murderers. And we know this now because the internet and instant global communications for the average guy has cracked censorship wide open.

  176. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  177. Re:Old News by nlindstrom · · Score: 1
    Don't forget the blacksmith who used an unexploded bomb for an anvil. The fuze had been removed, leaving him to believe it was safe to hammer away on the bomb.

    Click here for the full story.

  178. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

    Did you read the newspaper with the Japanese Generals who were competing to see who could decapitate the most Chinese? If you read the Rape of Nanking, there is a picture of the paper on there. There was no outrage at it, infact I've read in places people kept watch on it to see who won. Not to mention, how many soldiers occupied Nanking? I don't have any sources with me cause I'm at work but it was quite a bit. How many went on trial after?

    The Japanese people knew it was going on, maybe not to the exact extent, or some of the horrible atrocities, but they did nothing about it. By letting it happen and not atleast feigning outrage or demanding them to pay, I do lay some of the blame on them.

    Look at the prison scandal in Iraq, say no one really was outraged here, the people who did it weren't punished, it was just let go. Would you blame the American population for letting it happen and continue?

    I hope this makes sense, after 16 hours at work I'm a bit asleep at the wheel.

  179. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

    Just like to add the Hiroshima was also one of the cities that was basically let off on the huge bombing raids the American's did. I believe Nagasaki was fairly untouched by bombs also.

  180. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Photar · · Score: 1

    Actually, you know I think there is a distiction between the two. I like my signature better for its repitition of the word "know". But you know that.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  181. Great I can see it now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some one set us up the baloon.

  182. Hillary what? by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

    What is the rumor?

    1. Re:Hillary what? by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      I was curious myself so I looked and found this. Seems her thesis argued that "community-based government anti-poverty programs don't work", and her college refused to release a copy of it to a journalist. And yet three decades later her husband proposed community-based government anti-povery programs. My god, how do these liberals sleep at night?

      Actually, looking a bit further, other accounts by people who claim to have read it say its about a 60s radical, Saul Alinsky, who apparently advocated lying as a path to power (never heard of him before, myself, so don't quote me on that) ... see here and here. To be fair, that's a more disturbing thesis for a former First Lady and current Senator to have written. But it was 1969 and she was young; revolution was in the air. Give her a break!

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  183. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Disoculated · · Score: 1

    Er, what good is a missile lock when no missile you could fire could possibly catch it?

  184. Agreed by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

    I was disappointed, but not surprised, when neither side took the high ground and suggested a less biased approach, such as a broad recount, to some clear problems. Gore entered a targeted challenge. Then Bush countered with a targeted response of his own. Both went out to create a victory rather than a just election, one to reflect the actual votes. I knew then, as I had suspected during the campaign, that we were about to have a conniving bastard in the White House. Your saying held true.

  185. Re:Balloon - Troll? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    Me troll? Assault on Iraqi people? Please tell me you don't really believe that.

    Canada's military is in a shambles. Just ask anyone...the military itself, the government, the people. They lack sufficient force even to perform banal missions such as protecting their fisheries. A sad state of affairs, one I hope is only temporary.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  186. Oops AC was right... M4 by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    sorry, my bad, I meant M4... not M14

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  187. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
    I believe Nagasaki was fairly untouched by bombs also.

    Well, it hadn't been left untouched and as such was the backup target. Kokura was the intended target but was obscured by smog and hence the mission redirected to the first backup target. There was substantial cloud cover but the bomb was dropped anyway through a rift in the clouds, missing the city center by several miles.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  188. Re:Balloon - Troll? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

    What?? Okay, so you see a post that mentions Canada was at war with Japan, and mentions that therefore a baloon bomb landing in Canada is just as successful as one landing in the US (in reaction to the post that came before it which implied it wasn't), and you use accuse that poster of being US-centric??? Why?

    Misplaced accusations of national jingoism are sometimes themselves another form of national jingoism.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  189. Re:You tried to invade us! Of course it's importan by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    And if you call the soldiers who burned the white house down British, you might as well call all Canadians of the time British. Sheesh!

    Precisely. That's what they *were*.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  190. Re:Balloon - Troll? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    SR-71 Blackbird - Mach3
    Standard Issue SideWinder Missile - Mach6

    Go Figure.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  191. Upon first read.. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    I thought the article was talking about the ! and ? that appear above character's heads in RPGs and Anime/Manga.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  192. Re:weapons of mass destruction? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    sort of like the american soldiers in that arub whatever prison in iraq.. i agree with you but differences in actions like this could hinge on wether or not they are spnsored activities of the current government. I don't believe for a minute that bush or anyone ordered torture of the prisoner just as i don't believe that any of the other leaders present when the jews were killed, the japs and other situations described in earlier posts are in power still.

    People will use whatever they can for amunition to arm the ignorant if it would advance thier cause. It is bullshit that some people can't look past the smoke screens and have thier own inteligent opinion based on realistic resoning like you do.

  193. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/roster?team=tam

    15 Canadians
    3 Americans
    6 Other

    It's a Canadian team, by proxy...

  194. Re:Balloon - Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have to bum rides off the Americans to get to peacekeeping missions. That's humiliating, to say the least.

    When the Conservatives get in on the 29th of this month, they're gonna boost funding to the military (substantially). Unless something happens to derail their campaign, that is. The last thing we need is four more years of arrogant liberals... well, the NDP would be worse.