http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story
A little article that makes brief mention of some of DOD's new plans for
nuclear weapons. (Some don't sound so new.... seems I heard them a decade or
two back....)
Reminds me (vaguely) of a story about plans to use nuclear charges in civilian
construction (something briefly toyed with before anyone really understood
what they were dealing with).
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Tomb wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story
As one of the people quoted in the article said, "Dr. Strangelove is alive and
well in the Pentagon." Wow.
First that 'axis of evil' goofiness, and now this. Is Prez Shrub *trying* to
get the entire world polarized against the States?
> Reminds me (vaguely) of a story about plans to use nuclear charges in
I think some people *still* don't know what they're dealing with, Tom.
On an SF note: my geology is shaky, so can someone tell us whether radioactive
elements can be found in asteroids or moons? Or are the heavy
elements only (probably) going to be found in/on planets?
Actually, the Soviets did more then just think about using little nukes for
civialian construction... For a while, they actually used them, especially for
creating underground storage tanks. You really don't want to drink the ground
water from anywhere near the ones that have since collapsed...
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> First that 'axis of evil' goofiness, and now this.
Alright, I'm going set diplomacy aside for a moment.
1) Piss off, Canuck. We pick on our president (and we don't do that since he's
turned out to be the best wartime Pres since FDR), foreigners need not apply.
2) Sorry if it's not politically correct, but DPRK, Iraq, and Iran are evil.
Full stop.
3) Anyone who thinks those fruitloops don't talk to each other and work
together when it's convenient is delusional to say the least.
4) This, by any rational definition of the word, makes it an axis.
5) Hate to break it to you, but a) the world will not be "polarized against
the US" because most nations aren't stupid and b) even if it did occour, we'd
probably still be able to do more or less whatever we wanted anyway.
6) Go ahead, become anti-US. We really don't care
what you think about us as long as you continue trading with us and improving
our economy. And you won't stop because you Canucks would more or less go
broke in six weeks if you stopped.
7) I realize that this is going to piss off all the Canadians, but I can deal
with the Canadian Axis. It's rough living in a superpower.
8) The whole reason you people (foreigners in general, Euros and Canadians in
specific) dislike the US is pure jelousy. You're torqued because the US can
act decisively and unilaterally, which no European state has been able to do
since WWI (except Germany, but they got slapped down the two times they tried
that).
9) Insert emoticons as appropriate.
We now return to your regularly scheduled e-mail list.
> Brian Burger wrote:
[...]
> On an SF note: my geology is shaky, so can someone tell us whether
Define the term "planet". Dr Stone of the Voyager Project at NASA JPL
once described our solar system as "a star, 4 planets, and debris." ;-)
Don't see why you couldn't find radioactive elements on moons, assuming you've
had the proper geological forces going on. And since even planetary geologists
haven't gotten a strong handle on what makes up other planets (moons, et al)
in detail (since we haven't dug in vey far beneath the surface of the few we
have sent probes to), I'm sure you can PSB it with no problems in an SF
environment and find necesary radioactive elements. Asteroids might be a bit
trickier, but again you could simply say that said asteroid was originally
from a
fully-developed
planet and thus be able to scrounge up some radioactive elements (but probably
not in the quantities you'd find on our fair chunk of debris).
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Alright, I'm going set diplomacy aside for a moment.
I'd never have expected this;).
Pardon me while I duck and cover, as I have a feeling that the messages are
going to start flying fast and furious now. Not that I necessarily disagree
with everything you said John, but I'm not certain that it's really
appropriate for the list (nor do I necessarily think that bringing in an
opinion either way was appropriate, as political discussions normally tend to
degenerate exactly where this one seems to be headed).
> On 10/03/2002 10:25 pm, "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wouldn't normally respond in such an.. explosive thread, but your assertion
here is simply wrong. There have been numerous occasions since WWII (let alone
WWI) when European national forces have been involved directly in armed
conflicts, without the US committing as much as single bullet. I suggest you
consult a good late C20 history book about the Suez crisis or Falklands
conflict, or the French 'involvement' in Algeria. There are probably some
others I've forgotten.
These obviously escaped your notice and, to be fair, since they aren't related
to the US in any way there's no reason you would know about them
necessarily - they're certainly unlikely to be taught in US schools.
However I think if there was anyone here who was a Falklands (or even Suez)
veteran, they'd take serious objection to what you said.
TTFN
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Tomb wrote:
> As one of the people quoted in the article said, "Dr. Strangelove is
> and well in the Pentagon." Wow.
OK, donning my analyst hat with Tom Swift Magic Decoder Ring:
a) This is a "secret" document. Most countries, my own included, have laws
that get positively medieval when it comes to people, *any* people, revealing
data that will "endanger national security". There's freedom of the press, and
there's treachery. In the US, this incident is interpreted as the former. I
rather think that in Oz it would be the latter (though a forgiveable one if
done with good intent rather than just to sell papers). Given the contents,
the only reason this would be labelled "secret" is so as not to say harsh
truths in an undiplomatic manner, there's no chance of it hurting national
security as such.
b) Following on from the above, how did this guy get a copy? If I were
paranoid, I'd say that someone did a deliberate leak, with full knowledge from
higher up. There's no point in having a deterent force if the other side
doesn't know of its existence. But as Sept 11th proved, some people can't be
deterred. You have to get your retaliation in first if you want to defend
yourself rather than merely extract revenge. So this is a good way of
preparing the US public for the slim possibility of having to Nuke parts of
Iraq. Bio or Nuke warheads
on Tel Aviv -> underground 10kt Bunker-busters near Baghdad if there's
no other way.
c) Having looked at the article, it just seems to say what's been fairly
obvious to anyone who cared to give the issue some thought. Of course most
don't, no sane person is comfy with thinking about Nukes. Some of us have to
though.
> I think some people *still* don't know what they're dealing with, Tom.
Actually the one thing that quite surprised me is that the US didn't use some
clean Nukes in Afganistan. And before someone goes off at me for the
designation "clean", I mean "clean as in as clean as an underground test in
Nevada" which they would resemble. As the thread says, Nukes...tunnels...boom.
From the looks of this paper, the warheads in the arsenal weren't up to it
(too big, too dirty), so they're going to have to develop some more.
"The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year,
has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear
weapons
I'll bite...
> > First that 'axis of evil' goofiness, and now this.
Not everyone who voted for G. W. Bush is happy with some of what he has been
doing recently; nor do they think he is a good wartime president.
> 2) Sorry if it's not politically correct, but DPRK,
For a competent president, see Theodore Roosevelt, "Speak softley, but carry a
big stick." Only an idiot shoots his mouth like G. W. Bush has been doing.
> 3) Anyone who thinks those fruitloops don't talk to
They would also stab each other in the back if given the chance. By the way,
you thank the US for putting the Iraqi's and Serb's in bed together. It has
done wonders to improve Iragi air defenses.
> 4) This, by any rational definition of the word, makes
If you are right, we are screwed. The US does not have the military it had in
Desert Storm. The problem isn't quality, it's quantitiy...
> 5) Hate to break it to you, but a) the world will not
Excuse me, but that was exactly what that idiot G.W. Bush was doing BEFORE
September 11. He back pedalled very quickly afterwards, because we really do
need help to solve some problems, such as Al Quada.
> 6) Go ahead, become anti-US. We really don't care
Let's see now, if the Canadians and Russians get together, and stop trading
nickel to the US (note that the Canadians don't have much nickle left), you
can kiss off EVERYTHING in areospace. Fighters, bombers, rockts, etc. There
goes nuclear deterence, the space program, national missile defense, the Air
Force, Naval Aviation, etc., etc., etc.
> 7) I realize that this is going to piss off all the
No, what's rough is being an ISOLATED superpower without a source of nickel...
> 8) The whole reason you people (foreigners in general,
Not really, what they don't like is self-righteous americans dictating
how the rest of the world is to behave, and who insist that the rest of the
world doesn't matter.
> 9) Insert emoticons as appropriate.
From: Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca>
> First that 'axis of evil' goofiness, and now this. Is Prez Shrub
Flame bait. And has nothing to do with AD2200. Let's move along,
Well at the risk of failing into the flame trap here, John A. is responding to
the decided and deeply offensive anti-American themes that pop up from
time to time here.(many doubtless caused by John's ramblings done as those of
us who know him personally for shock effect.) It is however natural for one
who serves (or in my case had served) his or her country to be somewhat overly
loyal..... to the point of partial blindness that is thankfully cured with
age. I well say no more on this but will ask the following question of
everyone. Politics are not need here, are they?
Hi,
I believe that this is the point at which a very well respected member of the
group says something that amounts to the following:
That is not a helpful, insightful or interesting set of posts, that's just a
tirade.
This is not a political argument list, if you want to post on one of those
please do so, not hear.
Please do not flame/troll on this list it's not interesting for most of
us.
If you wish to continue with this discussion please take it off list.
Sadly, I have done it instead! Please guys (not discriminating, just its
only the male of the species... I wonder why!) just drop it, you aren't
going to agree/convince each other that you are right! Take it off list
if you MUST go on.
> At 04:40 10/03/02 -0500, Tomb wrote:
'Project Plowshare' was the US version < yes the USSR not to left out had
their version too:) > one of it's aims was to build a completely new and
larger Panama Canal. But this was before there was a general awareness of
fallout, etc.
BTW one of the people involved in the project ( besides Teller, father of the
hydrogen bomb) was a fellow by the name of 'Dyson', that name ring any bells?
Cheers
> "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed
I am very sure, given the size of the nuclear arsenals of the USA and the
Soviet Union in the past, that such plans have been in existence for a long,
> --- Richard Kirke <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hmmmm...
Am I the only one that notices that this post only
occours after a response to an anti-Americanism is
posted? It's never made in response to the original
anti-Americanism.
> At 12:01 11/03/02 +0000, Jon wrote:
wrote:
> > 8) The whole reason you people (foreigners in general,
There
> are probably some others I've forgotten.
However
> I think if there was anyone here who was a Falklands (or even Suez)
veteran,
> they'd take serious objection to what you said.
Or the Malay Emergency and Confrontation. But let's not get to hot and
bothered about John A's poor grasp of history, if I was a cynical person
I'd suspect John's version of history begins with "Once upon a time".
Fortunately I know from experience that John A tends to be the exception
rather than the norm:)
BTW EX-president Clinton was recently in Australia on a paid speaking
engagement. In the course of the address he made a comments stating to the
effect that the US was the unbeatable nation in the field of arms since the
end of WW2. At this point a old gentlemen in the audience lept to his feet and
yelled "What about Korea?"
Cheers
> --- Jonathan White <jonw@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
> bullet. I suggest you consult a good late C20
Didn't that backfire rather badly?
> or Falklands conflict,
Granted--although the fact that it strained the entire
UK military establishment to send a tiny task force and two light infantry
brigades to a place in the same ocean is worth noting. Once upon a time, such
an insult to UK sovreignty would only be purgable by
occupying Argentina. Semi-permenantly.
> or the French
Didn't Algeria _win_ that war? Or at least, it looks
like Algeria is an independant state.
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
You are spending entirely too much time gaming and not enough time reading the
news. "...entire world polarized against the States", happened some years
back.
'entire' is only the majority of the mations in the world, not all.
Bye for now,
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> BTW EX-president Clinton was recently in Australia
Consider the source. I mean, the guy was a draft dodger, his grip on military
history can't be all that great.
> on a paid speaking
I've had this discussion before--and I'll say the same
thing. Last time I checked, the US 8th Army was headquartered in Seoul, which
is the capital of the independant state of the Republic of Korea.
Hence the objective of preserving the independance of the ROK and containing
communist agression was
achieved. Granted it wasn't easy--M-24s vs T-34s is a
bit of a rough matchup. But it happened.
The old gentleman would have been better off referencing another Asian
conflict that's a bit closer to Australia where US political objectives were
not achieved (although without dishonor to American
_arms_, which achieved every task set for them and
were never defeated on the field of battle).
> At 12:49 11/03/02 +1100, Jeremy wrote:
<NO TROLLING HERE:) > If I understand the explanation given in the midday news
bulletin the report is mandated by congress, basically it's a periodic report
of the administration intentions of how they intend to employ nuvlear weapons,
if required.
Cheers
> --- Jonathan White <jonw@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
...I >suggest you consult a good late C20 history book about >the Suez crisis
or Falklands conflict, or the French
> 'involvement' in Algeria. There are probably some
-----
If one includes 'most' civil wars, you are correct.
> These obviously escaped your notice and, to be fair,
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> And the ones that Canada has today to intervene
And like most national armies, they live in complete fear of having to carry
out such an ill considered and futile plan.
Bye for now,
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> BTW EX-president Clinton was recently in Australia
As with most conflicts that the U.S. has been ncouraged' to join, the first
rounds normally go to those that used the old but effective 'suprise attack'
option. After that option has been played out, the normal result is the
grinding down of the attacker, provided the Washington Weenies do not chicken
out.
Bye for now,
G'day guys,
Stealing Derek's email for a second.
> anti-Americanism.
I don't want to spin this thread out any further either, just one point I'd
like to make here. Anti-ANY-NATION is not appreciated by the vast
majority
of listers here, be it anti-Americanism, anti-Italian, anti-French or
anti-muslim (all of which we've seen here in the last few days,
intentionally or not). Its exactly these kind of postings that have made it
impossible for me to keep my Italian and French GZG email friends on the
list, despite the fact they're very interested in the games etc. I even got a
Muslim friend of mine at work to give the list a look in preparation for a
game (we'd discussed it a heap at work)... first day on he sees some of the
comments that have been made here and he saved me the embarassment of trying
to defend the list by politely unsubbing and saying he understood I didn't
share the opinions.... I'm yet to actually get to game with him by the way.
As for this thread, in TomB's defense I think he was just showing us something
could be interesting seeings as we WARgame it just got out of hand from there.
Cheers
Beth
> At 06:42 10/03/02 -0800, John wrote:
The fact that the state of North Korea also still exists says buckets, it can
be successfully argued General Macarthur swayed US foreign policy from
stopping communist aggression to removing communist North Korea. This was
something the Chinese did not want and did their level best (through third
parties in the UN, as I don't think they were a member state at the time) to
make clear and when they were ignored they acted, driving the UN forces south.
Although after a change of command in the on the US side (names escape me at
the moment, but I do remember the incoming general had a very poor opinion of
MacArthur, in fact in his previous appointment he had recommended the
'sacking' of MacArthur to the JCS) the "bug out" culture prevailing in the US
command stop.
"The Americans do not like holding defensive positions. They have been trained
for withdrawals. The Americans do not understand infiltration and feel very
naked when anybody threatens their flank or rear."
Secret report to the British chiefs of staff from Korea, 1951
"The tendency of American units was to give up some ground, which enabled the
Japanese to fight in a planned pattern. In the case of the Australians,
however severe the attack, they did not move, which disappointed and confused
our soldiers."
LtGen Tsutoma Yashihara, Chief of Staff 18th Japanese Army Group New Guinea,
1942
The Australian standard operating procedure was to hold ground and fight. Lt.
Koch, 72nd US Heavy Tank Battalion.
Don't forget the Bazooka and the BAR We're lookin' for Charlie, he can't be
far Gonna move him on, if he ain't long gone Goin' back up the pass, gonna
kick some ass, Gonna move him on.
US Army song.
Hear Ol'Charlie comin'down through the pass. Playing Burp Gun Boogie on Two
Div's ass. They're movin' on, they'll be gone, He rung their bell, they're
running like hell. They're movin' on.
27th British Commonwealth Bde marching song.
Hear the pitter patter of tiny feet, That's the First Cav Div in full retreat.
They're moving on, they'll soon be gone, Charlie's way too close to their
shacking up post so. They moving on.
27 BCB marching song.
Should anyone call, I won't be far, I'm off to Tokyo on Rand R. It's a bloody
farce, but you can kiss my arse. Farewell to the poon but I'll be back soon.
'Cos I'm moving on.
R & R Ballard.
MacArthur? Oh yes, I studied dramatics under him for twelve years.
Eisenhower.
> The old gentleman would have been better off
I think he probably was going on PERSONAL experience if his age is anything to
go by.
Now having said this, I would like to say to all that I am not in the process
of bashing America just reminding John A there's more to it than
HIS VIEW.
As a whole I have found this list a pleasant and very interesting place to
'visit', people I have 'met', the ideas I have 'seen' all go to make my hobby
that much more interesting. What I don't enjoy is opening up a email with
phrases like "Piss off, Canuck" by John A. responding to slights real or
imagined to the US. I don't think Tom's original post or Brian's comments in
reply were intended as a deliberate attack and if it was (remote chance at
that) I think John A. can demonstrate how big a man he is and shrug them off.
I've had my say and I find it disappointing that I felt the need to do so in
the first place.
Cheers
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Laserlight wrote:
Quoting John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>:
> --- Jonathan White <jonw@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
Yeah, we did have a long-standing war to conduct in Ireland as well...
plus at that time we had Hong Kong to guard, and quite a lot of British forces
were committed to Germany.
We don't do "two-and-half" wars, we do
"nine-halves-and-a-couple-of-maybes"..
{There was a certain amount of clownishness involved as well. ISTR someone
packed all the landing craft capable of landing the armour onto the same
transport. Which promptly got sunk...}
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:35:30 +1100, Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
Hi, Derek.
Now this is truly weird... I haven't cleared out my GZG Mailing List folder in
quite a while. Your message brought the total to... 666. *L*
A short editorial comment, then some actual list content below!
> What I don't enjoy is opening up a email
I agree with you, 100%. In John's defense, it's hard to see something that
riles you and not jump all over it. I mostly stay out of flame wars even when
I'm seething to dive in. Sometimes I don't succeed, but I usually do. (This
thread is a good example; I'm trying hard not to type "George W. Bush is no
Harry Truman... oops, came out anyway. *L*). John was replying to what he saw
was an anti-American, inflammatory post by Brian.
On the other hand, Brian's comment was anti-Bush, not anti-American. In
fact, the nickname "Shrub" was coined by Molly Ivins, a Texas journalist.
John's comments are far from universal.
(Living here in the US, I will say that what _does_ seem to be universal
is American support for its ground troops. This is something that I wish
Canada
had.)
> I've had my say and I find it disappointing that I felt the need to do
What I find sad is that the flame war pretty much killed what could have been
a really interesting thread. How do you handle small, limited nukes in DS2 and
SG2? Yes, SG2... for, as Tom will point out in the Traveller universe, there
were ways of defending against nukes that closed within SG2 range. I think
"pocket nukes" (as opposed to backpack nukes) or nuclear grenades could be an
interesting addition to the DS2 and SG2 arsenals.
Maybe we can save the thread and talk about a game role for nuclear weapons,
assuming a technology that allows you to make a very tiny nuke that explodes
with, say, the force of a large artillery shell.
At any rate, perhaps this will stimulate an on topic discussion, or maybe the
thread is hopelessly lost. Either way, I'd like to see an end to the flame
wars that have so recently crept up on the list. As those of you who have been
around for a while know, I used to be a pretty heavy contributor to the list.
The flame wars are the main reason -- though there are others -- that I
spend most of my time lurking.
MORNING ALL.
DEREK-THE PROPER NAME FOR USE IN THOSE DITTIES IS "CHINKY" NOT CHARLIE.
"CHARLIE" IS FROM ANOTHER WAR, PLACE AND TIME.
KOREA, WHERE THE 2ND INFANTRY DIVISION AND THE FIRST CAVALRY DIVISION, ALONG
WITH THEIR UK, COMMONWEALTH, ROK AND UN ALLIES UNITED IN A SERIES OF RAPID
ADVANCES AND RETREATS...
OR "BUGOUTS!" AS THEY WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME.
LOL- AS DID THE CHINESE AND THE NORTH KOREANS!
CLINTON. I WOULD NOT PISS ON HIM IF HE BURST INTO FLAMES IN FRONT OF MY
EYES . . . . .
AS FOR THE RVN, THE AUSSIES AND KIWIS WERE THERE AS AN ARMY.
LARGE NUMBERS OF CANUCKS WERE THERE AS INDIVIDUALS SERVING IN THE US MILITARY
AS VOLUNTEERS.
GERMANS, DUTCH, BRITS, ALSO FOUGHT AS INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERS IN THE US ARMED
FORCES IN THE RVN.
THAIS, KOREANS, PHILLIPINOS, TOO.
AMERICA, BEING A LOYAL ALLY SUPPORTED THE FRENCH RETURN TO INDO-CHINA ,
INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO SUPPORT HO CHI MINH AFTER WW II.
ALGERIA. CORRUPT FRENCH COLONIALISM DID INDEED LEAD TO THE
INDEPENDENCE OF ALGERIA AFTER A PARTICULARLY NASTY CIVIL WAR.
MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS SINCE KOREA INVOLVING EUROPE; TRUE NOT TAUGHT IN AMERICAN
SCHOOLS.
FRENCH AND UK FORCES IN THE SUEZ INTERVENTION. UK FORCES SAW
ACTION IN THE MAU-MAU EMERGENCY, MALAYSIA COUNTER INSURGENCY WAR,
AFRICAN INTERVENTIONS BY WHEN ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF FORMER COLONIES WERE OVER
THROWN, AS WELL AS VARIOUS CRAPPY LITTLE UN DOS AROUND THE WORLD.
I EVEN REMEMBER THE IRISH SERVING AS PEACEKEEPERS IN THE CONGO BLOODBATH.
FRANCE AND OTHER EUROPEAN MILITARIES HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN UN MISSIONS AROUND
THE WORLD AS PEACEKEEPERS.
CANADA'S LITTLE MILITARY HAS SUCKED UP NUMEROUS CRAPPY PEACE KEEPER MISSIONS
FOR THE UN.
THE AUSSIES HAVE BEEN IN PLACES AMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN, AS WELL AS GOING
ALMOST EVERYWHERE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SINCE WW II.
KIWIS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN OUT OF WORLD EVENTS SINCE THE RVN, AND SEEM DETERMINED
TO BECOME AN AUSSIE PROTECTORATE.
BUT, I SEEM TO REMEMBER, FOR THE BALKANS (AFTER THE UN FAILURE AS
PEACEKEEPERS) DO, THE EUROPEANS WANTED UNCLE SAM'S ARMY AND TREASURY TO COME
PLAY TOO....
SOMALIA TOO. EUROPEANS AND UN WERE NOT DOING VERY WELL THERE, AND UN PRESENCE
VANISHED ALMOST AS RAPIDLY AS US FORCES AFTER AMERICA LEFT.
AND SEVERAL AFRICAN BLOOD BATHS, EPIDEMICS, FAMINES, TOO.
SO, FOLKS, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, THAT IF THE US TOOK ITS ARMIES AND
MONEY AND WENT HOME, EUROPE MIGHT FIND IT A BIT TIRESOME TO PLAY UN ALL BY
THEMSELVES.
DITTO FOR THE KOREANS, JAPANESE, AND TAIWANESE.
THE FOLKS IN THE MIDDLE EAST TOO.
I SEEM TO REMEMBER ARAB COUNTRIES SCREAMING FOR UNCLE SAM'S ARMED FORCES AFTER
KUWAIT WAS INVADED.
JUST WHERE IS THAT UNITED EUROPEAN RAPID REACTION FORCE NOWDAYS?
I SAW PART OF IT ON PARADE A YEAR OR SO BACK ON TV....
EUROPE IS STILL SCARED CRAPLESS OF THE OLD USSR.
NUKES? LOL-I REMEMBER READING ALL OVER THE WWW FOLKS WERE CRAPPING
CLINKERS WAITING FOR THE US NUCLEAR RESPONSE TO 9-11.
YOU FOLKS ARE AT LEAST 40 YEARS OUT OF DATE. PLANS FOR THE USE OF US
"TACTICAL" NUKES HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 60S TO MY OWN KNOWLEDGE.
THIS INCLUDES UK AND FRENCH TACTICAL NUKE USE TOO.
YES I AM AN AMERICAN. YES I AM PROUD OF IT.
BUT IN KNOW THAT A BULLET OR FRAGMENT CAN KILL AND MAIM YOU IN A "PEACEKEEPER
ROLE" AS IT CAN IN A "REAL WAR"
BLOOD IS ALWAYS RED WHEN WET, AND DRIES BROWN, REGARDLESS OF THE COLOR OF THE
SKIN OR THE UNIFORM IT IS OWN, OR THE NATION, RELIGION, POLITICS, EDUCATION,
PERSONAL BELIEFS, OR ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE BLEEDER.
NOW, COUSINS, CAN WE GO BACK TO GAMING?
DAWGIE, WHO FORGOT TO SHIFT DOWN AFTER READING ALL OF THIS ANTI AMERICAN
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:01:00 +0000, Jonathan White
<jonw@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
> There have been numerous occasions since
I picked up my copy of Penguin's "Atlas of World History", volume two.
- Russo-Polish War, 1920: war ended with the help of French
intervention.
- Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethopia), 1935
- Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: although the International Brigades
included Britons, French, Americans, Canadians, and others, the only
"official" support came from Germany, Italy, Portugal (all supported the
rebels), and Russia (supported the monarchy).
- Italian occupation of Albania, 1939
- Greco-Turkish War, 1920-22.
- Irish "Civil War" 1919-21: conflict between Irish nationalists, Irish
"loyalists" and Britain, resulting in the establishment of the Irish Free
State.
- Wars of the "warlords" for Peking in Northern China, 1916-26: "Western
powers" supported the warlords; can't tell if the US was among them (I believe
it was) but definitely involved Europeans.
- Britain was involved in China (Shanghai in particular), not just Hong
Kong,
during the Nationalist Revolution in 1925-27.
- Britain helped put down communist uprising in Greece after withdrawal
of
German forces, 1944-45.
- UN intervention in Cyprus, 1964 (mostly Canadian, British, and other
UN troops).
- 1st Indo-China War, 1946-54: surprised John didn't remember _this_
one, it's the French involvement in Vietnam.
- French involvement in Algerian struggle for liberation, 1954-62
- Burmese Civil War, 1948-54: British troops were involved.
- Guerrilla war in Malaya, 1954-57: British troops involved in a counter
insurgency war against Chinese supported partisans. SAS participation was well
documented.
- Mau-mau campaigns, Kenya, 1952-1954: nationalist partisans/terrorists
fought against British police and military.
- Uprising in Congo, 1959-60: Belgium sent in paratroopers to try to
quell uprising. UN troops stabilized the situation.
- Aden, late 1958-62: I'm not sure when Britain pulled out of Aden (now
Yemen), but British troops were involved in various uprisings there in the
late 1950s. I know as my Dad's regiment was _this_ close to getting
posted either to Aden or to Cyprus (ended up posted to Germany).
This doesn't include the myriad peace treaties established during the
inter-war period, nor does it cover European nations moving troops to
other nations to bolster independence or regimes (such as Britain setting up
RAF
bases in Iraq during the inter-war period, and the establishment of the
Anglo-Iran Oil Co. in the 1950s). It also doesn't include the many UN
operations that had heavy British or British Commonwealth (Canada, in
particular), or French involvement.
The book's cut off date was 1975. The post 1975 involvements are probably
pretty much understood on this list.
In a message dated 3/10/02 7:31:05 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> derekfulton@bigpond.com writes:
> BTW EX-president Clinton was recently in Australia on a paid speaking
Consider the source. I mean, the guy was a draft dodger, his grip on military
history can't be all that great.
Actually his grip on military history is not all that bad. 1. Korea had a
majrity of US troops and command, but a lot of nations participated in that
one. The UN forces wiped up the North Koreans to the border of China, and then
fell back against overwhelming pressure from a fresh offensive by the Chinese
army. They then came back to push the Chinese back beyond Seoul.
"Technically" that war is still on-going as neither side has gone beyond
the
negotiated cease-fire.
So you would be more accurate to say the US, (UN) won against the North
Koreans, and beat the Chinese to a cease-fire :o)
John went on to say:
> The old gentleman would have been better off
Yes, the US finally said, "We don't want to play anymore." Much like several
other nations around the world have said when they got involved in not so
civil wars:o)
Randy:o)
Hey, Tom, check out some of the videos from these guys...
http://www.vce.com/atomcentral.html
Good stuff about atomic testing, weapons, etc. on both sides of the Cold
War. SPECIAL BONUS - narrated by CPT Kirk, er, I mean William Shatner.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> The fact that the state of North Korea also still
I don't suppose you've ever heard of the concept of "limited war."
> can be successfully argued General Macarthur swayed
How successful was he? Oh yeah, successful enough to get sacked.
> escape me at the moment, but I do remember the
General Ridgeway. And as for the "bug out" culture you're referring to, he
took command after the war had more or less stalemated.
> "The Americans do not like holding defensive
I see why it was a secret. Of course, the
Commonwealth units _never_ retreated in Korea. Or in
WWII. Or WWI. Or the Boer War. Or at any other time. By the way, at what point
did the Commonwealth get around to sending troops to Korea? I mean to say,
were they there in time for the original CVC offensive? I know they weren't
there yet during the first North Korean offensive.
> LtGen Tsutoma Yashihara,
Yup, we gave ground in that war all the way across New Guinea, through the
Marianas, and across the Phillipines and then we retreated all the way across
Okinawa and then nuked the living hell out of Japan. For me that puts his
opinion in perspective.
> Don't forget the Bazooka and the BAR
Uhh... what's that got to do with the price of beans?
> 27th British Commonwealth Bde marching song.
Yeah, marching songs are really reliable sources. I know some that allege that
the entire USN is composed of homosexuals. Others cast aspersions on the
intelligence of tanker and infantrymen. Still more have a few things to say
about the courage of support troops, civillians, and the Air Force. I even
know one that starts off "First Sergeant don't wear no drawers." Yup, marching
songs are THE PLACE TO DO RESEARCH. They are the source of all knowledge about
all things military.
> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let me see...
Oh, yeah and the fact that the UK, France, and Israel all coordinated blew the
definition of "unilatteral action" right out the window.
> >The Falklands had NO us involvement...
Oh, I wasn't even going to point out that almost every
air-to-air kill in the Falklands was using a US
missile. That's nitpicking even by my standards.
> At 04:07 11/03/02 -0800, John wrote:
Until the Chinese demonstrated the flaw in MacArthur's thinking he was VERY
successful and was something of a icon to the American public. Imagine, the
American President travelling across the Pacific to meet with a theatre
commander? And the result of the meeting? Such was MacArthur's reputation at
that time President Truman let him have his way.
> > escape me at the moment, but I do remember the
Not so, let me give you some clues, a US formation encircled by CCF units
ready to beat feet until ordered not to by Gen. Ridgeway (thanks for the
name BTW), a French battalion whose actions at this battle now have the battle
permanently associated with the unit name. Further more the units
commander was a General who busted himself two grades to Colonel to lead
that battalion. Name this battle and you probably have the 'end' of the bug
culture.
> > "The Americans do not like holding defensive
Well actually. no they didn't (to the best of my knowledge). In fact the
3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment only withdrew when ordered to.
> Or in
Well that answers available in the public domain:)
> By the way, at what point did the Commonwealth
Almost immediately as soon as the call went out, the British, Canadians,
New Zealanders and Australians all contributed to the 27th BCB before it
was replaced by the 28th BCB
> I mean to say,
You already know the answer to that don't you? We discussed this off list, but
here's a reminder. Name the first unit in the UN command to face and
defeat the CCF in battle? Answer, 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment.
There's a whole list of achievements that the unit's of the 27th BCB for
the period of the advance then withdrawal ending with the Battle of Kayong but
going into them again with you is pointless.
> > Don't forget the Bazooka and the BAR
Why compared to the 27th BCB marching songs it should be obvious, even to you
:)
But like I said this is all fairly pointless since your always right
regardless of how wrong you are:)
Cheers
I fail to see what the flap is over the "release" of this document. I've
read several news articles on the topic, and all of them mention that this
isn't the first such document to be prepared. Most of them at least
hint that if we *didn't* have such a document we'd be massiviely
incompetent. There really ought to be at least a single-page plan
covering every nation on Earth, no matter what their current alignment
is - and too bad to whomever doesn't like it. For example, I sincerely
hope we have a contingency plan covering what to do if the Saudis order our
troops out, and another covering a coup putting our forces in S.A. in imminent
danger. It's just sensible to plan ahead for everything
possible [1]- it gives the junior planning officers something to do.
[1] The Pearl Harbor Lesson
> Jeremy Sadler wrote:
> "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:53:42 -0800, Michael Llaneza
<maserati@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I fail to see what the flap is over the "release" of this document.
I've
> read several news articles on the topic, and all of them mention that
Every now and again, someone in the media mentions US plans for invading
Canada in the 1920s. Canada has plans for dealing with such an invasion. It's
prudent for every country to do this. However, not everyone who understands
the military likes to hear such things. They can't understand why the US might
have, say, have a plan for nuking Great Britain when Britain is a close ally.
And, of course, there are degrees of planning. It wouldn't surprise me, for
instance, to find that the US has a short plan for taking over any one of a
number of British submarine or air bases. This could be in the event of war
with Britain, or in the event of terrorists trying to take over a base. It
could be because US assets are in the base, or US assets just happen to be the
closest at the time. They are all hypothetical, some maybe even preposterous,
but they make for good exercises and "thought experiments".
I would be _more_ worried if the US and other allied nations didn't do
this!
Or worse, if they only claimed they weren't doing it!
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 06:03 AM, Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:53:42 -0800, Michael Llaneza
[snip]
> I would be _more_ worried if the US and other allied nations didn't do
> this!
Personally, I'd get a lot of entertainment out of reading the plan for a
Canadian offensive directed at the states...
> On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 01:53, Michael Llaneza wrote:
I've
> read several news articles on the topic, and all of them mention that
> is - and too bad to whomever doesn't like it. For example, I sincerely
> hope we have a contingency plan covering what to do if the Saudis
> in imminent danger. It's just sensible to plan ahead for everything
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> Personally, I'd get a lot of entertainment out of reading the plan for
Actually, yesterday I mentioned to Tomb that not only do we Americans like
having Canada as a neighbor, we're also glad to have them as a buffer
against invasion by Nunavut. ;-)
2B^2
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Oh, I wasn't even going to point out that almost every
This is pretty much equivalent to saying that "most of the tank-on-tank
kills in the Gulf War was by German guns" (the 120mm gun on the M1A1 is a
German design), or why not "Sweden was involved in the recent Kargil war
between Pakistan and India" (after all, the Indians used both Bofors howitzers
and Carl Gustafs). Or why not "Russia is involved in the fighting against the
US coalition in Afganistan right now", since the AQ thugs use
AK-47s and RPG-7s.
If someone buys a weapon and later on uses it in a war, is the weapon
designer/manufacturer involved in the war too?
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> If someone buys a weapon and later on uses it in a war, is the weapon
Only if you dislike the designer/manufacturer and want to give them a
black
eye, or like them and want to make them look good. ;-)
2B^2
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> If someone buys a weapon and later on uses it in a
Not a good anology. The AIM9L was a 'brand spanking new' air to air missile
that had NOT been released for export. The missle was instantly released to
the Brits for use in the
Falklands. (As well as the Wideawake Airfield on
Ascension Island.)
Bye for now,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> This is pretty much equivalent to saying that "most
Liscence produced, neh?
> the recent Kargil war
There's a difference. The Swedes sell to anyone with ready cash. So do the
French.
> involved in the fighting
Yeah, and the Russians also. I'd also point out that the AQ thugs captured
those AKs and RPGs. They weren't handed them.
> If someone buys a weapon and later on uses it in a
Depends. As someone pointed out already, this was the newest model of
Sidewinder and it was a political decision in reaction to Britain's decision
to go to war to release them to the Brits and not the Argentinians, both of
whom are usually eligible to purchase US weapons.
> At 06:32 12/03/02 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
Or the re-conditioned tanks they supplied to the Northern Alliance?
> If someone buys a weapon and later on uses it in a war, is the weapon
Cheers
> At 11:55 12/03/02 -0800, John L. wrote:
> Not a good anology.
Just a bit of trivia, even though the AIM-9L was a 'all-aspect' missile
the RAF and RN SOPs and ROEs required their pilots to fire the missile from
the rear of the target aircraft.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Just a bit of trivia, even though the AIM-9L was a
OK, but then all the vets understand the durability of the SOP procedure AFTER
combat has been joined.
:-)
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> OK, but then all the vets understand the durability
Hell, anyone with any grasp of military history is aware of that....
3B^2
SPI WWIII? 1973 scenario?
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:24:34 EST ShldWulf@aol.com writes:
Ah but what about Canada's secret plans to send in the the RCMP and arrest
everyone?
<VBG>
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:03:28 -0600 Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
writes:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:53:42 -0800, Michael Llaneza