foreignpolicy | Documents from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
show that America's nuclear weapons developers were happy to support
the Army's quest for tactical nukes. In 1957, according to an AEC
history, Sandia Corporation President James McRae lamented that
"indiscriminate use of high-yield nuclear weapons inevitably created
adverse public opinion." Since the future of war lay in an "unending
succession of brushfire wars, rather than large-scale conflicts," McRae
recommended that "greater emphasis should be placed on small atomic
weapons," which could be used in "local ground combat."
McRae's
urgings paved the way for the development of the Davy Crockett, a
sub-kiloton-yield nuclear rocket that could fit on the back of a jeep.
In 1958, when the Army came knocking for an atomic demolition munition
that could be carried by a single soldier, the AEC looked
to the Crockett's lightweight Mark 54 warhead for its solution. The
resulting weapon would be a smaller, more mobile version of the ADMs. The Army, though, would have to share the device with the Navy and Marine Corps.
The AEC's
final product -- the B-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition -- entered
the U.S. arsenal in 1964. It stood 18 inches tall, encased in an
aluminum and fiberglass frame. It rounded to a bullet shape on one end
and had a 12-inch-diameter control panel on the other. According to an
Army manual, the weapon's maximum explosive yield was less than 1
kiloton -- that is, the equivalent of a thousand tons of TNT. To protect the bomb from unauthorized use, the SADM's
control panel was sealed by a cover plate secured by a combination
lock. Glow-in-the-dark paint applied to the lock allowed troops to
unlock the bomb at night.
As Soviet forces advanced into such countries as West Germany, the SADM
would allow Special Forces units (dubbed "Green Light" teams) to deploy
behind enemy lines to destroy infrastructure and matériel. But their
mission wouldn't have been limited to NATO countries alone. What many nuclear historians don't realize is that Special Forces Green Light teams were also prepared to use SADMs
on territory of the Warsaw Pact itself in order to thwart an invasion.
The teams prepared to destroy enemy airfields, tank depots, nodes in the
anti-aircraft grid, and any potentially useful transportation
infrastructure in order to mitigate the flood of enemy armor and to
allow allied air power to punch through. According to an internal
report, the Army also considered burying SADMs next to enemy bunkers "to destroy critical field command and communications installations."
Navy
SEALs and Army Special Forces were trained to reach their targets by
air, land, and sea. They could parachute behind enemy lines from cargo planes or helicopters. Teams specializing in scuba missions could swim the bomb to its destination if necessary. (The AEC
built an airtight, pressurized case that allowed divers to submerge the
bomb to depths of up to 200 feet.) One Special Forces team even trained
to ski with the weapon in the Bavarian Alps, though not without some
difficulty. "It skied down the mountain; you did not," said Bill Flavin,
who commanded a Special Forces SADM team. "If it shifted just a little bit, that was it. You were out of control on the slopes with that thing."
Special Forces thus turned to teams trained in special high-altitude
parachute jumps and scuba diving to deliver the weapon. Team leaders
were allowed to choose which of their men would receive training on the
weapon in order to make sure their units could pass the Army's periodic,
demanding nuclear surety inspections. "The people with the best
records, the people with the most experience, usually ended up on the SADM team because they had to pass the surety inspection," said Flavin. To receive SADM
qualification, soldiers also had to be screened through the Defense
Department's personnel reliability program to make sure they were
trustworthy and mentally stable.
Some men approached for the mission were gung-ho; others were less so. "Of course everybody would volunteer. That wasn't a problem," said Capt. Davis. "We did it because, hey, it was gee-whiz.
It was a neat thing to do, and I wanted to learn about it." But when
Green Light team member Ken Richter began interviewing potential
candidates, he said, not everyone was as enthusiastic: "I had a lot of
people that I interviewed for our team. Once they found out what the
mission was, they said, 'No, thanks. I'd rather go back to Vietnam.'"
16 comments:
General: "Two flying saucers... have just landed on my plate".
Colonel: "Well, turn away sir, I'll eat them".
http://www.angelfire.com/md/k3ky/page23.html
What do you know about those four Georges? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hunt_Williamson
I don't think you're on about any of those nitwits as much as you may be about this George http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt and this weird little dumpling, as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dudley_Pelley
I don't have cable, so thanks for that clarification. I like the boondocks version as well.
Speaking of impulse control and Big Don’s IQ 76 crowd.. This story is an eerie reminder of the pathological Susan Smith.
[Heather Jensen told her live-in boyfriend that she was taking the kids to play in the snow, the police investigation showed. Jensen's husband had died less than two months earlier in a car crash. She left her sons, Tyler, 4, and William, 2, in her SUV with the engine running for 90 minutes while she had sex in the truck of a male friend. The boys died from hyperthermia. Tests done later on the vehicle showed the temperature inside could have reached 140 degrees. In the courtroom Jensen didn't stop sobbing when her defense attorney portrayed her as a lonely widow with an IQ of 76 who was trying her best to protect her children when she locked them in a car with the heat on to keep them warm.]
http://bit.ly/1eiPlYZ
How many pundits in the MSM have called Congressman Grimm a thug, compared to Seahawks CB Richard Sherman? Also Grimm is being protected by the Zionists.
http://nydn.us/1ef8vAs
When it comes to conservative stories, I figure it's bullshit most of the time. I've accepted that they were vile and liable to do anything. Conservative spokespeople all follow the same model. Whenever they make a public appearance, they're talking to their audience. It doesn't matter where they are, if the camera's on it's time to play the nut role.
On the electoral level conservatives spokespeople know that their base hates Obama so they run the most ruthless campaigns against him. Those campaigns extend to his party. The conspiracy shit around election time is just what they need to get the base out to vote.
What gets me is that the tactics being used against Obama were used against Clinton in the 90s. You'd think that the side taking these attacks would have a plan to neuter the white wing. Twenty years is plenty of time to have something figured out. I couldn't be the president with my party that sorry. My attitude would be fucked up if my people couldn't beat Ted Cruz. My response would be like this: http://youtu.be/yzjWXduLPjs
but wasn't it a WSJ reporter who precipitated all of this by putting Grimm on the spot there on the capital balcony?
You'd think that the side taking these attacks would have a plan to neuter the white wing.No, I wouldn't. Because that presumes we're looking at something other than the 2party/1ideology system of neoliberal divide and conquer governance - and we're not.
I buy Adolph Reed's analysis of the situation and see "artificial negativity" going all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion.
Michael Scotto works for Time Warner Cable, not that it makes much difference. I was more focused on how the MSM went off on Sherman, compared to Grimm.
“Because he verbally, not physically, roughed up San Francisco 49er Michael Crabtree after the NFC championship game 10 days ago, Sherman was globally denounced as a “thug” and worse, as ugly racial stereotypes and flat-out projection defined the talented scholar from tough Compton by way of Stanford University as a criminal. Stand Grimm and Sherman side by side, there is only one “thug,” and it’s the GOP congressman.”
http://bit.ly/1eootqE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024411155
The WaPo did run this, which I missed.
http://wapo.st/1eg5sYT
This is not a forum for big-upping Sherman. Instead of acting like a Stanford educated professional athlete, he acted like a classless jiggaboo and ass-clown. I note that he has subsequently deported himself with greater finesse and conducted himself in a manner to make his mother proud, but he should've done that in the first place - instead of taking three large steps backwards.
When my son first asked me my opinion about this nullity, my instantaneous response to him was to ask, "what would Tsonga do?" Should you ever so fortunate as to get paid millions to play for a living, make sure your class and grace is so legendary that sponsors line up a mile deep to put mo'money in your pocket, and, the whole world has a positive opinion of you and whatever you represent in their imaginations.
My focus here is on the comparative applications of the word thug. Although the hypocritical Roger Goodell fined Sherman, you can bet your bottom dollar that the corporatists loved it. It is guaranteed that both Seahawks-49ers games next year will be nationally televised. As regards hypocrisy, how is Sherman fined and Tom "That is f---ing brutal” Brady isn’t?
http://bit.ly/1jJwZEe
His comments in the heat of battle aside, Richard Sherman’s Compton, to Stanford, to NFL, story is inspiring. A pick 6 on Pety would seal the deal.
It is precisely in the "heat of battle" (in this case "play" and "discussion" - strictly punkass and low-stakes modes of "battle") that one's true nature shines through. Thus we know Grimm is a murderous thug and Sherman is a low-class buffoon.
Rich Sherman is trying to be like the last cornerback people knew about.
http://youtu.be/AEEPVGtwsO8
Kshama Sawant Responds to Obama's State of the Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7LBtrBq1g
Dr. Welsing on sagging pants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa-NGwSkilI
Post a Comment