Slashdot Mirror


Plan C: The Cold War Plan Which Would Have Brought the US Under Martial Law

v3rgEz writes with this story of a top secret Cold War plan which would have brought the U.S. under martial law. Starting on April 19, 1956, the federal government practiced and planned for a near-doomsday scenario known as Plan C. When activated, Plan C would have brought the United States under martial law, rounded up over ten thousand individuals connected to 'subversive' organizations, implemented a censorship board, and prepared the country for life after nuclear attack. There was no Plan A or B....Details of this program were distributed to each FBI field office. Over the following months and years, Plan C would be adjusted as drills and meetings found holes in the defensive strategy: Communications were more closely held, authority was apparently more dispersed, and certain segments of the government, such as the U.S. Attorneys, had trouble actually delineating who was responsible for what. Bureau employees were encouraged to prepare their families for the worst, but had to keep secret the more in-depth plans for what the government would do if war did break out. Families were given a phone number and city for where the relocated agency locations would be, but not the exact location.

313 comments

  1. Urban legend? by Zardus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...

    --
    You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
    1. Re:Urban legend? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      The govt can actually keep secrets sometimes. Crazy, right?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. I have two relatives that would have been in the FBI then and I've heard some weird stories but nothing about this. I can see the government wanting to do a plan like this, but building the plan is an entire fantasy.

    3. Re:Urban legend? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...

      It probably was just one of a multitude of government-produced silly guides about what to do in X unlikely (or hopeless) scenario. Anyone with even common sense would have known that any "plan" involving the aftermath of a true major-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would be as worthless as the paper it's printed on (maybe good for starting a fire for a few unlucky survivors). No one probably took it seriously enough to bother leaking it.

      In the event of a major nuclear war:

      Call this number (all the phone lines are down),
      Stay tuned to this emergency TV station (no electricity),
      Go to this city (you mean the highly radioactive rubble of that city?),
      Stay in this bunker (and do what?),
      Arrest this person (everyone at this address is dead)
      Respect this authority (I can't even find safe food)
      etc.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But things still get out.

      What's changed are the targets. In the '50s it was the leftists. Now the government targets right-wing groups.

      For example, a recent training exercise involved "handling" a right wing group called "Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny".

      They don't actually exist, but the government is so paranoid of right wingers that they make up groups to train against.

    5. Re:Urban legend? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The govt can actually keep secrets sometimes. Crazy, right?

      The probability of a secret being kept is proportional to the reciprocal of the square of the number of people that know the secret.

    6. Re:Urban legend? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Nothing in that plan seems all that implausible, given other extraordinary measures that have actually been effected (the detention of Japanese-Americans in WW2, the McCarthy commission, etc). And it's highly likely that various governmental organizations had plans on how to deal with imminent nuclear attacks.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Urban legend? by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

      F.A.S.T. hey! thanks for the idea.

    8. Re:Urban legend? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      No joke, the US Army has plans for "if we have to invade Canada."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Urban legend? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where's the problem? Just ask nicely, they're Canadians!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you read the article (heresy!) you'll find that this isn't the plan for the aftermath of a nuclear war, but for the days leading up to one, to smooth the way for a transition to martial law. The preconditions are that the US must be engaged in military action overseas with the Soviet Union or its allies, that an attack on US soil seems imminent, and that the President approves a transition to martial law. The main point of the plan is to contain Soviet threats within the US prior to an attack on US soil, specifically by seizing Soviet-bloc embassies in DC and NY and searching them for nuclear weapons and by seizing people that might carry out an attack on US soil. It's not the post-apocalypse COG plan you think it is (that's Plan D, according to one of the documents included on the page).

    11. Re:Urban legend? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Did you actually find that somewhere or just make it up?

    12. Re:Urban legend? by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Funny

      1) Call Marine Corps Friday morning
      2) Wait till end of weekend
      3) Declare victory!

    13. Re:Urban legend? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Or mabey it did get out, but you most likely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Which is how most secrets are kept is getting people to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, and throw in aliens and reptilian overlords so you simply don't believe anything the mainstream news doesn't push, repeatedly.

    14. Re:Urban legend? by jddj · · Score: 2

      Can't comment on exactly _this_ plan for doomsday, but my Dad was a highly-placed official in the Post Office Department/Postal Service during the 60s-80s, and there was a CoG (Continuity of Government) plan, at least for leadership.

      Don't ask me who they thought was going to deliver the mail.

      Dad was supposed to abandon the family and head for a specific place in the mountains 90 or so miles west of the city. (There was plenty DC traffic in the '60s, but it wasn't anything like it is today - and the exurbs weren't crowded with townhomes, Costcos and Ferrari dealers).

      Dad had his instructions, and while he was a good soldier, I seem to recall he told me he couldn't have left us. Knowing the man, I think that's right.

      Besides, the plan was destined for obsolescence once MIRVs and multiple H-Bomb city-busters were developed. There's just no way to survive something like that and have remaining anything like the civilization we enjoy.

    15. Re:Urban legend? by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, considering the armed insurrection at the Bundy ranch, and the raft of armed right-wing gun-toters ready to confront law enforcement while using women and children as human shields, it would be extremely bizarre if they weren't running training exercises. One could say that they would be negligent if they weren't...

    16. Re:Urban legend? by umghhh · · Score: 4, Funny

      The mail would have been delivered by Kevin Costner.

    17. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and the raft of armed right-wing gun-toters ready to confront law enforcement while using women and children as human shields

      Citation needed.

    18. Re:Urban legend? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...

      It was a classified document, even if it was widely circulated, so why wouldn't you expect it to not become publicly known for years if not decades? My Google-fu is weak ATM, but there have been authoritative accounts of President Eisenhower pre-designating significant power to various individuals in the event of a nuclear war and break down of communications circulating for at least a decade. (Essentially these individuals were to become 'regional czars' with broad Executive authority.) Other hints and allusions to this plan have been circulating in the [academic] strategic weapons and warfare community for years.

    19. Re:Urban legend? by stephanruby · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with government conspiracies.

      They don't make it into the mainstream media until the government declassifies it, or until someone is prepared to become a traitor and defect to Russia to lend some credence to the story.

    20. Re:Urban legend? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, considering the armed insurrection at Ferguson, and the raft of armed "activists" ready to confront law enforcement while using peaceful protesters as human shields while burning the property of completely innocent people to the ground, it would be extremely bizarre if they weren't running training exercises. One could say that they would be negligent if they weren't...

    21. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the part where your white house was burned to the ground, and you gained zero ground during the last "invasion"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      "friendly fire" accidents will take out 1/3 of your forces.

    22. Re:Urban legend? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The various staffs of the armed services constantly run "what-if" scenarios like this. They are not evidence of any sort of intent, they're just thought exercises on how to carry out an attack on or defense against any particular opposing force. This is just war-gaming at a professional level which can be used to sharpen planning skills when they want to break out of planning yet another Middle East scenario.

    23. Re:Urban legend? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      No doubt filed between the plans for invading Cameroon and Cape Verde. Updated once every 5 years. It's one of the important ones. The two I mentioned are on a 20 year schedule.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could say that you are a cunt.. I just did :)

      Truth hurts, doesnt it.

    25. Re:Urban legend? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I grew up during the cold war, the term "plan C" sound vaguely familiar. The military is expected to "plan for every scenario", it's unsurprising they came up with silly plans for a nuclear - most primary school kids knew that fallout made "duck and cover" a sick joke. It's an attempt to make people feel like they can "do something" other than dying.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:Urban legend? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I don't know, both the French and the Germans attempted to conquer a frozen Russia/Soviet Union and ultimately failed. the Soviet Union attempted to conquer an even more frozen Finland and failed. From the climate perspective it wouldn't be terribly easy to invade and conquer as a lot of armchair chickenhawks like to think.

      And even if Canada were successfully invaded and occupied, and if somehow the British Crown didn't object and rally all of the other Commonwealth Realms to make war, there's the issue of the shared language and similar cultures making it extremely easy for Canadians to blend-in to commit acts of insurgency inside of the United States. Think of the issues that the UK had with Irish insurgency during The Troubles, where appearances were similar even though accents were vastly different, and now dampen down how much difference can be quickly profiled through speech, and one would have a really big problem.

      Don't get me wrong, the United States could probably still do it, but it wouldn't be a simple walk in the park either.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    27. Re:Urban legend? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Did you actually find that somewhere or just make it up?

      I just made it up. But it sounds plausible. As more and more people know a secret, the probability of a leak will increase more than linearly, because people are more likely to believe the leak cannot be traced back to them. But I don't really think it would be quadratic. More likely something like 1/(n*log(n)).

    28. Re:Urban legend? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Wondering who is going to be sending mail after a nuclear war. I think the water bill can wait and Sears isn't going to be doing mail order for a while.

    29. Re:Urban legend? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, the United States could probably still do it, but it wouldn't be a simple walk in the park either.

      You're joking eh?

      Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... Did you forget the lessons taught here (well obviously, if you remembered what happened in Vietnam, Iraq would never have happened).

      When a population is committed to opposing an invading force the invasion will never been finished. The Troubles didn't end through the martial might of the British, it ended because the cause of the conflict was resolved. For 48 years the British tried to use force to solve the issue, in the end it was diplomacy that bought the conflict to an end. When a population has cause to fight, they will continue to fight, Sun Tzu called this "the moral law", whichever of the sides the people believed to be more right was imbued with the moral law.

      The reason the US has been able to hold onto states like the Dominican Republic and Grenada is the fact the majority of the people accepted that the US was the better side in the conflict. Vietnam and Iraq on the other hand, the US was seen as the worse side, supporting corrupt governments and ideals.

      If Canada was resolved to fight a US invasion dont kid yourself, you'll never hold Canada.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Urban legend? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm actually kind of happy what happened at the Bundy ranch. It shows you can still push back against the government.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    31. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because of a few unusual cases? I'm sorry... but your going to put a whole country or even a city into lock down over a insignificant number of lives? Do you realize how many people die EVERY day? I value life- but lets be honest. If we wanted to we could significantly reduce the number of deaths in this country and it wouldn't require martial law. Merely nationalizing the health care system for instance would reduce the death rate significantly as everybody would then be covered... and this haphazard system we have with insurance companies involved is half of whats costing lives. It's not saving lives.

    32. Re:Urban legend? by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

      Fair enough - http://www.washingtontimes.com... And, BTW, the Washington Times is not like, say, the Huffington Post so you cannot dismiss it immediately. Cheers!

    33. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? What about the Weavers where this asshole killed an innocent woman by blowing fragments of her skull all over her infant.

      Of course, instead of starting a fucking firefight, they could have caught Randy Weaver when he drove into town for errands, but that's not sexy, now is it?

      Sorry son, try again. The government is the one that's out of control.

    34. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you taking about?

      This sounds like what is happening right now just over a longer time period...

      And what has gone before countless times for millenia....

      And enevitably go on for countless more....

      Face it. We as a species tend to vote/allow complete sociopaths to run things on a staggeringly consistent basis.

      Its a human thing....

    35. Re:Urban legend? by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

      You missed the part that Canadian was the Brits.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
    36. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you the one good thing about it is that it is short and very concise.

      ie. 'The Usa loses again!'.

    37. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up during the cold war, the term "plan C" sound vaguely familiar. The military is expected to "plan for every scenario", it's unsurprising they came up with silly plans for a nuclear - most primary school kids knew that fallout made "duck and cover" a sick joke. It's an attempt to make people feel like they can "do something" other than dying.

      These days, we have the TSA,

    38. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering the armed insurrection at the Bundy ranch, and the raft of armed right-wing gun-toters ready to confront law enforcement while using women and children as human shields, it would be extremely bizarre if they weren't running training exercises. One could say that they would be negligent if they weren't...

      How does the bottom of your masters' boots taste, you pathetic piece of shit ?

    39. Re:Urban legend? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2

      I'm Canadian. I'm not British. And I take offense at the idea that I could be. Fuck the Queen.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    40. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely there'd be a lot of collaborators. I'd be fine if I were freed from oppressive taxation and social liberalism.

    41. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've served, and we'd own Canada within two weeks..

      And then you woke up and realized it was all just a wet dream after you played video games too late at night.

      Big talkers like you are always liars.

      We know you still live in your mom's basement, but it's ok, she likes having you around.

    42. Re:Urban legend? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      More like an episode of The X-Files.

    43. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those sneaky Canuks burnt down the White House. Best not to be too trusting, eh?

    44. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it difficult to believe that some people have a job where part of what they do is theorycraft to come up with possible scenarios that could happen and how to best deal with each? Hell, there is a whole agency where it is done on a daily basis to protect just a few people: the United States Secret Service.

    45. Re:Urban legend? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Never believe anything until its been officially denied.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    46. Re:Urban legend? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But they were leaked, in bits and peaces. ADEX, Rex 84 etc. I suppose now we can all safely assume that these are not pure imagination, but simply contorted parts of the real story.

    47. Re: Urban legend? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not exactly failed. Russia still owns a big chunk of Karelia.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    48. Re:Urban legend? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Um, you do realize that Canada is a commonwealth state and the queen is the head of state, right?

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    49. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!!! It's not urban legend. This crap is real. The govt is preparing itself. Look up REX84. Look at laws and regulations that FEMA has. Look at how your local national guard base used to be all friendly and nice to you, base tour days, parades, etc, and how they are now installing extensive physical perimeter security everywhere and staffed with a bunch of dicks. They're planning for some sort of mass action by the populace.
      It's not as if you can't see it coming with corp and govt basically fucking the people over every chance they get.
      You can't plunder the people every which way for decades on end without expecting a mass rise up to correct it.
      Yet they will accept no political correction.

    50. Re:Urban legend? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      yes!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    51. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a quote from "The Hunt for Red October" by Clancy. I don't know where Clancy got it.

    52. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, eh.

    53. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what world does a lone nutter, a Sheriff and an employee of the state no less, qualify as "right wing GROUPS" that are supposedly "all over the place". Kinda reaching there, aren't ya bud?

    54. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, both the French and the Germans attempted to conquer a frozen Russia/Soviet Union and ultimately failed. the Soviet Union attempted to conquer an even more frozen Finland and failed. From the climate perspective it wouldn't be terribly easy to invade and conquer as a lot of armchair chickenhawks like to think. And even if Canada were successfully invaded and occupied, and if somehow the British Crown didn't object and rally all of the other Commonwealth Realms to make war, there's the issue of the shared language and similar cultures making it extremely easy for Canadians to blend-in to commit acts of insurgency inside of the United States. Think of the issues that the UK had with Irish insurgency during The Troubles, where appearances were similar even though accents were vastly different, and now dampen down how much difference can be quickly profiled through speech, and one would have a really big problem.Don't get me wrong, the United States could probably still do it, but it wouldn't be a simple walk in the park either

      99.9% of the juicy bits of America's Hat is less than 200 miles from the US border. Logistically, the US would have a hard time because roads are sparse up to some of the points (on the US side) and there are two coasts. That's a week campaign at most once assets are lined up.

      US troops would be sucking down your Molsen Golden with your blonde lassies in their tents in very short order. You fucking chickenshits don't even have any guns outside the military anymore. You pantywasted them away decades ago. Insurgency would be basically harsh words "Go away, eh!"

      Nobody would need to conquer the tundra. What would anybody WANT the great frozen north for? All they'd have to do is move in during summer and stop shipments of food and refined fuel for a winter then go loot the frozen corpses the next spring. The only real risk there is the russians coming in and trying some shit for oil.

    55. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where to start..

      First:
      "1/3 to friendly fire? You're joking, right?"

      No, feel free to use google and search for all the times you have killed your own.
      Here, i will do it for you
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq

      Well trained indeed...

      Know how i can tell you probably didnt really "serve"? If you did you should be aware of the friendly fire stuff. Heck, if you read a newspaper you would know about the incidents.

      Next, canada wasnt formed until 1867 so those were the british who did the burning.. The funny thing is since the war of 1812 was only 36 years since "independence" those were "British" forces on the US side as well. Washington and the like were "born" in "British America". Technically that would make him a "traitor" in the eyes of the british and a "hero" to you.

      "Cancucks were notoriously cowardly in their performance."
      Citation, otherwise it is just your opinion.

      PS. Care to explain why the population of Canada always grows when the US declares "war"?
      A lot of "proud and brave" amercians seem to like to flee when push comes to shove.

      "The only reasonable design work done on that aircraft wasn't by Canadians, it was by UK expats who moved to Canada."

      Like you dont have a rich history taking smart people from other countries to help you? I know... the likes of Wernher von Braun are american?

      Learn your own history.

    56. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as negligent as they were in Waco or Ruby Ridge?

    57. Re:Urban legend? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually in 1957 an all out nuclear war with the USSR would not have a Doomsday for the US.
      The USSR had no effective way to deliver nuclear weapons to most of the US. The SS-6 rocket took days to launch and they only had like 6 of them. Their bombers lacked the range to hit many US targets in the South and the US actually had SAMs and fighters that defended major US cities.
      Add that they would have had to fly over Canada as well to hit US targets and most would not make it. Did I mention that a lot of US interceptors carried nuclear armed air to air missiles?
      So New York, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and maybe Washington DC might have been hit but Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Jacksonville, Atlanta, and many others would have been fine.
      Today things are very different but at that time number of targets that USSR could hit in the US was very limited and we would have hours of warning.
      Europe, Japan, and Korea would have been a much different story.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    58. Re:Urban legend? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      What always bothered me about that situation and I could never find an answer to is the laws about leaving property on public land in Nevada. In Minnesota, my state, there are very specific rules about leaving personal property on public land so after 14 days it becomes abandoned property and anyone can take it legally. This is why you hear about people who have their tree stands stolen that they put up weeks before hand but then state that when the reported the incident the police didn't do anything. I have wondered if there was a similar law in in Nevada because if so it would make it so anyone could have claimed his cattle and I bet some other rancher wouldn't have minded getting some free head of cattle to bolster their own herds.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    59. Re:Urban legend? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      When a population is committed to opposing an invading force the invasion will never been finished.

      Umm, no.

      When the invading force is required (for whatever self-imposed reason) to be nice to the locals, a resisted invasion will never be finished.

      The USA could have won in Vietnam, if they'd not decided that invading North Vietnam was something they couldn't do. Giving your enemy a safe place means you never run out of enemy.

      Seriously, consider the possibilities for ending WW2 if the Allies had decided that Japan and Germany were off limits to all attacks - attack occupied France or the Philippines, no problem, but you're forbidden to attack the enemy homeland....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    60. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a population is committed to opposing an invading force the invasion will never been finished.

      Umm, no.

      Care to explain why you are still participating in wars like the "gulf" and such?
      Didn't that start like 20 years ago?
      How much (in terms of dollars and lives) has that cost you?

      Is it finished? Rhetorical question as you are still over there, slugging away.

    61. Re:Urban legend? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Think of the issues that the UK had with Irish insurgency during The Troubles, where appearances were similar even though accents were vastly different

      Yes, in Northern Ireland all those terrorists with Northern Irish accents really stood out like a sore thumb.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idk. she's pretty old. cobwebs could be there. not risking it.

    63. Re:Urban legend? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Lets just say that the force disparity has grown just a tad since then.

    64. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    65. Re:Urban legend? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Apparently old Murray never had his water or power turned off. He also, probably, never needed emergency medical care.

    66. Re:Urban legend? by whitroth · · Score: 1

      http : //www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

    67. Re:Urban legend? by darniil · · Score: 1

      Were you trying to quote this comment, or are you both the same person?

    68. Re:Urban legend? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Yes, then we'll assimilate you into the Canadian collective with out politeness. Resistance is futile!

      "Taking over Canada was easy eh? How aboot we celebrate with some maple syrup and some hockey! Hey wait a minute!"

    69. Re:Urban legend? by TWX · · Score: 1
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    70. Re:Urban legend? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'm not Canadian.

      And by the way, it doesn't take a firearm to kill people. I'm sure that a certain segment of the Canadian population would be happy to make IEDs and to use them, and to thus prolong a state of war for an extended period of time.

      The United States government interned just about all Japanese descendants they could during WWII, in part to prevent that population from committing acts of terrorism and sabotage on American soil. They had some precedent; the Japanese pilot that crash-landed on Ni'ihau after the attack on Pearl Harbor and was captured was released by nisei Yoshio Harada. As a first-generation American, Harada's actions undoubtedly contributed to the decision to round up so many Japanese. Thing of it is, the Japanese physically stood-out due to their racial makeup. Those of ethnic German descent were not rounded up, and I expect that an inability to actually identify them easily contributed to that.

      It would be impossible to round-up Canadian ex-pats living in the United States after declaring them enemy aliens, and it's very likely that a small portion of them would not hesitate to commit acts of terrorism or sabotage on US soil if the United States invaded Canada, even if the United States somehow managed to close the massive open border between the US and Canada to stop Canadians from entering the United States to commit those acts themselves.

      And as for your assessment of what Canada is worth, there's significant resource extraction (mining, fossil fuel) and an expectation that a Northwest passage could finally open up for shipping. The United States wouldn't be dependent on the Panama Canal for cheap bulk freight via sea or fairly expensive freight overland anymore. Control of that route would also enable collecting duties on Asian vessels heading to Europe that want to bypass the Suez or avoid sailing around Africa.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    71. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Those sneaky Canuks burnt down the White House. Best not to be too trusting, eh?

      Well, there really wasn't a "Canada" in those days... I assume you're referring to the British troops stationed in what is now Canada?

    72. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but not as good as Infowars! Or, even better, an Infowars repost on the Examiner. That totally real "training exercise" is really telling. But not as telling as NASA removing UFO pictures from its website or the totally real animal on Mars.

    73. Re:Urban legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He and other protesters" is not a "lone nutter." And he's a former sheriff so not "an employee of the state no less." Not that it matters, you nutters think Sheriff's can do anything they want as long as you like what they do.

    74. Re:Urban legend? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      This reads like an urban legend... Every field office got a copy, (seemingly) lots of employees were notified, but it's only public 30 years later? Hmm...

      It's actually quite possible. The govenment is tasked with having plans in place for just about everything. Like plans for a space-alien landing, both friend or enemy. I kid you not.

      But they are just contingencies, and no one expects to use them. There are thousands upon thousands of plans, most never get used. So it is not such a big thing. 8-)

    75. Re:Urban legend? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The attack on the ranch was instigated by the government people. The people shot, were all shot with bullets of the calibre used by the government people, .223 not 30-06. Dugan was shot from behind and the bullet holes in his pack were .223. It is likely that he was dodging to the side and ran in front of his wingman.

      But they were willing to kill an innocent family to cover it up. So that's what they told the sniper that lead him to shoot the wife with a baby in her arms. A classic example of what can get out of control, when people have too much power.

      On the other hand, you have a point about the government needing to have plans in place. That is an actual part of their job.

    76. Re:Urban legend? by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "US interceptors carried nuclear armed air to air missiles"
      In 1957? Source?

    77. Re:Urban legend? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not 1957 but 1958 which is close enough.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
      It was in production in 57 with a live test shot in 1957.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    78. Re:Urban legend? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Why the heck would the United States need secret plans for "Regional Czars"? I mean, our government is already decentralized publicly. We have these things called states that you could think of like "Regions" that have Governers that could be the "Czars".

      Seriously, the federal govt thinking we couldn't run under the state govts in emergencies, or heck, day to day ticks me off.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    79. Re:Urban legend? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Are there unicorns in this fantasy world of yours?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. Then there was War Plan Red by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative
    War Plan Red - The US plan to invade Canada.

    War Plan Red was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35. In 1939 on the outbreak of World War II and Britain's war against Nazi Germany, a decision was taken that no further planning was required but that the plan be retained.[3] War Plan Red was not declassified until 1974.

    The war plan outlined those actions that would be necessary to initiate war between Britain and the United States. The plan suggested that the British would initially have the upper hand by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy. The plan further assumed that Britain would probably use its Dominion in Canada as a springboard from which to initiate a retaliatory invasion of the United States. The assumption was taken that at first Britain would fight a defensive battle against invading American forces, but that the US would eventually defeat the British by blockading the United Kingdom and economically isolating it.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not unreasonable as but 80-100 years earlier they had done the exact same thing to the US. Depending on who you ask the war of 1812 was tie or loss for the US. It was not until the Marshal plan that GB became BFF....

    2. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Red4man · · Score: 1

      If they didn't already have a plan to invade every other country on the planet, they should get started.

      Having a plan does not mean that you have to execute it, you're just being prepared for "What If" scenarios.

      --
      Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
    3. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      It's not the "exact same thing" - the US declared war and invaded Canada

      The United States declared war on June 18, 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by the British war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honor after humiliations on the high seas, and possible American interest in annexing British territory in modern-day Canada.

      With the majority of its land and naval forces tied down in Europe fighting the Napoleonic Wars, the British used a defensive strategy in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, repelling initial American invasions.

      Declaring war and invading is NOT the same as planning to invade and annex an ally.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was part of a series of contingency plans, each labeled with a different color, for various potential conflicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans

      Some examples:
      Green - Mexico
      Orange - Japan
      Black - Germany
      Gold - France
      Yellow - China

      Probably the most interesting (and dangerous) alternate history was War Plan Red-Orange, which postulated a war against Britain and Japan, who were allied at the time.

      The most appropriate for this subject, though, would be War Plan White, which dealt with domestic uprising and civil disturbances.

    5. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet if Canada were to send military personnel dressed in civilian clothes to "scout out" locations (as the USA did under Plan Red), those military personnel would be spies and liable to be executed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't have a plan for every other country on the planet, and they don't really need one prepared way ahead of time. What they need are planners with experience that can adapt to different situations. And getting that experience during peace time means making plans for practice, including varied situations (over land, large border situation with Canada, overseas near by, over seas on other side of world, versus large population, versus small population, tropical vs. cold, etc.).

    7. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. We probably still have secret plans for invading Canada. There are cold-war-like conditions under which it's not out of the range of possibility, like a cross-arctic invasion by Russia. There are probably contingency plans for helping Quebec defend itself should it secede and provoke a military response from Ottowa, and maybe also for helping Ottowa retake Quebec. That's not because any of this is likely, but simply because it's possible, and thinking through the possible helps you prepare for what does happen.

    8. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Hitler tried very hard to ally with the US (against GB and France) prior to the onset of WW2. Later on he tried to play everyone against each other to gain some time.

      This sort of thing happens all of the time.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      Who says the Canadians don't do that. If I was them I would because if they didn't they would look pretty silly if the USA ever did declare war on them. Just saying.

    10. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      War Plan Red - The US plan to invade Canada.

      Canadians are generally very nice, polite and reasonable, so I imagine we could simply ask them ... w/o the mess of actually invading.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although a war with Britain/Canada seems implausible in hindsight, it was not always considered so unlikely. A decade prior to WW1, many British strategists considered rising American naval power to be the biggest threat to their empire. And they assumed that in a 20th century conflict with America, they could always rely on their historically ally, Germany.

    12. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And if memory serves, as recently as the 1860's, the Brits were supplying arms to the Confederacy, so in the late 19th century, it wasn't all smiles and sunshine the way it has been since WW2.

    13. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet if Canada were to send military personnel dressed in civilian clothes to "scout out" locations (as the USA did under Plan Red), those military personnel would be spies and liable to be executed.

      So now we execute people on vacation?

      If they aren't going anywhere that a regular flippin' tourist is disallowed from, then they ain't doing anything to warrant execution, or even imprisonment.

    14. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      an ally

      Using the word "ally" here insinuates that the British-US relationship was as close as it is today. In fact, the WWI relationship was not nearly as cozy. The US provided the UK with massive amounts of war material, but at great cost. It's not absurd to say that a century or so of accrued wealth flowed from London to NYC. As a result of the UK's near-suffocation at the hands of German U-boats, they developed a healthy new respect for having a top-notch navy. Their problem was that the now very wealthy US also learned how important a top-notch navy was, and proceeded to get into an arms race with their ally. There was a very real fear that the new power would necessarily get into a conflict with the old power - kind of the same fears you hear about Sino-US relations today, though the analogy is not perfect. This tension was diffused quite a bit by the Washington Naval Treaty and follow-on treaties, but hopefully this illustrates that the relationship was not the same as it is today.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      This is a prime example of why I went to school for history. It's filled with good laughs like this.

    16. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      I think you've only captured half of the Canadian mindset here.

      If asked politely, Canadians would agree and maybe even fly the stars and stripes... ...and then go back to life as normal and ignore anything the Americans attempted to do.

      Invading wouldn't be all that messy; the invaders would be welcomed with open arms, and then firmly sent back home with care packages and requests to say hello to common friends and family members. A guide might also be provided, if the invaders had any navigational issues. Depending on how the politeness lasted, they may end up back in the US, or wandering around the arctic circle.

    17. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although a war with Britain/Canada seems implausible in hindsight, it was not always considered so unlikely. A decade prior to WW1, many British strategists considered rising American naval power to be the biggest threat to their empire. And they assumed that in a 20th century conflict with America, they could always rely on their historically ally, Germany.

      They were right about the US being a threat to their empire. The US essentially forced decolonization on Europe in the aftermath of WW2.

    18. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How old are you anyway?? :)

    19. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. We probably still have secret plans for invading Canada. There are cold-war-like conditions under which it's not out of the range of possibility, like a cross-arctic invasion by Russia. There are probably contingency plans for helping Quebec defend itself should it secede and provoke a military response from Ottowa, and maybe also for helping Ottowa retake Quebec. That's not because any of this is likely, but simply because it's possible, and thinking through the possible helps you prepare for what does happen.

      *Ottawa

    20. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Depending on how the politeness lasted, they may end up back in the US, or wandering around the arctic circle.

      Follow the oowwwnnnnllly road, follow the oowwwnnnnllly road...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    21. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by umghhh · · Score: 2

      I think you should use proper terminology - US have no allies or friends, they have vassals.

    22. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be "that guy" since i am terrible at spelling myself, but cant you at least name the capital of your next door neighbour and spell it correctly?

    23. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I thought people got History degrees because they were the easiest to get so that you could "teach".

    24. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It was a General Staff plan. It was just a fleshed out thought exercise. It could have been turned into action, if need be, but does not imply any sort of intent.

    25. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by tnk1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Europe was tired out and broke after WWII. The US probably did some nudging, but the reality was that there was a new world after WWII and true empires of the 19th Century sort were no longer supportable, if they ever really were. Europe was a literal wreck, and the UK was broke.

      In the end, they exhausted themselves and ended their own empires through their bad decisions.

    26. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Kittenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if memory serves, as recently as the 1860's, the Brits were supplying arms to the Confederacy, so in the late 19th century, it wasn't all smiles and sunshine the way it has been since WW2.

      There's also the 'Trent Affair'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... . The US stopped a British ship mid-Atlantic to take off a couple of confederate politicians. That got pretty heated, until Lincoln handled the incident (read the article...).

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    27. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but there is no fucking way on this green earth that I would willing fly the US flag on Canadian soil.

      Your arrogance at suggesting that we would willingly submit to an outside authority would be the same as me suggesting that we simply take Alaska from the US.

      After all, its pretty obvious that Alaska is a better fit in Canada than it is in the US.

      Besides, last time we fought (1812) we kicked your ass and sent you packing back across the border, and burned what was to become the 'White' house (hence the name).

      If you can't handle an insurgency in a place like Afghanistan, what makes you think you'd be able to do it in Canada?

    28. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      I can not believe anybody would suggest that WWI marked the begin of the strength of the British Navy. You know absolutely nothing about history and you shouldn't be talking about it with an air of authority. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    29. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I've heard dumber things. But this is well past the point where I excise it from memory. So dumbest thing I haven't yet successfully wiped from my mind.

    30. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Robert Conroy used the Trent Affair as the critical point in his alternate history novel 1862.

      In the novel, Palmerston was not placated by Lincoln's actions, and Great Britain became an ally of the Confederacy.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    31. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They actually did scout out the lay of the land, so it wasn't just a thought experiment. The age of empire is done. If we don't learn to cooperate better, we're all toast.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    32. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I have done a poor job of communicating, because that is not what I meant to claim at all. The British Navy was pretty much supreme for a long time. WWI marked the rise of the American navy and sparked (or accelerated) a battleship arms race that the Brits could ill afford to keep pace with, nor lose. The American population mostly wanted nothing to do with it, either - thus the arms control treaties.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Hitler tried very hard to ally with the US (against GB and France) prior to the onset of WW2. Later on he tried to play everyone against each other to gain some time.

      This sort of thing happens all of the time.

      Hitler was trying very hard to forge an alliance with all the western powers prior to the onset of WW2.

      Hitler's eyes were firmly set to the east, the plans to invade Russia in 1941 were set in place long before September 1939. The Nazis had spent a huge amount of resources trying to foster good relations, not just with the governments of Great Brittan and the United States, but the people too (I.E. the German-American Bund). The German leadership tried hard to ally themselves with England because they felt that the English people had a lot on common with the German people. However they underestimated the resolve of the British government, Chamberlain and his ministers drew a line at Poland and declared war on Germany when they crossed it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    34. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Well, the scouting was the "fleshed out" part. You don't create an actual war plan without doing your homework, and scouting your next door neighbor is probably easier than scouting anyone else would be.

      Creating plans to invade or defend against other countries, even (currently) friendly ones, is the job of a military staff. It provides options for leaders, and good plans can't wait until two weeks before you realize that you need to go to war. If you've waited that long, you're screwed. Modern militaries don't operate without advanced logistics support and mobilization plans.

      More to the point, it's good practice for those whose job it is to plan things. Its not exactly friendly sounding, but every country's military does it. The UK even had a plan for war with the US before WWII, although even then, the plan was "try to get the US population to lose interest in the war by holding out long enough to not be blockaded into starvation".

      Just think of it as the US playing a friendly game of Warhammer 40K with their best bud Canada.

    35. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an ally

      Using the word "ally" here insinuates that the British-US relationship was as close as it is today. In fact, the WWI relationship was not nearly as cozy. The US provided the UK with massive amounts of war material, but at great cost. It's not absurd to say that a century or so of accrued wealth flowed from London to NYC. As a result of the UK's near-suffocation at the hands of German U-boats, they developed a healthy new respect for having a top-notch navy. Their problem was that the now very wealthy US also learned how important a top-notch navy was, and proceeded to get into an arms race with their ally. There was a very real fear that the new power would necessarily get into a conflict with the old power - kind of the same fears you hear about Sino-US relations today, though the analogy is not perfect. This tension was diffused quite a bit by the Washington Naval Treaty and follow-on treaties, but hopefully this illustrates that the relationship was not the same as it is today.

      I agree with everything you said, but you got the money flow backwards.
      Money went from USA --> Great Britain during WWI. The materials supplied to the Allies were paid for with loans largely from J.P.Morgans banks about ($9 billion in 1917 money).
      That would be a lot of money from GB back to USA, if only the British paid off the debt, but after the war Great Britain did not pay the debts. For one reason or another it kept getting deferred due to things like the great depression, WWII, and other reason mostly having to do with J.PMorgan bank being bedfellows with the bank of London.
      The last of the WWI debt will be paid March 9, 2015
      http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

      After almost 100 years of inflation, the debt is now peanuts.

    36. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I actually made two errors. The other was insinuating that the British did not have the best navy in the world before the war, which of course they did.

      I'd argue that debt or no, that wealth was transferred. To the US businesses, it was cash - the money was essentially printed, as sovereign debt is as good as cash - like treasuries are today. The Brits then had to service the debt, which reduced the amount that they had available to spend. The war effectively made the UK a whole lot poorer and the US a whole lot richer.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadians are generally very nice, polite and reasonable, so I imagine we could simply ask them ... w/o the mess of actually invading.

      1
      yeah, but that's not our style. They're probably terrorists anyway, we need to invade to find the evidence!

    38. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      Mighty Yar got it right, the US had embarked on a massive naval construction program in the early 1920's and was in a position to dictate the terms of the Washington Naval Arms treaty of 1922. If the other nations didn't agree, the US would continue building its fleet. Also helped that the Japanese diplomatic code had been broken, so Japan ended up agreeing to a reduced fleet. One consequence of the treaty was that two of the USN battle cruisers under construction were converted to carriers, and showing the USN that large carriers were more effective than small carriers.

      The attack plans on Canada were drawn up as the US experience with WW1 led to vigorous opposition to any thought of engaging in another war in Europe. Opinion polls conducted in 1941 showed about 70% of the US opposed to involvement in Europe, and one result was that The US declared war on Germany on December 11th only after Germany declared war against the US on Dec 10.

      The plan to take over the Soviet Embassy to search for nuclear devices wasn't delusional as the Soviets had smuggled in components for a nuclear weapon into the Washington DC embassy.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    39. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      With the way the world is today, you'd better be ready to respond in 2 weeks or less with no planning, because new situations with new protagonists can crop up in less than that.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    40. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      A few clarifications and nits:

      The Japanese had been pushing for a 15:15:10 ratio (British and US each having 50% more tonnage in their limits than Japan), but got a 15:15:9, which was unpopular at home. It doesn't look like much, but Japanese naval thinking was that one more battleship would tip the theoretical odds from slightly favorable to the US in a war to slightly unfavorable.

      The British, at the time, didn't realize the consequences of US battleship armor. They made a distinction between "pre-Jutland" and "post-Jutland" ships, based on how that battle went, and wanted post-Jutland ships. They eventually got some in (IIRC) 1927. The USN had been commissioning battleships that were essentially "post-Jutland" since 1916. The British had known the USN was using a new plan for battleship armor earlier, but didn't realize all the consequences.

      The US was building six battlecruisers. After the Washington treaty, as you say, four were scrapped and two converted to carriers. Shortly before, the Navy General Board recommended that three of the battlecruisers be completed as aircraft carriers, and General Board recommendations were typically followed. There was no opportunity to take the recommendation any further before it became moot.

      The US actually waged war on Germany from September 1941, with the USN on a full war footing against the German navy (mostly submarines). One of the reasons Hitler declared war was that there was a de facto war going on there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by samwichse · · Score: 1

      "Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red called Defence Scheme No. 1 on April 12, 1921. Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With no hope of holding these objectives, the idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for Imperial allies to arrive with reinforcements. Defence Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton in 1928, two years prior to the approval of War Plan Red."

      From the wikipedia page on war plan red... they did it first :).

    42. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      War Plan Red - The US plan to invade Canada.

      While that is interesting in its own right, one should be careful to read too much into the existence of such plans. In the 1800-hundreds more emphasis was put on military planning as opposed to execution in the face of what had already happened. It was thought (largely correctly) that to gain and hold the initiative you had to already have considered possible ways of conducting operations and have ready plans for what it would take to carry those operations out. (The specialised staff officer comes from this period, the general staff being responsible for this analysis and planning).

      However, in order to keep the necessary knowledge alive, major engagements being few and far between, a system whereby these staff officers were continuously trained by (more or less) dreaming up new scenarios, analysing them and making the plans to support the operations that that scenario would entail. As for keeping the updated, what do you otherwise do with the new young officers that can't be trusted to do stuff that actually has an effect on anything? You put them to update "War plan Z" or something. When they're finished you get to tell them why and where they got it all wrong, and send them back to their desks which both keeps them busy and out of everybody's hair, and also impresses the important lesson on their young and impressionable minds that they don't actually know anything and should mind their tongue and manners when the grown-ups are talking.

      That these plans are kept secret isn't necessarily due to military necessity, but rather to make sure that the equivalent young know-it-all- politician doesn't get wind of them and create all manner of problems getting in the way of the work the grown-ups have to actually get done. It's more of a "conveniently secret", than actually sensitive (as these plans are on such a high level that most of the data they use aren't secret/unknown to begin with. What forces are where, what their general capabilities are and what the map looks like are no great secrets.)

      So, if you look through the archives there would and should be plans for almost everything including invasion by space aliens via flying saucer(s) as the plans themselves aren't that important in the greater scheme of things, but the planning process, and keeping that skill alive is very valuable.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    43. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but there is no fucking way on this green earth that I would willing fly the US flag on Canadian soil.

      Sorry... go to your local shopping mall/hotel/marina/etc. Notice the flags flying there? Canadian, Provincial and... American.
      I never said anything about taking down the Canadian flag (although there's been more than enough argument about scrapping that and getting something more flashy, whether it be going back to the 3-leaf flag, replacing the leaf with a polar bear, etc.)

      Your arrogance at suggesting that we would willingly submit to an outside authority would be the same as me suggesting that we simply take Alaska from the US.

      I think you missed the point -- Canadians don't submit to INSIDE authority, let alone outside. At this point, the US saying they owned Canada wouldn't be all that different from the current Federal government. But canadians don't shout about this and thump their chests -- they just ignore the politicians, nod knowingly at each other, and carry on as usual.

      After all, its pretty obvious that Alaska is a better fit in Canada than it is in the US.

      I'm sorry... but you're starting to sound very American here. This is American logic Canadians don't care about "better fit" and don't try to take over other territories -- there's enough unoccupied Canada already. For example, did you know that there have been multiple cases of other countries begging to join confederacy? Newfoundland was the last one that made it in, and will probably continue to be the last. Canada finally learned its lesson: new lands mean new liabilities and new debt to pay down.

      Besides, last time we fought (1812) we kicked your ass and sent you packing back across the border, and burned what was to become the 'White' house (hence the name).

      OK; I'm starting to wonder who you are actually aiming this at. But for the record, it was the British who went down and burned the White House in 1812; that was 55 years before Canada became a country. And I'm pretty sure you weren't alive then, and your ancestors most likely didn't live in Upper Canada, nor were part of the British garrison that made that sortie.

      If you can't handle an insurgency in a place like Afghanistan, what makes you think you'd be able to do it in Canada?

      Now THAT is a good point. I hope the Harper government thinks long and hard about that one.

    44. Re:Then there was War Plan Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mere matter of marching eh?

      But seriously, the Canadian Army DID have a war plan from about the same time as Plan Red, and while utterly impracticable it recommended a counter invasion with the idea of destroying as much infrastructure as possible before the army was destroyed.

  3. Did anyone expect otherwise? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures. If the options were between martial law and severe curtailing of rights, or the complete collapse of society, I know which one I would pick.

    1. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We survived for centuries with the number of people and level of industrialization that would remain after a widespread, devastating war, without resorting to these measures. In fact, we have measured the society that this plan seeks to "protect" by the rights and freedoms that the average citizen has gained.

      I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those "centuries" that you refer to typically had an absolute authoritarian ruler, a syncophantic elite class, and a large class of hand-to-mouth dirt poor subsistance class - basically slaves.

      There were no rights.

      I suspect you are a conservative - conveniently forgetting the facts and inventing a utopian 'golden age' in the past that you yearn to return to is a common output of the BS machine.

    3. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures.

      Exactly. My gut response was, "GOOD!" Do you have any idea how many companies do NOT have a disaster recovery plan? No one ever wants to use it, but you'll be MUCH better off with it than without.
      It could have been a lot worse; Their plan C could have been:
      * Let's put enough food/water for 10 years in a secure bomb shelter and plan to store the top 0.005% of the population. After they run out of food, who cares.. let's just make sure we can remain fat for a little longer than everyone else.
      * Launch everything at ourselves. If we can't have it, neither can they.

    4. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difficulty is it is sold as "in case of nuclear war", but implemented under something else entirely (see; war on terrorism).

      While I understand the difficulty in maintaining order to prevent an even greater loss of life (like say pandemic flu), I'm not real certain implementing this at a national level makes much sense.

      We've already seen how ridiculously inept the federal government has been with such relatively minor disasters such as Katrina or 9/11, I'm not certain I trust them to not make matters worse under something like nuclear war.

      Not to mention they've pretty lost all credibility now to where We're From The Government And We're Here To Help has moved from general snark at the inefficiency of bureaucracy to gallows humor.

      Maybe they have a plan to restore public faith in government?

    5. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great Enlighenment-era/Marxist-class-warfare propaganda narrative of the middle ages you have there. It would be a shame if some facts were to happen to it.

    6. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mr. President! We must not allow a mine-shaft gap!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait if he is a conservative wouldn't he be happy that they were cracking down on those damned commies?

    8. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's something entirely different. Nuclear war has been planned again and again. Katrina and 9/11 were unplanned and had to be improvised. 9/11 was simply a total surprise and Katrina, well, while it was likely to happen and everyone knew it would, there was simply no money in preparing for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      While I do identify my political leanings as conservative, I believe that it is an individual argument, not the political leanings of the speaker, which should be addressed in debate.

      As I said, I believe that life was better in the society of the past few hundred years than it would be under a martial law imposed with the power of a modern state. I do also believe that life is better under today's society is better than it was under Napoleon. It is this improvement that I referred to as the measure of our modern civil structures.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      The Demon Conservatives of Slashdot are paradoxically both in favor of a powerful, racist, homophobic state clamping down on any free thought, and an anarchic, eternal war where gold is the only value.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    11. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.

      Under martial law we'd bitch about how oppressive the government is and how much we hate martial law. Under the collapse of society scenario we wouldn't bitch about anything because we'd be dead of disease, starvation or random violence.

      Anarchy != Happy Fun Peaceful Cooperation Land

    12. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      You don't survive widespread nuclear war without some pretty drastic measures.

      Follow Bert the Turtle's example and you will be just fine.

      If the options were between martial law and severe curtailing of rights, or the complete collapse of society, I know which one I would pick.

      Did this nonsense also come from the federal civil defense administration?

    13. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Is that better for the slaves or the slave holders? Better for the owners of N. America who were getting genocided or better for the people who were practicing genocide so they could steal land.
      Conservatives, remembering the days when there were groups you could legally kill, groups you could legally enslave and no such thing as age of consent if you fancied a young one (could always buy one if nothing else). Must be such a shame those rights are now repressed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You don't survive widespread nuclear war

      You can stop there!

    15. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Thing is... nuclear war would bring serious climate change, and due to the massive amount of deaths and casualties, disease would probably kill as many, if not more, than the bombs themselves. This would be like the Black Death, with radiation.

      However, people would almost certainly survive. Possibly a lot of them, but at least a few. Humanity has survived at least one supervolcanic eruption, which would be very comparable to the amount of dust you might get in a nuclear exchange.

      Compared to what might happen after such an event, actual working martial law would be more "society" by far. It would actually be something of an achievement in that scenario, if it avoided breaking down into warlords and roving bands of killers.

    16. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      Yes, my argument against suspending due process and surrendering government to the "kill people" branch was just an outgrowth of my inner desire for a world where hunting people for sport was interrupted only by pauses to rape children.

      Perhaps my position is more clear as a mathematical relation:

      Martial Law < Imperialism < Modern Western Culture

      Again, it's not good or desirable to regress to previous incarnations of our society. I am not even saying that nuclear holocaust would result in such a regression. I am simply observing that with less population, knowledge, and infrastructure than today, there was a society that did not require a military authority to maintain.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    17. Re:Did anyone expect otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't survive widespread nuclear war

      FTFY.

    18. Re: Did anyone expect otherwise? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yet such measures on a temporary basis would save many lives.

      Sometimes its less about the form of government and more that one is present. Through much of history countries weren't democracies.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  4. C? by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 3, Funny

    plan "c" what about "Plan R" !!!!

    --
    "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
    1. Re:C? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Plan R? Jumping the gun a bit there son. You have even finished preparation H!

      --
      ~X~
  5. Thankfully they didn't number the plans by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would have been more worried if they had ditched the first 8 plans.

    Anyway .. there is probably a modern day equivalent kicking around somewhere now.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  6. There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are interesting articles to be found with images and video material of closed up and currently unused facilities under jurisdiction of the military, for which there is no officially stated purpose. The interesting thing with these facilities is that they all have fences and barb wire facing inwards - not to keep people out, but to keep people in. It suggests there are still some contingency plans like the one mentioned in the article, should it be needed.

    1. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus the importance of the second amendment.

    2. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Thus the importance of the second amendment.

      I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re: There are still contingency plans by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Which one can run the longest without fuel?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time you need the 2nd Amendment, it will be gone.

    5. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your M1 and raise you urban warfare. A personal firearm can go where tanks can't.

    6. Re: There are still contingency plans by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank

      Marine infantrymen are trained how to disable tanks. They are aren't armed with much beyond the AR-15.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      > I see your AR-15 and raise you an M-1 Tank

      Marine infantrymen are trained how to disable tanks. They are aren't armed with much beyond the AR-15.

      Aaaaannnd what side of the battle you think they will be on? You know, after having sworn oaths etc, and a command structure that can say "bang! you're dead" for not obeying orders?

      Or do you consider that every ex-miltary person has a raging libertarian anti-government hard-on? And want to kill their former squad mates?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I see your M1 and raise you urban warfare. A personal firearm can go where tanks can't.

      B-52 anyone?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re:There are still contingency plans by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing with these facilities is that they all have fences and barb wire facing inwards - not to keep people out, but to keep people in.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      Heinlein

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many would still be available after the nuclear war?

    11. Re: There are still contingency plans by bmajik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on the specific service member in question.

      http://oathkeepers.org/

      During the time of the US Civil war, Americans shot their literal brothers - not just their squad mates.

      It starts with one soldier. How many follow, and when they follow, depends on the rhetoric of the separatists, how they conduct themselves, how they spread their message, and the counteracting rhetoric and actions of the government.

      All of us are alive because people on both sides of the Atlantic with their finger on the "launch" button skipped opportunities to press it. Soldiers are people in difficult situations, trying to balance many opposing directives.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    12. Re: There are still contingency plans by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I see your M-1 Tank and raise you asymmetrical warfare.

      The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I see your M-1 Tank and raise you asymmetrical warfare.

      The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end...

      It all depends if the non-outgunned side cares about pacifying or wiping out the outgunned side. Why did the japs surrender when only a comparatively small number died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were outgunned and could have taken on asymmetrical warfare and cause all kinds of hell for the allies.

      Anyway, the M-1 was a facetious reference to the fact that the military has an assorted range of larger and more deadly toys than an AR-15

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    14. Re: There are still contingency plans by kogut · · Score: 1

      The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end..

      I think there are plenty of historical examples of the out-gunned side losing a war....most of the time.

    15. Re: There are still contingency plans by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You want to use regular military against your own population?

      History is not on your side when it comes to the question of their loyalty.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a veteran (Not a raging libertarian) I can tell you that you would likely see entire units refuse to fire on American civilians. In fact we are taught to disobey unlawful orders. There was also a saying I heard a lot in the military. If everyone is wrong, everyone is right. If the majority refuses to fire on civilians, who is going to make them?
      .

    17. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      In fact we are taught to disobey unlawful orders.

      This is getting off-topic, but was the internment of the Japanese-Americans a lawful or unlawful order?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    18. Re: There are still contingency plans by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Also forgot to mention Kent State

      (Damn I wish /. would allow you to add onto posts)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    19. Re: There are still contingency plans by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Most of the non-special weapons methods are essentially desperation measures. Tanks are essentially impervious to small arms fire. To achieve something as minor as knocking off a track, let alone destroying the thing you're going to need heavier weapons or explosives. There are of course man portable anti-tank systems, and the Marines have them but that's not the same thing as saying they're going to achieve something with their rifles. (which are M16s by the way not AR-15s) All that said, against a properly armed light infantry opponent in an urban environment tanks operating alone are in serious trouble.

    20. Re: There are still contingency plans by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      That's what allies are for, then you swap forces for suppression efforts.

    21. Re: There are still contingency plans by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Thus the importance of the second amendment.

      Do you really think the Army will need help rounding up the subversives?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    22. Re: There are still contingency plans by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If you're bombing your own population you've already lost.

      Besides, a B-52 is even more fuel hungry than the tank.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    23. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To achieve something as minor as knocking off a track, let alone destroying the thing you're going to need heavier weapons or explosives

      How to render a main battle tank combat ineffective:
      (1) Acquire a length of steel chain.
      (2) Wrap chain around main gun's barrel and attach to the tank's hull, turret can no longer traverse.

      Or maybe bundle up one end of the chain and toss it into the tread's drive wheel.

      If you are lucky the crew will open their hatches to interfere with this and expose themselves to small arms, molotov cocktails, etc. If they stay buttoned up their coaxial is of limited value, if other crew weapons are remotely operated they can be disabled before wrapping the main gun. If you are unlucky the tank will be accompanied by other tanks or by infantry, which is of course how tanks are supposed to be employed.

      Basically if a tank can be isolated the tank can be rendered ineffective in a number of different ways with quite ordinary things.

      ... which are M16s by the way not AR-15s ...

      Which is essentially a meaningless distinction. Full-auto is largely for movies. The Marine's redesign of the M-16 even removed full-auto and replaced it with a 3 round burst.

    24. Re: There are still contingency plans by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you are silly. tanks can be taken out with nothing more than pile of burning tires, when it gets too hot for the occupants, they will die. tanks can be trapped in pits, or the machinery of their tracks jammed. many, many ways to take out a tank without explosives or heavy weapons.

    25. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Probably.

    26. Re: There are still contingency plans by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1
      Speaking of soldiers in difficult situations who skipped opportunities to press the 'launch' button, we should all be grateful to former Soviet Lt. Col Stanislav Petrov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      On September 26, 1983, he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile was being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm, and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned.

    27. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, sure the aviation mechanics with families in places you might bomb would fuel it and get them off the ground. Yeaaah! Go bomb my kids!

    28. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen in the US is what was done in the 1800s. A mercenary force would be used. Get some troops from Syria, Russia, China, and other places that don't give a flying fuck about Americans, have them do some scorched earth tactics (blockade a city, toss Sarin gas canisters, or just drop some fuel/air munitions for a nice after-dusk glow), and all the people who talk about hiding behind every blade of grass will be leaping over themselves to surrender. Just putting a squad under the UN banner and marching it on US soil would cause entire paramilitary groups to lay down their arms and beg for mercy.

      Private police forces (Pinkertons, for example) worked extremely well before the Great Depression (read up on Frick and his union busting), and works well today with the US private prisons. Loyalty is never an issue when cash is involved.

    29. Re: There are still contingency plans by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Stanley Milgram proved you wrong long ago.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    30. Re: There are still contingency plans by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      I can't imagine a tanker driving onto a huge pile of tires and then sitting there while they're lit on fire long enough to cause problems. Tires don't burn particularly fast you know.

      That's going to be one damn big pit, you're going to have trouble camoflaging it properly. That method doesn't seem particularly practical, especially in an urban environment. (barring use of explosives, say set off in an underlying sewer tunnel or something like that)

      Yes, you can jam a tank track but they've got one heck of an engine so it better be jammed pretty solid and made of tough materials or it'll just get spit out or busted, getting close enough won't be much fun either.

      There are plenty of ways to delay a tank or irritate the crew, for example paint some dinner plates camo green and place them across a roadway the tank wants to use. It's pretty likely the crew will worry that they're mines and stop to call for support or sweep them with a main gun round. If you can sneak up to one while it's turned off and parked you can put sugar in the fuel tank for nasty later results. Dumping a big load of sand from an overhead building onto the air intakes will slow them down. If you want to piss off the crew then toss molotov cocktails on their gear which is usually strapped to the outside. Have a sniper shadow the tank and take potshots any time they stick out their heads will certainly get their attention if you have more time on your hands.

      It would be a lot easier to just get your hands on some anti-tank rockets, heck you can build a crude bazooka yourself if you work at it a bit. Don't expect a high success rate with homemade systems though. As an insurgent, if you can't capture any anti-tank weapons you're better of just creating a big IED. From the side you can probably knock loose a track, from the bottom you might actually be able to take the thing out. Tanks are maintenance and fuel intensive so attacking their supply lines is also good tactics.

      *shrug* It's been a few years but when I was in the Marines we focused on using either the TOW wire guided system or the Dragon shoulder launched one (they were just bringing in the Javelin when I was getting out). Obviously, calling for our own tanks, copperhead artillery rounds, hellfire missiles from cobra attack helicopters or close air support (A-10s if available, those things rock!) were great options if you had them on call.

    31. Re: There are still contingency plans by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the Korematsu case of 1944, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful. Previously, it was doubtful. Soldiers in wartime are unlikely to disobey orders that may or may not be lawful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: There are still contingency plans by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Your imaginings are silly, that's not how the tire trick is done, nor how tank traps implemented. Another branch of the armed service has put more thought into the matter....

    33. Re: There are still contingency plans by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Well, we've been involved in anti-insurgent activity since at least 2003. Feel free to provide even one example of where this was attempted successfully.

    34. Re: There are still contingency plans by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The oaths sworn by the US military are to the Constitution first, not to the Generals or the President. And they all know it. But like he says, it would depend on the individuals.

    35. Re: There are still contingency plans by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Examples of flammables including soaked flaming blankets used to stop and then incapacitate tanks are all over history of war, from Spanish War (writings of Tom Wintringham) to Finnish Winter War and World War II etc.

      Tom Wintringham wrote of technique of using rifle or shotgun fire to make tank crew close all the hatches, then men could rush it out of reach of its guns to either jam stout iron rod in tracks or to apply the flammables such as molotovs or soaked blankets. That's when fuel soaked tire slices (not his technique) could be jammed into tracks, then more tires throw on later when the conflagration gets going.

      In WW II, your Marine predecessors used device to kill tanks that was diesel fuel with a self-igniting system, tube of nitric acid with sodium, many of those applied did all kinds of neat things like making internal fuel and ammo cook off

    36. Re: There are still contingency plans by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The blanket trick might work if you managed to clog the air intakes for the engine, though that would just cause them to stop in place so you'll need something else to go with it. The flaming part isn't going to help you any.

      Both the commander and loader weapon stations have armored gun shields nowadays so suppressing them by fire is a lot harder than it sounds. Getting them to close the hatches does mean that they can't shoot at you anyways. They still have the coax machine gun, though admittedly it does have some minor blind spots if you can get close enough without getting run over. Unless you're right on top of them they can also use the main gun which has a heck of a blast using HE rounds, not to mention the concussion effect of firing.

      Although modern tanks still throw tracks from time to time, it's generally due to poor maintenance or driver error rather than enemy action. I won't say the iron bar trick is impossible, but the chances of success are quite low. You'd have to get it wedged just right and hope you snap one of the track linkages or pop the track off the road wheels before the bar gets snapped, bent or spit out.

      Tanks are by no means invulnerable, in fact they almost never operate without infantry support precisely because they are vulnerable, just not to the sort of weapons that you're suggesting. To do any real damage you're going to need explosives or some sort of large armor piercing round.

    37. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many would still be available after the nuclear war?

      Probably most of them, if they can find an Interstate highway land on when they return.

    38. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Korematsu case of 1944, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful. Previously, it was doubtful. Soldiers in wartime are unlikely to disobey orders that may or may not be lawful.

      There were two issues in Korematsu.
      1: The expulsion from military sensitive areas (in this case the entire Pacific coast to 100 miles inland was considered sensitive).
              The expulsion was found to be legal.
      2: The internment camps.
              The US Supreme court ruled that the interment was unconstitutional, and the closing of the camps began.

      Also, keep in mind that round-up operations are more likely to be done mostly in a way that encourages most people to show up voluntarily (as the Japanese-Americans did), and the police, not soldiers, are used to gather stragglers. It's not hard to get the police to do things like that.

    39. Re: There are still contingency plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to render a main battle tank combat ineffective:
      (1) Acquire a length of steel chain.
      (2) Wrap chain around main gun's barrel and attach to the tank's hull, turret can no longer traverse.

      Or maybe bundle up one end of the chain and toss it into the tread's drive wheel.

      If you are lucky the crew will open their hatches to interfere with this and expose themselves to small arms, molotov cocktails, etc. If they stay buttoned up their coaxial is of limited value, if other crew weapons are remotely operated they can be disabled before wrapping the main gun. If you are unlucky the tank will be accompanied by other tanks or by infantry, which is of course how tanks are supposed to be employed.

      Basically if a tank can be isolated the tank can be rendered ineffective in a number of different ways with quite ordinary things.

      That all sounds good so long as there are no support troops around. But if you find a tank by itself and no support troops around, then the crew is already dead.

  7. The dour truth of the matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What concerns me is what is currently planned. Not everyone has the WEALTH, EDUCATION and/or PEDIGREE to domicile elsewhere on the planet.

    1. Re:The dour truth of the matter by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The truth of matter is that most people are screwed in a big enough scenario. Indeed, even the leaders or the rich would not be guaranteed to get out of it. The government will do its best to keep things going, but the reason there is a succession plan is that even the most highly ranked individuals face their demise.

  8. Not surprising in the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of what we take for granted goes right out the fucking window in the face of legitimate crisis. The life we currently enjoy rides on a disturbingly thin margin of prosperity. It's why some of us take protecting our natural resources so damn seriously. Once they run out things go to shit quick.

    Even a dysfunctional, authoritarian state of emergency government is far preferable to the alternative. You don't even want to think of what your common man will do to you when they've been without food for two weeks. If you want to see what living in a place where gangs and warlords are the government you can take a quick trip over to some poverty stricken african countries.

    Is it perfect? No. It's a failure mode.

    If you know anything about failure modes, you'll know that having a known failure mode is always better than an unknown.

    1. Re:Not surprising in the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In truth, most people (yourself included) don't get that "Martial Law" doesn't suspend the Bill of Rights. Read Amendment 3 very carefully. The ONLY time that this sort of thing is relevant is during those "times of emergency" when they'd try to do what people believe they will if they declare Martial Law.

    2. Re:Not surprising in the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people (yourself included) seem to forget that our government has been living under the false pretense that we're already in "times of emergency," have been for over a decade, and have absolutely no plan to return from it. Almost daily, we're having even more rights stripped from us to further "protect us" from an imaginary threat, while the real threat lies in our very own government.

    3. Re:Not surprising in the least. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The problem with these "emergency modes" is that they run infinitely. With censorship and martial law in place, how would you know that it's time to get back to a normal mode of operation if the powers that are don't want to return to it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Not surprising in the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with these "emergency modes" is that they run infinitely. With censorship and martial law in place, how would you know that it's time to get back to a normal mode of operation if the powers that are don't want to return to it?

      Paraguay's dictator Alfredo Stroessner did exactly that until he was deposed in the late eighties. There was a state of emergency that had to be renewed every 2 months or something like that. And the parliament acquiesced every single time. You ended up with a state of emergency that lasted almost 30 years.

      The US's Patriot act is exactly like that. Renewed by Congress every couple of years. No dissent, no nothing.
      Shitting all over the American People and The Constitution.

    5. Re:Not surprising in the least. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The problem with these "emergency modes" is that they run infinitely.

      Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. human nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always assume the worst. If it does not come to pass, pleasant surprise.

  10. Then there was War Plan Indigo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Involved an occupation of Iceland. In 1941, while Denmark was under German occupation, the US actually did occupy Iceland, relieving British units during the Battle of the Atlantic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans

  11. Do you really think we should not be making plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    REX-84. Look it up. I assure you, we still have plans for this sort of thing today. In the 50's and 80's it was supposed to happen AFTER a nuclear exchange. Somewhat makes sense when you figure more than a few of your best armed neighbors with 4X4's might be going about saying they're the gov now. I'll bet we have plans to suspend the US Cons after Facebook goes down for 24 hours.

  12. 2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and this is why we have the 2nd amendment :-)

    Over 100 million Americans armed to the teeth.

    1. Re:2nd amendment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      One hundred million unorganized, inebriated, confused, uncoordinated, ill disciplined bozos who haven't slept outside of a building since cub scouts.

      Yeah, I'll take the military any day.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, how many of these 100 million would be running to drop their arms and surrender, just like the Iraqis did during the 1991 Desert Storm operation, as soon as a single tank fired a shell and levelled a town square.

      Probably all of them.

    3. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was so the world had stuff to read... like this

      http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

      @least her gun protected her and her son from "bad guys".

    4. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One hundred million unorganized, inebriated, confused, uncoordinated, ill disciplined bozos who haven't slept outside of a building since cub scouts. Yeah, I'll take the military any day.

      The British thought along those lines in the 1770s. And the British had the advantage that their army was not drawn from the population to be subdued.

    5. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the Iraqis who surrendered in mass were the army, not the insurgents. The Iraqis who were recently conscripted civilians forced to fight for a government, a government they did not believe in.

    6. Re:2nd amendment by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And yet it required a remarkable degree of incompetence, a fair amount of luck, and financial and naval support from the French.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, how many of these 100 million would be running to drop their arms and surrender, just like the Iraqis did during the 1991 Desert Storm operation, as soon as a single tank fired a shell and levelled a town square.

      Probably all of them.

      Good point. You are bringing up the performance of a military who hated their own government and surrendered as soon as they got a chance.
      So you're drawing an analogy, right?
      Pointing out that that if the USA government goes full dictatorship then the USA's military will go awol first chance they get?

  13. I have seen Plan B by paiute · · Score: 3, Informative

    This scenario involved flying saucers powered by strings. Bela Lugosi was to have been put in charge of the interim government, but this plan was deemed unworkable when the principal contact with the alien subcontractor concluded that earth people were stupid.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  14. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure revealing your secret plan to occupy America is entirely not a trick to throw us off guard.

    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised it took 25 minutes for someone to mention Obama in the discussion for this story. Clearly, this had Obama Conspiracy written all over it.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  15. What plan today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If a plan like this existed then, why shouldn't a similar one exist now, albeit more elegant and maybe more subtle. In the 1950s communism was a common enemy and I suspect most of the "subversive organizations" were seen as being tied to that one way or another. What organizations are on the list today, and do you belong to one of them?

  16. There are no such things as human "rights". by xtal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom, and everything else, is a privilege given to you by your betters; when the chips are down, that's all out the window. Never forget that.

    It's for your own good, you know.

    Wish more people read history.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 2

      If they (which includes the author of TFA) had read history, they would already know that Lincoln did all that and more during the Civil War. That we might do so again goes without saying.

    2. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "betters" of course being up for debate and redetermined in an ad-hoc fashion when required.

    3. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by mveloso · · Score: 1

      "Betters" are the ones with the guns.

    4. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Betters" are the ones with the guns.

      and the willingness to kill for purposes other than self-defence.

    5. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now the state the US is in makes a lot more sense.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. You can have as many guns as you like, it won't preserve your rights.

      What matters more is organization. That's why control of communications is so important. And why the established gov't and army will always have a crushing advantage, at least initially.

    7. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by solios · · Score: 1

      No amount of history education is going to stop the herd mentality from handing your privacy over to some domestic intelligence type claiming it's Required to combat terrorism or pedophelia or both. Don't want to hand over your rights? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

      (watching this happen in the UK is predictably hilarious)

    8. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by mveloso · · Score: 1

      It's the same in other countries too. The foundation of the state is a monopoly on the legitimate use violence. Haven't you been paying attention for the last few thousand years?

    9. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

      It was a big worry for the British government that in the event of a nuclear strike the people they needed to maintain the fiction of continuing authority would actually prefer to be at home dying with their families rather than assisting the remnants of the state.

      So, for example, there was a secret list of telephone engineers (all, at the time, government employees) who would be kidnapped at gunpoint in the event of a nuclear emergency and forced into their nearest bunker to maintain the telecommunications equipment.

      "For your own good", indeed.

    10. Re:There are no such things as human "rights". by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      It's the same in other countries too. The foundation of the state is a monopoly on the legitimate use violence. Haven't you been paying attention for the last few thousand years?

      That's why, in 1776 everyone in Europe throught the American Colonies would fail immediatly. Republics in Europe always failed within a few years, except the ones in ancient Greece and Rome which laster a bit longer. The US is a new and different type of government, one where the armed people have the power and the peace is kept by mutual consent. ... so far ...

      But Ancient Greece and Rome each lasted longer that we have so far.

  17. yeah, over 300 million guns by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    with only a small number in the hands of govt (6 million maybe.) Any sort of martial law would need the consent of the people and most of the people i know would not consent.

    1. Re:yeah, over 300 million guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you would just start shooting people? This is why they need to take your guns away.

    2. Re:yeah, over 300 million guns by daninaustin · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that.

    3. Re:yeah, over 300 million guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, so you would just result to shooting people? Even more of an example why they need to take your guns away.

  18. Deus Ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It struck me as rather fantastic that Deus Ex would pin the eventual takeover of the US on FEMA, but knowing that the government has plans to suspend habeas corpus and intern enemies of the state indefinitely makes me think that particular conspiracy is not that farfetched.

    Also the US has been in a permanent state of emergency since 1933, granting the executive branch broad discretionary powers that have never been revoked.

  19. An uncooperative American public.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can make all the plans they want. Too many Americans lack trust in their government and millions of firearms are distributed and stored. Effective control of an armed uncooperative population is extremely challenging. There would be armed resistance to martial law if implemented in the U.S.A.

    1. Re:An uncooperative American public.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Initially, maybe. When the first barns get flattened by M1s, including whatever is inside, the resistance should falter pretty quickly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Montreal in October 1970 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Canada put the Province of Québec under the martial laws in 1970 after the kidnapping of MP Pierre Laporte who was Labor minister and member of the mob. The Martial law result of thousands of jailed people because they speak french.

    1. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Martial law result of thousands of jailed people because they speak french.

      Internment of American-Japanese in the 2nd world war - just because they looked funny.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That and there were a few spies among them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter, the State Department was in fact riddled with Soviet spies when Joseph McCarthy started his rampage.

    4. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by Kittenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That and there were a few spies among them.

      [Citation needed]. Though I suspect if there weren't spies among 'em when they were interned, there were when they were released.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Canada put the Province of Québec under the martial laws in 1970 after the kidnapping of MP Pierre Laporte who was Labor minister and member of the mob. The Martial law result of thousands of jailed people because they speak french.

      Yes and that was implemented by a Liberal Prime Minister named Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The left like to talk about how they believe in rights and freedoms but once they get in power, their tune changes.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    6. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the 442nd Infantry Regiment, formed in World War II almost entirely of Japanese-Americans. It's the most decorated unit in U.S. military history, despite the fact that many of them had families in the internment camps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4... That's not to say that all of the internees had the same reaction, of course. It merely underscores just how short-sighted and stupid the policy was.

    7. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not here to defend internment of innocents (which is indefensible), but you did ask for a citation:

      The Niihau Incident

      One bomber from the Pearl Harbor attack crash landed on one of the smaller islands. There were three Japanese-Americans on the island who expressed no particular loyalty to Japan. When the pilot attempted to escape, he was assisted by all three Japanese-American in the break-out which included kidnapping and murder. The pilot ended up killed, one of his Japanese-American accomplices committed suicide by shotgun, and the rest of the residents of the island were shocked that their neighbors could betray them so quickly.

      Day one of the war, the distrust was sown.

    8. Re:Montreal in October 1970 by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      You live in a peculiar universe if you think that Canadian Liberals are left wing.

      Oh, hang on - do you live in America? If so, then yes, you do live in a peculiar universe.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  21. So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
    Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
    Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....

    So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll be well prepared for nuclear war then. Lets get right on that. Or maybe not.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT by gman003 · · Score: 1

      No, see, infantry are actually trained on how to use military weapons and equipment. Cops just get handed a grenade launcher and told to go tear-gas some protesters. So we'd actually be better off with martial law.

      * I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.

    3. Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like, cops are handed a grenade launcher and told to maintain it well at their expense, rather than letting it rust in a military warehouse. A lot of that stuff isn't getting actively used, but it is being maintained, which is what the military wanted: to offload surplus onto someone else who would pay to keep it up. If there's ever a real problem, the military will just reclaim its surplus, in top shape.

    4. Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
      Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
      Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....

      So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?

      Well yeah. You don't throw frogs into boiling water. They jump. You have to put them in the water and then slowly turn up the heat..

      --
      ~X~
  22. News for Liberterians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I wonder if this site is becoming "News for Liberterians." Originally, it was "News for Nerds." Certainly, some nerds are liberterians. But an article like this is in striking contrast to the normal tech-oriented fare that seems of interest to the broader nerd population here.

    Then again, maybe the mission here has drifted, like so many of those cable channels. Remember when "TLC" stood for "The Learning Channel" rather than being just three random letters designating the channel that brought us "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo?"

    (posting as AC to preserve loss of Karma from any liberterian moderators who wish to suppress my point of view)

    1. Re:News for Liberterians by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Huh, I just read this article in a "history nerd" mindset.

  23. I wonder if they're still updated by swb · · Score: 1

    I wonder if any of these plans are still being updated, even if it's only by some guy in a basement office someplace.

    Obviously China is still of interest, but most of them are extremely unlikely, although you wonder if there are times where it gets thought about. France after the attempt on De Gaulle or the possibility of a left-wing revolution in 1968, maybe even about Marine LePen. Mexico might warrant some kind of what-ifs around a failed state status. Germany and Japan are occupied by US forces now, but maybe there's some political theorizing about a populist/nativist Japanese party gaining power. Germany seems like the worst candidate, with the only situations I can imagine revolving around a collapse of the Euro and some kind of German administration of European economies, which seems unlikely.

    1. Re:I wonder if they're still updated by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't say European economies, say 'greater Germany'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  24. Plan D: NSA takes over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and that is exactly what we are having now

    1. Re:Plan D: NSA takes over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you skip over the part of the pamphlet that said "Do not suddenly stop taking Thorazine."?

  25. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Again: "The Native understanding is that there is always enough for everyone when abundance is shared and when gratitude is given back to the Original Source. The trick was to explain the concept of the Field of Plenty with few mutually understood words or signs. The misunderstanding that sprang from this lack of common language robbed those who came to Turtle Island of a beautiful teaching."

    And it is just happening again with downmodding as "off-topic" of my post in response about a healthier alternative rather than planning for doomsday and war. :-(

    Even now, different people in the USA speak a different "language", even if the words themselves is called "English". As shown in ST:TNG "Darmok", words acquire their meaning through references to shared culture and stories. If you don't know the culture or stories, the words may sound like they have no meaning. Thus, that was part of the "boat people" from Europe failing to realize the true wealth of the Americas in native culture.

    Another, even sadder, example is Columbus and the Arowak of Haiti, as explained by Howard Zinn:
    http://www.historyisaweapon.co...
    "Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. ... These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus. ... The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold? He had persuaded the king and queen of Spain to finance an expedition to the lands, the wealth, he expected would be on the other side of the Atlantic-the Indies and Asia, gold and spices. ... The Indians, Las Casas says, have no religion, at least no temples. They live in "large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves.... They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality." ... Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were "naked as the day they were born," they showed "no more embarrassment than animals." Columbus later wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." ... Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards "thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades." Las Casas tells how "two of these so-called Chri

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  26. We have had to invade friends before ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    No joke, the US Army has plans for "if we have to invade Canada."

    We have had to invade friends before, for example France in 1944.

    1. Re:We have had to invade friends before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've invaded Canada before as well.

    2. Re:We have had to invade friends before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you've invaded Canada before as well.

      Not the independent nation of Canada, just the British Territory named Canada.

  27. Delivering the mail by perpenso · · Score: 1

    ... there was a CoG (Continuity of Government) plan, at least for leadership. Don't ask me who they thought was going to deliver the mail ...

    "The Postman"
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

  28. 12949 by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I wonder who they were?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:12949 by khallow · · Score: 2

      Agreed. That's the nasty thing about proscription lists, you tend to find out who's on them the hard way. I think it'd be educational to see how such a process would have worked in the 1950s.

    2. Re:12949 by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That's the nasty thing about proscription lists, you tend to find out who's on them the hard way. I think it'd be educational to see how such a process would have worked in the 1950s.

      I think that people have forgotten that their freedom was built on a lot of bloodshed an suffering. The apathy that has arisen in many has led them to not understanding, that (old saying) the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance and forgetting that not paying that price leads to a police state.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  29. Bush Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was implemented by the shadow government in the Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Coup by the shadow government executed post 911

  30. USA invading Canada? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They better be better plans than the last two times the USA tried it and got its butt kicked (1175, 1812). :-) Or is it six times the USA has invaded?
    http://mentalfloss.com/article...

    Of course, if the USA really has to invade Canada, like say, if lots more oil is discovered there and the USA political system need to redirect who gets the profits from it, or if Canada experiments with a "basic income" again and the USA fears "contagion", then everyone will be screaming if there are no plans. :-) See also Chomsky on:
    "The Threat of a Good Example"
    http://www.chomsky.info/books/...
    "No country is exempt from U.S. intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it's the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria. ... As far as American business is concerned, Nicaragua could disappear and nobody would notice. The same is true of El Salvador. But both have been subjected to murderous assaults by the US, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions of dollars. There's a reason for that. The weaker and poorer a country is, the more dangerous it is as an example. If a tiny, poor country like Grenada can succeed in bringing about a better life for its people, some other place that has more resources will ask, "why not us?" ... "

    I guess Canada is safe for now because it is not weak and poor?

    It's a no win situation making such plans or not if your job is to consider every eventuality.

    Still, sometimes the best way to win is not to play. This was written by a Marine Major General and two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Smedley Butler:
    http://www.warisaracket.org/ra...
    "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
    I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
    I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."

    Consider, for example, the Strv 103 tank that Sweden designed. They are designed for home defense on Sweden's mountainous terrain, not going abroad.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
    "It was known for its unconventional turretless design, with a fixed gun traversed by engaging the tracks and elevated by adjusting the hull suspension. ... The Strv 103 was designed and manufactured in Sweden. It was developed in the 1950s and was the first main battle tank to use a turbine engine. The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on defence and heightened crew protection level. ..."

    That design reflects Major General Butler's point.

    Although they have since gone more conventional in their designs:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    The really laughable thing about all these plans is that, as was said in "Brittle Power" (or maybe "Energy, Vulnerability, and War"), quoting from memory from 1980s books, "a troop of boy scouts could shut down the USA's vital energy infrastructure" given the fragility of oil pipelines where every segment is essentially a single point of fail

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:USA invading Canada? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's okay, we have plans for stopping you from invading. Just leave lots of cases of real beer across the border. You guys won't be able to handle it and we can counterattack.

    2. Re:USA invading Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety")

      You're a fucking idiot. There's always someone who wants more than safety.

    3. Re:USA invading Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1175?

    4. Re:USA invading Canada? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Thanks, AC. Yes, that is a typo, sorry, and should be "1775", not "1175".
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
      "The Invasion of Canada in 1775 was the first major military initiative by the newly formed Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. The objective of the campaign was to gain military control of the British Province of Quebec, and convince the French-speaking Canadiens to join the revolution on the side of the Thirteen Colonies. ... The British sent several thousand troops, including General John Burgoyne and Hessian mercenaries, to reinforce those in the province in May 1776. General Carleton then launched a counter-offensive, ultimately driving the smallpox-weakened and disorganized American forces back to Fort Ticonderoga. ..."

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    5. Re:USA invading Canada? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it was native americans invading a viking settlement in Canada... or something.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    6. Re:USA invading Canada? by ExEm2SS · · Score: 1

      That only works if the beer is Sleeman's Honey Brown Lager.

    7. Re:USA invading Canada? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Ya 'cause Canadian's just leave the cases of beer alone? More likely it will turn into a drinking contest and devolve into a poorly played hockey game...

      Or we'll start a beer gap, which will cause both countries to create strategic beer reserves...

    8. Re:USA invading Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have way more craft breweries than you guys do. And I wouldn't call Molson "real beer".

  31. Happy Days by borknado · · Score: 1

    This puts the innocence of the 1950's in proper perspective, huh? Leave It To Beaver seemed false because, well, it was. McCarthyism, Hoover, the Cold War, all these things were going on full bore while American families ate their new-fangled TV dinners, with a false sense of security and reality. It's amazing we made it out of those dark times, that we all look back on as so idyllic.

  32. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    Las Casas tells how "two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys." ..."

    And the Iraqi Republican Guards pulled babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and threw then on the floor to die, right?

    Sometimes historical "facts" are made up to discredit the other side.

  33. Swore oaths to the Constitution by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Aaaaannnd what side of the battle you think they will be on? You know, after having sworn oaths etc, and a command structure that can say "bang! you're dead" for not obeying orders?

    They swore oaths to the Constitution and not blind loyalty to a President, nor a commander nor a command structure. They only swore to obey lawful orders from that command structure, i.e. orders within the bounds of the Constitution. Contrary to the belief of many civilians, soldiers and Marines are not mindless robots that will follow all orders.

    Or do you consider that every ex-miltary person has a raging libertarian anti-government hard-on? And want to kill their former squad mates?

    You mean like in a civil war where half the country feels the other half has betrayed the constitution and the people? When things go that bad active duty military are picking sides just live former military and other civilians. Read up on the US Civil War, a major problem for the Union was that many of its best officers and troops joined the Confederate forces. Robert E Lee was offered command of both the Union Army and the Confederate Army.

    1. Re:Swore oaths to the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaaannnd what side of the battle you think they will be on? You know, after having sworn oaths etc, and a command structure that can say "bang! you're dead" for not obeying orders?

      They swore oaths to the Constitution and not blind loyalty to a President, nor a commander nor a command structure. They only swore to obey lawful orders from that command structure, i.e. orders within the bounds of the Constitution. Contrary to the belief of many civilians, soldiers and Marines are not mindless robots that will follow all orders.

      Or do you consider that every ex-miltary person has a raging libertarian anti-government hard-on? And want to kill their former squad mates?

      You mean like in a civil war where half the country feels the other half has betrayed the constitution and the people? When things go that bad active duty military are picking sides just live former military and other civilians. Read up on the US Civil War, a major problem for the Union was that many of its best officers and troops joined the Confederate forces. Robert E Lee was offered command of both the Union Army and the Confederate Army.

      It's like what perpenso said: in a civil war "When things go that bad active duty military are picking sides just like former military and other civilians."
      Plus about 40% of Virginia's officers joined the Union army, and also about 20% of the Union army was Southerners from the slave states, and Southern local militia supporting the Union were a constant thorn in the side of the Confederacy.

  34. Plan C: treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't there a punishment we use for treason?

  35. War Plan Poo Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a world with nuclear armament, all plans have one color - Poo Brown!

  36. Martial law by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    I think this is why it managed to say 'secret' for so long. When you were briefed into the program you realized that:
    1. The plan was incredibly unlikely to ever go 'live'
    2. If the plan DID have to go 'live' things were so FUBAR that it was the best remaining option.

    We need continuity in government. So long as the military command(majority of surviving government due to being designed to survive attack) gives command back over to civilians in a reasonable timeframe*, we're good.

    *2-4 years? Enough for a new election cycle, at least.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Martial law by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      In times of great danger, people band together and agree to be slaves in order to survive.
      In times of peace, they want to go their own way in order to be more adaptable.

      Both ways work, in their own time and place. It is the transition between that is the problem, either direction.

    2. Re:Martial law by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In times of great danger, people band together and agree to be slaves in order to survive.

      If you're comparing living under martial law to slavery, I think you do a disservice to slavery. It's bad if martial law lasted for a long time, but the goal of martial law should be to compensate for a failed/destroyed civil system. In which case you have martial law just long enough to rebuild the civilian structures.

      It's more along the lines of 'things are bad right now, we all need to buckle down to survive'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  37. Wow by sootman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And yet somehow we survived with these 10,000 people with connections to subversive organizations roaming freely in our midst. Amazing.

    Dear ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: *THIS* is why we don't want you to have infinite surveillance. Because those 10,000 people you had files on did EXACTLY NOTHING. You want to wiretap someone, go get some ACTUAL FUCKING EVIDENCE. Not just "he read this book and knows this guy and likes to encrypt his files."

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  38. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 4, Informative

    True, and that bit about Iraqis was indeed war propaganda used to justify US violence.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
    "The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Sabah ... and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda."

    Except Las Casa was also Spanish, so presumably "on the same side"as Columbus (or at least his funders):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
    "Bartolome de las Casas, O.P. (c. 1484[1] -- 18 July 1566) was a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar. He became the first resident Bishop of Chiapas, and the first officially appointed "Protector of the Indians". His extensive writings, the most famous being A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies and Historia de Las Indias, chronicle the first decades of colonization of the West Indies and focus particularly on the atrocities committed by the colonizers against the indigenous peoples.[2] Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he participated in, and was eventually compelled to oppose, the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives."

    So, it is perhaps more like Pat Tillman, who left a lucrative contract with the NFL to sign up to invade Iraq, and who conveniently died from "friendly fire" before a planned meeting with Noam Chomsky over his emerging doubts?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
    "Patrick Daniel "Pat" Tillman (November 6, 1976-- April 22, 2004) was an American football player who left his professional career and enlisted in the United States Army in June 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and subsequent death, were the subject of much media attention.[1] ... Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky for after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered.[31] General Wesley Clark agreed that it was "very possible". ..."

    More on that:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2...
    "An NFL football star who enlisted in the Army in May 2002, he apparently became disenchanted with the conduct of the war. He not only did not support President Bush for reelection, but encouraged others to vote for John Kerry. According to his mother, a friend of his had arranged for him to meet with Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus from MIT and one of our nationâ(TM)s most respected public intellectuals, who, no doubt, could have launched him into prominent orbit as an outspoken opponent of the war, had he been so inclined."

    But read for yourself what Columbus himself wrote in his log.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  39. Only 12,949 subversives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, today they would start rounding up people on the "No Fly List" and the list of people the FBI watches and end up having to build concentration camps capable of holding millions.

  40. The early 70's are calling. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    One of the largest internal migrations in US history was in the early 70's when 20 something hippies started leaving cities in droves and building mud brick utopias. Only a handful of the communes survived more then 2ys. The common cause of downfall was human nature - a bully would arise in the commune and take ownership of the land by pushing people out one by one.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:The early 70's are calling. by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      As said by someone who studied primitive technology, when asked why he did not just go off to live by himself in the woods, "It takes a village of skilled people to live well int the wilderness" (or something to that effect).

      Yeah, so most hippies were naive and also lacking technical skills and resources.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      "Free love" is another "Hippy" ideal which did not work out too well either in most cases for various all-too-human reasons. Even when one rejects marriage, rejecting "relationships" is a completely different issue.

      But, that the mistakes of many hippies do not prove anything about the general issue of decentralization for resiliency.

      I agree with you that "equity" though is a big issue in any emerging social system. That is something that gave me pause long ago, as I write about here:
      http://www.pdfernhout.net/sunr...
      "Basically, this all made me realized there is a difference between being an "employee" (even an employee-owner) with revokable rights or loseable equity, and being a "citizen" with irrevokable rights."

      Still, the "Co-housing" movement has been addressing some of these concerns as far as US cultural expectations.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      A successful US co-housing example:
      http://ecovillageithaca.org/
      "EcoVillage at Ithaca is part of a global movement of people seeking to create positive solutions to the social, environmental and economic crises our planet faces. Since 1991 we have developed an award-winning ecovillage that invites you to live, learn and grow. Our mission is to promote experiential learning about ways of meeting human needs for shelter, food, energy, livelihood and social connectedness that are aligned with the long-term health and viability of Earth and all its inhabitants."

      Healthy communities have rules and norms and stories that help manage them. Humans have been living in mostly independent tribal situations for hundreds of thousands of years. It is not like it can't be done, if you are willing to make certain sacrifices. The question is, how could we or should we do it now, with more technical and social knowledge?

      Also, some random collection of strangers in the modern day does not have the social cohesion of an extended family or tribe from centuries ago who have known each other from birth. A random collection of strangers, sharing little more initially than some ideal, is probably going to need more formal structure and more formal processes. Also, millennia ago, there was not such a possibility of a huge rich/poor divide in such communities as regards outside work, where one person makes minimum wage at a job cooking or doing child care while another member of the community makes 100X that as a lawyer or a doctor -- or maybe a plumber in some areas these days. :-)

      See also:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
      "Sahlins gathered the data from these studies and used it to support a comprehensive argument that states that hunter-gatherers did not suffer from deprivation, but instead lived in a society in which "all the peopleâ(TM)s wants are easily satisfied.""

      However, much of my own thinking about this came from an interest in space settlements... This is an issue anybody creating space habitats, moon bases, Mars bases, or whatever needs to think about.

      Another aspect of that was figuring out how to create communities that could survive nuclear war and economic collapse. My concern about surviving war might be a bit easier to understand when you consider that this is what my Mother's home town looked like after WWII:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    2. Re:The early 70's are calling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly have to ask if you believe the bullshit that you've written about mutual security.

      It will not happen in your lifetime, and will likely never happen... thankfully.

      We need a way to eliminate the weak.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Mineshafts! by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    "Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!"

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  43. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada is the one that burned down the White House.

    If this was the old plan, I wonder what the new one is?

  44. Community working together to adddress threats by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "(AC:) There's always someone who wants more than safety."

    And how in practice are you going to deter someone or defend yourself from someone "who want's more safety" (or even know such a person exists and is out to make trouble for you) unless you are part of a community who are all looking out for each other?

    Of course, you also have to be willing to listen and pay attention in that case. Example:
    "Hoekstra on Underwear Bomber: "We Missed Him at Every Step""
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
    "In November the suspect's father went to the US Embassy in Abuja, the Nigerian capital, to warn that his son was being radicalized in Yemen."

    Still, I have to agree that the challenge of what to do about mentally ill people or politically ill countries, when they become violent, is a challenging one for any community.

    Related movie:
    "The Day the Earth Stood Still"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
    "Klaatu warns the professor that the people of the other planets have become concerned for their safety after humans developed atomic power."

    Or, as Einstein said: "The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking ... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker. (1945)"

    Although, in an age where even watches have enough CPU power to do the calculations that produced the original atomic bombs, retreating from the problem gets a little more complicated...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  45. who says they aren't still thinking about it? by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    For the last 60 years, the government has been planning and tweaking this plan. All they need is a massive disaster, war, civil unrest to "allow" the government to implement this. Take away our bill of rights, cancel habeas corpus, and put (illegal according to the constitution) federal police who answer to NO ONE but the government. Local police will be subjugated and if they don't comply, they will be locked up also. Anyone that has been on a watch list, written "subversive" things about the government, all gun owners (why do you think they want EVERY firearm registered) will be rounded up and sent to a (education) camp. The internet as we know it, will go away, all newspapers, radio, television will be strictly regulated, all "news" will be released only after a government censor approves it.

  46. Re: No they aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like you're doing? I agree; Citation needed ... or it's not true.

  47. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anon due to mods. This is extremely fascinating, thank you.

  48. Huh? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Canada does not have Google maps yet?

    On the more serious side, allies do spy and sometimes get caught. These things are usually handled without executions, since we are "allies" and all.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  49. Was that before or after by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    they built those FEMA camps?

    Why did they build FEMA camps that look like prisons that are near rail road tracks and each one has thousands of community coffins that can hold 4 bodies.

    They are modeled after the camps they kept Japanese-Americans in or before that the Native-Americans.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  50. Land of the free blah blah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which just goes to demonstrate how most of the "freedoms" enjoyed by Americans are there only as long as they don't get in the way of the ruling class. If the ruling classes position is threatened then those freedoms magically disappear through a number of rather backhanded mechanisms.

    At the moment this seems limited to individuals who particularly piss off the top echelons but make no mistake if enough people start causing trouble then they'll simply remove some of those "freedoms" just like they did with the occupy wall street people.

  51. Maybe the "weak" are those who can't cooperate? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    From: http://www.shareintl.org/archi...
    ===
    "We need competition in order to survive."
    "Life is boring without competition."
    "It is competition that gives us meaning in life."
    These words written by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition.
    Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn's book will be an invaluable resource.
    ===

    BTW, I'm quoting Morton Deutsch there (as indicated). Here is the source link (also on the previously linked page):
    http://www.beyondintractabilit...
    " Q: You're starting to see the analogy to international conflict, or intractable conflict on a larger scale?
    A: Yes. Well, I wrote a paper about preventing World War III. That was during the height of the cold war, I think I wrote it in 1982, it was called "The Presidential Address to the International Society to Political Psychology." And there I took the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and characterized it as a malignant relationship, which had some of the characteristics that I was talking about with the couple. It was right for both the United States and the Soviet Union to think that the other was hostile, would undo it, would damage it, you know, all of these things. The relationship was a malignant one. They had to become aware of the malignancy, and the only way out really was recognizing that it's hurting, recognizing that there is a potential better way of relating. And that better way of relating involves having a sense that one can only have security if there's mutual security. And that's true in most relationships. That's particularly true to recognize groups that have had bitter strife where they've hurt each other. They have to deal with the problem of how to get to where they can live together. It may be ethnic groups within a given nation or community. They can only live together if they recognize that their own security is going to be dependent on the other person's security. So each person, each side, each group has to be interested in the welfare of the other.
    On a national level it has to deal with military and other economic security. At the group level and personal level, it often has to do with psychological security. It has to do with someone recognizing, I shouldn't be treating the other in an undignified, disrespectful way. So in an interpersonal relationship, that kind of security, recognizing that not only are you entitled to it, so is the other person entitled to it. And if you don't give that other person that entitlement the relationship is going to move in the other direction, back to bitter conflict."

    That said, sure, if you look at evolution, there is a sense that every generation is filtered somehow. Only one sperm of millions gets to the egg... But, what really matters to survival of humans once they are conceived? Cooperation seems very important among humans. Individual ex

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  52. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    You're welcome. Thanks for reading and modding.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  53. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should "All Hell" break loose, the TSA stands shoulder to shoulder to prevent escape of any USA or otherwise Human from the USA and kill anything trying to escape or otherwise cannot speak proper American and look American and dress American and ... like kitties ... and doggies ... especially those chicken bits and flour and pepper seeds turned into poodles, deep fried like Colonel Sanders Chickens, they look like Jews from Auschwitz and so tasty and succulent.

    Eat a "poodle" eat a Jew.

    http://en.rocketnews24.com/2015/01/24/japanese-food-blogger-makes-fried-chicken-poodles-theyre-too-cute-to-eat/

  54. Re:Plan A: Abundance & conflict resolution for by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Your comments about Pat Tilman in particular are just typical conspiracy theory bs. They may be true I guess, but I think it makes more sense to believe that he will killed by incompetence than and that was covered up than to believe that he was killed to shut him up. Noam Chomsky is not "one of our nation's most respected public intellectuals". Few Americans have heard of him. He has little to no influence on anything today. He was a famous critic of the Vietnam War, but that was so long ago that if you believe that he still has major influence then you probably also believe the same about Ralph Nader. Both Nader and Chomsky have long been American historical footnotes. I'm sure that if Tilman was unhappy with the realities of his service that it would have attracted some attention, but Chomsky is simply not important enough to murder a guy deliberately to prevent him from meeting Chomsky.

    While Tilman served, if the military/government feared him becoming an anti-war activist it was relatively easy to keep him occupied in Afghanistan, even if at a desk job, and deny him a chance to return home for a while. From what I've read about Tilman and his family after his death, I can't say I'm super impressed with any of them. Tilman seemed to act first and think second. He served as an enlisted man. Not an officer, but an enlisted man. He had a college degree so I have to question the decision to willingly bypass officer candidates school. Some of that may have been because his brother, who joined with him, wasn't a college graduate. I don't know. But off hand it doesn't strike me as the greatest decision ever to bypass OCS. Keep in mind too that losing a loved one during military service causes some surviving family members to behave in strange ways. Cindy Sheehan reacted negatively to her son's death and in my opinion mostly in an irrational way. I can certainly understand that when it seems that Tilman's death was covered up, and it does seem to be covered up, that his family would just assume the worst possible scenario as likely.

  55. Re: No they aren't by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Like. you don't exist. Citation needed ... or I don't believe you are real..

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  56. If they tried to take my guns by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    Yes, I would. Newsflash: I'm not alone. If you think that an Australian or British confiscation is a good idea, think again. We won't comply.

  57. That one looks jewish and that one's a coon by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a veteran (Not a raging libertarian) I can tell you that you would likely see entire units refuse to fire on American civilians. In fact we are taught to disobey unlawful orders.

    Officer: fire!

    [uneasy silence, some shuffling of feet]

    Officer: They're cormanusts! And terrusts! And queers, probably.

    Dakka-dakka-dak! Dakka-dakka-dakka dak!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Re:Do you really think we should not be making pla by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I'll bet we have plans to suspend the US Cons after Facebook goes down for 24 hours.

    Make it a week and we've got a deal.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  59. Think it through by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    State governors can't exercise Federal Executive powers - such as commanding the Army, or supervising the Federal courts or the Postal Service, or... well, you get the picture.

  60. Incredibly low count of internees. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    When activated, Plan C would have brought the United States under martial law, rounded up over ten thousand individuals connected to 'subversive' organizations,

    Interning "over ten thousand" [subversives] sounds unbelievably low to me. The number of "subversive organisations would probably be in the tens of thousands alone, with multiple targets per organisation. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of internees would sound more credible to me. The Ulster internment put away (temporarily) a bit less than 2000 people during it's operation from a population of a bit less than 2 million. If America under martial law were to be comparable, that would suggest 300000 detainees in America as a whole.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"