Christian Science Monitor has an excellent article on conspiracy theories.
Extract:
Conspiracy theories are now so influential that the US State Department's website desperately tries to contain the damage these theories cause to the reputation of the United States. It recognizes that conspiracy theories have "a great appeal and are often widely believed." Indeed, the theory that American foreign policy is the outcome of a carefully elaborated secret plot concocted by a cabal of neoconservatives is widely believed both inside and outside the US. Preoccupation with conspiracies is no longer confined to the margins. Virtually every unexpected event provokes a climate of suspicion that breeds rumors and conspiracies.
On the hunt for a conspiracy theory by Frank Furedi.
However it seems the preferred method of avoiding the influence of secret government conspiracies is not as effective as hoped. HT:Dean’s World
Showing posts with label Deans World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deans World. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Horror of the Trenches.
We just commemorated the 60th Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
A lot of comment of differing quality has been posted on this event. (Two of the best, pro and con, come from R J Rummel
II and Dean Esmay (The Links have died 4/13/11) But it seems that an important piece of background information is being overlooked across the board. Namely the total horror of the trench warfare of the First World War.
In 1914 the armies in France quickly developed a line from Switzerland to the coast. Both sides dug trenches to fortify their positions. Any attack was a suicidal frontal assault against a well dug in enemy. At the time there was no way to break the stalemate. Eventually the French tried a strategy of attrition at Verdun. Once I visited that battlefield. The guide, apparently referencing a known incident, said this is where the XXth Division died in 15 minutes. An area that was barely two square kilometers. The whole tour was one incident after another like that. We saw a bunker where several buses of elderly Germans were stopping to pray and remember. An annual trip to the grave of a nine hundred of their relatives. Members of a regiment that was in bunker when French artillery closed all the exits. On and on and on. The Somme, I’m sure, was the same way. The big American battle was the Muse Argonne, many of the same stories. The 35th division was effectively destroyed in four days. Over a quarter of the infantry were killed, like numbers of wounded or stragglers wandering around the battlefield looking for a safe place.
One result of the trench warfare was there was a firm commitment that this would never never happen again. To the point that normal judgment was warped.
------------
The advent of the airplane in WWI as a weapon promised a way out of the trap. There were three schools of thought on the use of Air Power.
The first is tactical. Use aircraft as long-range field or naval guns to support ground or naval operations.
The second is strategic. Use aircraft to destroy factories, supply dumps, and similar targets that support the war effort.
The third was terror bombing. Bombing civilians to break the will of the enemy and force surrender. If you have any questions about the horror of the trenches in WWI, consider that the promise that terror bombing could be done so that only the enemy was hurt was persuasive.
To put it another way, military targets strictly defined, military targets loosely defined and often near civilian areas, and terror bombing of civilians.
The first option was held mostly in services that could never afford large bombers, or the services air section would have no purpose if it was not tactical.
The third option came to dominate the thinking of the RAF with the approval of most the involved civilian leadership accrues the board.
US Army Air Corp thought they could win with the second option, though there was a minority of officers and civilian leadership support in favor of the third option.
Neither the RAF, nor the Army Air Corp put much pre-war effort into tactical bombing.
So when the US and UK entered WWII there was a strong commitment to strategic and even terror bombing in parts of the Air Forces and in the Civilian leadership. Massive amounts of resources were committed to this at the governmental level. The Manhattan project was simply an extension of this program.
The terror bombing option was the result of what happened in the trenches in WWI. The memory burned so hard that even terror bombing looked like proportionally less evil than going back to the trenches. An attitude that would have been unthinkable before WWI and is becoming more so again. When we look at things like the RAF de-housing campaign in Germany or Gen LeMay’s fire bombing of Japan or the decision to use the Atomic bomb, it was made in a context where they saw a far greater evil. (Ironically the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made with much more reference to military value than General LeMay's firebombing.) Captain Truman was an officer in the 35th Division noted above. When President Truman was looking at the decision to use the atomic bomb, he was comparing a known horror burned in his memory that would have been repeated when Japan was invaded, against an abstraction of the results of an unproven weapons system. Something that I’m sure weighed on his decision in a way we can’t comprehend.
------------------
Looking through hindsight, it was the tactical operations that proved the greatest contribution to the war effort; and it seems that the tactical element has consistently proven of greatest value.
The strategic bombing was really beyond the technologies of the time, but did make some contribution to victory, but some commentators have suggested the assets would have been better directed into a few more ground divisions and tactical air support. The development of smart bombs that can actually hit the target, and consistently avoid nearby civilian targets is giving this option more promise.
The terror bombing was always counter productive, creating no real change in war production but galvanizing enemy determination. It does not seem to been applied by any major power since then, and WWI being a memory long superseded by the memory of Hiroshima it will probably not be tried again, though every now and they you hear some fool advocate it.
--------------------------
A thought.
What in the name of "Hiroshima - never again" will we accept?
--------------------
Note 1: The point of this post is not to justify or condemn, just explain. Much comment is pro and con is devoid of solid knowledge of the events in 1945. The issue is to important for the ignorant comments that come from both sides. This is, I hope a minor contribution to informed discussion.
Note 2: The decision has to be evaluated on the information available to the decision makers and a reasonable evaluation of the consequences of all options. It seems to me that, in August 1945, and at the end point of a number of poor decisions, based on the best information available, using the Atomic bomb appeared to be the option that would end the war fastest with the least additional loss of life. Including information not available to them reinforces this conclusion.
Personal note: When US troops landed in Japan, they were not sure what to expect so they landed in assault formation. My father led a rifle platoon in the first wave. In the normal course of these events, if the landing was opposed, he would have died five years before I was born.
Update: 7 September 2005, 13 April 2011
Dr Rummel considered some new information and modified his position (Link Dead)
A lot of comment of differing quality has been posted on this event. (Two of the best, pro and con, come from R J Rummel
II and Dean Esmay (The Links have died 4/13/11) But it seems that an important piece of background information is being overlooked across the board. Namely the total horror of the trench warfare of the First World War.
In 1914 the armies in France quickly developed a line from Switzerland to the coast. Both sides dug trenches to fortify their positions. Any attack was a suicidal frontal assault against a well dug in enemy. At the time there was no way to break the stalemate. Eventually the French tried a strategy of attrition at Verdun. Once I visited that battlefield. The guide, apparently referencing a known incident, said this is where the XXth Division died in 15 minutes. An area that was barely two square kilometers. The whole tour was one incident after another like that. We saw a bunker where several buses of elderly Germans were stopping to pray and remember. An annual trip to the grave of a nine hundred of their relatives. Members of a regiment that was in bunker when French artillery closed all the exits. On and on and on. The Somme, I’m sure, was the same way. The big American battle was the Muse Argonne, many of the same stories. The 35th division was effectively destroyed in four days. Over a quarter of the infantry were killed, like numbers of wounded or stragglers wandering around the battlefield looking for a safe place.
One result of the trench warfare was there was a firm commitment that this would never never happen again. To the point that normal judgment was warped.
------------
The advent of the airplane in WWI as a weapon promised a way out of the trap. There were three schools of thought on the use of Air Power.
The first is tactical. Use aircraft as long-range field or naval guns to support ground or naval operations.
The second is strategic. Use aircraft to destroy factories, supply dumps, and similar targets that support the war effort.
The third was terror bombing. Bombing civilians to break the will of the enemy and force surrender. If you have any questions about the horror of the trenches in WWI, consider that the promise that terror bombing could be done so that only the enemy was hurt was persuasive.
To put it another way, military targets strictly defined, military targets loosely defined and often near civilian areas, and terror bombing of civilians.
The first option was held mostly in services that could never afford large bombers, or the services air section would have no purpose if it was not tactical.
The third option came to dominate the thinking of the RAF with the approval of most the involved civilian leadership accrues the board.
US Army Air Corp thought they could win with the second option, though there was a minority of officers and civilian leadership support in favor of the third option.
Neither the RAF, nor the Army Air Corp put much pre-war effort into tactical bombing.
So when the US and UK entered WWII there was a strong commitment to strategic and even terror bombing in parts of the Air Forces and in the Civilian leadership. Massive amounts of resources were committed to this at the governmental level. The Manhattan project was simply an extension of this program.
The terror bombing option was the result of what happened in the trenches in WWI. The memory burned so hard that even terror bombing looked like proportionally less evil than going back to the trenches. An attitude that would have been unthinkable before WWI and is becoming more so again. When we look at things like the RAF de-housing campaign in Germany or Gen LeMay’s fire bombing of Japan or the decision to use the Atomic bomb, it was made in a context where they saw a far greater evil. (Ironically the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made with much more reference to military value than General LeMay's firebombing.) Captain Truman was an officer in the 35th Division noted above. When President Truman was looking at the decision to use the atomic bomb, he was comparing a known horror burned in his memory that would have been repeated when Japan was invaded, against an abstraction of the results of an unproven weapons system. Something that I’m sure weighed on his decision in a way we can’t comprehend.
------------------
Looking through hindsight, it was the tactical operations that proved the greatest contribution to the war effort; and it seems that the tactical element has consistently proven of greatest value.
The strategic bombing was really beyond the technologies of the time, but did make some contribution to victory, but some commentators have suggested the assets would have been better directed into a few more ground divisions and tactical air support. The development of smart bombs that can actually hit the target, and consistently avoid nearby civilian targets is giving this option more promise.
The terror bombing was always counter productive, creating no real change in war production but galvanizing enemy determination. It does not seem to been applied by any major power since then, and WWI being a memory long superseded by the memory of Hiroshima it will probably not be tried again, though every now and they you hear some fool advocate it.
--------------------------
A thought.
What in the name of "Hiroshima - never again" will we accept?
--------------------
Note 1: The point of this post is not to justify or condemn, just explain. Much comment is pro and con is devoid of solid knowledge of the events in 1945. The issue is to important for the ignorant comments that come from both sides. This is, I hope a minor contribution to informed discussion.
Note 2: The decision has to be evaluated on the information available to the decision makers and a reasonable evaluation of the consequences of all options. It seems to me that, in August 1945, and at the end point of a number of poor decisions, based on the best information available, using the Atomic bomb appeared to be the option that would end the war fastest with the least additional loss of life. Including information not available to them reinforces this conclusion.
Personal note: When US troops landed in Japan, they were not sure what to expect so they landed in assault formation. My father led a rifle platoon in the first wave. In the normal course of these events, if the landing was opposed, he would have died five years before I was born.
Update: 7 September 2005, 13 April 2011
Dr Rummel considered some new information and modified his position (Link Dead)
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Recycle Now ! ! ! ? ? ?
One day I was home from work sick and looked out the window as the garbage truck came by. They took the “recycle” containers and tossed the contents in the back of the truck, then tossed the regular garbage in the back of the truck, and every few houses compressed it all together.
Apparently the Chicago does it much better; there was an expose a few years ago. The recycle trucks and regular trucks picked up their separate loads and dropped them in the same dump. (Which is much better than the people who bribed the alderman to dump it anywhere, many of these individuals ended up as long-term guests of the Bureau of Prisons. I hope this is deterrent to others.).
Scott Kirwin of Deans World has a report from the bay area where they do process the recycling separately. He is wondering how much pollution the recycling process causes.
Disposing of waste is a serious issue. There are a number of things to be considered including whether the consequences of a given method are better or worse than the problem. In WWII tin and other things were collected from each house as part of the war effort. It was leaned later that most of this was unnecessary. Some may have been poor estimates at the beginning but most was an ”educational” program to get the home front involved in the war effort. Supporting recycling as an educational program to teach environmental awareness, does not protect the environment, and leaves people with a incorrect awareness of how to protect the environment.
Some one said serious work on understanding the environment cannot be done if you do not know differential calculus. (Differential calculus is used to solve problems with many interconnected variables which describes all but the simpelist environmental questions.) It would be better to insist that math be taught up to ones aptitude so there are people who can do serious work on the enviroment. The less talented will have enough ability to evaluate the question and act as resposible citizens. Environmental awareness should be taught by studying simpler problems that can be done with age appropriate math, not political indoctrination.
PERSONAL NOTE: What little calculus I needed in school I self-taught and forgoten, so I do not know differential calculus, I get to sit on the sidelines and complain rather than do serious work on the issue.
Apparently the Chicago does it much better; there was an expose a few years ago. The recycle trucks and regular trucks picked up their separate loads and dropped them in the same dump. (Which is much better than the people who bribed the alderman to dump it anywhere, many of these individuals ended up as long-term guests of the Bureau of Prisons. I hope this is deterrent to others.).
Scott Kirwin of Deans World has a report from the bay area where they do process the recycling separately. He is wondering how much pollution the recycling process causes.
Disposing of waste is a serious issue. There are a number of things to be considered including whether the consequences of a given method are better or worse than the problem. In WWII tin and other things were collected from each house as part of the war effort. It was leaned later that most of this was unnecessary. Some may have been poor estimates at the beginning but most was an ”educational” program to get the home front involved in the war effort. Supporting recycling as an educational program to teach environmental awareness, does not protect the environment, and leaves people with a incorrect awareness of how to protect the environment.
Some one said serious work on understanding the environment cannot be done if you do not know differential calculus. (Differential calculus is used to solve problems with many interconnected variables which describes all but the simpelist environmental questions.) It would be better to insist that math be taught up to ones aptitude so there are people who can do serious work on the enviroment. The less talented will have enough ability to evaluate the question and act as resposible citizens. Environmental awareness should be taught by studying simpler problems that can be done with age appropriate math, not political indoctrination.
PERSONAL NOTE: What little calculus I needed in school I self-taught and forgoten, so I do not know differential calculus, I get to sit on the sidelines and complain rather than do serious work on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
