Free Republic

“Kept sinking their merchant marine fleet go ahead with operation Starvation. Continue bombing military targets—wage war. They would eventually run out of food and supplies.

The Japanese sent out peace feelers both to Sweden and the USSR before the end...Eisenhower/Truman knew the Japanese wanted to negotiate surrender. Now WHY he didn’t want it is another matter…” [Phoenix8, post 22]

“You do know what “starvation” means, don’t you?...” [DuncanWaring, post 26]

“The difference is blockading is allowable under the Geneva convention. As long as the intent isnt genocide, which it wouldn’t be.

Also as far as calling/suggesting me inhumane that is laughable. You endorse burning and radiating civilians—children and women alive …not I.

Blocking off food shipments puts the ownership of the deaths of Japanese civilians on THEM not us. Can’t you see the difference?

... they in fact did seek peace terms before much of the mass fire bombings and nuclear attacks. This does support my theory.” [Phoenix8, post 28]

Your approach here isn’t clear.

Are you theorizing that it’s better to starve an adversary’s population than to firebomb urban areas?

The Geneva Convention is not a solve-all document agreed to universally at every point by the signatories. Neither do nations cary it out in honesty and good faith.

The Imperial Germans went on record - quite noisily - against the inhumane results of Allied blockade during the First World War. Folks did starve then. Before much of the Conventions assuredly, but international usage and accepted rules of “civilized” warfare already were in place.

In 1945 the Imperial Japanese weren’t being honest about peace feelers; after American warnings, the senior leaders decided to abide by the principal of “mokusatsu” - approximately, to negate a diplomatic proposal with scornful silence.

Whether Allied leaders knew this at the time is less than clear. The message interception and decoding process was far from the magical key to the kingdom you apparently believe it was. “We’re reading the enemy’s orders before they get them themselves” was more hot air than historical fact.

You seem more interested in flaunting your own morality than in conducting any supportable historical analysis. And your condescension is obvious, in declaring your moral take to be so unimpeachable as to be beyond challenge from the rest of us.

“...US strategic bombing campaign switch from factories and military bases (legitimate war targets) to civilian population centers in Japan...removing most of the defensive armaments and switching to night...increase the bomb load by something like 1/3...targeting...civilian centers with small, numerous incendiary devices. Carpet fire bombing.

War is hell but I still (perhaps naively) don’t think it should target civilians.” [Phoenix8, post 11]

So you’re unhappy the Allies beat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan back in 1945?

Japan and Germany were totalitarian nations. They dragooned their populace into their Almighty States. No civilians remained. In Japan more than any other nation, there were no purely “legitimate” targets.

Targeteers serving the Western Allies understood this. Why are you reluctant to accept it?

“...As they taught us in flight school, behind every Federal Aviation Regulation there are a number of tombstones of those who would have lived if the FAR had been place at the time of their death.” [T.B. Yoits, post 29]

A gambit routinely resorted to in flight training programs.

CAA, and its descendant FAA, were charged with the dual mission of regulating civil aviation and promoting it. Can’t do both effectively at the same time.

The conceit that a centrally controlled agency staffed by bureaucrats can make risky activities like air travel completely safe and worry-free is a holdover from Progressivism. The combination of regulation and legal action has brought general aviation almost to a standstill; if not for homebuilts and kitplanes, progress would be nil.

“No one in their right mind can claim that the number of pilots on the flight deck having a medical emergency is normal ...Where did I read of late that some airlines were considering going with one pilot because of a shortage of pilots?...”

“Normal” is misleading. People vary. In any population, some will be prone to this or that disease, defect, malformation, or mishap. Others will be less vulnerable to the same things.

The crewing of civil aircraft with two pilots is an artifact of training requirements, control system limitaitons and bureaucratic whim.

Before World War Two, many large aircraft had only a single pilot. Boeing’s 299, which was developed into USAAF’s B-17, was just about the earliest warplane to be crewed with both a pilot and a copilot. Many aircraft of the RAF and the Luftwaffe had only a single pilot.

Airlines have fiddled with experience requirements, currency intervals, and proficiency levels since they first took to the air. The risk of having problems because of an inexperienced or unhealthy crewmember has to be weighed against the risk of losing business because there aren’t enough crews to launch an airplane.

“It is nearly impossible for the average gun owner to obtain a true assault weapon, defined as select fire to full auto.” [JimRed, post 23]

“...Standard capacity for a Browning 1919 is 250.” [sjmjax, post 44]

“From Wiki... The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.
This is a concise and cogent definition of an assault rifle. The left hates it because it (correctly) excludes semi-automatic-only rifles such as the M-16” [Seaplaner, post 57] [sic]

“Assault weapon” has no technically rigorous, legally coherent definition, as other forum members have pointed out. No such thing as a “true assault weapon.”

Seaplaner found a Wiki entry that is neither correct nor complete. The Dept of the Army doesn’t define those terms (though it has been executive agent for small arms development & support since about 1903). One infers “M-16” was a typo.

DoD defines “assault rifle” as an individual issue weapon, fed by detachable box magazines, firing from a closed bolt, capable of selective fire, chambering a cartridge of lesser power than the standard-issue rifle cartridge. Only by accident are such arms smaller or lighter than earlier issue rifles.

“M16” is military nomenclature. “AR-15” was commercial nomenclature of the initial developer, ArmaLite. They licensed Colt’s to undertake series production and sold the trademark copyrights also. The first semi-only replicas appeared on the market in 1963, marked “AR-15” and “Model SP-1.”

The 250-round capacity of the M1919 gun applied to fabric belts only. Those were phased out after World War Two, and Browning-type guns were fed exclusively by disintegrating-link belts, which can be of any length.

“Intermediate” can only be defined in relation to the “standard” rifle round at the time of adoption; when Polte designed the 7.92x33, it produced half the energy of the 7.92x57 Mauser that was the standard German rifle round. The 7.62x39 o1943g round made infamous by the AK-47 turned out about half the energy of the 7.62x54R o1891g rifle cartridge. And the 5.56x45 NATO produces about half the energy of the US 30M2 cartridge (commercially known as 30-06; used in the Garand) or 7.62x51 NATO.

The “assault rifle” concept in modern form dates to 1916, when the Imperial Russians adopted the AVF. It chambered the 6.5x50SR Arisaka, the cartridge of Imperial Japan. Smaller and less powerful than 7.62x54R o1891g.

“...The combination of IFR conditions, pilot inexperience, schedule pressure, and family aboard is asking for trouble.” [Rockingham, post 43]

Everything you posted is true.

On top of that, VFR at night overwater can become tricky even for the most experienced pilots. I’ve heard naval aviators describe nighttime carrier landings as more exciting than combat.

The currency requirement for night traps used to be once every seven days. Haven’t heard of late, what it is now.

“...Years later in 1815, President James Madison sent the navy to the Barbary Coast once again. (The phrase “to the shores of Tripoli” from the Marine Hymn refers to this historic battle.)...” [from the original article]

This assertion keeps popping up but it is mistaken.

The line in the USMC hymn refers to the capture of Derna in 1805. After marching 500 miles along the coast of Libya, US Marines commanded by Lt Presely O’Bannon together with civilian William Eaton and Berber mercenaries did battle to depose the Pasha of Tripoli.

Hagiography, not history.

In actuality, all the European seagoing nations either fought the pirates or bought them off, as seemed expedient. Americans sometimes copied the gambits.

President Jefferson was opposed to a blue-water navy - too expensive, too destabilizing geopolitically (he believed); he reversed many of President Adams’ foreign-policy initiatives along such lines. The pirates responded accordingly.

Piracy began to wane after a US squadron was sent to attack or accept surrender in 1815; fresh from naval success in the War of 1812, Americans were feeling their oats. The pirate powers caved.

The decline really gained momentum when the Royal Navy, no longer warring against Napoleonic France, implemented the British policy of shelling every seaside town on the Barbary Coast suspected of being a pirate base.

It culminated in the Battle of Navarino in October 1827 - the last major naval engagement fought entirely between sail-powered warships. The Ottoman Turks were defeated by the Euro powers and agreed to bring the pirates into line.

“According to photos I have the A-36’s that were operating in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy had the four 50’s in the wings like the 51’s but they also mounted an additional 50 on either side of the cowl just aft of the prop...” [FrozenAssets, post 43]

I stand corrected. Focused too tightly on wing guns.

“B-17s were phased out of the bombing business immediately after the victory in 1945. They did some Air Sea rescue and Transport...They were only used as a bomber until 1946 except a few oddballs here and there like in Israel etc.” [DesertRhino, post 40]

While it’s true that B-17s were removed from the primary mission at the end of the war, they remained in active inventory for many years. As you noted.

Same difference to the maintainers, supply folks and administrative functionaries. Except for weapons and munitions.

Some did duty into the late 1960s as “water bombers” for wildland firefighting. As USFS assets, or provided by private contractors? Couldn’t say.

“...Mine flew A-36’s. P-51 with more guns, dive brakes and bomb racks.” [FrozenAssets, post 22]

All P-51 variants (including the A-36) mount four guns until the P-51D, which mounted six. Ammunition supply lasted about 12 seconds.

“...The B-29 prototype was already flying before Pearl Harbor so they knew the B-17 would only have 5 years of front line service if that...” [DesertRhino, post 29]

The Army Air Corps issued the formal specification for the B-29 in 1939. Two prototypes were ordered in August 1940, and first flight was in September 1942.

Both the B-17 and B-29 flew in military service into the late 1950s.

“Ever seen a boiler explode?

Doesn’t take much to figure out why they disappeared.” [HamiltonJay, post 108]

In the late 19th century, an external combustion engine was developed that used naphtha as both the working fluid and the fuel, for smaller watercraft.

After a number of boiler explosions, laws were passed requiring a licensed engineer to operate conventional steamship powerplants. Finding trained personnel at affordable salaries was difficult for smaller commercial shipping operations, and recreational boat operators; some entrepreneurs got around the laws by using naphtha.

“...There is military nomenclature, legal terms, and manufacturer names. The three don’t always agree... [schurmann, post 33]

“and there it is...” [Chode, post 35]

I humbly suggest a fourth: advertising.

I admit to being surprised when legal actions were brought against Remington and others for marketing alleged to have encouraged lawbreakers to buy and misuse various firearms. I’d seen the selfsame ads, but could not figure how anyone reached such interpretations. I must be dull or something.

There is the possibility that the plaintiffs and their lawyers aren’t being honest.

“...The Army taught me this MP5 is an automatic rifle, not a machine gun. I have been taught a machine gun is an open bolt, belt-fed, automatic weapon. So is this a machine gun or not?” [thefactor, post 19]

“So then that would make a closed-bolt, magazine-fed M-4 or any other full-auto rifle a “machine gun” as well, and not just the SAW or 240B which are belt-fed and open bolt.” [thefactor, post 24]

There is military nomenclature, legal terms, and manufacturer names. The three don’t always agree.

Not all military organizations agree on naming. The United States calls the MP5 and other arms firing pistol cartridges a submachine gun. The British call it a machine carbine (or they used to).

HK’s original designation name for the gun was HK-54. Their semi-only version exported to the USA for sale to civilians was HK-94. MP5 (Maschinen Pistole 5) was initially a Bundeswehr designation (West German army).

In US federal law, for regulatory purposes, a “machine gun” is any firearm capable of firing two or more shots for a single pull of the trigger. A full-auto arm.

The gun trade did itself no favors, using the term “auto” somewhat loosely back circa 1900, when semi-auto handguns and rifles first appeared. “Auto pistol” or autoloading pistol” referred to a handgun that extracted and ejected an empty case, then reloaded the chamber, without any manual action on the part of the user. True for rifles and shotguns also.

A machine gun can fire from either an open bolt or closed bolt. The Browning-designed gun exemplified by the M2 50 cal gun fires from a closed bolt; US military guns like the M60, M240, and M249 fire from an open bolt. Goes back to World War One: the Lewis Gun fired from an open bolt.

Typically machine guns are crew-served weapons. They can be belt-fed or magazine fed. The Browning Automatic Rifle M1918 (US parlance; also made by FN, and in Sweden) was arguably a light machine gun. It, and the Lewis Gun, Britain’s Bren, the Red Army’s DP-26, were all magazine-fed.

“Assault rifle” was formally defined by the US DoD: individual-issue shoulder arm, selective fire, closed bolt, detachable box magazine, intermediate-power cartridge.

“Assault weapon” has no meaning.

Because the media are arrogant, biased, inept, and inattentive, all these terms are routinely muddled and mixed up in news reporting.

“...And no, I wouldn’t need an AR-14 or any other weapon, just myself...” [lgjhn, post 27]

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/yes-the-ar-14-is-a-real-gun-sort-of/

https://havokjournal.com/politics/national/not-to-defend-joe-biden-but-an-ar-14-is-a-real-thing/

AR-14 was an ArmaLite design for an autoloading sporter. Vaguely resembled a Remington 742.

ArmaLite licensed manufacture of their AR-15 to Colt’s in 1959. Colt’s trademarked the name and filled military contracts. Their first version for civilian sale came out in 1963. It was also marked “SP-1.”

Not to fret; typos are easy to overlook. I comb and comb, but still miss one now and then.

“No such thing as ‘assault’ rifles.” [Fledermaus, post 13]

Yes there are. Been around since 1916 at least. Look up the AVF of Imperial Russia. Acronym stands for Avtomat Vintovka Federova.

They are mostly a concern of the military. Defense Dept even created a formal definition: individual issue shoulder weapon, fires from a closed bolt, selective fire, detachable box magazine, fires an “intermediate” cartridge. “intermediate” was defined in relation to the standard military rifle cartridges of the day.

Few true assault rifles are out there, legally ownable by mere citizens. Prices are steep: a few years ago, one of the earliest - FG-42 designed for the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany - was sold for $297,000.00. Registration requirements are stringent and prior approval from the regulatory agency is required. Plus a tax stamp costing $200.00.

How many illicit, unregistered ones are out there? It’s anybody’s guess.

All of this might sound trivial and picky, but conservatives at least ought to insist on technical rigor. Not that the media - or anti-gun activists - care.

“I’ll bet you the cops’ AR patrol rifles are marked for 5.56.” [NorthMountain, post 44]

Let us hope you’re right.

MIL STD chambers are (a little) more generous in certain dimensions. And pressures for M855 rounds can exceed safe levels for civilian loadings. For safety reasons, it is recommended that M855 not be fired in rifles marked “223 Rem”.

Ruger has always maintained that its Mini-14 is safe with any 223 or 5.56mm factory loading.

“...Departments started putting patrol rifles in cars for exactly the opposite reason that these reporters are claiming...departmental risk management groups came to realize that a 12 gauge is just “too much gun” for a lot of law enforcement problems.

The solution? The relatively more accurate, and much less powerful AR, usually chambered in the civilian .223 cartridge. Much less risk of over-penetration compared to a 12 gauge slug or even buckshot, and zero “spread” compared to shot...” [absalom01, post 31]

Exactly opposite of actual terminal ballistics.

5.56x45mm - 223 Remington in civilian loadings - far outranges any shotgun, any loading. Slugs have the edge in momentum but total energy is comparable. Rifle bullets always penetrate deeper than shot charges - in any medium.

There is the question of “stopping power” - a topic that preoccupies many enthusiasts but defies quantification and predictability. The Defense Dept does not use the attribute in cartridge selection, and law enforcement agencies follow their lead.

All of which leaves the question unanswered: why would a police dept turn in shotguns for MSRs?

Best guesses: controllability, magazine capacity, ease of reloading.

Most shotguns suitable for law enforcement use have tubular magazines. Slightly fussy to load, one loose round at a time. Even with extended magazine tubes, max capacity rarely exceeds nine rounds.

Shotguns develop serious recoil with full-power loads. Even the best users can find this off-putting; hampers response in a real-life emergency situation. This may be changing as ammunition manufacturers offer more varieties of reduced loads and shorter shells (the latter increases magazine capacity - if the shorties can be induced to feed right).

By way of contrast, autoloading rifles chambered for an “intermediate” cartridge feeding from detachable box magazines develop gentler recoil, hold many more rounds, and reload more easily & speedily. Various platforms fit the bill but AR-15-style rifles satisfy requirements neatly; and there are added advantages - three generations of military development, potential federal grants, parts commonality with military organizations, and possible resupply.

Few law enforcement agencies are administered by arms experts. The bureaucrats and politicians who command them know even less; other priorities likely loom larger. The reasons “why” may never be revealed.

“Ira Hayes? Wasn’t he awarded the CMOH?” [17th Miss Regt, post 33]

The list of USMC Medal of Honor awardees for the Second World War does not contain his name.

He was one of six Marines who raised the second American flag atop Mount Suribachi on 23 February 1945.

Confusion has bedeviled the official record of exactly who raised the second flag, captured on film by photographer Joe Rosenthal, later made into the sculpture that now dominates the Marine Corps War Memorial. No faces could be seen in the photo, and in the chaos and confusion of battle not every administrative detail was properly verified. Three of the six men were killed before the island was declared secure.

One man’s identity was corrected in 1947. Another was not properly identified until 2016; he lived out his life quietly and never spoke about it to anyone.

USN Corpsman John Bradley was initially identified as one of the raisers of the second flag. His son James wrote a book about his father’s activities, which was later adapted for the film directed by Clint Eastwood. It later came out that Bradley was one of the men who raised the first flag.