Launching nukes during High School lesson

[Hawk66]

Found this by complete accident:

http://www.historysimulation.com/CWLessonIncludes.php

Are such 'simulations' common in US High School teaching? I'm impressed...incl. launching of nukes:

-> http://www.historysimulation.com/uploads/Cold_War_Operations_Manual.pdf

The best statement in the manual
"This is a limited, surgical nuclear strike on a particular region or target"

I hope the teacher tell their boys and girls that there is no nuclear 'surgical' attack in the real world.

Anyways, I'm currently thinking how funny it would be if someone tries to even introduce a lightweight version in German schools. A protest **** storm would be guaranteed and it would be the next topic for all major political discussion in TV for the foreseeable future for sure :).

[Onkel Neal]

If I'm not mistaken, tactical nukes were part of the NATO strategy to counter the Soviets in case of invasion. The class may simply be teaching along those lines.

[Hawk66]

If I'm not mistaken, tactical nukes were part of the NATO strategy to counter the Soviets in case of invasion. The class may simply be teaching along those lines.

Yes, you're right, they were part of the strategy and even one of the core strategies during the beginning of the Alliance due to the mass conventional armies of the Warsaw Pact. I've just some doubts about the word 'surgical' in this context...

[Red October1984]

Ha. We don't do anything like this in history class.

We just learn about how the US government did 9/11. Conspiracies and such....

[Oberon]

That's a pretty good overview.

Tactical nuclear weapons were definitely available and were expected by both sides to be used either in the first assault or within three or four days of the first strike. Chemical and biological weapons would be used immediately.
Certainly if the battlefield nuclear weapons were not used in a first strike to blast open a hole in the NATO defences or vaporise the advancing Soviet forces, then they would be used later as the war began to drag out.
IIRC the Soviet plan up until the early 1980s did call for a massive use of nuclear weapons on the first strike, but also assumed that NATO would do the same on Soviet deployments and bases.

Obviously, once that starts, then it's a case of progressing to ammunition dumps and airfields, which are usually near towns and cities. The UK would receive some golden sunshine on its airfields, and would likely retaliate in kind with ICBMs and Vulcans, which would then trigger the Soviets to retaliate in a mass strike on cities (since they wouldn't know where the missiles were going) and then the US would launch back, which would prompt the Soviets to launch the rest and....well...

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/47/546688-judgment_day_nukes_from_terminator_3_rise_of_the_m achines__1__super.jpg

I do like that the lesson plan simulates the disjointed nature of NATO, probably one of its biggest weaknesses, that a consensus needs to be reached on plans before they can be enacted whereas in the PACT they are dictated to the other members by the Soviets.

[Red October1984]

Maybe i can convince my teacher to do this when we get to the later Cold War years here in a chapter or two.

She'd probably enjoy it since it involves Communist governments. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

I'm guessing you don't like your history teacher?

I don't know where I get this idea from, just some sort of vague hints that you've made in your posts. :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

The best statement in the manual
"This is a limited, surgical nuclear strike on a particular region or target"

I hope the teacher tell their boys and girls that there is no nuclear 'surgical' attack in the real world.
The smallest yield nuclear warhead that was ever mass deployed (to my knowledge) was the W54 with a yield of 10 tons to 1 kT (it was a dial a yield weapon). At its lowest setting it is equivalent to the conventional GBU-43B (Actually the MOAB is more powerful). It pales in comparision to some of the stuff that has been done with conventional explosives like the mining at the Battle of Messines, or the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) which has a yield of 44 t. The size of the target destroyed by a W54 at its lowest yield would be roughly equivalent to ground zero at the WTC, maybe that is not "surgical" in today's meaning but that is basically one major point target.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4384/davycrockettbomb.jpg
Gentlemen we finally have a nuke small enough to shove up Khrushchev's butt...

[GoldenRivet]

Loved my history teachers, in High school i had a history teacher / coach who was a Teddy Roosevelt lookalike. he was also highly intelligent and kind, and had one of those gravel raspy voices that kind of drew you in during lectures.

My History teacher in College year 1 seemed to know everything in the world about pre-civil war America. important dates, names, battles, discoveries and inventions etc. the fact that she was a voluptuous beautiful busty brunette made her lectures an absolute pleasure to participate in

I didnt care for my government professor in college.

Course Description as well as the book i paid for indicated that we would be studying the American system of government, instead it was 3 lectures a week on her personal political opinions with a smattering of oh by the way this is how a bill is passed.

Take the above problem and combine it with the fact that i was a 30 year old man writing my own checks for my education sitting in a class full of 18-20 year olds who made it painfully obvious that they would rather be someplace else... I dropped the class.

[Oberon]

I imagine that sort of nuclear device would be useful for hitting communications areas, rail yards, crossroads and the like.

[TLAM Strike]

I imagine that sort of nuclear device would be useful for hitting communications areas, rail yards, crossroads and the like.
Exactly, anything you would normally send multiple heavy bombers after would be a appropriate target.

[Hottentot]

I'm guessing you don't like your history teacher?

Not to defend a possibly bad colleague whom I haven't met and whose teaching I haven't observed, but history teachers seem get loved or hated on much more regular basis than, say, the math teachers, and usually the reasons behind it are different too. Comes with the territory. :roll:

[Red October1984]

I'm guessing you don't like your history teacher?

I don't know where I get this idea from, just some sort of vague hints that you've made in your posts. :hmmm:

Yeah....I'm not a big fan. My previous one was one of my favorite people of all time. He would make sure you learned something no matter how far he had to go. We all pitched in and got him the Local News Channel "Best Teacher" award for the region when he retired. He kept class fun and it was always the highlight of my day.

The new lady teaches stuff that didn't happen and doesn't know what she's talking about half the time. I wish my old teacher came back. I could have a good discussion about the lesson with him. With Ms. Commie, I can tell her about something really cool and ask questions about it and she just looks at me and says "Gee. That's really cool." or "That's a really good question" and continues on teaching about Barack Obama's wonderful policy.

She won't let us talk about politics in History Class.
She won't do anything extra for the class
She teaches conspiracies
She idolizes Harry Truman and Barack Obama even though she won't admit it


Ready for the kicker?

We were talking before class about Chris Kyle's murder one day. We were talking about how Whitney Houston's drug OD was a bigger deal than an American hero's death. Houston did that to herself while Kyle was helping Veterans. The flags went half staff for Houston and everything. Obama made a statement about Houston....but not for Kyle. Kyle's death was nowhere near as big of a deal. We thought that this was ridiculous. I have more than a couple military family members. Uncles, Grandparents, Great-Grandparents, Dad was at one point, etc. This struck home.


The "Teacher" decided to jump into the conversation with, "Whitney Houston was actually important. Nobody cared about Chris Kyle. Nobody cares about soldiers like that."

I went ballistic. I told her that Houston was stupid enough to OD on drugs and Kyle was the man who went out and defended your life. He one of many that makes sure you get a safe place to live and sleep.

I could've just gotten up and left right there but I held back. I wanted to get up and smack her. Saying that nobody cares about the military and soldiers that die.

Now, very recently, she was absent and we had a substitute. When she came back, we asked her where she was. She had gone to a funeral for a friend of hers who had served several years in Iraq and had PTSD. He had committed suicide. I was >< that close to asking her if she cared about dead american heroes now. I held back on that too. Even though I have little respect for her and can't stand being in that class, I know that she's a human being and has rights, feelings, etc.

It didn't keep me from cracking a smile at the irony.

[Hottentot]

^^
Case in point.

[Hawk66]

The smallest yield nuclear warhead that was ever mass deployed (to my knowledge) was the W54 with a yield of 10 tons to 1 kT (it was a dial a yield weapon). At its lowest setting it is equivalent to the conventional GBU-43B (Actually the MOAB is more powerful). It pales in comparision to some of the stuff that has been done with conventional explosives like the mining at the Battle of Messines, or the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) which has a yield of 44 t. The size of the target destroyed by a W54 at its lowest yield would be roughly equivalent to ground zero at the WTC, maybe that is not "surgical" in today's meaning but that is basically one major point target.


Ok, I see, it is debatable what surgical is...personally I'd judge that depending if there is (considerable) contamination or not.

@Oberon: I agree in general that decision making was easier and more straightforward in Warsaw Pact. After the German reunification it became evident, that using of nuclear tactical warheads was not a remote but a core element of the warplan of the GDR. The question is if the political leaders would have tried to oppose the using of those weapons - at least in the beginning of the war....

[Stealhead]

The smallest yield nuclear warhead that was ever mass deployed (to my knowledge) was the W54 with a yield of 10 tons to 1 kT (it was a dial a yield weapon). At its lowest setting it is equivalent to the conventional GBU-43B (Actually the MOAB is more powerful). It pales in comparision to some of the stuff that has been done with conventional explosives like the mining at the Battle of Messines, or the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) which has a yield of 44 t. The size of the target destroyed by a W54 at its lowest yield would be roughly equivalent to ground zero at the WTC, maybe that is not "surgical" in today's meaning but that is basically one major point target.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4384/davycrockettbomb.jpg
Gentlemen we finally have a nuke small enough to shove up Khrushchev's butt...


That is the "Davey Crockett" it was supposed to launched via a recoilless rifle.The whole thing was an off shot of the M65 Atomic Cannon program which was also deployed.That thing is the Russians are over running the position screw it weapon.The M65 was not road mobile enough it was fine out in the desert but on crapped West German roads not so much.most likely why they developed the W54.

I wonder if they ever ran a live test of the W54? I know they did test the M65 cannon that one was filmed and is one of the more well known atomic footage films.

EDIT: They did test the W54 it was the last atmospheric test conducted by the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Feller_%28nuclear_tests%29

[Stealhead]

Yeah....I'm not a big fan. My previous one was one of my favorite people of all time. He would make sure you learned something no matter how far he had to go. We all pitched in and got him the Local News Channel "Best Teacher" award for the region when he retired. He kept class fun and it was always the highlight of my day.

The new lady teaches stuff that didn't happen and doesn't know what she's talking about half the time. I wish my old teacher came back. I could have a good discussion about the lesson with him. With Ms. Commie, I can tell her about something really cool and ask questions about it and she just looks at me and says "Gee. That's really cool." or "That's a really good question" and continues on teaching about Barack Obama's wonderful policy.

She won't let us talk about politics in History Class.
She won't do anything extra for the class
She teaches conspiracies
She idolizes Harry Truman and Barack Obama even though she won't admit it


Ready for the kicker?

We were talking before class about Chris Kyle's murder one day. We were talking about how Whitney Houston's drug OD was a bigger deal than an American hero's death. Houston did that to herself while Kyle was helping Veterans. The flags went half staff for Houston and everything. Obama made a statement about Houston....but not for Kyle. Kyle's death was nowhere near as big of a deal. We thought that this was ridiculous. I have more than a couple military family members. Uncles, Grandparents, Great-Grandparents, Dad was at one point, etc. This struck home.


The "Teacher" decided to jump into the conversation with, "Whitney Houston was actually important. Nobody cared about Chris Kyle. Nobody cares about soldiers like that."

I went ballistic. I told her that Houston was stupid enough to OD on drugs and Kyle was the man who went out and defended your life. He one of many that makes sure you get a safe place to live and sleep.

I could've just gotten up and left right there but I held back. I wanted to get up and smack her. Saying that nobody cares about the military and soldiers that die.

Now, very recently, she was absent and we had a substitute. When she came back, we asked her where she was. She had gone to a funeral for a friend of hers who had served several years in Iraq and had PTSD. He had committed suicide. I was >< that close to asking her if she cared about dead american heroes now. I held back on that too. Even though I have little respect for her and can't stand being in that class, I know that she's a human being and has rights, feelings, etc.

It didn't keep me from cracking a smile at the irony.


What is so bad about Harry Truman? He got handed some of the most difficult decisions to be made in the 20th century with no previous knowledge.If you do not know what I am talking about maybe you do not know your history as well as you think you do.

Any "Commie" would idolize Franklin Delano Roosevelt over Harry Truman any day of the week.Maybe you misunderstand your teacher or perhaps she is trying to best engage her student body.If most of the kids care more about Whitney Houston she was likely talking about her to get them engaged so they would pay attention to less interesting things.If she attended the funereal of a veteran then her previous statement about know one caring about heroes was likely sarcastic dismal of the status quo (the media caring more about Houston).

You previously mentioned how you disliked her class about the Cuban Missile Crisis (though you seemed to expecting Submarine Warfare 101 not World history).It sounds to me like she has a more neutral standpoint on events while yours is from a pro American objective.There is nothing wrong with hearing more than one point of view.I cant say for sure but I have a feeling that if I sat in one of your teachers classes I would not have the same opinion that you have and trust me I am neither left nor right leaning.If she said that one Russian was very instrumental in the diplomatic resolution of the crisis that is true.I am also assuming that she may have the perspective of teaching the other sides point of view but the reason is not to say how the American view is wrong.The point of this is to show you how differing nations think and how misunderstandings and political situations in one nation can effect many.

Going ballistic is never a good reaction. You say that you want to join the military at some point you will find military life very challenging if you have abrasive relationships with people that you disagree with and you will not see eye to eye with everyone in the military or officers appointed over you but you must still respect their rank and orders.Generally speaking it is disrespectful to question a teachers instruction when they are in the middle of a lesson.Doing that is not going to help your situation.My advice assuming that all you say is true deal with it and do not say anything if you know that she is wrong and our are right what harm is being done to you it sounds like the other students do not care either way so why waste your time correcting anything?

[TLAM Strike]

That is the "Davey Crockett" it was supposed to launched via a recoilless rifle.The whole thing was an off shot of the M65 Atomic Cannon program which was also deployed. It was also the warhead for the AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile. It is the all white missile in this photo of an F-102:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/329/blogconvairf102mg94001.jpg

[Oberon]

@Oberon: I agree in general that decision making was easier and more straightforward in Warsaw Pact. After the German reunification it became evident, that using of nuclear tactical warheads was not a remote but a core element of the warplan of the GDR. The question is if the political leaders would have tried to oppose the using of those weapons - at least in the beginning of the war....

I think that in terms of actual release of nuclear weapons, the GDR forces might not have had too much of a say about it, certainly if it was anything like NATO forces then release authority was primarily held by the US since it was 9/10 their nuclear weapons, except for the British and French weaponry, of course.
That, I think, would be one the biggest fears of the FDR, that their country would be an atomic wasteland by the end of the exchange and barely habitable. Some fictional accounts have it leading to an early capitulation of the FDR in order to avoid nuclear annihilation, stories such as Red Army for example, and one of the campaigns of Wargame: European Escalation, IIRC. However, both of these accounts neglect to take into account he likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in a first strike and there being little left to preserve through capitulation. In that respect, it is likely that a 'I want to hurt you as much as you hurt me' thought process would overtake the FDR leadership and the GDR would receive its own fair share of nuclear devastation. Of course, a military thriller book that began with its entire cast being vaporised in a nuclear inferno would be rather short and probably wouldn't sell quite as well as, say, Red Storm Rising.

@Hottentot
I must admit, I didn't hate my history teachers. There was one who was rather ineffectual, but the other we had for A levels was pretty awesome. Then again, there was only six of us in the whole group, so it was pretty informal. When we did the second world war I sometimes wound up teaching bits of info I'd picked up to the class, particularly when we got the Battle of Britain. One of my classmates used to joke that I'd been there. :O:
Teachers for Physical Education and maths on the other hand...but, eh, that's school and youth, full of testosterone and emotion. Teaching these days must be like trying to herd cats, you chaps have my respect.

[Stealhead]

It was also the warhead for the AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile. It is the all white missile in this photo of an F-102:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/329/blogconvairf102mg94001.jpg

I remember as a kid going to the USAF Weapons Museum at Eglin AFB with my father and brothers there was a display of the AIR-2 Genie.I recall thinking that you must really want to destroy a plane to fire one of those at it.There where some photos of the test and some AF officers stood under the explosion (around 20,000 ft below it). That museum had some pretty interesting displays they also had some experimental multiple barrel cannon that where part of the test program that lead to the M61 Vulcan.

[Wolferz]

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.

[Oberon]

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.

Depends on the wind, the Crockett had a lethal exposure range of about 400m (quarter mile), not factoring in the fallout drift. The weapon itself could be fired a distance of just under two miles and could also be fired from a jeep. So in theory, with the wind blowing from behind you, you could use a Crockett with minimal effects to the men around you. In fact the explosion itself would probably be smaller than a MOAB.

I think the primary reason the Crockett was mothballed was because it would have been far too easy to use it, which would have just escalated things up the ladder. Besides, why use a weapon that creates a mess over ground that you might be able to go forth and capture eventually, when you can use a conventional weapon or two that have the same firepower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8-UwpeaF4 - This would probably be about the maximum size of the explosion for a Davy Crockett.

[Stealhead]

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.


The development of ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons are largely unrelated.When the Davy Crockett entered service (1962) the first version of the Minuteman was under development and the Titan missile was active.ICMBs replaced to a large extent nuclear bombers the move was started y the Soviets who where unable to content with the USAF bomber force so they changed the game to missiles the US followed suit after Sputnik.

The concept of tactical nuclear weapons was really more to discourage a conventional conflict something that Warsaw Pact had a chance of winning.By having tactical nukes it forced Warsaw Pact to consider the consequence of a conventional attack very heavily (knowing that NATO would use tactical nukes to stop it this forces their hand more or less to only consider nuclear war which is no win.)It actually furthers the concept of MAD by saying "attack us in any way and it goes full scale." The US just got a little carried away with the Davy Crockett.

Nature and the rest of the universe will be happy to watch us nuke each other out of existence I have no doubt it will happen sooner or later.It might screw up the planet for a while but on the time scale of the universe 10,15 even 50,000 years is nothing.

[Red October1984]

Any "Commie" would idolize Franklin Delano Roosevelt over Harry Truman any day of the week.Maybe you misunderstand your teacher or perhaps she is trying to best engage her student body.If most of the kids care more about Whitney Houston she was likely talking about her to get them engaged so they would pay attention to less interesting things.If she attended the funereal of a veteran then her previous statement about know one caring about heroes was likely sarcastic dismal of the status quo (the media caring more about Houston).

She loves FDR too! All the welfare presidents she really likes on top of Truman and Obama. I don't like some of Truman's ideas. He is the only Missouri president, and he was given some very tough decisions. One of the main reasons many students don't like this teacher is because she is a liberal in an area full of stereotypical Conservatives. I am one of them. She forces her liberal views on us in class. Not many people like to hear how good it was that Obama got re-elected.

You previously mentioned how you disliked her class about the Cuban Missile Crisis (though you seemed to expecting Submarine Warfare 101 not World history).It sounds to me like she has a more neutral standpoint on events while yours is from a pro American objective.There is nothing wrong with hearing more than one point of view.I cant say for sure but I have a feeling that if I sat in one of your teachers classes I would not have the same opinion that you have and trust me I am neither left nor right leaning.If she said that one Russian was very instrumental in the diplomatic resolution of the crisis that is true.I am also assuming that she may have the perspective of teaching the other sides point of view but the reason is not to say how the American view is wrong.The point of this is to show you how differing nations think and how misunderstandings and political situations in one nation can effect many.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis lesson, she didn't explain the submarines very well. I'll say that. I didn't try to correct her too much. I didn't even correct her when she said that sonar was used to freak out people in submarines. The only thing I did was watch the video and toss in a comment or two. I did help her out when she was trying to explain the Thermal Layer, but for the most part, I didn't pay attention because it was slightly annoying. I'm not saying the Russians didn't do anything good. The Russians were the ones who held back from firing the nuke from B-59. That other post I made about this was more or less just a rant to blow off some steam. The part about me correcting her a couple of times during the WW2, WW1, and Korean War chapters is true. I have only corrected her probably 6 times this year. 3 of which did not actually correct, just help explain. I haven't done that in a while actually. I helped explain some submarine stuff there...but that's about it recently.

Going ballistic is never a good reaction. You say that you want to join the military at some point you will find military life very challenging if you have abrasive relationships with people that you disagree with and you will not see eye to eye with everyone in the military or officers appointed over you but you must still respect their rank and orders.Generally speaking it is disrespectful to question a teachers instruction when they are in the middle of a lesson.Doing that is not going to help your situation.My advice assuming that all you say is true deal with it and do not say anything if you know that she is wrong and our are right what harm is being done to you it sounds like the other students do not care either way so why waste your time correcting anything?

It wasn't exactly Ballistic. It was just a word that I thought I'd put in there. A more accurate term would be "angry" i guess. It wasn't part of a lesson that she said that. Another thing, I don't try to question her lessons. The questions I ask are honest questions. There are some things that I just don't know and that she apparently either doesn't know, or, she doesn't want to answer me. I'll give an example. During the WW2 chapter, when we were talking about the Japanese invasion of Asia, I asked her how the Japanese invaded China and about how the Japanese treated the Chinese. I really don't know a whole lot about the Japanese in Indochina, China, and all those other countries. When I asked the question, she just looked and said "That's a good question" and didn't make any effort to answer me. She had the means to do so, but did not. During the Korean War chapter, she had us looking up Conspiracies online. I found a big CIA thing about the War and the stuff she was currently teaching us. I showed it to her and was asking questions. She just said "that's really cool" and didn't answer any of my questions. When she doesn't answer my questions, she has that same semi-sarcastic tone.


I'm guessing that she just doesn't like me. That, and I can get carried away in my rants pretty easily. I don't go ballistic, but when somebody insults the military I'm not exactly happy about it. I get sick of seeing all the "#$#(*& The Troops" and all. Sometimes, I just have to tell those people that these are the real heroes and these people should not be overlooked. Veterans don't get the treatment that they should be getting these days. When somebody says that nobody cares about them, it sends me into the "These people are heroes and they don't get the treatment that they deserve" rant and that singers who OD on drugs shouldn't get that much media attention. I can get into a pretty good rant sometimes about the media. I'm just a stereotypical Pro-American, Pro-Life, young person sometimes. I will admit that I don't always think before I speak. Not everything I say has been thoroughly processed in my head. What sounds good in my head doesn't always end up good out loud.

You have to remember that I'm still young and still have a LOT to learn. :doh: You guys are much older than me and have more experience with life and the world.

[Stealhead]

She loves FDR too! All the welfare presidents she really likes on top of Truman and Obama. I don't like some of Truman's ideas. He is the only Missouri president, and he was given some very tough decisions. One of the main reasons many students don't like this teacher is because she is a liberal in an area full of stereotypical Conservatives. I am one of them. She forces her liberal views on us in class. Not many people like to hear how good it was that Obama got re-elected.



During the Cuban Missile Crisis lesson, she didn't explain the submarines very well. I'll say that. I didn't try to correct her too much. I didn't even correct her when she said that sonar was used to freak out people in submarines. The only thing I did was watch the video and toss in a comment or two. I did help her out when she was trying to explain the Thermal Layer, but for the most part, I didn't pay attention because it was slightly annoying. I'm not saying the Russians didn't do anything good. The Russians were the ones who held back from firing the nuke from B-59. That other post I made about this was more or less just a rant to blow off some steam. The part about me correcting her a couple of times during the WW2, WW1, and Korean War chapters is true. I have only corrected her probably 6 times this year. 3 of which did not actually correct, just help explain. I haven't done that in a while actually. I helped explain some submarine stuff there...but that's about it recently.



It wasn't exactly Ballistic. It was just a word that I thought I'd put in there. A more accurate term would be "angry" i guess. It wasn't part of a lesson that she said that. Another thing, I don't try to question her lessons. The questions I ask are honest questions. There are some things that I just don't know and that she apparently either doesn't know, or, she doesn't want to answer me. I'll give an example. During the WW2 chapter, when we were talking about the Japanese invasion of Asia, I asked her how the Japanese invaded China and about how the Japanese treated the Chinese. I really don't know a whole lot about the Japanese in Indochina, China, and all those other countries. When I asked the question, she just looked and said "That's a good question" and didn't make any effort to answer me. She had the means to do so, but did not. During the Korean War chapter, she had us looking up Conspiracies online. I found a big CIA thing about the War and the stuff she was currently teaching us. I showed it to her and was asking questions. She just said "that's really cool" and didn't answer any of my questions. When she doesn't answer my questions, she has that same semi-sarcastic tone.


I'm guessing that she just doesn't like me. That, and I can get carried away in my rants pretty easily. I don't go ballistic, but when somebody insults the military I'm not exactly happy about it. I get sick of seeing all the "#$#(*& The Troops" and all. Sometimes, I just have to tell those people that these are the real heroes and these people should not be overlooked. Veterans don't get the treatment that they should be getting these days. When somebody says that nobody cares about them, it sends me into the "These people are heroes and they don't get the treatment that they deserve" rant and that singers who OD on drugs shouldn't get that much media attention. I can get into a pretty good rant sometimes about the media. I'm just a stereotypical Pro-American, Pro-Life, young person sometimes. I will admit that I don't always think before I speak. Not everything I say has been thoroughly processed in my head. What sounds good in my head doesn't always end up good out loud.

You have to remember that I'm still young and still have a LOT to learn. :doh: You guys are much older than me and have more experience with life and the world.

You do seem to focus on negativity is all I am saying.For example you say that this teacher does not like you but how can you be sure unless they expressly said that to you?

What do you mean by veterans don't get treated like they should be treated? Because the media does not always praise them? I have not heard anything of the kind of treatment that Vietnam vets faced years ago.If anything I would say generally speaking vets get a lot of respect now a days.People are much better about expressing their feelings about war without blaming the people that fought in it.

Take action if you feel so strongly about it volunteer for the Wounded Warrior Project or Disabled American Veterans your help and time will make up for 1,000 jerks and it will make you feel better as well I think your feelings stem from the fact that currently you can not(or are not currently) help people that you want to help.

[Red October1984]

You do seem to focus on negativity is all I am saying.For example you say that this teacher does not like you but how can you be sure unless they expressly said that to you?

I tend to get a bit defensive sometimes. Also, every student has a teacher that they say "doesn't like them." This is mine.

What do you mean by veterans don't get treated like they should be treated? Because the media does not always praise them? I have not heard anything of the kind of treatment that Vietnam vets faced years ago.If anything I would say generally speaking vets get a lot of respect now a days.People are much better about expressing their feelings about war without blaming the people that fought in it.

I see stuff on the internet and other media and hear stories about how the government denies healthcare and treatment. Soldiers don't get paid as much as they should either. Nothing is as bad as it was after Vietnam, but a friend's family member who served in Korea has been denied healthcare he needed because "Korea wasn't a war." I forgot what they called it exactly but it was something along the lines of Police Action or something like that. The VA people didn't call it war and they denied him what he needed.

Take action if you feel so strongly about it volunteer for the Wounded Warrior Project or Disabled American Veterans your help and time will make up for 1,000 jerks and it will make you feel better as well I think your feelings stem from the fact that currently you can not(or are not currently) help people that you want to help.

That just might be part of it. I'm not sure what to think here. I don't know of any local chapters of either organization, but I might look into it. I am a part of the USAF Aux. Civil Air Patrol and they do volunteer-type stuff. I know they do Wreaths Across America. :hmmm: I'll have to look into it.

[TarJak]

Maybe its surgical in this sense:
http://s3.hubimg.com/u/202770_f520.jpg

[Stealhead]

Soldiers don't get paid as much as they should either. but a friend's family member who served in Korea has been denied healthcare he needed because "Korea wasn't a war." I forgot what they called it exactly but it was something along the lines of Police Action or something like that. The VA people didn't call it war and they denied him what he needed.




I am not sure why you say this in comparison to most every Western nation our troops both enlisted and officer get payed better.The armed forces of the UK Germany and France all have lower pay across the board.You are not going to become a millionaire in the armed forces but when you take into account the benefits a person gets while on active duty the US military is a very competitive employer when it comes to pay and benefits.As a single enlisted member you do not have to pay for food, housing or medical care.

I can assure you that the story you have been told about your friends family member getting denied benefits because he served in the Korean War is an out and out lie that just simply is not true.Maybe they tried to make a claim but in reality they where in the armed forces but not involved in the Korean War then they would be denied benefits that only people that served in that war are eligible key word being in that not war served during If that where true every single Vietnam vet would be denied benefits as would every vet that served in Afghanistan in none of these wars was war declared by Congress.

This is so incorrect I am now going to shoot it down in flames;

From the VA Federal Benefits for Veterans,Dependents and Survivors page(a basic out line of benefits)

Certain VA benefits require service during wartime. Under the law, VA recognizes these war periods:
Mexican Border Period: May 9, 1916, through April 5, 1917, for veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders or in adjacent waters.
World War I: April 6, 1917, through Nov. 11, 1918; for veterans who served in Russia, April 6, 1917, through April 1, 1920; extended through July 1, 1921, for veterans who had at least one day of service between April 6, 1917, and Nov. 11, 1918.
World War II: Dec. 7, 1941, through Dec. 31, 1946.
Korean War: June 27, 1950, through Jan. 31, 1955.
Vietnam War: Aug. 5, 1964 (Feb. 28, 1961, for veterans who served “in country” before Aug. 5, 1964), through May 7, 1975.
Gulf War: Aug. 2, 1990, through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation. Important Documents Needed to Expedite
(it does not list active conflicts that one would be the Global War on Terror these vets can get benefits i have friends that use the extended GI Bill for WOT vets)


link:
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/benefits_book/benefits_introduction.asp

[TLAM Strike]

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. Depends on the target. If it's armor then yea you are going to have to detonate at the ground to destroy them making fallout, but if it's infantry then detonation above ground level to destroy the target with thermal damage and pressure then fallout is minimal since fallout is created by material vaporized by the blast or charged by the energy.


That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war. I imagine there were also security issues with such weapons since they would have to be kept close to the front lines, also that in the event of a surprise attack they might be overrun before permission to use them was issued.


In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple. Nuclear weapons are not some magic that immediately destroys everyone. Nuclear weapons are just a payload, they require delivery systems that are vulnerable to destruction. Problem is that no one wants to develop countermeasure systems because it would encourage others to develop them making their nukes less potent, or they do not foresee the use of them and will not expend currency to develop countermeasures that will not be used. If one has the capability of employing guided missiles and can loft payloads in to orbit (and heck who doesn't) then they have the capability to develop ICBM countermeasures; it's a question of funds to build the system, and unless there is another need to engage targets in low orbit or on suborbital trajectories the countermeasures will not be widely developed.

However once one state deploys such a system, then everyone else will begin to deploy such a system, then they will scramble to develop a counter-system and we have a nice little arms race.

Nukes delivered via other systems have their own countermeasures that are far cheaper and more prevalent.

[Red October1984]

I am not sure why you say this in comparison to most every Western nation our troops both enlisted and officer get payed better.The armed forces of the UK Germany and France all have lower pay across the board.You are not going to become a millionaire in the armed forces but when you take into account the benefits a person gets while on active duty the US military is a very competitive employer when it comes to pay and benefits.As a single enlisted member you do not have to pay for food, housing or medical care.

I see your point here.

I can assure you that the story you have been told about your friends family member getting denied benefits because he served in the Korean War is an out and out lie that just simply is not true.Maybe they tried to make a claim but in reality they where in the armed forces but not involved in the Korean War then they would be denied benefits that only people that served in that war are eligible key word being in that not war served during If that where true every single Vietnam vet would be denied benefits as would every vet that served in Afghanistan in none of these wars was war declared by Congress.

I don't know all of the details exactly. I just know he was denied healthcare somewhere.

This is so incorrect I am now going to shoot it down in flames;

From the VA Federal Benefits for Veterans,Dependents and Survivors page(a basic out line of benefits)

Certain VA benefits require service during wartime. Under the law, VA recognizes these war periods:
Mexican Border Period: May 9, 1916, through April 5, 1917, for veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders or in adjacent waters.
World War I: April 6, 1917, through Nov. 11, 1918; for veterans who served in Russia, April 6, 1917, through April 1, 1920; extended through July 1, 1921, for veterans who had at least one day of service between April 6, 1917, and Nov. 11, 1918.
World War II: Dec. 7, 1941, through Dec. 31, 1946.
Korean War: June 27, 1950, through Jan. 31, 1955.
Vietnam War: Aug. 5, 1964 (Feb. 28, 1961, for veterans who served “in country” before Aug. 5, 1964), through May 7, 1975.
Gulf War: Aug. 2, 1990, through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation. Important Documents Needed to Expedite
(it does not list active conflicts that one would be the Global War on Terror these vets can get benefits i have friends that use the extended GI Bill for WOT vets)

You are obviously are better informed and now you have corrected me. I have said this before you people are smarter, wiser, older, and more experienced at life than me. I'm done with this argument if you are. You proved me wrong and I'll accept it. I see how I am wrong now. Sometimes I just get too far into an argument to where I just can't support my side anymore and I am clearly wrong. This is one of those times. I'm not an expert on anything. I'm a student which means I'm still learning. You are former military and have had more experience with this topic than me. I don't want this to get out of hand with me saying something stupid and this going farther than it needs to.

I think I'll call this one a win for Stealhead. I've learned my lesson here. :yep:

[Stealhead]

I see your point here.



I don't know all of the details exactly. I just know he was denied healthcare somewhere.



You are obviously are better informed and now you have corrected me. I have said this before you people are smarter, wiser, older, and more experienced at life than me. I'm done with this argument if you are. You proved me wrong and I'll accept it. I see how I am wrong now. Sometimes I just get too far into an argument to where I just can't support my side anymore and I am clearly wrong. This is one of those times. I'm not an expert on anything. I'm a student which means I'm still learning. You are former military and have had more experience with this topic than me. I don't want this to get out of hand with me saying something stupid and this going farther than it needs to.

I think I'll call this one a win for Stealhead. I've learned my lesson here. :yep:

I was not trying to "win" you where clearly misinformed about the claim denial. I do not know the story with the person but My guess is that they attempted to make a claim as a qualified veteran of the Korean War when they in fact are not.There is some reason why the person got denied but not what you where told.

A clear argument also would have gotten the attention of a moderator which this discussion has not.

[Hottentot]

Teaching these days must be like trying to herd cats, you chaps have my respect.

It depends. I haven't got my qualification yet, so I might be just young and naive, but I haven't felt that way. In fact, the most difficult experience so far was when I had a group that was anything but a herd of cats. They just sat and expected me to teach. While I managed, it didn't suit my style at all. Whereas when I have taught more energetic groups, it has been much more pleasant: in their cases I knew I could channel that energy into having them participate and doing something.


Also, every student has a teacher that they say "doesn't like them." This is mine.

Stealhead has already summed up in a much better fashion everything I would have said on the subject, but I'm going to pick this one up as someone standing on the other side of the classroom.

I'm not even a real teacher yet, but I have already taught four groups. That alone makes it approximately 100 people. Your teachers are professionals who have in their careers most likely taught well over thousands of people. Even remembering the names of such groups of people is challenging, let alone liking or not liking some of them.

Students often have this image of being special little snowflakes. I can appreciate that. Of course the teacher should know his/her students as individuals and treat them as such. This is still not a contradiction with the attitude of not making it personal enough to like or dislike someone. It would be pretty difficult too, seeing how the groups change. A teacher can see one student only once or twice per week and tens or hundreds of students in between those meetings.

Also, teachers teach for living: they know the tricks of the trade. Believe me, I have heard some unbelievable stuff in the classroom too. Stuff that would make me raise my eyebrows really high if I heard it on the street, but when I'm a teacher, I'm not going to behave the same way as if I was just me. I bring my personality to the classes in a different manner.

I don't like or dislike anyone in my classroom. I like my students. Based on the feedback I have received, they like their teacher. We'll see about liking or disliking each other as persons once they graduate and we'll bump into each other in the course of life. I'm somewhat looking forward to that, actually.