Remembering America's Fresh Water Submarines 225
Hugh Pickens writes "As we move into Memorial Day and Americans remember the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces, I wanted to share the story of my Uncle Donald Cress born in 1922 in Bath Township, Minnesota who served as a Radioman, Third Class on the USS Robalo, one of the US Navy's 'Fresh Water Submarines' because they were commissioned in the Great Lakes. On the western shore of Lake Michigan, about 80 miles north of Milwaukee, lies Manitowoc, Wisconsin, a city whose shipyards had built car ferries and ore boats since 1902. In 1939 war broke out in Europe and President Roosevelt declared a limited National Emergency and U.S. Navy shipbuilders were concerned that submarine building capacity was not sufficient to support a long war. The US Navy asked the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company to build submarines, a task far beyond their existing capabilities, but assured them that the Electric Boat Company, with the only shipyard in the country capable of building submarines, would provide plans and whatever assistance they would need. Manitowoc's shipyard grew from 500 employees to 7,000 employees at its peak working three shifts around the clock 365 days a year and by the end of the war had built 25 submarines in time to see action that together sank 132 Japanese ships. 'It appears from the results obtained at Manitowoc that given a set of good plans, competent engineers and skilled workman can follow them and build what is called for even though it might be very much more sophisticated than anything they have built before,' writes Rear Admiral William T. Nelson. But there was one more thing the shipyard had going for it. After Pearl Harbor the entire community was now engaged in vital and important war work, sacrifice was the order of the day, and each boat was their boat. 'With the entire community following the construction with such interest and spirit, success was inevitable.'"
Fresh Water submarines? (Score:5, Funny)
Only useful if we are ever attacked by canada.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or want to attack Canada ;)
(this one is probably more likely then Canada attacking America).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Resource wars of the future my friend, resource wars of the future."
The idea of having to invade our Northern Corporate Appendage is absurd, and politicians are cheaper to buy than armaments.
Re: (Score:3)
So? It's the taxpayers who pay for the armaments, not the overlords. And invading anywhere starts looking perfectly rational once you have a weapons factory.
Re: (Score:3)
A rematch for the War of 1812? ;)
Guess the White House is due for some renovations anyway....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, go on... attack. You may take out our two rowboat destroyers and our battle canoe.
But we have a tank...
...and we're not telling you where it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As we move into Memorial Day and Americans remembe (Score:4, Insightful)
Hahaha. You mean "as we remember and celebrate barbecuing and long weekends off from work".
Besides, the holiday has become nothing more than a day to fill young minds with propaganda about how EVERYONE is a hero no matter what, just for BEING IN the military. That way, we collectively put anyone joining the military on a pedestal. That way, we keep the machine fed so dumb young people are brainwashed by the rest of us into sacrificing themselves -- worthwhile for a good cause and not so much for trivial world-cop activities and guarding international corporate interests and oil-wells. We're all guilty of promoting the government propaganda that keeps allowing elderly fucktard politicians to throw young lives away. Memorial day my fucking ass.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I know Memorial day is only observed in the US of A.
Most of the rest of the allies commemorate the fallen of the wars on the 11th day of the 11th month (to mark the end of the first world war)
Except for those of us from down under who remember our fallen troops on ANZAC day (25th April) the anniversary of the Gallipoli landings
Re:At the going down of the sun and in the morning (Score:5, Informative)
True.
On the other hand, only the USA had the US Civil War, which is what Memorial Day commemorated, back in the day.
It only later became a generic "all our war dead" sort of holiday.
And, of course, we also observe Veteran's Day (11 NOV)....
Re:At the going down of the sun and in the morning (Score:5, Insightful)
And, of course, we also observe Veteran's Day (11 NOV)....
Yeah, that's when teachers, mail carriers and DMV clerks get the day off but if you're only a veteran you have to go to work.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH if you're Active duty and not deployed to a combat zone at the time, you usually do get it off or get informal "comp" time if you pull holiday duty.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the holiday has become nothing more than a day to fill young minds with propaganda about how EVERYONE is a hero no matter what, just for BEING IN the military.
We drafted soldiers into WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. Tens of thousands of them were killed, and many more were injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country. Subsequent military actions were staffed by men and women who volunteered to serve and protect our country. Thousands of them have been killed, and many more have been injured. I thank them and honor them for their service to our country.
I don't agree with all our government's policies regarding war, nation building, military spending, etc, but I can certainly distinguish between those in power that hatch these policies from those that fight, suffer and die because of them.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with placing too much "honor" on the soldiers for their work is the vast majority go on to support the politicians that push the military agenda at the expense of sustainable policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said!
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to separate the politician from the soldier, but that doesn't totally absolve the soldier. Save a little bit of blame for the man that pulls the trigger.
Honor in soldiering is pretty hard to come by. Contrast this with most other jobs. Maybe that's why the honor of the soldier is valued so much.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me what about the Korean war or Vietnam had anything to do with protecting our country?
They were about protecting our allies. I certainly don't think they were a great idea but I can separate those who fought and died from the politicians who sent them into battle.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Once again you're equating the policies and practices of the government with the sacrifices made by those who serve in the military. They are not one and the same.
Brainwashed!
Things are not as black & white as agreeing with you or being brainwashed. It's that type of attitude that leads to conflicts ... which lead to wars.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for protecting our allies, but Congress and the president has to have their children and grand children on the front line in the first wave of attacks.
No more of the rich assholes sending the poor to die for their desires. The rich fuckers need to put up their kids to die for any war first.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Interesting)
And what if they don't have kids? Or don't care about their kids?
Here's my proposal: http://slashdot.org/~TheLink/journal/208853 [slashdot.org]
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
Dumbest idea ever (Score:3)
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle.
Some did. Most didn't. We just hear about the ones that did because they are more interesting.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
I agree with the principle but in practice it's not always so easy to tell the difference. The best way to deal with some threats is not always to simply wait for the attack to come and respond.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow. At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
Your suggestion above is utterly batshit insane. Your solution to kill people to avoid killing people is pretty much the dumbest idea I've ever read. It's as dumb as the "pro life" zealots who kill doctors to stop abor
Re: (Score:2)
If the politicians can't convince enough people that the war is justified can you please tell me WHY there should be war? Just because the Great Leader thinks it's a wonderful idea? If you think the majority of your people will be so stupid in such serious and important matters, th
Hiring experts (Score:3)
If the politicians can't convince enough people that the war is justified can you please tell me WHY there should be war?
Because the majority isn't always right, doesn't always have the facts and votes are about perceptions instead of reality. There is a very good reason that military hierarchy isn't a democracy. Furthermore the democratic process is slow. Sometimes that's a very good thing, sometimes it is not. Don't get me wrong, I think there need to be some pretty severe curbs on the ability of our elected leaders to commit our troops to battle. That's why we have separation of powers and the executive branch doesn't
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So tell me what about the Korean war or Vietnam had anything to do with protecting our country?
They were about protecting our allies. I certainly don't think they were a great idea but I can separate those who fought and died from the politicians who sent them into battle.
It had nothing to do with protecting our allies, it had to do with protecting our business interest, which communism was an ideological threat to. The citizens of Vietnam and Korea wanted communism, and just like many other countries we took it away from them, so that we could continue to reap the rewards of our influence.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Once again you're equating the policies and practices of the government with the sacrifices made by those who serve in the military. They are not one and the same.
Brainwashed!
What I'm pointing out is the brainwashing that occurs through the policies and practices of the government, that cause people to sacrifice their lives in order to spread suffering around t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did run for office, and was arguably the most intelligent, and least funded of the candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
I did run for office, and was arguably the most intelligent, and least funded of the candidates.
I'm sorry you didn't succeed, but don't let one loss stop you from trying again. Getting elected requires a business plan for raising funds and gallons of tenacity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It had nothing to do with protecting our allies, it had to do with protecting our business interest, which communism was an ideological threat to. The citizens of Vietnam and Korea wanted communism, and just like many other countries we took it away from them, so that we could continue to reap the rewards of our influence.
Really? Every citizen in Vietnam and Korea wanted communism? Next I suppose you're going to tell us that those not wanting communism were brainwashed/bribed by the US Industrial/Military Complex, while the USSR/China side was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:4, Interesting)
You could argue that the situation in north korea as it is now, is only because it has to participate in asymmetrical warfare, including a cultural warfare as well. It takes idiotic cult personalities to lead people who are otherwise ignorant, especially when the powerful and thus educated people don't give a damn about you and want to keep you dumb and powerless. Thus the koreans generally did want to have a communist government, but the USA supported the japanese and their pawns, in order to put their own people in charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Korea_divided_.281945.E2.80.931949.29
China had its communist revolution, due in part because it was getting shafted by the colonial powers, in what was known as the "unequal treaties". Similarly the colonial powers were in control of the middle east, and have exerted control over the middle east for a long time, part of which is why israel exists to begin with. We created the environment for backwards uneducated militants to exist, by depriving the populace of a government that benefits them, and empowering ruthless dictators to rule. Just because our oil comes from SA, doesn't mean that ME isn't influential to the commodities market, and ignores that we originally controlled the ME oil production. We also did the same sort of colonialism in south america, ala banana republics, panama, contra's, cuba, etc, and its real easy for us to be creative and industrious, while slave labor was producing our food for us at home and abroad. The borders that were made in the middle east and Africa, were specifically designed to pit ethnic groups against each other, and just make up fake ethnicity in the case of tutsi's and hutu's
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Brainwashed!
Go live elsewhere then. If you think the United States is so bad, why do you stay? Find yourself a nice country somewhere that you think is morally superior, and go there. We'll certainly be happier for it. I don't think you will though, because I think you're the kind of person that's going to bitch and moan about how rotten things are wherever you go. Regardless, go somewhere else and be their problem if you hate it some much here. You're not going to "redeem" us, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's patriotic to want your country to stop being evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Its naive to think that its advantageous to steal more of the pie for yourself, and meanwhile destroy some or most of they pie in the process. Had so much of the capital not been destroyed or spent on warfare, and we allowed a more homogeneous development in the world, we would be less likely to be facing the present Malthusian catastrophe.
"The perception that your needs are the most important, is an illusion caused by the existence of your ego." - Buddhist text I once read somewhere
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a military veteran with friends and family who also served in the military (some who have been in combat), I'd like to offer you the most sincere heartfelt sentiment I can think of: Fuck You.
You don't even understand the thing that you're bashing. Memorial Day is about honoring those who died in battle, not everyone in the military. It doesn't much matter whether you agree with war, or the government, or the military, or whatever your favorite institutional boogeyman is, today is for those who volunteere
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a peacenik's holiday, memorial day would recognize EVERYONE who died in war, not just the fools that rushed into it.
And it doesn't take much intellectual courage to toe the party line, in otherwords to continue to blindly support a flawed ideology, because you don't want to face cognitive dissonance.
if you want real courage, try looking at someone like Ghandi, Dalai Lama, Oskar Schindler, not a bunch of masochistic egomaniacs.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as it pains me to do so... I have to say that you're wrong and he's correct.
The historical reason for Memorial Day was to honor those who fell in service, but over the years it has expanded. Over the years it grew to encompass all service members who have died including veterans and retirees that passed quietly in their beds decades after their service. In particular, over the last decade is has further expanded in the public mind to include living servicembers and veterans as well.
(And, FWIW, I'm a vet too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Appreciate the reply and I do agree that Memorial Day honors (and should honor) the veterans who have served but died for non-combat reasons or after their service for other reasons. But we have a holiday for veterans and other military service members and it's Veteran's Day. Memorial Day, as the name implies, ought to honor those who have died, in my opinion. Thanks to those who have come before me, anyone in the U.S. is free to disagree, however. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it irony or coincidence that this was posted "anonymous coward"?
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Interesting)
"Besides, the holiday has become nothing more than a day to fill young minds with propaganda about how EVERYONE is a hero no matter what, just for BEING IN the military."
As a vet, I agree with that statement!
While it's nicer than being vilified, the truth is more complex.
Having entered service BEFORE the Bullshit Pump was turned on in it's most recent incarnation, I remember when being a "good Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman" was a compliment and there was no perceived need to call everyone a "hero".
If everyone is a "hero", the term loses all meaning. There are heroes, there are shitbags, and there are the great majority of Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen who get shit done pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Memorial day my fucking ass.
Think I'll fly extra flags today. Because giving more honor to those that put their lives on the line for us... and those that have lost it for us... has the dual benefit of being both a great thing to do... and the right thing to do... and annoying the likes of you. You're right in that too many people focus on the holiday aspect of this day, and not enough on the "memorial" part. You're pretty much wrong about everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
but you can't argue that a country could do without a military. Without that we'd be an Islamic state by now
How would that work? Say the USA decided that it couldn't afford a military anymore and basically just shut the whole thing down. In that hypothetical, what are the steps by which the USA would become an Islamic state?
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:4, Funny)
By fielding politicians who promises 40 virgins in the afterlife to whomever votes for the party line, and fear mongering about the gods destruction of our society if gays are allowed to marry, its only a slight variation on what our politicians currently vote for and people can still worship Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
> promises 40 virgins
Yeah, but then the Democrats and Republicans would be in deadlock over the gender of the virgins and if they needed summoning by a wide stance and foot tapping.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Without that we'd be an Islamic state by now - the Muslims have no qualms about attacking the undefended or wasting lives."
Are you serious? You were doing great until this sentence. Not only is it a ridiculous exaggeration (the fantasies of a few terrorist fanatics do not make a viable invasion force), but it's no better than any of the other the bigoted BS that generations of political leaders have used to start wars, whether we're talking ethnic, religious, racial, or some other silly excuse. After a
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty cynical. I do have great admiration for anyone who joins the military, for the simple reason they are putting their lives on the line. [...] warmongering is not something virtuous, nor is supporting those who warmonger with your life.
Congratulations, you have posted a typically self-contradictory comment and people have decided to comment on it as if it were serious. You win teh trollprize. That or you're really really dumb, but I doubt that's the case in this comment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Look how many on that list are only capable of being on that list because either the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand have defense agreements with them.
They can afford not to have militaries because other people are responsible for their defense.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Insightful)
for the simple reason they are putting their lives on the line.
Just like miners, construction workers, fishermen, hangliding instructors, etc. Someone will inevitably argue "nobody is actively trying to kill those guys", but the source of the risk doesn't matter. Getting crushed by a pile of rock, or blown up by a IED, is death on the job either way.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a different level of stress when someone is actively trying to kill you vs bad luck.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Insightful)
the Muslims have no qualms about attacking the undefended.
Yeah because the army was formed on Sept 12th, 2001. Oh wait, what? Your argument is full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Without that we'd be an Islamic state by now
Do you seriously believe that? There is absolutely no way the terrorists ever had even the remotest hope of overthrowing our government. Your statement is one of the most ludicrous I've ever read on this whole topic -- and mountains of idiocy have been spouted.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of course, all muslims are terrorists. Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the fact that you eat "beef" and "veal" instead of Cu and Cealf is an artifact of the French conquest of England. Not sure what any of this has got to do with the military threat any country or group of people poses to another in modern times, though. "Skirt" is an artifact of the Scandinavian people invading England -- better watch out for those Norwegians, I hear they're still on a spree of rape and pillaging through Central Europe!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that your "100 year plan" is propaganda, as there would be no reason to use so much english in it.
Furthermore the Muslims in those times were far more advanced and humane than the Christians of the same period, that included they way they conducted themselves in warfare.
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Insightful)
I do what I do so that we can keep this fight away from our home.
Yeah, by fighting in someone else's home, so their little girls get to experience it, instead.
Your little girl's security comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people, and not only that, but it perpetuates the terrorism that we're supposedly over there fighting in the first place. Simple logic and human nature dictates that losing your family in response to terrorist acts they had no part in [wikipedia.org] can do nothing but encourage the survivors to engage in terrorist acts themselves. If your little girls were killed by an occupying force, would you not retaliate with every fiber of your being? Yet we vilify the Iraqis (and Afghanis, and Vietnamese, and every other country we've occupied in the last 50+ years of proxy war we're involved in)? The vast majority of the people of this country would do the same fucking thing in their situation.
The late, great Bill Hicks said it best:
The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
Imagine how much good will there would be in the world if, instead of killing these people, we fed them?
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:5, Interesting)
Eisenhower said essentially the same thing in 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Re:As we move into Memorial Day and Americans reme (Score:4, Insightful)
The late, great Bill Hicks said it best:
There was nothing great about Bill Hicks. He was simply a bitter man that hated everything. What's funny is that he would despise people like you that deify him now that he's dead.
Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
This from the same man that described humanity as "a virus with shoes"
Hicks was no different from any other bi-polar leftwing cynic: swinging wildly from visions of utopia to expressing the deepest hope that a giant meteor would come and end humanity once and for all. Yes, that's some voice in the wilderness you follow.
Imagine how much good will there would be in the world if, instead of killing these people, we fed them?
We already do that to a great extent. The United States in particular gives away more aid in food, medicines, and money than anyone else in history. We do it on a massive scale. And it'll never bring about this utopia you seek. Because humanity is flawed, and despite Gene Roddenberry's own utopian ideals, human nature will never "evolve". It is what it is. The are inescapable consequences to this truth. "For the poor will always be with you", as Jesus put it, is one of them.
We could totally and completely devote our country to doing nothing but feeding and caring for the rest of the world. We could completely stand down our army and become the biggest welfare state anywhere. And it would change nothing. Because there will always be people that, no matter what you do for them, will want to kill you and take what you have, or simply kill you because they don't like what you're thinking. The ramblings of "if we just embraced peace" from people like Hicks are the ramblings of fools. We're not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but I'll take having a military defend our interests while trying to help others as we can... over simply laying our arms down and hoping for the best. The former is prudent. The latter will end you, with some other guy killing you and taking your stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
You do what you do because your a bloody fool, which explains why you dont understand the cold war. which was one instigated by the USA, because the communist ideology was dangerous to corporate america, not that the communists were a danger to civilization. How is us treating the middle east or soviet union as "savages", any different than how we treated the native americans for being "savages", especially when our policies keep them undeveloped and savage? If you REALLY cared about your baby girls, or pe
Re: (Score:2)
You racist fucker!
You have just proved that you don't know what you are talking about. I am certainly not racially prejudiced, to be so I would have to be prejudiced against members of my own family. Many Muslim terrorists are white, I judge by actions and intentions not race.
War is a Racket! (Score:3, Insightful)
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Re:War is a Racket! (Score:5, Informative)
Smedley Darlington Butler[1] (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. By the end of his career, he had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to twice receive the Medal of Honor, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only man to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In his 1935 book War is a Racket, he described the workings of the military-industrial complex and, after retiring from service, became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.
In 1934, he became involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists were planning a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt. The purported plot would have had Butler leading a mass of armed veterans in a march on Washington. The individuals identified denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations. The final report of the committee stated that there was evidence that such a plot existed, but no charges were ever filed. The opinion of most historians is that while planning for a coup was not very advanced, wild schemes were discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Butler came to hate his own country. I can see your attraction to him. And the so-called "business plot"? Even the New York Times... certainly no friend of big business even then... called Butler's whole story a wild fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
The patriotism of those who won't brook criticism of their country is shallow.
Re: (Score:3)
Butler wasn't wrong in the general case, only in that specific one. He was speaking from experience gained by U.S. adventurism in Central and South America.
For every one "justifiable war" you can name, such as the defense of Europe from Nazism, I can name a dozen or more that fit Butler's description.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thus ended the great American Civil War, which upon the whole must be considered the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record."
-- Winston Churchill
Surely Butler was aware of the Civil War. Notice that the two American wars considered good were forced on us, while we've gleefully made unjust war dozens and dozens of times.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit!
The law of conquest is the greatest law. Countries are made and unmade by war. Small wars are rackets with limited benefit, while large wars sometimes enormously benefit victorious populations.
The US benefits me, and it was borne and expanded by conquest. It was created by killing enough Brits that they (after two wars) lost interest in keeping it.
Man exists to fight. It's our nature. That's why it takes so little to get us to kill each other.
EVOLUTION rewarded such behaviors, and political evolutio
Sad Submarine History (Score:2)
The US could have easily been the supplier to the world for small coastal patrol and research diesel-electric subs but the US government has blocked such efforts.
Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because much of the flow of commerce and supply is done through the water, where submarines can effectively dominate with some ease. This is why one of the first places japan invaded during WW2 was malaysia, because the strait of malacca carried the bulk of the shipments coming across the pacific, otherwise you had to go around Australia, or risk running aground somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seem a modern port? You think you could do all that from some smugglers beach?
And you think these are a real threat? (Score:3)
If so you are kidding yourself. Never mind them not being armed with any anti-ship weapons (which are rather complicated to design, manufacture, and make work), they aren't facing up against their real military counterparts. These little narco-boats are not being hunted by US Navy subs and ASW ships. They are just dealing with the DEA and coast guard.
Also they have a much easier job of staying undetected than an attack sub. When you are just trying to get from point a to point b, subs can be fairly sneaky.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that cheap submarines are a threat to world peace, as they could be loaded with explosives and lobbed at large cargo ships. There aren't enough US ships to protect all the cargo ships, and its part of the reason why iran's control of the strait of hormuz is so important, even without the fancy battleships.
Don't have to be everywhere (Score:2)
There aren't enough US ships to protect all the cargo ships, and its part of the reason why iran's control of the strait of hormuz is so important, even without the fancy battleships.
US ships don't have to be everywhere, just like police don't have to be everywhere all the time.
If Iran really started causing serious problems in the Straights of Hormuz, they would sooner or later have to tangle with the US Navy and probably the navies of the EU as well. I don't think Iran's leaders are really quite so dumb give the recent object lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US doesn't want armed conflict with Iran but there is little doubt the US could crush Iran's military without much difficu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. One torpedo can destroy more equipment by sinking a ship than would be lost in a large land battle.
Coastal patrol is defensive, and marine interdiction/border control best done by surface vessels.
There being no reason besides amusement not to use ROVs for underwater research, I see no great benefit in propagating advanced manned sub tech.
So in "modern money" (Score:2)
It did cost approximatelly 1 to 3 Billion us$ to sink less than 150 boats or about 10 Million us$ per boat....
well somebody must have made it real good there...
Re:So in "modern money" (Score:4, Interesting)
The impact(s) of sinking and damaging Japanese shipping were enormous!
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html [navy.mil]
"Disproportionate Costs Imposed on Japanese
I have attempted to roughly calculate costs of each side's effort in order to determine whether the U.S. campaign was "efficient." The cost of merchant ships and warships lost to U.S. submarine attack were calculated using actual Japanese prices and added to the cost of all Japanese ASW frigates and corvettes (but not fleet destroyers or ASW aircraft).(48) Using U.S. Navy figures I calculated the cost of the entire fleet of 288 U.S. submarines that served or were built during the war (regardless of whether they served in the Pacific). The result is impressive although not surprising: the Japanese spent at least 42 times more on anti-submarine warfare and in losses attributed to submarines than the U.S. spent on her Submarine Force. When one considers the fact that the Japanese economy was only 8.9% of the size of the U.S. economy in 1937, the submarine campaign was clearly both an extraordinarily cost efficient and effective means to employ U.S. forces against Japan.(49) Regardless of the cost effectiveness of the U.S. submarine campaign, the military effects were stunningly clear. Fully a year before the end of the war, and before the extensive bombing of mainland Japan, the war against Japanese lines of communication resulted in decisive impact on the Japanese war economy and on the Japanese military logistical system. "
Pardon my ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
But wouldn't building submarines in the great lakes be a violation of the Rush-Bagot treaty?
Re:Pardon my ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
But wouldn't building submarines in the great lakes be a violation of the Rush-Bagot treaty?
http://www.aandc.org/research/rush-bagot_agreement.html [aandc.org]
They swapped diplomatic notes a few times during the war, which were essentially waivers on the treaty to support the war effort.
Re: (Score:2)
"Building" /= "maintaining".
Highly recommend USS Cobia tour in Manitowoc, WI (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they were complicit through their consent, but their consent was engineered by the ruling class, the same ones who were killing and plundering previously. There were thinkers back from the founding fathers era, who realized that we had virgin land and it was a goose to lay golden eggs, and we could use it to cast the world in our image. They got their playbook from the last great christian empire (the roman empire), including the currency domination, plunder economy, propaganda, and lastly "bread and c
Manitowoc Subs (Score:2)
Not just EB. (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't completely true... Electric Boat was the only private shipyard building submarines, but Mare Island Naval Shipyard and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard were building them too.
Admiral Nelson considerably oversimplifies a complex situation. EB provided more than just plans... They also provided experienced engineers and trained workmen to bootstrap Manitowoc's efforts. In the early stages, they sent parts and components from EB to Manitowoc as well. Manitowoc also sent people to EB for training and experience. Engineers and experienced Naval Constructors came from BUSHIPS in Washington D.C and Portsmouth and Mare Island Naval Shipyards.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants about the military-industrial complex and anti-military sentiment.
/submarinehistorypedant.
I've been fortunate (Score:2, Insightful)
to have seen ships burning after being torpedoed off the Delaware coast; dived in both WWII era sub, a Balistic Missle sub and a modern attack boat; played war games against Russian subs (they were remarkably friendly and knew our exercise rules and would help us with data to assist our scoring). We used to exchange officers between our subs and the anti-subs so we each could better understand the limitations each operated under, the effectiveness of their weapons, sensors and the like. Those guys were goo
Re:25 subs managed 132 ships sunk (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they may have had a little more time to actually rack up that number,
Re: (Score:2)
They fixed their weapons systems by the end of the war
Re:25 subs managed 132 ships sunk (Score:5, Informative)
That's only one class of US subs.
The U-Boat crews did a terrific job with what little they had, but they could stalk convoys from port-to-port and use Wolfpack tactics to concentrate force.
Some U-boats had superb commanders with, well huge cojones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Prien [wikipedia.org]
On the other hand, the collective US submarine effort was much MORE effective than the U-boats.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html [navy.mil]
""Bauxite imports fell off 88% just between the summer and fall of 1944. In 1945, pig iron imports plunged 89%, pulp 90%, raw cotton and wool 91%, fats and oils 92%, iron ore 95%, soda and cement 96%, lumber 98%, fodder 99%, and not one ounce of sugar or raw rubber reached Japan."(12)
Moreover, the reduction in imports of raw materials mirrored problems importing food. During 1944, average caloric intake fell 12% below the minimum daily requirement for the non-farming population.(13) The enormous drop in importation of raw materials resulted in a significant drop in Japanese industrial production. In fact, the Japanese mobilization committee stated in a late 1944 report: "Shipping lost or damaged since the beginning of the war amounts to two and one half times newly constructed shipping and formed the chief cause of the constant impoverishment of national strength."(14)
Submarine attacks on the oil flow to Japan were a second critical factor in destroying Japanese military potential. Japanese oil imports fell from 1.75 million barrels per month in August 1943 to 360,000 barrels per month in July 1944. In October 1944, imports fell even more due to high losses around the Philippine battlefields.(15) After September 1943, the ratio of petroleum successfully shipped from the southern regions that reached Japan never exceeded 28%, and during the last 15 months of the war the ratio only averaged 9%.(16) These losses are especially impressive when one considers that the Japanese Navy alone required 1.6 million barrels monthly to operate.(17) Much anecdotal evidence describes Japan's often desperate responses to the American guerre de course. For example, in early 1945, the Japanese Navy loaded crude oil barrels on battleships to import home, while at the same time the nation experimented with producing gasoline from potatoes.(18)"
"The war against Japanese SLOCs resulted in significant indirect effects on Japanese air strength. In fact, the reduction in Japan's air power strength was not so much due to the reduction of aircraft quality or production but due to the reduction in pilot quality. Fuel shortages substantially reduced pilot training.(25) In 1944, the great Japanese naval aviator Fuchida complained about the "inadequate training" aviators received prior to attachment to an operational unit.(26) Moreover, once Japanese pilots reached operational units, their training opportunities often did not improve. For example, prior to the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Admiral Toyoda stationed his carriers at Tawitawi near the Borneo oil supplies due to the effective submarine campaign against Japanese tankers. U.S. commanders vectored submarines into the area. Alerted to the danger, the Japanese commander refused to sortie for training- with the result that what little skills his undertrained pilots possessed atrophied.(27) The resulting Japanese aerial defeat became known as the Marinas Turkey Shoot."
"As previously discussed, 30% of total Japanese Navy losses were caused by U.S. submarines. Submarines played another important role in reducing IJN capabilities. Damage to ships, caused in part by submarines, significantly increased ship repair time in Japanese shipyards, thereby reducing opportunities for new construction. The Japanese Navy spent 12% of its construction budget on ship repairs in 1943 and 1944; the figure increased to 34% in 1945.(29) Additionally, the submarine cam
Re:25 subs managed 132 ships sunk (Score:4, Interesting)
Nit: That's not one class of subs, that's 25 subs out of two classes (Gato and Balao) built by a single shipyard.
At it's peak, the US Submarine Force in WII numbered over 250, including 77 Gato's and 128 Balao's.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When and where is their Memorial Day?
They don't need one. I'm sure they can remember their losses every day. If they get close to forgetting the US military will send another drone or bomb to remind them.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
All the major unions grew stronger during the war. The government put pressure on employers to recognize unions to avoid the sort of turbulent struggles over union recognition of the 1930s, while unions were generally able to obtain maintenance of membership clauses, a form of union security, through arbitration and negotiation. Employers gave workers new untaxed benefits (such as vacation time, pensions and health insurance), which increased real incomes even when wage rates were frozen. The wage differential between higher skilled and less skilled workers narrowed, and with the enormous increase in overtime for blue collar wage workers (at time and a half pay), incomes in working class households shot up, while the salaried middle class lost ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Wars tend to be fought initially from stocks on hand, and there are no more "old fashioned wars" nor an old fashioned economy.
Re: (Score:2)
especially when charged with pent up seamen
Re: (Score:2)
Not compared to "Rear Admiral, Lower Half".