The thick plottens.
Oct. 27th, 2002 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zotzAccording to this Reuters report,
"a senior medical official" in Moscow has stated that of the 117 hostages who have died during or since the assault on the Nord Ost Theatre yesterday, only one died of gunshot wounds. The rest seem to have died of the effects of the gas used to overpower the gunmen holding the hostages.
There is also speculation from a London-based "security expert" that the gas used, judging by the symptoms displayed by the hostages, may have been BZ, which they describe as a "colourless, odourless incapacitant with hallucinogenic properties". What they don't say is that the stuff has a truly evil reputation and was abandoned by the US in the sixties after tests showed that it was too unpredictable in its effects for military use.
The film "Jacob's Ladder" is based on stories of tests of BZ in Vietnam.
Also, Gore Vidal (that whinging liberal cryptocommunist) has an article in the Observer today, concerning the ongoing debâcle that is Western (specifically US-driven Western) policy towards the Middle East and central Asia. A lot of it is exactly what you'd expect from one of us recidivist self-hating hypocritical pro-evil lunatics, but he did raise a couple of points which I found quite puzzling.
The US, of course, like most western nations, has a relatively complex air defence system which is not at the high alert status that it used to be. Time was we were constantly regaled by stories of Russian heavy bombers testing British air responses by mounting sneak attacks at only several hours' notice, flying round the north of Norway and down past Iceland with only our massive Radar sets to tell us they were coming. Of course, our plucky Phantom pilots were ready and snoozing, waiting to be woken at the correct time to have a cup of tea and pop upstairs to meet them as they arrived without wasting too much fuel and make them go home again. We were assured that this could be done at a couple of minutes notice, day or night, 365 days a year. So the revelation that the US only had four interceptors ready on the day was a bit surprising. After all, there's a permanent no-fly zone over nearly all of DC precisely to prevent attacks, and has been for decades. Andrews Air Force base is supposed to be on permanent readiness for this.
So why did all four of those planes stay on the ground until it was all over? There's been no word that they flew, and Vidal believes that the order to fly came an hour and twenty minutes after the alarm was initially raised. What was going on here? Could it have been incompetence? History is littered with the bodies of military officers executed for lesser fuck-ups, and as far as I know no charges have been brought. Has anyone been carpeted over this? And where is the major enquiry into how the planes reached their targets?
It only seems to be in the print edition, but there's a brief summary here.
Best interpretation : they're cynically covering their backs to avoid having to explain why they ignored the danger signs.
Worst interpretation : No, let's not go there. Never ascribe to malice what can safely be put down to incompetence.
"a senior medical official" in Moscow has stated that of the 117 hostages who have died during or since the assault on the Nord Ost Theatre yesterday, only one died of gunshot wounds. The rest seem to have died of the effects of the gas used to overpower the gunmen holding the hostages.
There is also speculation from a London-based "security expert" that the gas used, judging by the symptoms displayed by the hostages, may have been BZ, which they describe as a "colourless, odourless incapacitant with hallucinogenic properties". What they don't say is that the stuff has a truly evil reputation and was abandoned by the US in the sixties after tests showed that it was too unpredictable in its effects for military use.
The film "Jacob's Ladder" is based on stories of tests of BZ in Vietnam.
Also, Gore Vidal (that whinging liberal cryptocommunist) has an article in the Observer today, concerning the ongoing debâcle that is Western (specifically US-driven Western) policy towards the Middle East and central Asia. A lot of it is exactly what you'd expect from one of us recidivist self-hating hypocritical pro-evil lunatics, but he did raise a couple of points which I found quite puzzling.
The US, of course, like most western nations, has a relatively complex air defence system which is not at the high alert status that it used to be. Time was we were constantly regaled by stories of Russian heavy bombers testing British air responses by mounting sneak attacks at only several hours' notice, flying round the north of Norway and down past Iceland with only our massive Radar sets to tell us they were coming. Of course, our plucky Phantom pilots were ready and snoozing, waiting to be woken at the correct time to have a cup of tea and pop upstairs to meet them as they arrived without wasting too much fuel and make them go home again. We were assured that this could be done at a couple of minutes notice, day or night, 365 days a year. So the revelation that the US only had four interceptors ready on the day was a bit surprising. After all, there's a permanent no-fly zone over nearly all of DC precisely to prevent attacks, and has been for decades. Andrews Air Force base is supposed to be on permanent readiness for this.
So why did all four of those planes stay on the ground until it was all over? There's been no word that they flew, and Vidal believes that the order to fly came an hour and twenty minutes after the alarm was initially raised. What was going on here? Could it have been incompetence? History is littered with the bodies of military officers executed for lesser fuck-ups, and as far as I know no charges have been brought. Has anyone been carpeted over this? And where is the major enquiry into how the planes reached their targets?
It only seems to be in the print edition, but there's a brief summary here.
Best interpretation : they're cynically covering their backs to avoid having to explain why they ignored the danger signs.
Worst interpretation : No, let's not go there. Never ascribe to malice what can safely be put down to incompetence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
To play devil's advocate, in B#
Date: 2002-10-27 10:03 am (UTC)And what country would ever let a premier with that degree of incompetence remain in power?
After all, Pearl Harbor, at a time when we're willing to believe quite major cock-ups or conspiracies of our WWII systems and leaders, is fairly widely credited as being a failure in communication and response time. You'd think any nation that had been caught so publically with its pants down might just, after 50 years, have honed its systems to a fine level, even to the extent of having a trigger-happy "shoot first" policy.
Re: To play devil's advocate, in B#
Date: 2002-10-27 10:38 am (UTC)So many people would have to fail, though. A controller at the airbase should have scrambled jets and then notified the Pentagon. Gee Dubya's authority would only be needed to actually open fire.
It doesn't make sense, and there isn't even a major inquiry to get to the bottom of it.
woah heavy stuff for a sunday...
Date: 2002-10-27 10:20 am (UTC)i shall remember that for next time someone asks me why i haven't seen/spoken to them for ages :)
you appear to be having a Swans week... this is annoying me, because I now want to play some too but the stylus is completely buggered after that party.
Re: woah heavy stuff for a sunday...
Date: 2002-10-27 10:40 am (UTC)Absolutely. Not everything's a conspiracy. Not all of us have the energy to conspire that much.
you appear to be having a Swans week.
Blame
Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 10:45 am (UTC)It's good, "Killing for Company", innit?
Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:06 am (UTC)Well, if you say so, then I suppose I must. On my own behalf, at least. I can't really thank you for any annoyance caused to others. Although put like that, it sounds strangely tempting.
It's good, "Killing for Company", innit?
Yes, it is. Very. I've a feeling that once I've heard it a few more times I'm going to start using words like "haunting" and "repellent".
Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:11 am (UTC)"Haunting" I get, but I'm not sure about "repellent".
Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:18 am (UTC)Then she'll thank you in the long run.
I'm not sure about "repellent"
Do you know what Nilsen did? It wasn't pretty.
Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:24 am (UTC)Do you know what Nilsen did? It wasn't pretty.
Fair enough. I was taking the song out of context from the subject matter.
Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:30 am (UTC)Re: Swans
Date: 2002-10-27 11:51 am (UTC)Moving house
Date: 2002-10-27 12:03 pm (UTC)Re: Moving house
Date: 2002-10-27 12:28 pm (UTC)The reason I'm dubious about playing anything on it at all now was after
Re: Moving house
Date: 2002-10-27 12:52 pm (UTC)Re: Moving house
Date: 2002-10-27 01:12 pm (UTC)Re: Moving house
Date: 2002-10-27 01:22 pm (UTC)I treated myself to a Rega Planar 3 recently (with a bit of encouragement from
turntable worship
Date: 2002-10-27 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-27 11:43 am (UTC)Such a command from Bush makes absolutely no sense, not even in Bush's hierarchy of values. Actually, ESPECIALLY not in Buish's hierarchy of values. It makes no sense, unless Gore Vidal's hints are dead on.
Analysis of gas deaths in Moscow
Date: 2002-10-27 11:57 am (UTC)But of course...
Date: 2002-10-27 02:07 pm (UTC)The human mind has an incredible capacity to reject sufficiently unpleasant facts.
no subject
Date: 2002-10-31 01:41 pm (UTC)I can well believe that there were only four or so F-15s on duty per coast, and they probably weren't scrambled in earlier incidents.