Gary Nunn wrote
... about a law that supposedly required highways to be built for
use as landing strips in time of war. The teacher presented this
as fact, but I found out a few years later that this was only an
urban legend ...
Actually, parts of some roads in Sweden were strengthened for military
use.
Every so often I read of training exercises in which a part of a road
is shut down (much to the disgust of those who would like to drive
over them) and Swedish air force Grippens land, are refueled and
rearmed, and take off again. (As I remember, `all you need are 15
reservists to service one fighter'. Re-fueling, re-oiling,
re-oxygenating, reparming, etc., and minor maintenance take
considerable training and education; but as far as I can see, that
part of the process for the leaders is easier than evacuating a city.
Of course, the leaders have to do other things, too, like fight.)
Airplanes sometimes land hard; and even with lots of wheels, they put
more pressure on the surface than a car -- just thinking about it, my
airplane, which weighs about the same or less than my car, probably
does just this. Most of its weight goes on two tires, only a little
on the third. My car has four wheels and its tires are bigger.
Still, small airplanes like mine don't dig in. But that is why you
want to strengthen roads for frequent use by heavier aircraft.
(Incidentally, it is often the case that one or two landings by heavy
aircraft don't matter since the surface is weakened by them, but not
destroyed.)
My question is this: why didn't they require standards that would
allow current highway infrastructure to be used in time of war?
Good question! It would have meant making occasional straight bits of
road (say two miles long) wider and stronger. This would increase
costs, but not hugely, since the increases were incremental, not
initial (so long as you don't do this in cities, which everyone
expected would be blown up anyhow).
The only reason is I can think of, besides cost and bother, is this:
>From a `mutual assured destruction' (`MAD') point of view, it would
have been a bad idea for the US to create thousands of potential
take-off and landing sites. That would have told the Soviets that the
US government might figure an attack on the Soviet Union would be
worth it. That, in turn, would have caused the military in the Soviet
Union, if no one else, to figure that a surprise attack by the Soviet
Union on the United States would be the least bad alternative for the
Soviet Union.
Only a small country could risk strengthening roads. Sweden fell into
this catagory: its government intended (and I think succeeded) in
conveying the message that it would and could defend itself even after
its cities and air bases were destroyed.
As for your other question,
A smart terrorist (is that an oxymoron like Military
Intelligence?) ...
No, it is not an oxymoron. Rephrase that text to
A smart soldier who fights an asymmetrical war by using terrorist
tactics rather than ambushes or tank battles ...
and you see the concept makes sense when you presume that attacking an
opponents' moral and political belief systems are good tactics.
... All it would take would be one successful hit and the oil
industry would go into a tailspin with "speculation" and raise oil
prices drastically. ...
Yes. Which suggests either
a) that anti-US terrorists are actually very weak, and the
successful attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
was a `black swan' (i.e., an improbable, but possible event);
b) that the US and allied efforts have been more successful than
we think, and prevented more attacks;
c) that the particular anti-US terrorists about which we are
worried are as stupid as many other authoritarians and think of
killing lots of people rather than of destroying their economy;
d) that the particular anti-US terrorists about which we are
worried would have smart accountants who would figure that
destroying the US economy, and the economies that depend on it
-- most of the rest of the world -- would mean that those who
fund them would have less income because of the huge depression
and less consequently less ability to fund the terrorists; or,
e) that anti-US terrorists have a different time scale than
Americans and do not plan to undertake another major attack
against the US for years;
or some combination.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
