Irrelevant war thoughts

[magid]

The timing is interesting. The last Gulf War ended just before Purim. This Gulf War started the night after Shushan Purim. No war on Purim itself, either time.

And it doesn't hurt that the timing of the war also means the local NPR affiliate is cutting way, way back on their usual scads of fundraising time, either.

What I'm missing most from the war coverage by being mostly a news listener rather than news watcher/reader: maps.

Last night some reporter mentioned a city in Iraq being taken by American (or international, for all I really know) troops, and called the city in question "not well-defended." Which somehow struck me as odd, since my immediate mental picture is of a walled city, having precise boundaries that could be defended. I wonder how Boston, for instance, would stack up. I mean, I know that there are more police/guards/security people out there, but if an army came to invade Boston, what would be defended, what not? Holding what particular places would mean that we'd held or lost the city?

This morning, there was news of an American cavalry division moving through Iraq. Does that mean that they've shipped horses across to Iraq, or is it an old term that's now used to mean something else? Not foot soldiers, nor tanks, since they have their own divisions, I believe.

And in other news, apparently the House has approved Bush's budget for next year, which includes lots of tax breaks to "stimulate the economy." (one article here). How the hell does he expect to pay for a war, even with slashing lots of those social programs (like Medicaid)? And of course, it emphasizes the fact that it's important to get people born, but not to take care of them once they make it out.

Comments

[bitty.livejournal.com]

Pffft. Troops would never enter Boston. They'd just hit the Quabbin and kill us all off that way.

Hence the several gallons of water stashed away.

(paranoia? who, me?)

[magid.livejournal.com]

What if we theorize an occupying force that doesn't want to kill as many residents as possible, just free us from the tyrannical political powers-that-be? They'd have to take the city (assuming they didn't bypass it entirely, of course) somehow. Would occupying the state house, for instance, mean that they now had Boston? Or would it be when they controlled the streets? Or, perhaps controlling Boston through the threat of damage to Quabbin? Or...?
a

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

When I lived in Switzerland, I found it interesting that discussions of this sort were quite commonplace, because of the interesting setup with military service. Everyone in the country knew where the lines would be drawn, in the event of invasion. In fact, you could see the anti-tank barricades by the side of the road here and there - once you knew what they looked like. These could be moved by large crowds of strong soldiers to block the roads; they were specifically designed so that tanks cannot climb them nor move them. The opposing army could put footsoldiers out to move them of course, but they would be good targets for snipers.

Interestingly, the answer for the defense of Switzerland sacrificed the lowlands, which includes every major city. The idea is that the people will retreat to the traditional pastures of the moutains. I am not quite sure how the Swiss economy will continue in that state, but perhaps the banks all have back-up computers up in the Simmental nowadays.

By that strategy, I guess Boston would be defended by re-flooding the back bay, and retreating the financial district to Beacon Hill :)

[bitty.livejournal.com]

eh, everyone could flee to dorchester, because after all, who'd want to waste troops here anyway?

*rolls eyes*

[magid.livejournal.com]

When I was in Israel, there were a lot more discussions of practical aspects of war, too. I don't know exactly what plans were in place, but every building had a bomb shelter in the basement, most people were in the reserves or had some other civilian role to play, and there are already certain kinds of roadblocks in place :-(, stuff like that. Here, there's nothing.

That's interesting about Switzerland sacrificing the cities in the lowlands. Highlands are easier to defend, and if it includes the pastures, then presumably they can't be starved out, either. Still, I can't quite imagine the whole country "moving on up" as it were.
"

[bitty.livejournal.com]

1) bunker hill
2) swan boats
3) hatch shell

are the fun responses - control those, and, well, you've made a statement.

the serious reply:

take over MIT and Harvard. that's control over a large number of serious-assed laboratories - there's your military threat. also, the students wouldn't object too much - they're all for the revolution anyway.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize so many students followed soccer ;-).

I could see taking over Harvard and MIT from a revolution sort of perspective, but it seems pretty darned hard to defend someplace as rabbit warreny as MIT, for instance. And since there are so many labs, one wouldn't have to move things very far to cause major damage to the occupiers, if someone didn't want them there.
s

[bitty.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize so many students followed soccer

y'know, i had stopped, and considered putting in "except for those who prefer Manchester United," but i didn't peg you for someone who knew soccer at all.

humph. missed an opportunity. dammit.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about soccer, but I at least know the name of the home team... (though it still strikes me as a strange word to choose for a team name).
r

[bitty.livejournal.com]

it's violent ("manly") and PC at the same time.

Not well-defended

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

The US' infrastructure is so "not well-defended" it's fucking terrifying. We've been so invulnerable for so long that no one has really put a lot into protecting some really juicy targets.

Which doesn't answer the question - how would we know when Boston had been taken? - I dunno. They can have it. (I forgot about the local laboratories - thanks for that spooky thought. Argh.)

Re: Not well-defended

[magid.livejournal.com]

I was trying to think when the last time there were actual foreign troops on our soil was. Pearl Harbor was a bombing, not ground troops, I think, so more of a push for destruction than territorial acquisition.
The Civil War, well, depending on how you look at it, not foreign troops at all.
Other than that, all I can think of is during the Revolutionary War, and perhaps the French and Indian Wars, which were a hell of a long time ago.

You're right, there's pretty much no thought towards defense in the U.S. No one expects actual troops to come and fight across our landscape, just perhaps some terrorists (which, bad though it is, it just different).

I'm kind of fond of Boston, actually. I'll take it since you don't want it :-).
i

Re: Not well-defended

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

The last time the US mainland was occupied by hostile foreign troops was, if I'm not mistake, during the War of 1812.

Love,
-R

[magid.livejournal.com]

Violent computers? I knew there was a reason I like Apples.

Re: Not well-defended

[magid.livejournal.com]

Thanks (you always know these sorts of things; I'm impressed).

So, it's been reasonably close to 200 years since we've had hostile foreign troops. Strategies and technology has changed considerably since then.
a

Re: Not well-defended

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Problem is that the vulnerable places are really prime terrorist targets, if they're interested in really fucking the place up and not just killing scads of people. Much harder to defend against than an actual invading army (not that we're exactly set up to deal with that, either, but "conventional warfare" is easier to do).

Re: Not well-defended

[ceo]

The Aleutian islands of Attu and Kiska were taken by the Japanese during WWII. However, AK wasn't a state at the time.

They'll never take Boston

[ceo]

Why?

1. No street signs; they'll get lost.
2. They'll never get their forces through all the traffic.
3. Half of downtown is a war zone already due to the Big Dig.
4. Their tanks will get swallowed up by the potholes.

More seriously, Boston is large and dense enough that any action by ground forces would take the form of nasty house-to-house urban warfare pretty much anywhere inside 128.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[magid.livejournal.com]

Or, theoretically, they could ring Boston and starve us into submission...

Re:1-4

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

*rotfl*

But what if they come by T? Oh, nevermind, I know: they'll just be late.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

During a visit Washington, DC, some tour guide or guidebook or someone told me that the layout of the city was actually designed to confuse an invading army. The system of lettered and numbered streets is a red herring; many of them don't go through (intentionally!), and the best way to move through the city is to use the diagonal "state" streets, but they don't go in a systematic way. So, locals can navigate, invaders cannot.

Se non e vero, e ben trovato.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

You mean there was a reason D.C.is such a pain in the ass to navigate around? I thought it was just because it was the home of Congress : >

Re: They'll never take Boston

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a version of the old urban legend (http://www.snopes.com/college/halls/riot.htm) about how college buildings, and in some cases entire campuses or portions thereof, built in the 1970s (when the campus sit-ins and protests of the 1960s were recent memory) were designed to:

• prevent large numbers of people from gathering in one place
• prevent people from barricading available entrances to things like buildings, courtyard areas, etc.
• allow easy rooftop insertion of snipers
• make it impossible for a right-handed shooter to fire a rifle from a window
• allow easy infiltration of public gathering places like courtyards, lounges, and cafeterias by anti-riot police

etc., etc.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[temima.livejournal.com]

Someone told me that UMass Boston was designed like that. I guess I bought it so readily because of all that open courtyards.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Ditto University of Delaware, specifically the Rodney housing complex that was constructed in the 70s. I think everyone's heard it about some school or another at some point, usually the one they went to.

Re: They'll never take Boston

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

Indeed, this has all the hallmarks of an Urban Legend; told my an unidentified source (and even if I could remember where I heard it, my most reliable option was "a tour guide" - tour guides have a lot to gain from repeating ULs), bears a clear similarity to other stories in other places.

I suppose Washington at least has a clear episode in its past when it was planned out (unlike many campuses, which have various roots going back to several stages of history). I suppose it might actually be possible to research this . . .