WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
of disbelief in anyone who has a greater-than-room-temperature
intelligence or a nonzero amount of general knowledge of reality.
For those who are actually educated in the laws of physics,
and more specifically, geology, meteorology and/or climatology,
said strain may cause headaches, and in the worst case, cranial
detonations may occur.
In addition, severely partisan liberal environmentalist politics
may cause laryngitis due to howls of outrage from anyone who is
not a liberal environmentalist, and itching and burning sensations
in those who are liberal environmentalists with the slightest shred
of intelligence and integrity as they wish to disassociate themselves
from anything which espouses the liberal environmentalist position
with this level of mind-boggling raw seething stupidity.
This movie is most likely to be enjoyed by apolitical fans of horror
and disaster, who might possibly take pleasure in seeing "severe
weather as movie monster", as CGI tornados take apart downtown Los
Angeles, and CGI water and cold destroy Manhattan, and indeed, most
of the planet.
>WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
>is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
>of disbelief in anyone who has a greater-than-room-temperature
>intelligence or a nonzero amount of general knowledge of reality.
>For those who are actually educated in the laws of physics,
>and more specifically, geology, meteorology and/or climatology,
>said strain may cause headaches, and in the worst case, cranial
>detonations may occur.
I was planning on waiting for the DVD to come out and watching it as
the middle of a triple-feature with "Tremors" and "Killer Klowns From
Outer Space". Will that work any better?
Lee
>
>(yeah, yeah, off-topic for rasf.written, but nevertheless...)
>
>WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
>is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
>of disbelief in anyone who has a greater-than-room-temperature
>intelligence or a nonzero amount of general knowledge of reality.
>For those who are actually educated in the laws of physics,
>and more specifically, geology, meteorology and/or climatology,
>said strain may cause headaches, and in the worst case, cranial
>detonations may occur.
>
>In addition, severely partisan liberal environmentalist politics
>may cause laryngitis due to howls of outrage from anyone who is
>not a liberal environmentalist, and itching and burning sensations
>in those who are liberal environmentalists with the slightest shred
>of intelligence and integrity as they wish to disassociate themselves
>from anything which espouses the liberal environmentalist position
>with this level of mind-boggling raw seething stupidity.
So in essence, it appears that the technical advisors for this film
were Lorenzo Love and nospam?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
> (yeah, yeah, off-topic for rasf.written, but nevertheless...)
>
> WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
> is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
> of disbelief in anyone who has a greater-than-room-temperature
> intelligence or a nonzero amount of general knowledge of reality.
My favorite review was the one in Norwegian (or possibly Swedish), in which I
could only the read a single phrase: "Mystery Science Theater 3000."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
>(yeah, yeah, off-topic for rasf.written, but nevertheless...)
>
>WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
>is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
>of disbelief in anyone who has a greater-than-room-temperature
>intelligence or a nonzero amount of general knowledge of reality.
>For those who are actually educated in the laws of physics,
>and more specifically, geology, meteorology and/or climatology,
>said strain may cause headaches, and in the worst case, cranial
>detonations may occur.
Buwahahahaha! I've had to suffer bad geology, bad military and bad
firefighting movies. Others have suffered bad computer science, bad
physics, bad medical, even bad writing movies.
Now you climatologists can feel our pain. Welcome to our world.
--
Keith
"Tremors" and "Klowns" both had a better grounding in science, so be
ready.
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Are you sure about that?
It looks to be in English to me, except for the single word 'nei'. (Which
means 'no'.)
Nah. They're both a lot saner, and have much more moderate views on
environmentalism.
I just saw "Day After" and you are correct the science is ridiculous but I
did think in the grand tradition of sci-fi
it made it an entertaining roller coaster ride and the special effects I
thought were great.
Further, beneath the ride I think it said some important things about
consumption of finite resources, that the US standard
(and for that matter the whole of the West) is unsustainable, that the
present administration are not taking their roles as caretakers of the
environment seriously resulting in a fantastic caricature of Cheney.
I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some of those ideas...I
know that the theatre
I just left in Sydney cheered when Americans were stopped at the border and
ILLEGALLY crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico :)
Cheers
Eden
"David Silberstein" <davids_aat_k...@foilspam.invalid> wrote in
message news:HyIEs...@kithrup.com...
Brrrr and it was so chilly here in Edinburgh, Scotland, when we came out of
the cinema at 1:30am... perfectly clear sky, huge moon. We were in the eye
of a storm :)
> I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some of those ideas...I
> know that the theatre
> I just left in Sydney cheered when Americans were stopped at the border and
> ILLEGALLY crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico :)
Mostly we won't.
I find it very interesting that this little morality play regarding
Americans trying to cross into Mexico and being rejected is viewed as so
cosmically just by many people.
I assure you that the Mexican Army would be there with tanks and machine
guns and would repel all such attempted border crossers with deadly force.
They would not be anything like as civilized as we currently are about the
thing. The only reason they don't do it now is that nobody *wants* to cross
into their country illegally, except drug smugglers who often do it under
their aegis anyway.
Funny how you hear so much about those immigrants who die crossing a
freaking *desert,* that they know is there, without adequate supplies or
preparation, but you never hear about the Mexican Army crossing into US
territory and harassing and occasionally *killing* US citizens.
D
Do you mean this article?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1132625/reviews.php?critic=8&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1283914
That's Icelandic.
- Sten
It occurs to me that the Circumpolar Current is just sitting there,
waiting to be used to provide power to the growing economies of the South.
One wonders at what point the power-draw begins to have global implications.
The CPC cools the entire planet, so from a Terraforming Canada POV, shutting
off would help. Pity about the Gulf Stream possibly shutting down but you
can't break eggs without making an omlet.
Back to the Miocene!
James Nicoll
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
So you're saying it was really cool?
--
ICQ: 4304313
Gadgets: Zen 20Gb/Shure E2/Ipaq 3850/Sharp 702
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Containment Failure + 4750:48
I almost kinda understand that.
Going only from teasers and trailers, I note that the inundation
of New York as depicted didn't do anywhere near enough damage.
That is, the incoming water "should" have done much more damage
than was depicted in the trailers/teasers.
Or so it seemed to me.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
"Tremors" is particularly superior in that the geologist never
pretends to be anything but a geologist. She can make intelligent
guesses outside her field, but it is plain they are only guesses. I
think the actress did a wonderful job as well as being cute.<g>
>On 5/30/04 6:44 AM, in article
>4Ojuc.18193$L.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Eden R" <ed...@zip.com.au>
>wrote:
>> I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some of those ideas...I
>> know that the theatre
>> I just left in Sydney cheered when Americans were stopped at the border and
>> ILLEGALLY crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico :)
>Mostly we won't.
>I find it very interesting that this little morality play regarding
>Americans trying to cross into Mexico and being rejected is viewed as so
>cosmically just by many people.
>I assure you that the Mexican Army would be there with tanks and machine
>guns and would repel all such attempted border crossers with deadly force.
Except for the slight detail that the Mexican Army doesn't actually *have*
any tanks...
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
On Sun, 30 May 2004 18:14:50 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
I saw the movie yesterday. The massive storm in the movie (similiar
to a hurricane, but larger) had strong downdrafts in the eye,
bringing down air from the troposphere cold enough to cause
flash-freezing at ground level, rather than the strong updrafts in
the eye of a real hurricane. This should have resulted in the
opposite of a storm surge, lowering local sea level rather than
raising it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQLoqrTMYPge5L34aEQLcmACgtM39eChgeUlGaXqpAZjjFREsaIIAnRgc
HrzrtORTqCRyUNjJuvXiPfP8
=1nDK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>>I assure you that the Mexican Army would be there with tanks and machine
>>guns and would repel all such attempted border crossers with deadly force.
>
>Except for the slight detail that the Mexican Army doesn't actually *have*
>any tanks...
Yes, they do.
I found this by the simple expedient of googling on +"Mexican army"
+tanks:
"Mexican M3A1 and M5A1 light tanks, together with the M8 SPG and M8
Greyhounds served with the 12th cavalry regiment in Chiapas; some of
these vehicles bore the brunt of the Zapatist-attack in 1994 until
reinforcements arrived. In the begining or middle of the nineties
there were 40 greyhounds in inventory. These vehicles had new engines
installed and the 37mm guns where repleaced with 7.62mm guns, a 20mm
gun or a 60mm mortar."
>I saw the movie yesterday. The massive storm in the movie (similiar
>to a hurricane, but larger) had strong downdrafts in the eye,
>bringing down air from the troposphere cold enough to cause
>flash-freezing at ground level, rather than the strong updrafts in
>the eye of a real hurricane. This should have resulted in the
>opposite of a storm surge, lowering local sea level rather than
>raising it.
I thought "storm surge" was wind-driven, not pressure-driven.
(But I admit my meteorology-fu is weak.)
Lee
>I saw the movie yesterday. The massive storm in the movie (similiar
>to a hurricane, but larger) had strong downdrafts in the eye,
>bringing down air from the troposphere cold enough to cause
>flash-freezing at ground level, rather than the strong updrafts in
>the eye of a real hurricane. This should have resulted in the
>opposite of a storm surge, lowering local sea level rather than
>raising it.
And, of course, robbing the hurricane of energy.
--
pgf
>> "Tremors" and "Klowns" both had a better grounding in science, so be
>> ready.
>
>"Tremors" is particularly superior in that the geologist never
>pretends to be anything but a geologist. She can make intelligent
>guesses outside her field, but it is plain they are only guesses. I
>think the actress did a wonderful job as well as being cute.<g>
Not to mention that when a question comes up regarding the biology of
the creatures she gets annoyed when everyone turns to *her* expecting
an answer.
A great rip at the "scientist who is an expert in anything" that is
typical of SF movies.
--
Keith
> It occurs to me that the Circumpolar Current is just sitting there,
>waiting to be used to provide power to the growing economies of the South.
>One wonders at what point the power-draw begins to have global implications.
>The CPC cools the entire planet, so from a Terraforming Canada POV, shutting
>off would help. Pity about the Gulf Stream possibly shutting down but you
>can't break eggs without making an omlet.
I'd think about taking down some of the Rockies. That would allow
Pacific moisture and warmer air to penetrate further into the interior
of the continent.
It would ruin that atmospheric function that brings warmer air up into
Europe, but like you said concerning omelets...
--
Keith
Please. Everyone *knows* that human-built skyscrapers (and
for that matter, monuments) can easily withstand MEGATONS
of water slamming into them without even tilting a little,
let alone buckling and crumbling like paper-maché.
There were a few good lines that should be mentioned (note:
Arjay Smith plays Brian Parks, who might be (unfairly)
compared to Urquel because he's black, of slight build,
wears glasses, and is highly intelligent):
So Brian has found a radio, and is fiddling with its innards
in an attempt to get any kind of information from some
frequency. A policeman leans over and says "Maybe you should
get someone to help you with that?" And Brian responds: "I'm
the president of the electronics club, the math club, and the
chess club. If you can find a bigger nerd than me, bring him
on."
In a later scene, where they've decided to start burning books
in the New York Public Library to keep warm, a man and a woman
get into an argument over which books should or should not be
burned.
Man: You can't burn Nietzsche! He's one of western
civilizations great philosophers!
Woman: Oh, come ON. Nietzsche was a racist sociopath who
was in love with his sister!
Man: He was *not* a racist sociopath!
Woman: But he *was* in love with his sister!
Brian, from below: Guys, there's a whole section here on
the tax code that we can burn first...
>Howdy,
>
>I just saw "Day After" and you are correct the science is ridiculous but I
>did think in the grand tradition of sci-fi
>it made it an entertaining roller coaster ride and the special effects I
>thought were great.
>
>Further, beneath the ride I think it said some important things about
>consumption of finite resources, that the US standard
>(and for that matter the whole of the West) is unsustainable, that the
>present administration are not taking their roles as caretakers of the
>environment seriously resulting in a fantastic caricature of Cheney.
>
>I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some of those ideas...
Finite resources aren't. The unsustainable standard of living isn't,
and the present administration has been, despite their well-catalogued
flaws, much better in environmental policy than people think, since
the good things they do are underreported, while the bad are
overreported.
Basically, all the "ideas" are wrong.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.net>)
"when you move into a new energy source you have to assume there's going
to be some environmental impact,"
-- Jeremy Rifkin renounces the Precautionary Principle
As I understand it, the storm surge is driven by both the wind and
the lower air pressure at the eye. I am not a meteorologist either.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQLo/DTMYPge5L34aEQK2eQCgw/3NmMfmuEYIdkKG3+To9yr8pg0AniGh
vCkKD1RgoRyUB8G20EMEskRC
=cEd6
Add horrible "historical" movies 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
: David Silberstein <davids_aat_k...@foilspam.invalid>
: Please. Everyone *knows* that human-built skyscrapers (and for that
: matter, monuments) can easily withstand MEGATONS of water slamming
: into them without even tilting a little, let alone buckling and
: crumbling like paper-mach .
Heh. Well, when I saw the scene, my first thought, instantly, was that
"oh, we're going to see the Statue of Liberty torn into copper shards
and iron pretzels like a wet paper sack fully of bendy straws run over by
a semi". Was surprised when it wasn't. Upon reflection, was surprised
that I was surprised.
: There were a few good lines that should be mentioned
: [.. actual mention omitted ..]
Heh. They almost sound worth it.
As long as one can brace oneself for the surrounding idiocy.
--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
(Ow! Need to remember to not stick my tongue in my cheek so hard.)
-- actually, if a complete relocation was necessary, the migration would
probably start with guys in tanks.
Or that global food supply would be well and truly screwed by the removal of
the most productive mechanized temperate-zone farming regions, even allowing
for a fairly massive die-off reducing demand.
Mexico imports a lot of its basic foodstuffs, for example; and presumably the
climatic effects would be severe outside the area covered with snow and ice.
It couldn't feed its own people, much less them and 150 million Americans too.
I doubt Argentina and Australia would be able to take up the slack.
In which case, we are almost instantly back to the Mexican Army not
having any tanks. ("_That's_ not a knife . . .")
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:59:43 GMT, "James Gassaway"
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
>news:jjfkb0pefo9d1u64c...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 12:05:02 -0700, Lee DeRaud
>> <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:41:29 -0500, John F. Eldredge
>> ><jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I saw the movie yesterday. The massive storm in the movie
>> >>(similiar to a hurricane, but larger) had strong downdrafts in
>> >>the eye,
>> >>bringing down air from the troposphere cold enough to cause
>> >>flash-freezing at ground level, rather than the strong updrafts
>> >>in the eye of a real hurricane. This should have resulted in
>> >>the opposite of a storm surge, lowering local sea level rather
>> >>than raising it.
>> >
>> >I thought "storm surge" was wind-driven, not pressure-driven.
>> >(But I admit my meteorology-fu is weak.)
>>
>> As I understand it, the storm surge is driven by both the wind and
>> the lower air pressure at the eye. I am not a meteorologist
>> either.
>>
>You mean it _wasn't_ caused by the sudden rise in sea level from the
>ice shelves melting?
>
>(Ow! Need to remember to not stick my tongue in my cheek so hard.)
Good point. The science in _The Day after Tomorrow_ was better than
the science in _Waterworld_. Of course, that isn't saying very much.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQLpfiTMYPge5L34aEQLJrgCgjLl595Np3jzYbTbUSgOLVhgOY78AoMdZ
Gf/czoMtJEI0anCWq30C5j67
=ZVdB
I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
what we'd been told about the creatures.
--
Pete McCutchen
>Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>>On 5/30/04 6:44 AM, in article
>>4Ojuc.18193$L.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Eden R" <ed...@zip.com.au>
>>wrote:
>
>>> I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some of those ideas...I
>>> know that the theatre
>>> I just left in Sydney cheered when Americans were stopped at the border and
>>> ILLEGALLY crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico :)
>
>>Mostly we won't.
>
>>I find it very interesting that this little morality play regarding
>>Americans trying to cross into Mexico and being rejected is viewed as so
>>cosmically just by many people.
>
>>I assure you that the Mexican Army would be there with tanks and machine
>>guns and would repel all such attempted border crossers with deadly force.
>
>
>Except for the slight detail that the Mexican Army doesn't actually *have*
>any tanks...
Right. I don't know what shape the National Guard is in in this film,
but I'm quite certain that the military forces now in Texas would
suffice to conquer Mexico, if necessary.
--
Pete McCutchen
Argentina and Australia would probably be covered in snow as well.
The screen-writers seemed to think that it was possible to have a
single-hemisphere ice age, rather than the entire planet getting
colder. I would expect severe storms on a world-wide basis until the
new climate stabilized.
I have heard mention before of the mammoths found frozen with summer
vegetation in their stomachs, but the accounts I read didn't make it
clear whether temperate-zone vegetation was meant, or the sort of
tundra vegetation that you might expect if the animals were in an
area close to the glaciated zones. If the latter were true, then the
idea of their having been trapped by a summer snowstorm would be more
plausible.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQLphdzMYPge5L34aEQIifQCg7Zi+3olPXlTTYFOl9uHAZ44p0+wAnRiz
/BlNrl2vGlE5u3w+kwwziU9n
=tB3C
: Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net>
: I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
: intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
: actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
: what we'd been told about the creatures.
the fact that the characters tackle the problem very practically,
with relatively little wailing and cowering, and then only when
wailing and cowering are understandable. And no backing into
darkened rooms or going down into the basement cliches.
IMO anyways.
And... just what was wrong with the science in that film?
If we neglect the speed of movement underground, I saw relatively
little else to object to. And that's rare. This was largely
accomplished by the characters simply admitting they didn't know
things they didn't know, instead of having a Wise Old Scientist
character spout technobabble.
Of course, these virtues were mostly ruined in the sequels.
And especially in the TV series. Plus no Reba McEntire, alas.
"Can you fly?"
>In which case, we are almost instantly back to the Mexican Army not
>having any tanks. ("_That's_ not a knife . . .")
Except that they do. An air force as well. Mexico spends $4 billion on the
military. (1% GDP)
Possibly the Texas National Guard could win, but there'd have to be at least
some effort.
-xx- Damien X-)
Yeah, but number 2 did have some really good lines for Bert.
"I FEEL... I have been DENIED.... CRITICAL... NEED-TO-KNOW...
INFORMATION!"
-David
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>In which case, we are almost instantly back to the Mexican Army not
>>having any tanks. ("_That's_ not a knife . . .")
>
>Except that they do. An air force as well. Mexico spends $4 billion on the
>military. (1% GDP)
>
Um, no. It's true that Mexico spends $4 billion on their armed
forces, but it doesn't follow that they therefore must have tanks.
The Mexican Army has no Main Battle Tanks. None. The closest thing
they have are a few dozen M-8s which are AFAIK really just armored
cars.
-David
There are posters here in Sydney advertising the film with a picture of the
Opera House covered in snow and ice.
This is probably more scary than the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in snow and
ice; at least it snows in New York City. We barely get hailstorms here.
--
Christopher Adams
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
- Bill
>The Mexican Army has no Main Battle Tanks. None. The closest thing
>they have are a few dozen M-8s which are AFAIK really just armored
>cars.
They're officially light tanks.
You know, no one here said "main battle tanks." Just "tanks."
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:10:48 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>John F. Eldredge wrote:
>>
>> Argentina and Australia would probably be covered in snow as well.
>
>There are posters here in Sydney advertising the film with a picture
>of the Opera House covered in snow and ice.
>
>This is probably more scary than the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in
>snow and ice; at least it snows in New York City. We barely get
>hailstorms here.
The movie has a number of scenes looking down from the Space Station.
The visible glaciation is Northern Hemisphere only, and the only
scenes set outside North America are in Europe and (briefly) in Japan
and New Delhi. I wonder if they are going to release an alternate
version for Australia, or if there are only localized posters?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQLp/3TMYPge5L34aEQIIxwCggzNKss5hX3PGXG2Ppf2+5i799aEAoOcu
KmQif4FJY11pv49JuAZ9v3E1
=JEMo
The Mexican Army officially *calls* them light tanks, but that doesn't
mean anything.. Everything I've ever read calls the M-8 Greyhound an
"armored car".
e.g. http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m8.php3
>You know, no one here said "main battle tanks." Just "tanks."
Yes, true. But I am rejecting the notion that an m-8 qualifies as a
"tank".
-David
Oh, it was a popular scene with the group I saw the movie with. But my
favorite line was:
"I am the president of the electronics club AND the mathematics club,
as well as the chess club. If you think there's a bigger nerd here,
just point him out to me."
--
Please reply to: |"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea
pciszek at panix dot com | and really don't care. It's not that important.
Autoreply is disabled | It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
> >The Mexican Army has no Main Battle Tanks. None. The closest thing
> >they have are a few dozen M-8s which are AFAIK really just armored
> >cars.
>
> They're officially light tanks.
>
> You know, no one here said "main battle tanks." Just "tanks."
I bet they also have water tanks.
I immediately thought of that too. There would be cannibalism within
a week. Even if the shift caused some deserts to become farmable,
it would take much too long.
>Argentina and Australia would probably be covered in snow as well.
>The screen-writers seemed to think that it was possible to have a
>single-hemisphere ice age, rather than the entire planet getting
>colder. I would expect severe storms on a world-wide basis until the
>new climate stabilized.
Were Argentina and Australia icebound during the last glaciation?
The southern hemisphere is laid out very differently from the north.
One of my texts on Neandertals has a map of Europe and it's
pretty much all glaciers anyway.
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Well, that's a judgement call I can't make for you. Although
I will note that the less you pay to see it, the less you will
feel like you have wasted your money. And if you see it with a
group of friends (and make sure they all know what to expect),
everyone will have a chance to find creative ways of expressing
mockery of said idiocy.
As instigator of the ruckus I officially plead ignorance and am willing, as
a peace gesture, to restate my hypothesis as "The Mexican Army would be at
the border to meet them with armored cars and machine guns."
D
Or hey, even just WWII "rat patrol" jeeps. Or humvees. Or whatnot.
That's the traditional way to discourage hordes of fleeing refugees
these days, innit?
On the other hand... that may not give much of a firepower advantage
over a group of Texans in pickups, so maybe the armored cars would
be a good idea... a lot of them.
It's also the *only* movie I've seen that comes to immediate memory
that has *correct* gun usage, both how they are kept, the kinds of
people who actually would have a weapons cache, how they are used, how
they are safely handled, and the firepower they have.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Re: Tremors
>I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
>intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
>actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
>what we'd been told about the creatures.
>--
If you think about it, Tremors comes close to being the ideal
anti-monster/horror movie.
--
pgf
Oh, I thought of that while watching. But this is the crowd that thinks the
Kyoto Treaty is a good thing for the US making the movie. Do you really
think they are going to approve of an all-out invasion just to save much of
the US population?
--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
>>>> "Tremors" and "Klowns" both had a better grounding in science, so be
>>>> ready.
>>>
>>>"Tremors" is particularly superior in that the geologist never
>>>pretends to be anything but a geologist. She can make intelligent
>>>guesses outside her field, but it is plain they are only guesses. I
>>>think the actress did a wonderful job as well as being cute.<g>
>>
>>Not to mention that when a question comes up regarding the biology of
>>the creatures she gets annoyed when everyone turns to *her* expecting
>>an answer.
>>
>>A great rip at the "scientist who is an expert in anything" that is
>>typical of SF movies.
>
>I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
>intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
>actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
>what we'd been told about the creatures.
No argument. The writers did a fine job in coming up with creatures
that were a real threat to ordinary people but could be overcome by
said ordinary people using tools at their disposal.
--
Keith
Well, they have about 40 to cover a few thousand miles of border! And
I would guess a 50 caliber round will probably penetrate them.
-David
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>> ... "Tremors" is particularly superior ...
> >
> > I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
> > intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
> > actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
> > what we'd been told about the creatures.
>
> It's also the *only* movie I've seen that comes to immediate memory
> that has *correct* gun usage, both how they are kept, the kinds of
> people who actually would have a weapons cache,
"Rumpus room." <snort>
The pan over from what looks to be a simple basement to the weapons wall
is one of the best bits in the flick.
> how they are used, how
> they are safely handled, and the firepower they have.
The second movie (set in Mexico with the "shriekers") has some funny
bits, too. Like when to make Really Sure that whatever you're shooting
at doesn't have something behind it you don't want punctured (especially
with a .50 rifle).
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
[Tremors]
>Yeah, but number 2 did have some really good lines for Bert.
>
>"I FEEL... I have been DENIED.... CRITICAL... NEED-TO-KNOW...
>INFORMATION!"
"I am COMPLETELY out of ammunition! <very quietly> That's never
happened before."
Lee
It's a big border, you know. How many armored vehicles do they have?
In any case, the Texas National Guard, together with regular Army
units now in Texas, would find it relatively easy to conquer Mexico.
--
Pete McCutchen
You snipped:
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>In which case, we are almost instantly back to the Mexican Army not
>>having any tanks. ("_That's_ not a knife . . .")
That was in response to the idea that the first Americans crossing the
border would be the Texas NG...in tanks. *Real* tanks. So for the
purpose of engaging US tank forces in battle, no, the Mexican Army
*doesn't* have any tanks. Parades? Sure, no problem. Combat? Uh uh.
Lee
"I guess this means we can't make fun of Burt's lifestyle anymore."
"Broke into the wrong goddamn rec room, didn't you, you SOB!"
"What's this?"
"Cannon fuse."
"What the hell do you use it for?"
"My cannon."
These are _Stuart_ tanks, obsolete in WWII. It's a toss-up on who's right.
Glenn D.
Glenn D.
TXNG has the 49th Armored with 2 armored and 1 mech inf brigades, plus
associated divisional support like an engineer brigade and DIVARTY. While
they might defeat the Mexican army in the field, conquering Mexico is an
entirely different task.
Glenn D.
>> I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
>> intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
>> actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
>> what we'd been told about the creatures.
>
>It's also the *only* movie I've seen that comes to immediate memory
>that has *correct* gun usage, both how they are kept, the kinds of
>people who actually would have a weapons cache, how they are used, how
>they are safely handled, and the firepower they have.
Including the bit about *not* giving a testosterone-sodden teenager
who wants a gun and obviously has never been taught how to use one
properly a weapon that works in a high-stress situation.
I've seen too many times in film where the untrained person is handed
a weapon and either becomes Annie Oakley or immediately proceeds to
shoot something that should not be shot.
Although the bit in "True Lies" was funny.
--
Keith
The great thing about Tremors is that most horror movies exist to punish
any deviation from the norm. Usually the eccentrics are killed off while
bland normalcy is rewarded. In Tremors not only does the gun nut survive
it's his very obsession that saves him, and a bunch of other people to
boot.
What did you expect from the guy behind "Independance Day"?
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>> ... "Tremors" is particularly superior ...
>>
>> I also enjoyed the fact that the people responded in a reasonably
>> intelligent fashion once the danger became apparent, and that they
>> actually managed to solve their problem in a manner consistent with
>> what we'd been told about the creatures.
>
>It's also the *only* movie I've seen that comes to immediate memory
>that has *correct* gun usage, both how they are kept, the kinds of
>people who actually would have a weapons cache, how they are used, how
>they are safely handled, and the firepower they have.
e.g., "I wouldn't give _you_ a gun if it was World War 3!"
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Really? I would have thought Icelandic (if that's the word) would still
be intelligible to Scandinavians. That's based on my (faulty?)
understanding that Danish, Norwegian and Swedish speakers are able to
communicate with each other, sort of.
>
> (yeah, yeah, off-topic for rasf.written, but
> nevertheless...)
>
> WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that this film
> is enormously likely to cause severely strained suspension
> of disbelief in anyone who has a
> greater-than-room-temperature intelligence or a nonzero
> amount of general knowledge of reality. For those who are
> actually educated in the laws of physics, and more
> specifically, geology, meteorology and/or climatology, said
> strain may cause headaches, and in the worst case, cranial
> detonations may occur.
>
> In addition, severely partisan liberal environmentalist
> politics may cause laryngitis due to howls of outrage from
> anyone who is not a liberal environmentalist, and itching
> and burning sensations in those who are liberal
> environmentalists with the slightest shred of intelligence
> and integrity as they wish to disassociate themselves from
> anything which espouses the liberal environmentalist
> position with this level of mind-boggling raw seething
> stupidity.
>
> This movie is most likely to be enjoyed by apolitical fans
> of horror and disaster, who might possibly take pleasure in
> seeing "severe weather as movie monster", as CGI tornados
> take apart downtown Los Angeles, and CGI water and cold
> destroy Manhattan, and indeed, most of the planet.
>
I love how a movie that, however dramatic, tries to make a
point actually upsets you enough that you'd write all that.
--
Ilya the Recusant
---
And just to annoy the Feds: plutonium, encryption, anthrax,
Sarin, ammonium nitrate, bomb, guns, firearms, munitions,
encryption, NSA, FDA, CIA, Blow Up America, BATF, prevents
cancer, prescription drug, Delta Force, militia. President,
Prime Minister, cobalt, Allah, jihad, Cuba, oil, biowarfare,
terrorist, black box, black ice, black op, Q clearance,
napalm, MI-6, MI-8, C and D, FBI, field area agent, Aaron
Sanders, pinko, tree, Communism, Anti-Globalist, Khmer Rouge,
aluminium, rec.arse, Milosevic, thing
> On 5/30/04 6:44 AM, in article
> 4Ojuc.18193$L.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Eden R"
> <ed...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I will be interested to see how Americans resond to some
>> of those ideas...I know that the theatre
>> I just left in Sydney cheered when Americans were stopped
>> at the border and ILLEGALLY crossed the Rio Grande into
>> Mexico :)
>
> Mostly we won't.
>
> I find it very interesting that this little morality play
> regarding Americans trying to cross into Mexico and being
> rejected is viewed as so cosmically just by many people.
>
> I assure you that the Mexican Army would be there with
> tanks and machine guns and would repel all such attempted
> border crossers with deadly force. They would not be
> anything like as civilized as we currently are about the
> thing. The only reason they don't do it now is that nobody
> *wants* to cross into their country illegally, except drug
> smugglers who often do it under their aegis anyway.
>
> Funny how you hear so much about those immigrants who die
> crossing a freaking *desert,* that they know is there,
> without adequate supplies or preparation, but you never
> hear about the Mexican Army crossing into US territory and
> harassing and occasionally *killing* US citizens.
>
> D
*thinks*
No, I think it's just the funninity of Americans getting
screwed on both ends of the American border that's so
amusing.
> David Silberstein
> <davids_aat_k...@foilspam.invalid> wrote in
> So you're saying it was really cool?
>
Bright Shiny Things! Yay!
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote:
>
> >> "Tremors" and "Klowns" both had a better grounding in science, so be
> >> ready.
> >
> >"Tremors" is particularly superior in that the geologist never
> >pretends to be anything but a geologist. She can make intelligent
> >guesses outside her field, but it is plain they are only guesses. I
> >think the actress did a wonderful job as well as being cute.<g>
>
> Not to mention that when a question comes up regarding the biology of
> the creatures she gets annoyed when everyone turns to *her* expecting
> an answer.
>
> A great rip at the "scientist who is an expert in anything" that is
> typical of SF movies.
Yep. Though it wasn't *that* strange to look at her. Quite a few of
the perfectians (or was that pervert) were quite intelligent - but
they lacked in education beyond what was needed for their lifestyle.
I saw it in Sydney on Saturday, and I didn't see any localisations on
screen.
The film I saw seems to be the exact copy that everyone from Nth. America
also watched.
Maybe DvD?
Cheers
Eden
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
news:4ivkb0dt0noj5bisp...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:10:48 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >John F. Eldredge wrote:
> >>
> >> Argentina and Australia would probably be covered in snow as well.
> >
> >There are posters here in Sydney advertising the film with a picture
> >of the Opera House covered in snow and ice.
> >
> >This is probably more scary than the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in
> >snow and ice; at least it snows in New York City. We barely get
> >hailstorms here.
>
> The movie has a number of scenes looking down from the Space Station.
> The visible glaciation is Northern Hemisphere only, and the only
> scenes set outside North America are in Europe and (briefly) in Japan
> and New Delhi. I wonder if they are going to release an alternate
> version for Australia, or if there are only localized posters?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBQLp/3TMYPge5L34aEQIIxwCggzNKss5hX3PGXG2Ppf2+5i799aEAoOcu
> KmQif4FJY11pv49JuAZ9v3E1
> =JEMo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
> PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
> than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>
The reason for laughter was the IDEA that Americans (the richests and most
powerful people on Earth)
be made refugees and therefore experience a loss of arrogance about the
third world
In reality, yep, I think the US would do whatever it would take to grab any
livable land in Mexico or further south
Holding it might be a differnt problem as Iraq is showing....
Cheers
Eden
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mvpkb09jm7i61q1k0...@4ax.com...
> Hmmm...this might be my point about a different response
> depending on country...
>
> The reason for laughter was the IDEA that Americans (the
> richests and most powerful people on Earth)
> be made refugees and therefore experience a loss of
> arrogance about the third world
>
> In reality, yep, I think the US would do whatever it would
> take to grab any livable land in Mexico or further south
>
> Holding it might be a differnt problem as Iraq is
> showing....
>
> Cheers
> Eden
"Dad, why can't we go sledding?"
"Because a Russian oil-tanker sat on it, pumpkin."
"How did a Russian oil-tanker get into Iowa?"
"I don't know, but I think Manitoba was responsible."
--
>> >As instigator of the ruckus I officially plead ignorance and am willing,
>as
>> >a peace gesture, to restate my hypothesis as "The Mexican Army would be
>at
>> >the border to meet them with armored cars and machine guns."
>>
>> It's a big border, you know. How many armored vehicles do they have?
>>
>> In any case, the Texas National Guard, together with regular Army
>> units now in Texas, would find it relatively easy to conquer Mexico.
>
>TXNG has the 49th Armored with 2 armored and 1 mech inf brigades, plus
>associated divisional support like an engineer brigade and DIVARTY. While
>they might defeat the Mexican army in the field, conquering Mexico is an
>entirely different task.
Guerilla suppression would be much easier under these circumstances,
since they could use tactics which are now off-limits in, say, Iraq.
Plus, they can use American refugee draftees as auxiliaries.
--
Pete McCutchen
> Hmmm...this might be my point about a different response depending on
> country...
>
> The reason for laughter was the IDEA that Americans (the richests and most
> powerful people on Earth)
> be made refugees and therefore experience a loss of arrogance about the
> third world
Nothing the proles like better than to see the mighty fall, it's true.
> In reality, yep, I think the US would do whatever it would take to grab any
> livable land in Mexico or further south
>
> Holding it might be a differnt problem as Iraq is showing....
If we've got to the point where we need to conquer an erstwhile ally, I
don't think we'll play *nearly* so nice as we have been in Iraq. I think
it'll be along the lines of "Resist and we will kill you and the man on
either side of you on general principles."
D
"Why do you have cannon fuse?"
"For my cannon."
And a good thing too.
D
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:29:29 -0500, Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/04 7:58 PM, in article si0lb0hbcsjjf47an...@4ax.com,
>> "David Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:07:53 GMT, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Mexican Army has no Main Battle Tanks. None. The closest thing
>>>>> they have are a few dozen M-8s which are AFAIK really just armored
>>>>> cars.
>>>>
>>>> They're officially light tanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Mexican Army officially *calls* them light tanks, but that doesn't
>>> mean anything.. Everything I've ever read calls the M-8 Greyhound an
>>> "armored car".
>>>
>>> e.g. http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m8.php3
>>>
>>>> You know, no one here said "main battle tanks." Just "tanks."
>>>
>>> Yes, true. But I am rejecting the notion that an m-8 qualifies as a
>>> "tank".
>>
>> As instigator of the ruckus I officially plead ignorance and am willing, as
>> a peace gesture, to restate my hypothesis as "The Mexican Army would be at
>> the border to meet them with armored cars and machine guns."
>
> It's a big border, you know. How many armored vehicles do they have?
I just meant at the chokepoints. Obviously if *we,* with nigh-infinitely
greater resource, can't control the whole border, neither can they.
> In any case, the Texas National Guard, together with regular Army
> units now in Texas, would find it relatively easy to conquer Mexico.
Mmmm, don't know about that. Numbers can make a big difference. There'd be
no time for strategic planning to capitalize on our advantages - we'd have
to swarm the border and try to break through with what we had on hand. In
swarm vs. swarm they'd have a much better chance.
Plus, how much of the TNG's good stuff is in Iraq and/or Afghanistan right
now?
D
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
>> : As instigator of the ruckus I officially plead ignorance and am
>> : willing, as a peace gesture, to restate my hypothesis as "The Mexican
>> : Army would be at the border to meet them with armored cars and machine
>> : guns."
>>
>> Or hey, even just WWII "rat patrol" jeeps. Or humvees. Or whatnot.
>> That's the traditional way to discourage hordes of fleeing refugees
>> these days, innit?
>>
>> On the other hand... that may not give much of a firepower advantage
>> over a group of Texans in pickups, so maybe the armored cars would
>> be a good idea... a lot of them.
>>
>
> Well, they have about 40 to cover a few thousand miles of border! And
> I would guess a 50 caliber round will probably penetrate them.
Good point. There are probably a large number of people in Texas with .50
caliber weapons, including Barrett sniper rifles. Armor-piercing ammunition
for these weapons is widely available. And you could probably improvise some
sort of anti-tank munition with dynamite or other readily available blasting
compounds. Dicey to deliver, but against a thin-walled armored
car/tank-by-courtesy, it'd probably work.
Heck, I know somebody with a cache of AP .30-06 rounds which would probably
make life very uncomfortable for the driver of most sub-tank armored
vehicles, and I donšt know that many people. (They're perfectly legal, you
just can't reload them.)
D
Somebody else already posted my favorite line from the movie: "You picked
the wrong rec room to break into, you son of a bitch!"
"Independence Day" actually upset me that much. I was filled with rage
that I'd actually bought a theater ticket.
I think the reality would be more like we apply for 250 million VISA's
and they'd be grudgingly granted. ("We're just taking our M1 Abrams
out for a spin on your side of the river. All of them, yes. Don't
worry about us, just pretend we're not here.")
On a side note, wouldn't the more arid and less populated regions of
New Mexico and Arizona be able to sustain a higher population? I
don't know that we'd really need to have to have a war with Mexico all
that fast. The Gulf states aren't that crowded either.
Swyck
>
>There were a few good lines that should be mentioned
(details)
I have a generally reliable source who nonetheless was prepared to
take Whitley Streiber's 'science' seriously at least for the length of
the movie. He said that the characters described as smart (the
academic contest kids) then went on to actually _act_ smart in the
course of the movie, which he really appreciated.
> In any case, the Texas National Guard, together with regular Army
> units now in Texas, would find it relatively easy to conquer Mexico.
You should know by now that defeating the enemy's armed forces is not the
same as conquering it.
To conquer an enemy you need the ability to achieve your objectives after
defeating its armed forces.
And you think that being more brutal == being more effective?
Just to be somewhat on-topic: Princess Leia's comment to Tarkin comes to
mind:
'The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems
will slip through your fingers.'
>I think
> it'll be along the lines of "Resist and we will kill you and the man on
> either side of you on general principles."
Yes , insurgent/guerrilla fighters are known for coming out in the open to
allow occupiers to slaughter them.
--
'I can't lead and I wont follow'
>> > That's Icelandic.
>> >
>> I almost kinda understand that.
>
>Really? I would have thought Icelandic (if that's the word) would still
>be intelligible to Scandinavians. That's based on my (faulty?)
>understanding that Danish, Norwegian and Swedish speakers are able to
>communicate with each other, sort of.
That's because those 3 live near each other. As I understand it, Icelandic is
essentially Old Norse. 1000 year old Norse.
-xx- Damien X-)
>On a side note, wouldn't the more arid and less populated regions of
>New Mexico and Arizona be able to sustain a higher population? I
There's more *room*, but "more arid" and "sustain a higher population" don't
go together in my mind. Arid is why they're less populated now. Of course,
they'd be better off since the American's wouldn't be stealing the entire
Colorado river, but OTOH I don't know if the Colorado would still be running
in this scenario.
-xx- Damien X-)
While encouraging, it isn't as encouraging as it might be,
given that most people think Spock "acts smart" and "is logical".
Though "generally reliable" argues the other way, so maybe not so gloomy.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> If we've got to the point where we need to conquer an erstwhile ally, I
>> don't think we'll play *nearly* so nice as we have been in Iraq.
>
> And you think that being more brutal == being more effective?
It's like an inverse Laffer curve. Treat people nicely, and you don't piss
them off. Kill them all, and they're not a problem. It's places in the
middle that give problems.
>'The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems
>will slip through your fingers.'
Yet totalitarian states in the 20th century have been relatively stable, even
with insane economic policies. Sufficient terror and slaughter does work.
And the Romans had Lex Talonis.
> Yes , insurgent/guerrilla fighters are known for coming out in the open to
>allow occupiers to slaughter them.
Thus Lex Talonis. "If one of us dies here, so does the village." Of course,
that doesn't work if the guerrillas are coming from an HQ further on which
doesn't care about the lives of the villagers.
I don't know if civilian Americans in large numbers would be this ruthless so
quickly, even in a survival situation against Mexicans.
-xx- Damien X-)
> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
> news:BCE08DDB.33553%dre...@dreamstrike.com...
> > On 5/31/04 3:50 AM, in article
> > qlCuc.19507$L.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Eden R" <ed...@zip.com.au>
> > wrote:
> [...]
> > > Holding it might be a differnt problem as Iraq is showing....
> >
> > If we've got to the point where we need to conquer an erstwhile ally, I
> > don't think we'll play *nearly* so nice as we have been in Iraq.
>
> And you think that being more brutal == being more effective?
>
> Just to be somewhat on-topic: Princess Leia's comment to Tarkin comes to
> mind:
>
> 'The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems
> will slip through your fingers.'
"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation."
--Tarkin
> >I think
> > it'll be along the lines of "Resist and we will kill you and the man on
> > either side of you on general principles."
>
> Yes , insurgent/guerrilla fighters are known for coming out in the open to
> allow occupiers to slaughter them.
I think that he meant more on old WW2-style German policy on resistance,
including things like killing 10 hostages for every american killed,
destroying entire villages along inhabitants a la Lidice, etc.
ObComment: Such policy has disadvantages that I'm not going into here.
--
Tapio Erola (No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!)
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
--Voltaire
In the scenario under consideration, the US would be evacuating its
population South. And we outnumber the Mexicans considerably.
-David
ID4 was so good, I went to see it twice.
There's something about watching people blow up in a
spectacular and bright shiny way that makes me want to pay
money for it.
>Thus Lex Talonis. "If one of us dies here, so does the village." Of course,
Ex post facto googling tells me (1) it's spelled Lex Talionis and (2) isn't
that I thought it was; web pages seem to map it to "eye for an eye, tooth for
a tooth", restrained retaliation, not the wide slaughter I was thinking of.
So, forget the name.
But the idea is still there; consider how the US itself was pacified.
Inadvertent mass slaughter through disease, followed war and forced
relocation, with more slaughter. It worked.
I would avoid the notion that all the migrating Americans would behave the
same way. Many would probably try to immigrate legally or acceptably into
Mexico, getting violent only if their lives were on the line, and many not
even then. But the violent ones would be easy to notice.
-xx- Damien X-)