October 17, 2006
Silent And Deadly
I just got back from walking Molly and it's one of those fall nights I love---cool and everything is still wet from the rain we had earlier. I don't know why, but at times like this I think about the world and how much trouble is brewing in so many places.
There's a scene in "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" in which the guys who are getting ready to fly the Doolittle Raid are getting briefed on board the USS Hornet, the carrier that was hauling their bombers to within striking distance of Japan. The Navy lieutenant giving the briefing had a large picture of the Tokyo waterfront on an easel behind him. The picture was from a low angle, as if the person who took it was in Tokyo bay. The briefing is rambling along when a sailor walks in and whispers something in the lieutenant's ear. The officer stops, walks to the photograph and says, "This barrage balloon has been moved to here." The pilots look at each other.
Later, two of the pilots are smoking on the flight deck. Van Johnson, who plays the main character, speaks the following monologue (I'm doing this from memory):
"That briefing really threw me. I mean, here we are, and out there a group of guys we never met is sweating it out all day on the floor of Tokyo Bay in a submarine so they can surface and take pictures of the barrage balloons. All so we have a chance."
What the American public didn't know in 1944, when the movie was made, was that there really was an American submarine in Tokyo Bay in April, 1942 (the USS Silversides, I think).
So I was thinking about this tonight as I walked around the block with Molly. And I realized that not so much has changed in the past 60 years. I would be willing to bet a very large amount of money that right now, a submarine is sitting in Korea Bay or in Wonson Harbor, waiting for a "go" order to fire her cruise missiles. The men are a little more comfortable than the men on the diesel fleet boats were in World War Two, but service on a sub is still uncomfortable and dangerous. It probably won't come to the point where their services will be needed, but that boat gives the Pentagon and the White House options.
I guess I wander pretty far afield when I go around the block.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/901
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Silent And Deadly:
» Dorothy Taylor from Christopher Anderson
live bestiality show
[Read More]
How long are we going to give this crazy man to develop a nuke? We need to stop him posthaste. We need to stop Iran too. These people are crazy and the only way to stop them is with a good ol American Butt Kickin.
Posted by: David![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 18, 2006 10:09 PM
I love your podcasts, so quick and to the point. A great contribution to those of us who love history. To respond to your Doolittle mention, I was just reading Napoleon for Dummies and was struck by the parallels between Napoleon 's attempts to "civilize" Spain and the current Bush attempt to "democratize" Iraq. The main problem Napoleon faced was that the Spanish people of 1808 were lost without their monarchy and their clerics; Napoleon was taking on the monolithic Spanish Catholic church as well as the gov't. So even though he had great modern ideas, the Spanish people wouldn't be ready for them until after Franco died. Napoleon's experience in Spain proved to be the beginning of the end for him. Hopefully, the USA will survive this fiasco.
Posted by: Peter Damashek at October 19, 2006 09:32 AMThank you for the kind words, Peter. This nation will survive the occupation of Iraq; the question, I think, is how will it change our future responses to international challenges.
Posted by: Matt_D at October 19, 2006 09:46 PM
The above post and Matt's comment got me thinking. We know our submarines with ICBMs still lurk in the deep oceans with enough firepower to blow the entire planet to smithereens. This "MAD" scheme (pun intended) was developed during the cold war era. The question now arises as to when is a Nuclear response by the US appropriate? If a nation such as North Korea nukes an ally like Japan, that is an obvious answer.
But what about terrorism? How do you nuke an ideology? If NK/Iran supplies technology to a terrorist organization that then detonates a dirty bomb in Los Angeles, would we be justified in a Nuclear response? Most of the posters here would say absolutely. But that is the knee-jerk answer. Remember, we would be relying on the same sort of "intelligence" that got us into Iraq on WMD issues. Connections like that are nebulous at best. And by the same token, why not nuke Saudi Arabia? That's where the 9/11 hijackers were from and where they got their funding. And what if the nuclear terrorists were citizens of say Germany or Great Britain, trained in Pakistan, but the organization that claimed responsibility was Hamaas? Who do you drop the A-Bomb on then?
I agree with Matt. I think our future responses to international challenges will now always be tainted by Iraq. And that to me is the greatest failure of this war.
Posted by: Hash at October 20, 2006 09:52 AM