Slashdot Mirror
Search For RMS Titanic Was a Cover Story
wiredog writes "According to National Geographic, Robert Ballard's search for the RMS Titanic in 1985 was a cover operation for the real search: They were looking for the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, two US nuclear submarines that sank during the Cold War." ABC News also has a story on this two-fer undersea search.
... Submarine sinks you
This is sheer fabrication. The wreckage of the Thresher was located years earlier, I recall seeing pictures of it probably in the 1970s, if not the late 60s. They sent the Trieste down to photograph the debris field.
Now, maybe the Navy wanted Ballard to re-photograph the area to determine any changes, but it wasn't to "find" the subs.
-- Alastair
Cesar Noragueda
The states could have simply not put Hussein in power and everyone would have been ahead. The Taliban was defeated within a few months and now they're just stalling.
Under Hussein's regime, the percentage of houses with access to clean drinking water and electricity was higher than it has been after several years of US occupation. And the GP poster was I believe only referring to the thousands of US soldiers killed in battle, and not the tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by US "whoopsies."
Google us marines haditha for one of the many stories of US soldiers getting "carried away" or "caught up in the moment" and then going door to door pulling the elderly and crippled out of wheelchairs and executing them.
The states could have simply not put Hussein in power and everyone would have been ahead.
I enjoy your "diplomacy via time travel" concept, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Here in the real world, however... the reality is that had we not done something, Saddam likely would have gassed more of his own people than are dead today, twice over. Of course, if you listen to the left-wing, Saddam was made out of cotton candy and puppies and could do no evil.
Comment of the year
Those were Wheelchairs of Mass Destruction !
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
twitter strode into the room and told the unvarnished truth, rough diamond that he was. The assembled Microsoft shills jeered at him and he looked crestfallen. Erris watched from the sidelines and then piped up 'he's right, I found this article on MacTrope's journal'. Later they...
Damn you. Now I'm need to overwrite my brain with the backup I made before I started writing this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Here in the real world, however... the reality is that had we not done something, Saddam likely would have gassed more of his own people than are dead today, twice over.
Gassed them with the chemical weapons he didn't have?
Grr! Arg!
There is little doubt that Saddam must have had the capability to gas his own people, many modern pesticides could be used for that with few alterations. The question was if he had the capability to manufacture high quality chemical weapons of the type that are dangerous to anyone, not the capability to kill his own people.
Heck, if he really couldn't get his hands on any other chemical weapons, he could just use Chlorine, which is not hard to get (a number of insurgent attacks have already been carried out with it) and very deadly.
Just because there's no evidence Saddam had chemical weapons doesn't mean he couldn't have gassed people. The two are entirely different matters, with one (chemical weapons) being highly tailored chemicals designed to kill the highest number of people from a distance, even if highly dispersed, and the other being easy to acquire but not very effective unless used in controlled circumstances (chlorine is useless because its visible and easily stopped by a gas mask).
Trying to simplify something as complex as chemical and biological weapon capabilities down to a simple Yes/No boolean is foolish. There are a near infinite range of possibilities. The US has the capability to very quickly and easily manufacture a boatload of chemical weapons (of the real weaponized kind, not the other kind) yet if you asked the average person if the US had chemical weapons I bet you'd get a response of No. Same goes for biological. Weapons are complex, especially when you start talking weapons that have other purposes besides war.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I think a mod does not share your sense of humor.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.