Author Archives: RF_Alum

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report

Posted on by

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report from Copenhagen, Denmark that said, in summary, “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero this century…” (I’m assuming they don’t intend to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans and other animals.)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”  The report once again mentions the “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice…”

I’ve expressed my opinions on this subject many times, and I still consider myself a denier, as the global warming advocates enjoy calling people who don’t agree with them. I still think the earth may warm, or it may cool, but it is certain the climate will change just as it always has.

I intend to focus on Antarctic and Arctic ice levels posted on the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. Recent peak levels in the Antarctic set a new record over the period of satellite observations. Global warming fans say that isn’t important. I reason, perhaps naively, that warmer temperatures probably would result in less ice and not more. Continue reading →

Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957

Posted on by

dropshot book coverThis book, edited by Anthony Cave Brown, is startling. The U.S. military had determined in the mid to late 1940s that the only way the United States and its allies could combat an expected massive Soviet military assault in Europe as the Cold War progressed was with a full-scale nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Some military planners believed that the attack should be “preemptive or preventive,” and that the bombers carrying nuclear weapons should be unleashed on Soviet cities and military installations before the Soviets launched what U.S. military planners believed to be the inevitable World War III. Dropshot was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by General Omar Bradley in 1949 with the authority and knowledge of President Harry Truman. The plan listed the date for the outbreak of World War III as January 1, 1957, although that date was arbitrarily selected for planning purposes. The 330 page book is not written for any other purpose but to describe the complex plans to prepare the United States for Armageddon. It educates but does not entertain.

The Editor writes in the Prologue, “Dropshot was promulgated in three volumes of green-colored paper late in 1949. It became public property in 1977 through the United States’ Freedom of Information Act and may now be purchased at the National Archives for fifteen cents a page. This incongruous fact belittles its importance, for at the time nothing could have been more secret.” The editor continues, “Was it folly to make Dropshot public? I have thought extensively about this point, and I am bound to conclude it was folly to release this document. It should have been burned, buried, or preserved in some secret vault, for it cannot endear America to Russia. As will be seen, not only was Dropshot the blueprint for the atomization of Russia, but it provided for occupation by American armies of that vast continent.”“Why, therefore, was Dropshot made public? The Joint Chiefs were not required by law to declassify it?…The question, therefore, becomes a tantalizing one in which several conjectures are possible. The first is that there was no point in keeping it a secret because the Russians already knew about it. This is conceivable; Dropshot was hatched at a time of considerable Soviet intelligence activity…Stalin frequently in 1948 did refer to American war plans, and his representative at the United Nation, Andrei Vishinsky, did allege that America was planning atomic war against Russia over Berlin.” “Is it possible Dropshot was some gigantic blind, that it was created to hide some other relevant plan?” Continue reading →

Hogwash

Posted on by

I admit I was a baffled wondering about the origin of this expression until I read the explanation at a web site for “Historical Origins of English Words and Phrases.” The site explains that the “wash” was used in the 15th century to describe “…waste liquid or food refuse from a kitchen…” that was used as food for domesticated animals and in particular as swill for pigs. The term evolved from a description for cheap food for pigs to describing cheap, poorly made liquor or “…poorly written manuscripts…” “In modern English, almost anything that is badly done or ridiculous can be equated to this term for barnyard slop. “

 

Request to Colorado Senators

Posted on by

Colorado now has a Democrat and a Republican as Senators, and I want them to forget that they are a Democrat and Republican and set an example. I want them to team up to bring legislation that is good for the country regardless of the opposing party lines. Cory Gardner’s defeated Mark Udall despite or perhaps because of the ads from Udall and at least one of his supporting organizations that Gardner was so opposed to birth control that he wanted to outlaw condoms. (That beyond-silly accusation was made in an ad by something called NARAL.) The majority of voters in the race ignored the insulting ads and elected a person they hope will be a better Senator.

I suppose it would be tempting to some of the new soon-to-be-Senators such as Gardner to follow the model established by President Obama. I recall seeing news reports of his narcissistic and arrogant response to Republican appeals when Obamacare was being debated, “I won.” I certainly hope that Gardner doesn’t waste any time celebrating that he won. I hope he instead teams with Democratic Senator Michael Bennet to start the process of addressing important issues. Tax reform, freeing up energy production and transportation (i.e. the Keystone pipeline) and addressing immigration should be on the list. Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gardner, put aside “what my party expects me to do” and think about what’s good for the country. Continue reading →

The Los Alamos Primer

Posted on by

los_alamos-primerThe subtitle of this book is “The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb.” The book was annotated by Robert Serber and edited with an introduction by Richard Rhodes. It is a fascinating book that would take a long time to fully digest despite its length (only 98 pages including Appendices, Biographical Notes, and an index. The Biographical Notes includes many of the “famous scientists of the times,” but not Robert Serber. I enjoyed the book because it wove the very complicated scientific developments with refreshing non-technical descriptions and comments that made me feel less intimidated about the brilliance of what was being described. The descriptions were often “clipped,” which means it didn’t always flow as well as what you would expect from a literature major. Perhaps that is because the author was a physicist. Some of my favorite passages involve Charlotte Serber (who also is sadly not listed in the index), Robert Serber’s wife. For example, she is described as being the librarian for the project before there were books. I thought about buying a copy for each of our grandsons who are interested in science. However, I admit that I was a bit intimidated by the $40-$60 price for the used books. I suggest you request your local library to borrow it from a local university, which is what I did.

I’ve selected a few snippets from the introduction by Richard Rhodes. Young scientists began arriving in New Mexico to work on a project they were told could end the war. They knew they would be behind barbed wire and cut off from the world. They knew they would be governed by a blanket of secrecy, but “…unofficially they whispered that they had signed on to attempt nothing less than inventing, designing, assembling the world’s first atomic bombs…” “Signing on to invent and craft new weapons of unprecedented destructiveness may seem bloodthirsty from today’s long perspective of limited war and nuclear truce. Those were different times. War was general throughout the world, a pandemic of manmade death.” ix Churchill used the postwar phrase, “a miracle of deliverance.” Continue reading →

Evolution of Codenames

Posted on by

Louise S. Kettle has an interesting article titled “Operation Bunnyhug: What’s in a Name?” She explains, “This year’s First World War centenary also marks another unusual anniversary—the birth of military operational codenames.” The Germans were the first to use codenames during “The Great War,” and those became increasingly important as communications by radio became more common and more vulnerable to interception by the enemy. The Germans used some unwise codenames in World War II that, with minimal thought, revealed the nature of the mission. For example a planned invasion of England was named “Operation Sealion.” It referred to “an attack across the sea to the island with lions in the coat of armor,” which was, of course, England. The invasion of the Soviet Union began as “Operation Fritz,” but was changed to “Barbarosa,” which referred to the Roman Empire expanding power to the east.

American codenames began using colors. Examples were Operation Indigo, Gray, and Black. Winston Churchill might have approved of those names, and he set out some basic rules for establishing codenames: Continue reading →