Sharp as a Marble - Flaming bat bombs

armed partisan says:

on 8/12/2011 4:18:50 PM

Seems like a pretty good idea, which was so destructive that it destroyed a US latrine in testing. Fortunately for us, the M-69 firebombs proved so effective that bombing raids done days before would leave a city burning days later. On later bombing runs the still smoldering primary targets were ignored in order to hit secondary targets, which had not been set ablaze yet.

Burning Japanese cities were so hot that the AIR would ignite creating a "fire storm", like burning twisters that could be seen for hundreds of miles in the night sky.

The M-69 Firebomb killed more people than "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" COMBINED.

Robert says:

on 8/12/2011 5:15:09 PM

James Dickey's last novel, To the White Sea, dealt with a B-29 crew member shot down while on a firebombing run over Tokyo, and his attempt to evade capture by the Japanese. The effects of the firebombing is wonderfully described.

Tim says:

on 8/13/2011 7:10:20 PM

And American psychologist B F Skinner proposed an early smart bomb. He would train pigeons to distinguish targets and put them in bombs that they could guide by pecking.

Comrade Misfit says:

on 8/13/2011 8:03:12 PM

This was written up in the book "Of Spies and Stratagems" in the early `60s.

Dwight Brown says:

on 8/13/2011 8:57:47 PM

One of the participants, Jack Couffer, wrote a book about his experiences on the project, Bat Bomb.

The book is out of print, but copies seem to be available on BookFinder.com for less than $10.

Chris in Texas says:

on 8/14/2011 4:09:58 PM

You've heard about Operation Acoustic Kitty before, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1361462/CIA-recruited-cat-to-bug-Russians.html

Chris says:

on 8/14/2011 8:26:34 PM

I would question the morality of unleashing an indiscriminate weapon of terror against a civilian population living under the oppression of a military dictatorship ruled by an Emperor.

But I tend to think about stuff like that.

RWV says:

on 8/15/2011 12:37:05 PM

Not as crazy as the Soviet Anti-Tank dog.

armed partisan says:

on 8/15/2011 10:59:58 PM

"I would question the morality of unleashing an indiscriminate weapon of terror against a civilian population living under the oppression of a military dictatorship ruled by an Emperor."

I tend to be a bastard about these things, but a civilian population is liable for the decisions of their rulers. The opposite of support is condemnation, not apathy. If you sit back and allow your government to be evil bastards, it means you tacitly support their actions, and by not ACTIVELY resisting, you deserve the retribution intended for them.

This is the way the US military thought about civilian populations back then. Not everybody in Germany was a Nazi, but they weren't resisting, because if they were, they'd be in concentration camps. Since they were in the cities, and they know bombs will fall on those cities, it's at least partially their fault if they die in said bombings. The same was true of the Japanese.

Chris says:

on 8/16/2011 10:29:35 AM

Do yo understand what a military dictatorship is?

We are a democratic republic. Our leaders are chosen buy the people. Therefore if our government runs afoul of middle eastern terrorists, by your rational, American civilians are legitimate targets.

Currently there are some military folks on trial for participating in a "kill squad." they are charged with targeting innocent civilians. Have you tried contacting their defense team with you "collectivized culpability" theory. You might consider it, since your moral theory makes you partial guilty. After all you paid taxes which paid for bullets which may have been used to commit a war crime.

A for actively resisting, do you get in fist fights with the TSA?

Do you attack police officers who are enforcing unjust laws?

Do you do anything at all to substantiate your bravado?

It's not a snarky question. I believe what a person does over what they say.

Just a tip, one fast a dirty way to test a moral theory is to reverse the actors and see if it still works for you.

armed partisan says:

on 8/16/2011 12:26:00 PM

@ Chris: Do you understand that Islamic Terrorists are targeting American civilians because they blame American civilians and not the American government? They see the AMERICAN PEOPLE as morally corrupt, and guilty of the sins of HAVING a government that does not abide by Sharia. You think they blow up buses full of Israeli school children because they're unhappy with Israel's government?

Is this an alien concept to you? Terrorism is an illegitimate form of warfare, and what a terrorist considers a "legitimate" target is largely irrelevant, which is why even the bleeding heart Euro-peons don't extend to them basic rights and privileged allotted to any legitimate combatant. The Geneva and Hague conventions DO NOT apply to illegitimate combatants like terrorists.

"Currently there are some military folks on trial for participating in a "kill squad." they are charged with targeting innocent civilians." Yes, which is in DIRECT VIOLATIONS OF THEIR STANDING ORDERS, THE UCMJ, US LAW and WESTERN MILITARY TRADITION. I'm getting the impression that you don't grasp this concept in the least. Decisions about targets are made by the leadership, not rogue elements within the enlisted ranks who operate without a sense of consequence or an understanding of the subtleties of war.

"After all you paid taxes which paid for bullets which may have been used to commit a war crime." It's nice to see that you're willing to condemn US Servicemen for an alleged crime for which they have not, by your own admission, been found guilty of yet. It shows where you really stand. There have been countless instances of innocent American servicemen brought up on trumped up charges and "human rights" violations, only to see the baseless charges dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence, because 99% of the time, it's total bullshit. It's nice to see that you realize that it is a "WAR CRIME" they've been charged with and therefore not a legitimate act of war, because I was beginning to doubt that you could understand this very basic premise.

"A for actively resisting, do you get in fist fights with the TSA?" No, but I haven't been on a flight in almost five years. Do you think that was easy? What's the furthest you've driven to go to a business meeting? How far would you be willing to drive to uphold your civil rights? Not very far, I'll bet.

"Do you attack police officers who are enforcing unjust laws?" No, but I have challenged them in court and won. An unjust law should be challenged legally before it is challenged physically. If I don't like a law, it doesn't mean I abandon the entire system of American Government and Western Tradition to try some radical, start-from-zero approach that you apparently endorse. However, if I lived in a military dictatorship where justice was not available through the courts, where elections were not held or were not legitimate, where civil rights did not exist, then yes, I would actively and violent resist as necessary when possible.

You may not think this is possible, because you are easily terrified, but I assure you, it is eminently possible and happens all the time. In the past year, we've seen it happen all over the middle east and throughout much of the world. Do you think those people weren't actively resisting? Do you think their voices weren't heard? Or do you simply feel that their actions were pointless because they didn't achieve all of their goals? Or do you simply not consider those governments that were challenged to be "military dictatorships", because such a thing is impossible to challenge in your mind? Do you think people are excused for the actions of their government when they do NOTHING to challenge it?

"Do you do anything at all to substantiate your bravado?" I've long found that people willing to challenge my courage are often cowards themselves. I don't know anything about you, and I won't assume that you're a mindless chickenshit, but I've served in the military of the nation I believe in during a time of war. I joined BEFORE there was a war, because service was what I believed in. It wasn't a system that I thought was perfect, nor did I think it was flawed beyond repair, but one cannot effect a system that one refuses to take part in. You wanna see my battle scars? You wanna see my DD214? You wanna look at my Combat Action Ribbon? You wanna talk to my friends I served with? Fuck you. I've never met a hero who carried his medals in his pocket. I don't need to prove myself to you, and my personal character and experiences don't negate a realistic assessment of history. And personally, I don't care what your experiences are, because as far as I can tell, your views are stupid. I don't care if you have a silver star or an MOH, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I might salute you, but that doesn't mean I like you.

"I believe what a person does over what they say." I believe a person who would so quickly question the honor and integrity of a person they don't even know is severely lacking in these essential qualities themselves.

If you think that the Japanese, the Soviets, or the Germans didn't apply a similar moral theory to WWII, you're a fool. Massive Bombing campaigns have been a hallmark of warfare since AT LEAST the War Between the States, because civilian populations are acknowledged as providing material, moral, and communal support to the combatants, and the long held belief about the best way to deter that has long been to demoralize and terrorize civilian populations. You know why? Because if you aren't resisting, you're giving DIRECT SUPPORT, and you're a fool if you think that America's enemies make the distinction between government, military, and civilian targets.

We don't do massive bombing campaigns anymore, because it has other consequences, but we didn't think about this until after WWII, and largely the lesson was unlearned until after Vietnam. It costs alot of money and it makes the civilian populations more fond of whichever side ISN'T bombing them, even if they didn't like them before. We have technology that allows us to precisely engage specific targets now with a limited amount of collateral damage, but you don't get to condemn the decisions of the past because of technologies that emerged as a direct result of those mistakes.

Chris says:

on 8/16/2011 4:42:41 PM

Wow that was ranty...

They hate us for our freedoms eh? Sheesh...

"Terrorism is an illegitimate form of warfare"

I agree, and terrorism is defined as attacking civilians in order to cause terror for political gain... like firebombing a city you know is full of innocent civilians. Or it is only terrorism when other people do it to us?

I honestly just stopped reading about half way through. You're pissed off and incoherent, which is not an uncommon reaction to having unconsidered beliefs challenged by someone who knows what they are talking about.

Your position is essentially, it's OK to melt the skin off babies so long as they are enemy babies.

You clearly have no interest in thinking critically about ethics or morality.

Take a breath, read some John Locke (not the guy from LOST) and think a little more on the subject.

armed partisan says:

on 8/16/2011 10:26:58 PM

"Wow that was ranty..." I love how when you write more than a bumper sticker's worth of words, simple people call it a rant.

"They hate us for our freedoms eh? Sheesh..." Is that what I said? No. I said: "They hate us for our culture". Wars are always a clash of cultures. Do you think that's not a valid cause? Do you only support invasions for resources?

"... like firebombing a city you know is full of innocent civilians." This proves you don't understand warfare or history on a fundamental level. My initial point was that there ARE no innocent civilians. Cooperation is the same as support. Apathy is a vote for the status quo. I find it ironic that you would apply the label of "innocent" to the non-combatant populations of a belligerent state, but would consider our own troops guilty of a war crime merely because they were charged, but not convicted.

"Or it is only terrorism when other people do it to us?" Are you really this dumb? It's terrorism when a non-state entity attacks targets of no military value for the purposes of TERRORIZING a population into acquiescing to their socio-political or economic goals. A state actor engaged in an official, declared war cannot conduct a terrorist act.

"I honestly just stopped reading about half way through." Surprise, surprise. Too many big words? Too many advanced concepts for you? You simply refuse to acknowledge positions which disprove your own, which is weak.

"You're pissed off and incoherent" Just because you do not possess the faculties to comprehend, does not make me incoherent. Does my emotional state somehow liberate you from having to consider my points? Is it a magic talisman that allows you to say and write and believe imbecilic things because a rational, logical person finds them infuriatingly stupid?

"...which is not an uncommon reaction to having unconsidered beliefs..." An ironic statement, considering you admit you haven't considered my beliefs.

"...challenged by someone who knows what they are talking about." Yes. I challenged you, bested you, and you skulked away from that challenge, because you are unworthy. I accept your acquiescence, even though it be offered without humility. Your tacit acknowledgement that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about is victory enough.

"Your position is essentially, it's OK to melt the skin off babies so long as they are enemy babies." It is. I see you have problems, but not with hyperbolic rhetoric.

"You clearly have no interest in thinking critically about ethics or morality." No, I simply disagree with your silly and naive worldview, which regardless of what you tell yourself, is not more moral or ethic than anybody else's.

"Take a breath, read some John Locke (not the guy from LOST)" How is John Locke lost?

"...and think a little more on the subject." Another ironic statement from someone who has not only failed to devote any time to thought, not only refuses to even read, let alone consider other views, but has certainly never read Locke, or Hobbes, or Bacon, or Rousseau, or Kant, or Hume.

I have read these and others, you haven't. However, since your first attempt to worm your way out of the debate hinged on questioning my manhood, which I proved was more than twice the sum of yours, you then sought to attempt to prove your moral and intellectual superiority, in which you have also failed. Your attempts at ad hominem deflection to avoid having to defend your juvenile and stupid assertions is simply pathetic. Victory is mine. I bid you good evening.

DonM says:

on 8/20/2011 12:20:18 AM

I will note that one key difference between the US and the Germans or Japanese is when the war stopped, the US stopped killing. By contrast, when Manila Philippines was declared an open city, the Japanese commander had another 100,000 murdered. More US soldiers died after the Bataan surrender than before while fighting. More Chinese died after Nanjing/Nanking was taken than when it was being defended. More people were killed in German operated concentration camps than in resisting being taken to the concentration camps.

DonM says:

on 8/20/2011 12:28:58 AM

Germany's murder of POWs at Malmedy and other places during the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge) were ordered by the German high command to send a wave of terror. It did, and small US units resisted to their utmost and beyond, being sure that being honorably taken prisoner was not an option on which to bet.
Japanese murdered POWs too, to terrorize other POWs. Those war crimes were conducted by state actors in violation of wars. After Germany bombed London, Britain retaliated, and since Germany did not apologize, make restitution, or begin negotiations to identify and make restitution, they had no room to complain about their cities being bombed. Japan, after bombing Pearl Harbor before their declaration of war, had no room to complain. Whether the people are capable of changing their government, since the Treaty of Westphalia, governments are responsible for their people, and have a duty to protect them. By committing war crimes, Governments lose the ability to protect their people from reciprocal acts.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links