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.
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.
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.
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.
plan "c" what about "Plan R" !!!!
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
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?
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.
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?
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'
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
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?
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
> 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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Also forgot to mention Kent State
(Damn I wish /. would allow you to add onto posts)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
That's what allies are for, then you swap forces for suppression efforts.
Huh, I just read this article in a "history nerd" mindset.
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.
... 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...
I wonder who they were?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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: ... 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?" ... "
"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.
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. ... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Did you skip over the part of the pamphlet that said "Do not suddenly stop taking Thorazine."?
True, and that bit about Iraqis was indeed war propaganda used to justify US violence. ... 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."
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
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? ... 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". ..."
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]
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!"
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
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.
"(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stanley Milgram proved you wrong long ago.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
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.
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..
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
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.
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....
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.
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."
Make it a week and we've got a deal.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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"