Slashdot Mirror


60,000 Germans Evacuate While Officials Try To Defuse a WWII Bomb (abc.net.au)

More than 70 years ago the UK's Royal Air Force dropped an 1,100-pound bomb on Germany. They just found it. An anonymous reader quotes ABC: Residents in two German cities are evacuating their homes as authorities prepare to dispose of World War II-era bombs found during construction work this week. About 21,000 people have been ordered to leave their homes and workplaces in the western city of Koblenz as a precaution before specialists attempt to defuse the 500-kilogram bomb on Saturday afternoon (local time). Among those moved to safety are prison inmates and hospital patients. Officials in the financial capital Frankfurt, meanwhile, are carrying out what is described as Germany's biggest evacuation. Frankfurt city officials have said more than 60,000 residents will have to leave their homes for at least 12 hours.

Failure to defuse the bomb could cause a big enough explosion to flatten a city block, a fire department official said. "This bomb has more than 1.4 tonnes of explosives," Frankfurt fire chief Reinhard Ries said. "It's not just fragments that are the problem, but also the pressure that it creates that would dismantle all the buildings in a 100-metre radius"... Police will ring every doorbell and use helicopters with heat-sensing cameras to make sure nobody is left behind before they start diffusing the bomb.

Reuters notes that every year Germany discovers more than 2,000 tons of live bombs and munitions, adding "In July, a kindergarten was evacuated after teachers discovered an unexploded World War Two bomb on a shelf among some toys."

154 comments

  1. So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    is it a 500kg bomb or is it a 1400kg bomb... you cant have a 500kg bomb containing 1.4Tonnes of explosives...

    1. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are two bombs. One in each of two cities.

    2. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's probably not one bomb that is threatening to flatten 2 cities, it's safe to assume that they're talking about two different bombs.

    3. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it was TNT?

    4. Re:So what weight? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      you cant have a 500kg bomb containing 1.4Tonnes of explosives...

      . . . the bomb used a WWII precursor of today's TARDIS technology.

      There's always plenty of more room near the rear . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1100 pounds = 500 kilograms = 1/2 metric tonne.

    6. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's bigger on the inside?

    7. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is going on here? There was no reason to mod that down. All this negativity is going to ruin this place. Please, make sure people are qualified before awarding them moderation points. The ability to read and understand English would be one such qualification. I hope somebody will come along and correct the bad mod.

      I have also noticed clear abuse of privileges by the employees here. This must stop.

    8. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it a 500kg bomb or is it a 1400kg bomb... you cant have a 500kg bomb containing 1.4Tonnes of explosives...

      Yes you can. A 500MTon nuclear weapon doesn't actually weigh 500 million tons.

      But in any case this seems to be a problem with your brain and reading comprehension. Idiot.

    9. Re:So what weight? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      There are two bombs.

      Are you sure about that, captain Picard?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I hear my little brother called a tardis, I get so angry I can't see straight. I hope the GP gets a paper cut every single day for the rest of his life.

    11. Re:So what weight? by Megol · · Score: 1

      /. is paradise compared to arstechnica. Try to argue for a point instead of posting emotional (and 100% wrong) crap? Downvoted to oblivion. Try to joke? Downvoted unless it is based on emotional and wrong crap. Post relevant information (_not_ skewed shit but scientific research done by real scientists in a non-biased way and accepted by the scientific community)? Downvote if it doesn't happen to support the groupthink.

      Really /. is paradise compared to that shithole. Randomized the password for my long-time login and redirected arstechnica to localhost so I'll never be tempted to check it out again. First time I've done that...
      [/rant]

    12. Re:So what weight? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I second this. For a site with such comparatively classy articles, Ars seems to get the commentariat that Salon.com rejected.

    13. Re:So what weight? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I heard on the TV about a blockbuster. That's 4,000lb, IIRC. A cookie is 8,000, unless it's the way round.

      In either case it's pretty big. Only Lancasters could carry anything bigger (up to 20,000lb), and even then only with modification.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tardis was a phone-booth shaped space-time machine (larger on the inside than outside via some interdementional property) on a children's British sci-fi program called "Dr. Who" that was brought back into production much like America's Star Trek (only with scenes shot in the UK's dilapidated ghettos where characters are supposed to be interesting because of the color of their hair). The program was warped and stupid from an American perspective, especially when they began to mock us with the roles they cast American-accent actors into.

    15. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they're using the same system that they use for rating nuclear bombs. I'm pretty sure that one of those nuclear tons doesn't actually weigh megatons.

    16. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, sweet tits

    17. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas your Mom is a Sidrat (bigger on the outside).

    18. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news for nerds here is that it's a 500kg bomb containing 1400kg of explosives and an anti-gravity field generator.

    19. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've summed it up nicely. Ars has turned into a shit-hole of groupthink.

    20. Re:So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't.

      Nuclear weapons are rated by "equivalent tons of TNT". I.e. it is a rating of the explosive power. Non-nuclear bombs are rated by the mass capacity of the bomb.

    21. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, conventional bombs are also in TNT equivalent. Most of them, however, have an explosive with a similar mass energy density as TNT. There are a few wierdos that aren't, like the MOAB and some of,the low collateral damage weapons with significantly different explosives.

    22. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off retards.

    23. Re:So what weight? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's because ARS sold out ages ago. And when they started pushing the "subscriptor" stuff, people started believing that because they paid for it, it made them better then anyone else around.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conventional bombs (and the ones in question) are by nominal mass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So a typical Mk 82 bomb is called a 500 pound bomb (and has about 190 pounds of explosive in it - with a TNT rating of about 200 pounds) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Certainly the ones in question are by mass.

      You are correct for some modern very large munitions (which still have mass ratings but can have a yield rating as well).

    25. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This place is already ruined, this the average comment count on stories versus 5 years ago. It used to be that every story would have several hundred comments, now only the contentious political troll stories do.

      The signal-to-noise ratio is getting quite low, the "editors" aren't doing any favors with their story selections, and the antique code running this site is no longer acceptable to many. I mean, HTTPS by default only this year? It's a race to see which happens first: humans on Mars, or Slashdot supporting Unicode.

    26. Re: So what weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the other way round.

  2. Thiz iz da bomb!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now kiddz repeatz afterz meez... this is a a bomba... b o m b a
    No touchy!!!!
    Capatca: aliens

  3. How long has it been since you've seen this? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    Somebody set up us the bomb!

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  4. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have thought of that ~80 years ago.

    1. Re:Huh by stooo · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's right.
      Americans and English didn't think of that when dropping this shit.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    2. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and destroying the houses and property of millions was the aim of their bombing campaign, I can't imagine they would have been very bothered about it if they had.

  5. That's a half a kilo ton of T.N.T. then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Or, is does metric throw that off and maybe just a half tonne?

  6. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCHNELLLLLL

    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happens all the time, no big deal unless you are directly involved. News worthy is it goes off or if it was rare to find unexploded ordnance in former war zones.

    1. Re:in other words by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Rural Belgium has this same problem, but from WW I.

    2. Re:in other words by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      We have the same problem here in Canada from WWI and WWII. There's large stretches outside of bombing ranges where they still find munitions and such. Then you run into problems in places where they had munitions factories, Ingersoll, Ontario had one for WWI and WWII. The town itself was also used in training for house-to-house searches, when they were training people for D-day. So every once and awhile, in the older parts of town people will find booby traps in the walls(non-functional) and so on, when they do renovations, along with training landmines in their backyards and so on.

      Funny thing, was Ingersoll had a better layout compared to a european city then say Woodstock at the time, which is why the canuck military liked using it. Plus there were multiple rivers, streams, creeks, park areas, that all emulated european cities because the population had a lot of people who'd come over after WWI.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re: in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During WW2 some elements of the UK government were keen on dropping mustard gas on Germany (the RAF was less keen due to handling issues), so it used to be in the UK up until the late 90s that every now and then a farmer on land that was once an airfield would turn up an dump of it.

    4. Re:in other words by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy who was in a bomb disposal unit in the Belgian army.

      Apparently chemical ones are the worst. They have to identify what it is (not easy when the paint's fallen off and it's encrusted with a century's worth of rust), move it to a secure lab, then release the contents, in a sealed chamber, into a substance that will neutralize or absorb the poison.

      If they don't find any more they might be finished in about 2030. But they keep digging them up...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: in other words by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      During WW2 some elements of the UK government were keen on dropping mustard gas on Germany (the RAF was less keen due to handling issues), so it used to be in the UK up until the late 90s that every now and then a farmer on land that was once an airfield would turn up an dump of it.

      Not really a surprise. You find nasty piles of heavy metal dumps all over the place here in southwestern ontario too, or tailings contamination because it was used as backfill in an area or other things. Not really much you can do in a lot of those cases, where I used to live in Woodstock was about 1km from 3 garbage dumps. 2 of which were less then 140m from one of the tributaries of the Thames River. House were built on them back in the 1960's and 70's, then came the problems with methane seeping, then came the serious problem where the dumps were causing radon seeping and they had to devise some method to cut down on pools of radon gas forming in a couple of the low-laying parks.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. it's two bombs by Immerial · · Score: 5, Informative

    one 500kg bomb in Koblenz, and a second 1.4 ton bomb in Frankfurt. (Bad title by editor... saying one bomb.)

  9. The Germans have the nicest toys... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "In July, a kindergarten was evacuated after teachers discovered an unexploded World War Two bomb on a shelf among some toys."

    When I was a kid in the 1970's California, we had to build our own pipe bombs.

    1. Re: The Germans have the nicest toys... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Who mods this shit up? It offers nothing at all to the story or discussion.

      It's a joke. Buy a clue.

      And saying he built pipe bombs in school?

      Before we had computers in the schools, many boys were interested in blowing up shit. It could be bombs, rockets, engine blocks or frogs. When my father grew in Idaho during the 1940's, he had quarter sticks of dynamite to go fishing with. When I grew up in California during the 1970's , pipe bombs were popular in my neighborhood and my older brother smuggled fireworks across the US-Mexico border. If you buy too much fertilizer today, you're put on a government watch list as a potential terrorist.

      What school then and now actually let kids build actually live pipe bombs.

      Any school that has a library with a chemistry book on the shelf and/or a poorly supervised chemistry lab. Or any public library that has a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" by William Powell. Or, today, the Internet.

    2. Re: The Germans have the nicest toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +2 mod? Are you fucking kidding me. Who mods this shit up? It offers nothing at all to the story or discussion. And saying he built pipe bombs in school? Get the fuck out of here. What school then and now actually let kids build actually live pipe bombs.

      Fuck this place more and more everyday.

      Lighten the fuck up, Francis.

    3. Re:The Germans have the nicest toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, we didn't have pipes. Had to build our own hookah bombs.

    4. Re: The Germans have the nicest toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a better idea. Buy a joke. Jokes are supposed to be funny, Graff Von Creimenburg.

    5. Re: The Germans have the nicest toys... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The author of "The Anarchist Cookbook" has grown up and long ago dismissed his book as immature, and dangerous to those who use its advice.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  10. 1,800 kg by demon+driver · · Score: 1

    There are two bombs, and TFA confuses them a bit. There's a 500 kg bomb in Koblenz, and a 1,800 kg aerial mine in Frankfurt. Which, obviously, is the one with 1.4 tonnes of explosives.

  11. We've seen this before... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like it isn't just Hollywood trying to turn old franchises into blockbusters this year.

    1. Re:We've seen this before... by mikael · · Score: 1

      We used to have a TV series called "Danger - UXB", based on the soldiers who had to slowly and carefully remove doodlebugs that children had found on the street and taken up to their bedrooms.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re: We've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1.4 tonne bomb is most likely the original blockbuster (aka "cookie"), a British 4000lb "High Capacity" bomb.

    3. Re: We've seen this before... by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Doodlebug was the nickname for the pulse jet powered V1 flying bomb. They weren't easy to lift, let alone take up to the bedroom.

    4. Re: We've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she's that heavy, you aren't taking her up to the bedroom, you're living in your parents' basement.

    5. Re: We've seen this before... by fnj · · Score: 1

      The V1 (Doodlebug) had an 850 kg (1870 lb) warhead. A complete V1 weighed 2150 kg (4740 lb). No "children" are going to carry either object upstairs.

  12. What?!? Hotdog?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a second 1.4 ton bomb in Frankfurt.

    Someone put a bomb in someone's hotdog?!

    1. Re:What?!? Hotdog?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dodger Dogs are explosive.

      A major component in them is Swamp gas.

    2. Re:What?!? Hotdog?! by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      ...a second 1.4 ton bomb in Frankfurt.

      Someone put a bomb in someone's hotdog?!

      Yes. But PETA already filed charges against the animal abuser.

    3. Re: What?!? Hotdog?! by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder how the Catskill Mountains got their name?

  13. Take that, Krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you upset the Brits. Keep it in mind during the Brexit negotiations: it happened when you Krauts became too uppity, it can happen again.

    1. Re:Take that, Krauts by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Britain is not moving away from Germany, it wants to leave the EU. There are 26 more states beside Germany in the EU (not counting the UK).

    2. Re:Take that, Krauts by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you upset the Brits. Keep it in mind during the Brexit negotiations: it happened when you Krauts became too uppity, it can happen again.

      What'll happen - the British will drop more dud bombs? I suppose it could be a problem if you happen to be right underneath one as it falls...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Take that, Krauts by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      it happened when you Krauts became too uppity, it can happen again.

      Well, you can try to give the Americans a call for help again, but I don't think that they will save you from the Krauts this time around.

      They will be busy cleaning up after Harvey and building a Wall . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Take that, Krauts by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, we can afford to take 10 minutes out of our busy days to dust off the Germans again.

    5. Re:Take that, Krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took you five years with most of the work being done by your allies last time. And that was when the Americans were the good guys and enjoyed support from most civilians.

    6. Re:Take that, Krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got the short amount of time bit right, but the Americans hardly dusted off the Germans.

      The Americans entered the war very late (over a third of the way in) and contributed to a massive ally effort. The Americans didn't suffer anything near the casualty rate that the British or other ally countries did (not fighting for a third of the war helps with that a lot).

      The reality is the "allies" won the war. The Americans contributed.

    7. Re:Take that, Krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain dropped those bombs in order to avoid joining the third reich, a union of several european countries including germany, austria, france, netherlands, belgium etc...

  14. Lol!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha! "...diffusing the bomb." Get rid of it by spreading it in the air? Abruptly, or gradually?

    1. Re:Lol!!! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Haha! "...diffusing the bomb." Get rid of it by spreading it in the air? Abruptly, or gradually?

      Wordings like this come from the same clueless copy editors who order crowds to "disburse." See we have the UXB team spreading the bomb debris in the air, and the German townspeople responding by tossing money aloft.

  15. Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Police will ring every doorbell and use helicopters with heat-sensing cameras to make sure nobody is left behind before they start diffusing the bomb."

    I hope it is defused and not diffused

    1. Re:Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a diffused bomb will lead to a diffuse explosion, or none at all...

    2. Re:Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Homeopathic bombs are stronger the more you diffuse them.

    3. Re:Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Police will ring every doorbell and use helicopters with heat-sensing cameras to make sure nobody is left behind before they start diffusing the bomb."

      I hope it is defused and not diffused

      One of the techniques if a UXB is too dangerous to move and can't safely be destroyed in-situ is to melt the explosive out with steam thus diffusing the contents. The Wikipedia page on Bomb disposal calls this Trepanation.

    4. Re:Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping they don't get over-zealous.
      Where I am staying at the moment is a couple of metres outside the exclusion zone, I have just heard the police ordering people to leave their houses but am assuming they don't mean this particular house.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    5. Re:Sincerely hope they *don't* diffuse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah cool info! Wish I had mod points

  16. Explosives by tquasar · · Score: 1

    There was a live piece of ammo in my neighbors garage when I was six years old. It was about 50 mm in diameter and I picked it up to look at it. I found a live round in the desert near a former aircraft firing range that I took and soaked in water for two days, then wrapped in wet paper and put in the trash. Me and my dad found some blasting caps in an abandoned trailer at the Hauser geode beds, we threw one into our campfire and it blew all the wood 2-3 feet away. He threw them into San Diego bay on his way to work on a ferry.

    1. Re:Explosives by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Back in the 1980's, a local WW2 vet passed away and his relatives found sweating dynamite in attic of a detached garage. Since the bomb squad couldn't get to the dynamite, they set the garage on fire and let the whole thing burn to the ground. The fire department sprayed water on the smoldering foundations.

    2. Re:Explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is sweating dynamite? Sigh now I gotta check it on google. Fucking google.

    3. Re:Explosives by c · · Score: 1

      Back in the 1980's, a local WW2 vet passed away and his relatives found sweating dynamite in attic of a detached garage.

      Back in the 80's after my grandfather passed away, they found old dynamite in the attic of his house.

      Not sure how they got it out, but they didn't burn the house down.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:Explosives by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      Lucky or it wasn't that old. Dynamite will sweat nitroglycerin after as soon as a year in storage. It can accumulate into pools on the floor. A small as a half of an ounce can take an arm off if you drop a hammer.

    5. Re: Explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the relatives had enough access to it that they found it and were able to identify it as old dynamite, but the bomb squad couldn't get to it for disposal? Let me guess, the disposal team was a bunch of 365 pound "football player bicyclists" who couldn't fit through the trap door into the attic, or walk without setting off the nitroglycerin?

      This story, like all of your stories, smacks of fabricated bullshit, creimer.

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

      you sound bitter, honey bunny

    7. Re: Explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving unstable nitroglycerin is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of access, but actually moving it. Much safer to burn it off instead.

    8. Re:Explosives by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine from the Netherlands was going to visit his grandfather one day, only to find that the whole neighbourhood was cordoned off, evacuated, and the police and military bomb disposal teams in a hurry to get inside.

      Turns out, his grandfather had been the quartermaster for the local resistance, and had a fair amount of stuff lying around in his cellar, such as a couple of anti-tank mines, some mortar shells, a whole lot of small arms ammunition etc.

    9. Re:Explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nitroglycerin leaks out old old dynamite as a liquid which either pools or crystallises. At that point it is no longer stabilised and the slightest shock can detonate it. Dropping something on the floor in the same room would be enough. Picking it up would also be enough.

    10. Re:Explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nitroglycerin leaks out old old dynamite as a liquid which either pools or crystallises.

      And all nitroglycerin leaked out of creimer's head by now:
      https://school.discoveryeducat...

    11. Re:Explosives by c · · Score: 1

      More likely it wasn't actually Dynamite. They said "dynamite", but given that they didn't need to do any real damage to the house getting it out I suspect it was something quite a bit more stable... some variant of TNT would be a more likely guess.

      Either way, it's almost certainly not an approved storage method.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    12. Re:Explosives by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      a detached garage. Since the bomb squad couldn't get to the dynamite, they set the garage on fire and let the whole thing burn to the ground.

      Sounds like a correct action.

      Contrary to what Hollywood will train people to think, most high explosives (and many low explosives) will burn perfectly unconcernedly if not confined. To get them to detonate, you need to apply a shock wave with a propagation speed of some thousand-plus metres per second. You don't get that accidentally - you need a specially designed detonator, containing small amounts of amuch more sensitive explosive.

      Detached garage. Rebuilding cost a few thousands of pounds. Yeah - empty it of anything valuable not close to the "bang" then torch it. The cost of digging one small piece of debris out of a bomb-squaddy's face would be far higher.

      If there had been detonators in the same stockpile ... rather more iffy.

      Upthread someone mentioned the nitroglycerine will explode if you bang it with a hammer. True. Which is why (get this - it's complex!) people aren't allowed to make or get hold of nitroglycerine without a triplicate shipload of paperwork. Nitrogen tri-iodide is even worse - that'll bang with the impact of a fly's foot. Which is why there is no commercial use for it, indeed, no use I'm aware of except making colourful bangs in the chemistry lab. When you make the stuff yourself.

      The two main reasons that TNT is a popular explosive are (1) it's LOW sensitivity to shock in general (you need a powerful detonator) and (2) it's low sensitivity to shock when melted.
      The latter is a different point to the former - for all I know, frozen nitroglycerine could be safe to play squash with, but the liquid is a different matter. Most shell casings (such as the original subject) are machined in the casting and welding shop, cleaned of debris, then filled with molten TNT and thrown along the assembly line. Bang, clash, rattle! It's only when you put the detonator in that they need more than the respect any ton-plus moving object deserves.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. Bomb Type by Catmeat · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bomb is a British Blockbuster - so called because one could flatten an entire city block.The bombs are the origin of the term..

    They were giant cylinders filled with explosive,with no streamling and no tailfins. When dropped they tumbled randomly through the air so there was no kind of accuracy with them. Dropping one on anything smaller than a city was pointless. Essentially they're weapons that were purpose-designed to be dropped on cities and to kill civilians.

    1. Re:Bomb Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The bomb is a British Blockbuster - so called because one could flatten an entire city block.The bombs are the origin of the term..

      They were giant cylinders filled with explosive,with no streamling and no tailfins. When dropped they tumbled randomly through the air so there was no kind of accuracy with them. Dropping one on anything smaller than a city was pointless. Essentially they're weapons that were purpose-designed to be dropped on cities and to kill NAZIs.

      FTFY

      And yes, Germans were NAZIs. They saluted the Nazi flag. Cheered as the NAZI soldiers marched by. Supplied food and medicine and guns and tanks and vehicles to the NAZI soldiers. NAZIs are as NAZIs do. Not actively participating in the atrocities does not absolve anyone of responsibility for what was being done in their name.

      They were trying to kill us at the time, so we were doing all we could to kill them as well.

    2. Re:Bomb Type by ArylAkamov · · Score: 0

      Eat shit

    3. Re:Bomb Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be American.

    4. Re:Bomb Type by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I wonder why it didn't go off. Did it land in soft mud or something?

    5. Re:Bomb Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure all the toddler NAZIs had it coming.

    6. Re:Bomb Type by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Some were fitted with chemical timers, so they would go off later. This was for two reasons, from what I understand. First, these bombs were so big that 6,000' was the minimum altitude for bomb-drops, as the shockwave would damage the plane below that. Second, it was an area-denial method, as they either had to send in technicians to defuse them hopefully in time, or simply wait until they exploded before going in and picking up the pieces. Given the number of bombs and the potential for many to embed themselves underground, defusing them just wasn't feasible most of the time. In the fog of war, nobody was keeping track of where they fell either.
       
      The chemical timers didn't always work, for a number of reasons, including failing to initiate, being broken upon impact, and more interestingly, the bombs coming to rest nose-up. The chemical timers worked on gravity, and if the bomb didn't impact and remain vertical, sometimes the reaction needed to set if off just couldn't happen.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re:Bomb Type by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Generally there are one or two triggering mechanisms, impact and timer. If only a timer is used, it can be broken by impact. Some primitive impact mechanisms might not work if the bomb lands at a peculiar angle, I guess. Or, the triggering mechanism may have been defective from the time of manufacture.

      Since the side using the bomb wants to be able to transport it safely, bombs are designed to be armed (the triggering mechanism enabled) shortly before use. Failure to arm the bomb could also prevent detonation.

      I've heard the claim (don't know if it's true) that some bombs were made to explode only if someone tried to defuse them, thus insuring that at least one highly trained person would be killed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Bomb Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #notallbrits

    9. Re:Bomb Type by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's extremely difficult to keep track of where bombs fell...
      Even if you keep records of all the targets, there were many bombs that fell short of their targets for various reasons.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Bomb Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they were dropped to destroy the roofs of buildings so other bombs could be dropped into the buildings to set them on fire.

  18. Archeology is fun and educational! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Especially when either some guy with a whip and a fedora hat is involved ... or the bomb squad!

  19. I hope they don't diffuse the bomb! by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
    Because bomb diffusion usually happens rapidly (you could say exposively).

    Defusing it would be preferable.

    1. Re:I hope they don't diffuse the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you effusive wit.

    2. Re:I hope they don't diffuse the bomb! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Let me apologize profusely. It was not my intent to cause any confusion.

  20. Diffuse? by MrKevvy · · Score: 2

    "Police will ring every doorbell and use helicopters with heat-sensing cameras to make sure nobody is left behind before they start diffusing the bomb."

    If they are not careful, they will indeed diffuse the bomb. I hope that they defuse it instead.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  21. Any way to check for these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a stupid question, but is there something you could do to scan for these? e.g. use something like a hand-held metal detector, but bigger? Something you can put on a plane and fly over an area? I would think that these kind of unexploded bombs would have been made similarly, and from the ones they've defused in the past they would probably know what they look like. So is there anything that they could do to detect those?

    1. Re:Any way to check for these? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      This is a stupid question, but is there something you could do to scan for these? e.g. use something like a hand-held metal detector, but bigger?

      You could always try a jackhammer.

    2. Re:Any way to check for these? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      I think I saw a Bigs Bunny cartoon with a similar premise.

    3. Re:Any way to check for these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately you can't, as there's an awful lot of other scrap metal (or parts of foundation) in the ground of pretty much any older/ larger european city - and depending on the ground, the bombs might be ~10m or more below the surface. What has some level of success is checking old allied post raid aerial photographs for unexploded bombs, plus probing the ground. In the cases where you really want to be sure, you do have to paintakingly check the ground with ground penetrating radar by foot.

    4. Re:Any way to check for these? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      If they had a way to detect explosives from the air, they would be flying planes looking for active terrorist cells rather than unexploded WW2 bombs...
      They also wouldn't publicise the fact they had such technology, as it would cause those active terrorist cells to devise new ways to hide their explosives.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  22. Mirror,mirror,on the wall,who's the fairest site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. I remember when people use to say the same thing about slashdot.

  23. Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they haven't gone off by now, they're probably duds.

  24. Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by tomxor · · Score: 4, Informative

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    All 1800Kg unexploded Blockbusters so far:

    • 2011 December, Koblenz, 45,000 evacuated
    • 2013 November, Dortmund, 20,000 evacuated
    • 2014 April, Vicenza, 30,000 evacuated
    • 2016 December, Augsburg, 54,000 evacuated
    • 2017 August, Frankfurt, 70,000 evacuated
    1. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      All 1800Kg unexploded Blockbusters so far:

      • 2011 December, Koblenz, 45,000 evacuated
      • 2013 November, Dortmund, 20,000 evacuated
      • 2014 April, Vicenza, 30,000 evacuated
      • 2016 December, Augsburg, 54,000 evacuated
      • 2017 August, Frankfurt, 70,000 evacuated

      I can't imagine the death toll had these bombs actually worked.

    2. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happens here in austria regularily. I live in Linz a city heavily bombarded in WW2 due to a big steel factory placed there before WW2.
      With almost every bigger construction in this city (aka more than the usual building) a newsflash comes in that they found an undetonated bomb from WWII and they have to diffuse it.
      And yes in german speaking countries stuff like that is almost like an annual event and frankly nobody is really scared about it when it happens, because so far the diffusion always has worked one way or the other without harming anything, you just have to leave the danger zone for a short period of time, thats it.

    3. Re: Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is the biggest evacuation yet.

    4. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      They did work! These are just the ~10% that didn't. I think you might not fully grasp the horrors of the world wars.....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I can't imagine the death toll had these bombs actually worked.

      Yes you can. Afair it was the Brits who analyzed the efficiency of carpet bombing, and found that it has strongly diminishing returns. Every two tons of explosives dropped on a city leads to one civilian casualty. So, statistically, those five large bombs would have caused a death toll of about five.

    6. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, the authorities would only need to evacuate a handful of people instead of a quarter million.

    7. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      If that were true, the authorities would only need to evacuate a handful of people instead of a quarter million.

      It is the expected number for carpet bombing a city with WW2 technology. So, basically what happens when you drop several thousand tons of munitions on a city that expects air attacks.

      In WW2, about 25000 tons of bombs were dropped on Frankfurt. The official number of casualties is just under 6000; if you generously double that number to account for errors in the statistics, you'll arrive at one casualty per two tons of bombs.

      Of course, using this number on any other scenario, especially one that involves a near-one number of explosive devices and an unprepared populace is nonsense.

    8. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Seems like there's an important lesson here. When you start dropping bombs, you're not just killing the people you drop them on. You have to assume you'll also kill some random people who happen to live there a few decades from now. So think really carefully before dropping bombs.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    9. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, you're not allowing for changes in population density in the past 70 years.

      Second, you're not allowing for variations in population density between a city in wartime that's hunkered down for an air raid, and a city in peacetime that isn't. During the raid, the city was already effectively "evacuated".

      Third, you're not allowing for overlap between adjacent bombs.

      Fourth, you're not allowing for precautionary evacuation that extends beyond the area that you know would be flattened, and into areas where you suspect there might be broken glass, falling furniture and similar, probably-non-life-threatening, hazards,

      In short, you didn't stop to think for one second before posting that, did you?

    10. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Cities today are more densely populated, and the population is no longer prepared for being bombed (people no longer have bomb shelters in their back yards for example)... Plus the authorities today are being more cautious than truly necessary, whereas during a time of war they would have had other priorities.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Koblenz was nearly bombed into oblivion in WWII. The death toll was not as high as one would have expected. One reason was that many civilians had been evacuated to the surrounding countryside by the end of the war.

    12. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, the authorities would only need to evacuate a handful of people instead of a quarter million.

      It would only kill 5 people, but you never know which 5.

    13. Re:Doesn't look like that uncommon an event: by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Cities today are more densely populated,

      Yes. However, OP was wondering about the death toll had these bombs actually worked instead of ending up as duds. Had they worked, they would have exploded about seventy-five years ago along with many thousand tons of other munitions dropped on those cities, and, statistically, caused a death toll of 0.5/t.

      Today, the rationale for large evacuations in these cases is that all the people evacuated would be in danger if the thing goes off. You can't really predict who exactly would end up dead or injured, so everyone gets evacuated.

  25. Area bombing civilians is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The practice is indefensible, regardless of what you think of the point of view of the people you are dropping the bombs on. What you are engaged in is justifying an immoral act by saying the other guy is worse. You're still immoral for defending the practice. Blowing up little children because their parents might be Nazis is bullshit and I hope that in your heart of hearts you know that.

    1. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The practice is indefensible"

      Bull. Shit.

      It's war. Yours is an immature absolutism that is sickening.

      Keep in mind, this is a country that waged total war in its end days instead of surrendering--meaning every civilian was to take up arms to defend the mother land. Many did.

      This is a country where the civilians elected a mad man, did not stay his power, cultivated his many versions of hate, and then proceeded to invade countries, kill millions of foreign civilians, launch remote rocket and artillery attacks, and kill millions of their own and neighboring citizens.

      "What you are engaged in is justifying an immoral act by saying the other guy is worse."

      No, war is a conflict between nations. The other nation bombed indiscriminately. What they did, they got in return.

      I'm sure when someone is beating and hurting your family, you stand there defenseless, because it's immoral to strike against others too. Right?

      You don't get to stand on your soapbox when you're fucking dead.

      "You're still immoral for defending the practice."

      And you are impotent and a fool.

      The practice was either let more civilians of countries who were not invaded be wiped out, or stop anything and all supporting the government and country perpetrating the continued crimes. Even in civilian law, normal people understand this. In military conflicts, it's even more bare, as war is extralegal in many ways, since it steps outside the normal bounds of normal conduction between nations.

      "Blowing up little children because their parents might be Nazis is bullshit "

      Yeah, the children card. Look, people talk about the genetic lottery and all that bullshit. It's crap. You are who you are, who brings you up, and your genes. It's not a damn lottery, it's what came to pass before you that made you. You were born human. You were born with certain genes. In a certain country. At a certain time. This is not a lottery but history. Your life is littered with that from your prior ancestors. Tough shit if you don't like it, it's what is a part of you.

      And their parents live in a country whose government and military is responsible for bombing and killing of millions of civilians, and the systematic elimination of millions more...when they align with foreign powers that are responsible for the rape and war crimes themselves....when they violated the peace, rejected diplomacy during the conflict, and in the end days don't surrender...I would argue that country has forsaken any normal practice of "morality", they don't even understands it, and only wave it around when it suits them after the fact.

      " I hope that in your heart of hearts you know that."

      No, I don't. That country exterminated over 10 million people, civilians. We are sending in our soldiers, some by draft, some volunteers, to stop them. Us opposing countries civilians sacrificed their peace, their families, their resources with the war effort, such that cheap bombs like this are done, the consequence which many still today in terms of infrastructure and housing still echo those times.

      You toss bombs at civilians, you're going to get exterminated, up to and including your own practice of tossing bombs at civilians. Crime. Punishment.

      I don't want it to hit any civilians. I also don't want our soldiers to die because we didn't drop it. They have friends, family, and lives too, and we lost hundreds of thousands in the US alone. Maybe if Germany didn't invade half a dozen countries, drop bombs on civilians themselves, those children would have had a surer chance of survival.

      So take your morality and stuff it. It sucks. Your morality isn't ethics of fairness. It's just moral spouting of nonsense. Your morality would lead to the death of more innocents, as the more aggressive run rampant unchecked. And in your heart of hearts, you do know that, whatever feel good ideal you might be spouting off.

    2. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Sniffy2 · · Score: 0

      explain how killing lots of civilians helps win battles, Hammurabi

    3. Re: Area bombing civilians is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less production capacity for the war machine.
      Fewer conscripts for the draft.
      Increased drain on resources available to the front.
      Any one of those is enough to plausibly justify in the defense of other nations against an aggressor.

    4. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The practice is indefensible, regardless of what you think of the point of view of the people you are dropping the bombs on. What you are engaged in is justifying an immoral act by saying the other guy is worse. You're still immoral for defending the practice. Blowing up little children because their parents might be Nazis is bullshit and I hope that in your heart of hearts you know that.

      You're viewing this through the modern lens, that's why you don't understand why the practice was and in some regards still defensible. WWI was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." WWII proved that premise wrong, when one side crossed the line and indiscriminately targeted civilians all bets came off the table. What you should be happy with is that in today's age of terrorism, despite that terrorists directly go after civilians that we simply don't level entire towns and cities like we used to. We could and quite easily at it. The current state of western society hasn't had it's break moment where everything goes on the table in terms of doing what ever is required. This is likely because that terrorism while bad, people can't morally justify it. With luck, we won't. If we do, the first things that you'll likely see dusted off are low-yield nuclear weapons. Especially since that's what we're developing right now. And if we do, you can bet that the first targets wouldn't be some hole in Afghanistan, it would be some outlying city in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's war. Yours is an immature absolutism that is sickening.

      You're the one saying that literally everyone who opposes you was a Nazi, whereas everybody else is drawing moral boundaries.

      The other nation bombed indiscriminately. What they did, they got in return.

      Both sides bombed civilians, the thing the Nazis did that the others didn't were Death Camps. And that is significant; also it is something that was not done to them in return because it's repugnant.

      I'm sure when someone is beating and hurting your family, you stand there defenseless, because it's immoral to strike against others too. Right?

      No, but I don't start beating and hurting that person's nephew, because it's immoral to strike against innocent noncombatants.

      Even in civilian law, normal people understand this.

      Don't quite understand what this means.

      Yeah, the children card.

      ...yes, the children card. You don't get to dismiss it by declaring it a "card". It's an actual thing that must be considered in a moral evaluation against exterminating populations.

      Look, people talk about the genetic lottery and all that bullshit. It's crap. You are who you are, who brings you up, and your genes. It's not a damn lottery, it's what came to pass before you that made you. You were born human. You were born with certain genes. In a certain country. At a certain time. This is not a lottery but history. Your life is littered with that from your prior ancestors. Tough shit if you don't like it, it's what is a part of you.

      This is drivel. The whole thing about history is exactly what they are saying when they say genetic lottery. You are a winner or loser in the lottery because of history, tough shit if you don't like it.

      I would argue that country has forsaken any normal practice of "morality", they don't even understands it, and only wave it around when it suits them after the fact.

      This was being waved by all sides *before* WWII even began.

      Countries don't understand anything, people do.

      There's a running theme throughout your post that seems to anthropomorphise countries as if they were a single undivided entity.

      That country exterminated over 10 million people, civilians.

      I don't know about these bombs but some of the bombs were dropped before anybody knew about this.

      You toss bombs at civilians, you're going to get exterminated, up to and including your own practice of tossing bombs at civilians. Crime. Punishment.

      That's not how crime & punishment works. That's how unrestricted wars of extermination work. Crime & Punishment works with a trial and the application of laws, such as at Nuremburg.

      So take your morality and stuff it. It sucks. Your morality isn't ethics of fairness. It's just moral spouting of nonsense. Your morality would lead to the death of more innocents, as the more aggressive run rampant unchecked. And in your heart of hearts, you do know that, whatever feel good ideal you might be spouting off.

      No, you step off. Honestly you've done more to convince me that the GP was right. I do think an argument can be made that it is the lesser of two evils but you have a weird group morality thing going on, and ironically that was literally the problem with Nazi Germany.

      You did kind of start it by "correcting" the accurate portrayal of the Blockbuster as killing civilians to killing Nazis, which is factually inaccurate. Not all people in Germany were Nazis -- matter of fact, not all people in Germany were Germans.

    6. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by maestroX · · Score: 1

      It's war. Yours is an immature absolutism that is sickening.
      Keep in mind, this is a country that waged total war in its end days instead of surrendering--meaning every civilian was to take up arms to defend the mother land. Many did.
      This is a country where the civilians elected a mad man, did not stay his power, cultivated his many versions of hate, and then proceeded to invade countries, kill millions of foreign civilians, launch remote rocket and artillery attacks, and kill millions of their own and neighboring citizens.

      They were not human, you mean?
      Refusing draft or orders was a capital offense. You don't get to pick a side and propaganda will do its work regardless of belonging to the good or bad side.
      WW1 reparations enforced by allied were already too steep starving people to death, what prospect would surrender give?
      The Geneve convention was drawn up by experienced people with humanity in mind. It's so fucking good because it exposes the sociopaths, usually high in power.
      Dehumanizing *any* human is bound to the inhumane, nothing moral about that, it's a sanity issue.
      http://footage.framepool.com/s...

    7. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Whibla · · Score: 1

      What you should be happy with is that in today's age of terrorism, despite that terrorists directly go after civilians that we simply don't level entire towns and cities like we used to.

      Any reduction in violence is a good thing, on this I think we broadly agree.

      But, while I would like to agree with your 'reason for happiness' I find little cause for happiness. Some of the 'before and after pictures' in Syria are heartbreaking.

      If you'd care to agree, instead, that while there has been a blessed reduction in (the number of) some 'atrocities', and that is a reason we should be less 'unhappy' about it, there is a very long way to go before we can claim to be happy with the situation. (?)

    8. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by fnj · · Score: 1

      True conscientious objectors were excused from using weapons and killing people by the time of WW2, in service to enlightened countries such as the US, the UK, and Canada (not an exhaustive list). They usually still had to perform non-combatant service, often medics including unarmed front-line medics in extreme danger, and essential civilian services in support of the war.

    9. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      This was a time of WAR, against an extremely aggressive and efficient enemy with advanced technology and very few limits to the lengths they will go to in order to win. You take *any* advantage you can in a war like this, and being ruthless is an advantage.

      If you show any form of weakness to a ruthless enemy they will exploit it. If you show that you are unwilling to endanger the lives of kids, they will build schools inside their military bases to stop you bombing them.
      Also keep in mind that membership of the hitler youth was mandatory, these kids received brainwashing through nazi propaganda on a routine basis. Kids are quite impressionable and probably believed the propaganda, and would not have hesitated to drop bombs on british kids if given the chance.

      Building simple weapons is also an advantage...
      A cylindrical bomb provides many advantages over a more accurate but complex shape with fins etc...

      Cylinders fit better into the cylindrical fuselages of aircraft, with less wasted space. Deliver more explosives per mission.
      Simpler weapons are easier and cheaper to make, as are the manufacturing tools which are used during their construction. The people doing the construction also require less training. This is extremely important in a war not only because you want to produce as many bombs as you can, but also because the enemy will be trying their best to disrupt your production and you want to be able to recover quickly if they do.

      Also keep in mind that many bombs won't even make it to the target, the enemy will be attempting to shoot down the aircraft before they reach the target. Some of those bombs will end up going down with the aircraft, or being dropped on a random target by an aircraft that is too damaged to make its way to the target.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re: Area bombing civilians is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bombing of civilian areas actually strenghtened the Nazi regime. People had nobode else to turn to for protection, so it helped Hitler and his fellow criminals.

      Bombing factories and infrastructure would have been much more effective.

      And the whole war would have been shortened significantly if the allies had gone after the swiss banks that helped the Germans to buy raw materials and other things.

      At least WWII was SO bad that the Europeans decided there had to be a better way to share the continent...

    11. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The effect of WWI reparations wasn't as severe as the Nazis claimed. In WWII, most of the international law pertaining to warfare was Hague conventions, not Geneva ones, and they didn't forbid bombing of cities. I don't believe anyone was prosecuted for city-bombing per se (there was a prosecution of a Luftwaffe officer for bombing a city that had been declared open).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Area bombing civilians is immoral by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The idea was not to kill civilians, but to destroy their housing (in the full knowledge that that would kill civilians, of course). It turned out to be a lot less useful than many people thought it would be.

      Early in the war, the RAF adopted night bombing because they couldn't get bombers through in the daytime, and for some time had trouble hitting something as small as a city. The USAAF developed long-range fighters and bombers bristling with heavy machine guns and managed to make it work, and even then considered any German city to be a valid secondary target, and frequently couldn't live up to their "pickle barrel" accuracy claims because of weather...

      At the beginning of the war, many people had very high expectations of what bombing could do, and it wasn't until after the war that people started to realize what effects bombing really had.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. Diffusing the bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean defusing the bomb?

    To diffuse it would be to scatter it, as in blowing it up - I thought they were trying to prevent that.

  27. Proof reading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Police will ring every doorbell and use helicopters with heat-sensing cameras to make sure nobody is left behind before they start diffusing the bomb.". Diffusing?

  28. They're from terrorists, not WW2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You folks better upgrade your lingo. The media is lying to you like usual. These are Islamic terrorist bomb threats.

  29. American angle to the story by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    US Armed Forces HQ in Frankfurt was pretty much build around the bigger bomb.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.