![]() |
What follows is an archival copy of public information. Content herein is believed to be of historical interest to Delta Green fandom and should remain untouched, as a sign of respect for the original author(s). The article must be removed on request by copyright holders, if any. Please improve the wiki with living documents inspired by the ideas here. |
![]() |
The following material was imported from the Ice Cave. |
[Originally titled 'A Forgotten Horror: Being a collection of Thoughts and Reflections on Global War in the Last Two Decades']
[Ice Cave editor's note: 'the following discussion spawned three related threads, that are currently available in the Ice Cave and can be accessed from here, the subjects of said threads being:
International War Crimes Tribunal - Nukes & Lasers - Radioactive Deep One Hybrids']
[Begin Ice Cave table of contents]
The Cold War Athmosphere of the '80s
Missing Warheads
BBC "Threads" Docudrama & Other Sources of Inspiration
Indian Theatre Nuclear Exchange
Growing Up in the '80s
Russian Backpack Nukes
Growing Up in the '80s II
Nuclear War Memories
Nuclear Threat Increase in the '90s
The Angel Craze of the '90s
Small Bombs Missing and Biowarfare
USSR Collapse as Non-Perceived Danger Increase Factor
Pacemaker Movie Reference
More About Angel Sightings
More Bioweapons
Eisenhower did not know how to pronunce "Nuclear"
Millenial Cults, Angels and Nukes
Positive Pacemaker Review
Data on Arsenals and Scenario Ideas - The Cold War Goes On
More on New Age Cults and Angels
Nyarlathotep-Worshipping, Middle-Eastern, Nuclear Terrorists
Actual Nuclear Threats
Language Evolution Rant (Permission for Hand-Out Use Granted)
Nuclear/Radioactive Electric Energy
Negative Pacemaker Review and Some Sample Sillyness from the Movie
Everyday Radiations
Radioactive Electricity and More Everyday Radiations
Everyday Radiations, Other dangers and Evil Radiation Instructors
Biblical Angels
On Air Pollutants being More Dangerous than Nukes
Human Errors as Real Danger
Nuclear Wastes
Radioactivity Made Easy
Nyarlathotep Cultist and Real Life Cults
Angels in Games and Millenial Threats
Nuclear Plants Straddling the San Andreas Fault Zone
Indian Point Reactor Over San Andreas
San Andreas Questions
… and Answers
[End Ice Cave table of contents]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:41:48 -0700
From: Joseph Camp
One and all:
This evening, I was casting my rather brittle mind back upon the events of recent years and it occurred to me just what was the biggest change in our world in the last decade: the near-evaporation of the threat of nuclear war.
I wonder to what extent that very palpable threat existed within the minds of the younger members of this list. For the better part of forty years, most everyone on the planet went to bed each night and arose each morning with the question, "Is this the day when it will all end?"
This came to mind because I've been re-watching a 1985 film, WHEN THE WIND BLOWS. The film presents a retired, somewhat naive couple in rural Britain at the onset of a nuclear war. Despite helpful pamphlets from the local council and the national government, they find themselves ill-prepared to deal with the realities of nuclear conflict's terrible aftermath.
The awful dichotomy between the way things are supposed to be ("Paint your windows white to ward off the effects of the blast.") and the way things are ("Surely something that you can't see and can't smell and can't feel can't really hurt you?") is horrific. It calls to mind a short story by Ann Beattie, "When it Comes," in which a housewife in a small town daydreams of the war to come as she does her dishes—thoughts of her husband climbing into a panel truck with the other men of the town to go man the stockades, and not returning; the wearying inevitability of strangers with dogs occupying the farm and eyeing the straps of her dress.
It's curious, really, that the likes of the present angel craze and the epidemic of cults and militias is credited to "pre-millennial tension," and not to the thick sedimentary layers of nuclear fear that came to settle in the collective unconscious in the last several decades.
Case Officers seeking ways to properly inculcate a proper atmosphere of fear and loathing in the minds of their subjects would do well to look back at our swiftly forgotten apocalyptic dread for inspiration.
"Oh, look, dearie—funny spots on my legs. Is it because of the bomb?"
"Why I'm sure that's just varicose veins, my dear."
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:39:02 -0500
From: "Matt C"
This evening, I was casting my rather brittle mind back upon the events of recent years and it occurred to me just what was the biggest change in our world in the last decade: the near-evaporation of the threat of nuclear war.
While the possibility of full scale nuclear war like the kind that would have been seen in the 50s-80s has dried up, it is still interesting to note that both the United States and the Soviet Republics have warheads missing.And that the Chinese have conducted nuclear testing as recently as a few years ago. Not to mention the recent Pakistani/India events. The world is in no way safe from nuclear weaponry, just the scale of the potential destruction has changed. An intersting DG track could be terrorists or cultists with a nuclear weapon for purposes of extorition or some other occult use.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:44:55 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Uncle Joe wrote:
Despite helpful pamphlets from the local council and the national government, they find themselves ill-prepared to deal with the realities of nuclear conflict's terrible aftermath.
Another (arguably more powerful) treatment of the same situation was presented in a BBC drama (from 1982 IIRC) called "Threads" which as I recall concentrated on the breakdown of society following a nuclear exchange. The one abiding memory I had of that was the vision of a Traffic
Warden carrying a machine gun (disturbing enough) with huge blisters on his face (radiation sickness) standing guard over a supermarket to prevent looting. I never felt the same about playing Twilight 2000 after that.
Case Officers seeking ways to properly inculcate a proper atmosphere of fear and loathing in the minds of their subjects would do well to look back at our swiftly forgotten apocalyptic dread for inspiration.
Along a slightly different vein (no pun intended), the movie "And the band played on" about the early years of the AIDS epidemic, and the beaurocratic and institutional inertia that undoubtedly cost lives, coupled with the scientific infighting about what the cause was, is another one which shows just how inadequate modern society is at dealing with subtle (or not so subtle) threats to the population.
Could it be that, at times, the system just isn't worth saving?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:42:31 -0700
From: "Gerry Mckelvey"
This evening, I was casting my rather brittle mind back upon the events of recent years and it occurred to me just what was the biggest change in our world in the last decade: the near-evaporation of the threat of nuclear war.
Well, the U.S. is out of immediate danger from a direct nuclear exchange at least for the forseeable future. However, the implications of a nuke exchange in the indian theater of operations would have a significant impact on our economy, as well as the Far East's…it would cause economic chaos for everyone…hmmm……lost jobs, uncertain futures, economy already shaky sufferes total collapse…even the communists are having severe troubles….perfect setting for a DG op….
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:45:32 +0000
From: "John P. Yuda"
I wonder to what extent that very palpable threat existed within the minds of the younger members of this list. For the better part of forty years, most everyone on the planet went to bed each night and arose each morning with the question, "Is this the day when it will all end?"
To be honest, at age 20 here, I never really had any such fears until the recent India-Pakistan situation. Granted, I grew up being taught that the soviets were the root of all evil and such, but I guess I was still too young to realize the potentially dire end of the cold war when it was still a threat back in the 80s.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:07:49 +0100 (BST)
From: Stephen Joseph Ellis
Lo,
Funny, this should come up, I was just having a drink the other night with a friend who was telling me about a recent series on television discussing nuclear, chemical and germ warfare. Anyway he told me that the Russians had developed a back pack nuke, that is an nuclear bomb small enough to fit inside a briefcase or rucksack. More than this, they had built 80 of them prior to the fall of the USSR. However, a recent investigation by General Lebed, while he was still security minister revealed that the Red Army could only find 47 of them. Shortly therafter he was fired from his job.
As I say, I didnt see the programme so I cant vouch for its accuracy, but even the possibility that terrorists or fanatics have a small, and undetectable nuke worries me. Especially with the IRA feeling desperate and marginalised in N.Ireland. And anything that makes me shudder in real life is perfect to put into DG.
- Editor's Note : the above spawned the related thread of portable nuclear devices.
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:20:08 -0400
From: "R. Menzi"
Another 20 YOA one here, and growing up in the 80's and in NYC no less, nuclear war seemed a very distant and unlikely possbility. The first time I remember seeing the nuclear threat delt with was in Wargames, with Mathew Broderick.
(As a minor side note, I now live in a house on 10th street right next to an NYU dorm, in a house with a gorilla suit in the window. Perhaps some of you locals have seen it. Anyway, I heard many stories from the NYU kids telling me who lives here, the most notable of which was MB. They looked so saddened to find out that it was just my father's girlfriend.)
When I did think about it, I had the impression that no one could win or even survive a nuclear war /and/ that everyone knew it. My mother, OTOH, used to tell me about the ways the nuclear threat was forced into their minds. Every night, when the networks would go off the air, they would run a clip of a mushroom cloud rising. It scared the shit out of her. She remembered the drills, too. "Duck and cover, kids. Duck and cover."
My generation was raised in the full tilt of the coked up hollywood need to amuse and I found the communist threat the source of humorous situations (ala _Spies_Like_Us_) and the rest was seen mainly communication problems, no that the reds were our antithesis. (The may have been "wrong," but it wasn't their fault; their subsequent generations only inheirited the situation, just like I did.)
Of course, that is a mass expression of psychological tendancies, namely to deal with a problem by turning into a joke and/or treating it as if it were smaller then it is. That may have been what my parents generation was doing, but I was raised to see it that way. To us, the nuclear threat was old news and didn't have the impact of novelty that it had the generation before mine.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:04:42 -0400
From: Tal Meta
Just to chime in for the early 30-somethings…
When I was in the military, my "job" was nuclear war; at least, nuclear war support (I was a KC-135A Inflight Refueler for the B-52 bombers).
At the age of 19, I probably knew more about the logistics and real threat of nuclear conflict than I really cared to, but to be honest, most of the time it was just dreary waiting in the Alert Facility.
Shortly after I got out of the service, the Berlin Wall went down, folowed by most of the Communist Soviet state; THAT I regarded as a freshening of the threat of war, as most of the USSR's arsenal wound up being fractionalized into several smaller state's hands that could well have wound up fighting off the rest of the nation with those same nukes.
It also increased the possibilities of some nutcase stealing a warhead (ala that George Clooney movie whose title escapes me).
Today, I watch the whole India-Pakistan-China triad, and hold my breath.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 01:09:43 +0900
From: Jay and Mikiko Noyes
This evening, I was casting my rather brittle mind back upon the events of recent years and it occurred to me just what was the biggest change in our world in the last decade: the near-evaporation of the threat of nuclear war.
Hmm. I think I need some clarification on this comment. The threat of nuclear war has, if anything, increased. It's just a that the participants will likely be Pakistan and India, or North Korea (eventually) and South. Yes, it's more unlikely that the U.S. will get in a full-scale free-for-all, but the likelihood of a small nuclear exchange (yes, kids, you can have a small nuclear exchange) has increased with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, I can remember the attitude toward nuclear war prevalent when I was a kid. We used to ask each other what we'd do _when_ there was a nuclear war. We never doubted that armeggedon (sp?) was on its way. Therefore, I agree with the following comment:
I wonder to what extent that very palpable threat existed within the minds of the younger members of this list. For the better part of forty years, most everyone on the planet went to bed each night and arose each morning with the question, "Is this the day when it will all end?"
(much snippage)
It's curious, really, that the likes of the present angel craze and the epidemic of cults and militias is credited to "pre-millennial tension," and not to the thick sedimentary layers of nuclear fear that came to settle in the collective unconscious in the last several decades.
I don't even want to get into this. It _is_ very interesting; I just tend to go into a frothing rage whenever I think about the "angel craze." ohshit, here I go again… froth, froth, drool spit howl.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:33:41 -0400
From: "Eric Brennan"
I don't even want to get into this. It _is_ very interesting; I just tend to go into a frothing rage whenever I think about the "angel craze." ohshit, here I go again… froth, froth, drool spit howl.
It's okay…I've got handwipes. Anyway, this brings up the happiest moment of my recent life (well, not really…) I got to interrupt "Touched by an Angel" and force my Mother in Law to watch the excellent "Prophecy", with Christopher Walken. Talk about a difference of opinions… A neat take on the difference between angels in the bible and in entertainment today. It's not for everybody, but I really enjoyed it.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:48:57 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
I saw the same show it was on Channel 4 / S4C and seem fairly genuine, the General from the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces they interview had just escaped assasination and a journalist he was working with was killed in the attempt (bomb in a case just if anyone was wondering). Anyway the figures for the missing briefcase bombs (which could be set for anytime delay from instant to a couple of days) are accurate as far as I can recall I remember 52 being missing out of around 90-100 made in total.
Coincidentally in the same week BBC1 showed 2 documentaries on Bio warfare I've seen the first but have yet to watch the second, if the first was anything to go by missing Nukes are the least of our worries. (Russian scientists increasing the potency of stuff like Ebola one died in the process keeping a scientific journal right up to the end, his colleagues had to cover him from the neck down with a sheet so his wife could visit him) The worst part is they are still not sure that the programme has finished, and if it has as one of the International inspectors said who's going to be employing these scientists with expertise in Bio warfare all you need is a fermening machine and bingo ITEOTWAWKIAIFF. REM song title go on have a guess ;-)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:51:09 -0400
From: Afterburner
I don't even want to get into this. It _is_ very interesting; I just tend to go into a frothing rage whenever I think about the "angel craze." ohshit, here I go again… froth, froth, drool spit howl.
Just curious, but why does it bother you?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:53:01 EDT
From: Dennis Detwiller
Anyway….
I think what disturbs me most about nuclear war is not so much the fact that it has "gone away" but that the general public seems to think this is the case. Somehow, the wall coming down and the Soviet Union disintergrating has convinced everyone that things are just hunky dory again. Personally, the Soviet Union collapsing like a house of cards scared the shit out of me and still does. I saw a special on the Russian military and they were using «wax» seals on door to prevent theft. «WAX SEALS!» Jesus.
In addition, few people had any inkling about the sheer magnitude of overkill which would have been the hallmark of an 80's exchange. All I have read basically said everything we got, we would throw at them and vice versa. New York (my home town) would have been a smouldering crater, no buildings, no survivors, just a big radioactive ditch.
Also…And this is just a pet-peeve. People saying "Nuculer". Gahh! I hate that. I saw a special on the History Channel and the commander at SAC was saying "We have the capability to launch a nuculer attack from here, at the…." The commander at SAC DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR!
Spittle, drool, slobber.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:01:48 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
It also increased the possibilities of some nutcase stealing a warhead (ala that George Clooney movie whose title escapes me).
Today, I watch the whole India-Pakistan-China triad, and hold my breath.
The film is 'The Peacemaker', anyone know if its any good? I haven't seen it.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:07:27 -0700
From: Christian Conkle
Angels are another manifestation of contact with supernatural or super-planetary beings. Throughout history, this contact has always been interpreted through whatever folklore/entertainment medium existed at the time. Whether they were Oni, Faeries, Devils, Angels, Aliens, or whatever. I think it's very funny how the myths change with the times. New standards are set according to the era you live in and what the prevailing "story" is at the time. Representations of these contacts are always told through whatever is popular at the time.
These contacts usually fall under two categories (possibly more): Benign contact with angelic beings/aliens/faeries who bestow knowledge upon the contactee who thereafter associates pseudo-mystical attributes to the encounter (begin cults, prophecy their coming and a new golden age) or Antagonistic contact in which the contactee is abducted by aliens/demons/kobolds and is experimented upon/raped/probed, etc.
I've noticed a lack of the former type of contact case in Delta Green. Benign contacts were most prevalent in the post-psychedelic sixties and seventies. That's when UFO cults like Heaven's Gate began forming. Contactees proclaimed a coming New Age fortold by their "Space Brothers". Things got sour in the Eighties after Communion. Aliens became abductors and experimentors (taking the place of Incubi and Goblins in our collective psyche). Now ANGELS are the benign contactors.
Perhaps the secret masters who are initiating the contacts have a rival, or perhaps they're working on two fronts.
Read "UFO's: Messengers of Deception" by Jaques Valee, a noted French UFOlogist. Though he examines the UFO folklore thoroughly, he always maintains a skeptical but open mind.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:29:33 +0000
From: "John P. Yuda"
machine and bingo ITEOTWAWKIAIFF. REM song title go on have a guess
Do you really feel fine about it, though?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:52:55 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Rob wrote:
Coincidentally in the same week BBC1 showed 2 documentaries on Bio warfare I've seen the first but have yet to watch the second, if the first was anything to go by missing Nukes are the least of our worries.
- snipped by editor -
International inspectors said who's going to be employing these scientists with expertise in Bio warfare all you need is a fermening machine and bingo ITEOTWAWKIAIFF. REM song title go on have a guess
I saw both episodes of the Panorama special on Bioweapons. The first was much scarier - the second basically focussed on South African attempts to build race-specific weapons (thin on details, but melanin [the skin pigment] was involved somehow: possibly by linking melanin promoter structures to virulence genes in a modified virus?? My speculation).
The tales about the soviets combining smallpox and ebola are quite frankly (IMHO) bollox. Smallpox is nasty enough and we don't know that much about the pathogenesis of ebola to start messing with it like that (unless you really want to go out on a limb). The rest of the stuff about the Biopreparat facility seemed pretty genuine though.
As for needing to be a BW expert with a fermenter to produce bioweapons, that's untrue. All you need is the knowledge equivalent to a bachelor's degree in biology (pref. microbiology) and access to a fermenter to build a crude bioweapon. Perhaps not even that much. Not that this will reassure you (incidentally, in the second episode of Panorama, a South African scientist who was working on toxin delivery systems explained how he almost killed himself whilst demonstrating how to use (IIRC) a modified pen delivery system… if these are people who are supposed to know what they are doing, god alone knows what would happen to people who didn't know what they were up to!).
The one saving grace about nukes is that they are tricky to build and deliver, and only go bang once. With bioweapons, once you have released them they can multiply and spread far from the initial delivery site. Sleep well kids.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:48:55 -0400
From: Afterburner
Also…And this is just a pet-peeve. People saying "Nuculer".
You can thank Eisenhower for that one. He may not have been the first user of that pronunciation, but he was certainly the most famous. He uttered it frequently in any official pronouncements regarding nuclear issues.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:00:24 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
machine and bingo ITEOTWAWKIAIFF. REM song title go on have a guess Do you really feel fine about it, though?
Not really but hey if its all going to end ;-)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:23:52 -0400
From: "Randall L. Orndorff"
I don't even want to get into this. It _is_ very interesting; I just tend to go into a frothing rage whenever I think about the "angel craze." ohshit, here I go again… froth, froth, drool spit howl. Sorry if I got any on you.
Easily accessable nuclear weapons and millenial cults. I am not a happy camper. I also agree with you on the "angel craze" issue, if only because it detracts from those of us who have been witness to the Mythos at work:)
"Touched by an Old One", anyone?
(EWWWWWW!!!!!)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:53:02 -0400
From: "Randall L. Orndorff"
The film is 'The Peacemaker', anyone know if its any good? I haven't seen it.
I am not a Clooney fan, but I enjoyed this movie. Clooney's character is definately Delta Green material, as he his vindictive and does anything necessary to get the job done. Incidentally, the "bad guy" (who is pretty god damn ordinary) and the car chase in Vienna make the film worthwhile.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:34:32 +0200
From: "Florian Hanke"
Wow! This topic seems to have kicked off an avalanche..
So I'd like to say something about it, if you're not interested just read the scenario ideas below…
Now for the "forgotten horror":
I'm not sure that the cold war is over now.
-During the Kuwait-Iraq crisis the Clinton-Administration refused to sign the "non-use" of nuclear weapons, which made relations to Moscau more complicated.
-The hyped De-targeting of american and russian rockets could be undone in seconds.
-The US uses 4.5 billion $ for the "Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program" - which is in fact a Program for atomic tests.
-After "START1", the number of strategical nuclear warheads should have been reduced to about 7500, but there are still 5000 more (in case of an outbreak of hostility).
-After "START2" the number should be reduced to about 3500, but this treaty is now paralyzed by the financial problems of the russian duma.
And even if the number of nuclear warheads should be reduced, the militaries will find ways to enhance their weapons, e.g:
-US U-boats are being equipped with less, but much more accurate D-5 rockets to substitute for the C-4
-After "START2" MX-rockets should be removed - so the warheads are just remounted on Minuteman-III-rockets, which in fact enhances the explosive worth from 170 kilotons TNT to 300 kt TNT (!)
At the moment there is a new weapon being tested: the US B-61-11, an "earth penetrator". Just an example: In the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) there are several russian and east-european targets (3000 at the moment, 12500 in the past) mentioned. In case of war, an underground russian HQ would have received 69 direct consequent nuclear hits to achieve a 95% (over-)"kill probability"!
Now with this B-61-11 you need just one warhead to achieve this - sure the numbers are going down, but it's not as good as it would seem!
BTW: The US have at the moment 2300 warheads in constant readyness which together have an explosive capability of 44'000(!!!) Hiroshima-bombs, which is 550 million tons TNT!!
Together with the russian bombs, just add maybe 200 mill. tons…
This SIOP is in itself *very* grotesque: e.g: some targets are communication centers. If you want to destroy one, just send a commando with dynamite to bomb the antennae - yeah, but we're here in a nuclear war - just send one of those 12'000 warheads, who cares anyway?
Of course, everybody would say: "You must be crazy - destroy an antennae with a half megaton bomb!?!?!?" - As I said, a nuclear war is grotesque and crazy!
Even Switzerland (where I live) wanted to build one - and they even intended to throw it on its own land if someone would invade - craaazy!
You know - during the cold war there was a certain balance - now there isn't anymore…
I hope nothing goes wrong.
But I fear more the biological and chemical agents, they are more likely to be used (e.g: Iraq uses gas against the kurds)
About the BBC documentaries:
I'm sure not only the russians are developing new Bioweapons - and the talk about these race-specific weapons, they're being researched since WWII by almost every bioweapons-developing country!
As with terrorists I'd fear more the laser weapons - 1mWatts per sqare millimeter is enough to leave you blind (permanently) - perfect for terrorists, or your DG campaign :-
Phew! If someone got here, congrats!
As scenario ideas I have:
Ozeanic underwater nuclear tests could disturb someone "sleeping" there! "Conducting tests, cap'n - everything normal - wait what's that??!!!…It's ..it's huge!" -
"All hands on station, pull back full power" - "Sorry, cap'n we have to reboot Windows NT for this" - "What??!?!?!" - "It will take about 4 mins! I sure hope you don't have this deathgrip power kind of thing, cap'n?" - "The thing's coming nearer … AAAAgh!" - <metal screeching> <ugly sounds> yeah, you know…
Some Endtimes scenario:
After the 3rd world war - the old ones are again walking on this earth - oh well doesn't sound that cool does it? I mean would you fear a squid that's grown too big when you're having your own survival problems with nuclear radiation??
Probably not!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:24:49 EDT
From: moc.loa|rJrekaorC#moc.loa|rJrekaorC
I've noticed a lack of the former type of contact case in Delta Green. Benign contacts were most prevalent in the post-psychedelic sixties and seventies. That's when UFO cults like Heaven's Gate began forming. Contactees proclaimed a coming New Age fortold by their "Space Brothers". Things got sour in the Eighties after Communion. Aliens became abductors and experimentors (taking the place of Incubi and Goblins in our collective psyche). Now ANGELS are the benign contactors. Perhaps the secret masters who are initiating the contacts have a rival, or perhaps they're working on two fronts.
Once again I'll heartily recommend Richard Lupoff's "Documents in the Case of Elizabeth Akeley," which not only stars a proto-DG-type investigation but also kicks off with spirit-channeling in a 1979 New Age cult. Vernon Whiteside Lives!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:24:51 EDT
From: moc.loa|rJrekaorC#moc.loa|rJrekaorC
Someone asked about running a game with Islamic or quasi-Islamic terrorists following Nyarlathotep.
(1) Nyarlathotep has been given a heavy Arabic treatment before in Chaosium products. See "Masks of N." and "Day of the Beast" for possible inspiration.
(2) Check out the possible Karotechia connection: there was major Nazi involvement with Palestine and Islamic states during wars with Israel just after WW2. Hmmm… Karotechia survivors in the late 1940s trained Palestinian guerillas, and used that opportunity to get their hands on some Old (as in "Great Old Ones" old) merchandise while honing the select of their trainees into a fanatical cult worshipping the Enlightened Masters (aka Nyarlathotep in his Guise of the Week, before he put on the Hitler mask)…. The Karotechia resurgent in the 1990s heads back over to the Mid-East to find what became of the Nyarlathotep cult in preparation for devastating attacks on certain cities; like, for instance, using a briefcase bomb to sacrifice Paris or New York to Azathoth…
Looking at the discussion of the cold war as inspiration for portraying the horror of the Mythos in DG:
The Cold War seen as communication problem: that is scary.
(Reactionary rant mode on: That was a heck of a communication problem to result in the murder of that many millions of Communist nations' citizens for the crime of political disagreement. Rant mode off.)
"Cold war" is a misnomer. It was a shooting war (Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? etc.), and like any shooting war it happened because people fervently believed in what they were doing. The difference here was that both sides were afraid to shoot with their biggest guns, thank God; hence we distinguished the Cold War from all the other terrors that came before and around it. Nowadays, as others have noted on this list, the weapons of nuclear and biological war are slowly but surely finding their ways into hands far beyond the control of the superpowers; and Russia and the US are not quite dance partners just yet. The US still spies on Russia, Russia still spies on the US, and both have more than enough weapons of mass destruction to go around. What's unsettling to me is that the old rules still apply, but nobody wants to say them out loud; which makes one wonder how long it will be before somebody fails to learn them.
IMO, all this brings up another juicy Lovecraftian theme: people may well further the aims of the servants of the Old Ones simply by not taking them seriously. "You're saying the FBI and CIA should investigate this group because they believe they can resurrect Hitler? Go back to your desk!" Heck, this ought to be a factor in every DG game.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:21:38 -0400
Also…And this is just a pet-peeve. People saying "Nuculer". Gahh! I hate that. I saw a special on the History Channel and the commander at SAC was saying "We have the capability to launch a nuculer attack from here, at the…." The commander at SAC DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR!
I have the exact same condition. It would irk me beyond all belief when my high school physics teacher would say "nuke-ya-ler" instead of " nuke-lee-ar". I feel your pain.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:12:38 -0700
From: "JimmieBise,Jr" <moc.glo|rjbeimmij#moc.glo|rjbeimmij>
Well, from yet another 30-Something, who was raised by a very politically conservative set of parents, and who grew up with a fascinations for things military, let me add:
1) The threat of nuclear war (Oh, yeah, I'm another one who hates "nucular"!) is far from over. There are at least three fronts on which the use of nuclear weapons is not only possible, but, should things go badly, very likely.
- The India/Pakistan conflict
- The Middle East, especially Israel and Syria, who have much larger watchdogs making sure they don't drop a nuke. If those watchdogs get distracted….
- The Terrorist Wars (involving Lybia, some factions inside the former Soviet States in Eastern Europe, and in the former Yugoslavia)
The only reason things haven't blown up there (no pun intended) is because the United States, England, and several other large countries and making very very sure that the use of such weapons isn't worth the tactical or ideological victories the users may gain.
2) Despite that there are still plenty of nukes out there, many of which can be carried quite easily and unobtrusively by an ordinary person, the vast majority of people believe that nukes are a thing of the past. The general ignorance, more than anything, may well be what causes the next nuclear detonations. It's amazing what an uninformed public can do, especially when it comes to neglecting a problem they don't believe exists.
3) Here's a little tidbit. Several years back, the country of Libya made a proposal to India to pay off that country's entire national debt in return for the technology to make a nuclear device, and a means of delivering it intercontinental. India wisely declined, but was basically bribed into the decision by the US and a couple other countries. Perhaps the next country Lybia or some other terrorist-backed group approaches won't warn us after the proposal's made.
In conclusion, I still worry about the possibility of nukes….not in a global war that I was brought up to fear, but in something that could strike right next door. Terrorist attacks would be all the more devastating with that added weapon, wouldn't they?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:50:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Man in Black
Also…And this is just a pet-peeve. People saying "Nuculer". Gahh! I hate that. I saw a special on the History Channel and the commander at SAC was saying "We have the capability to launch a nuculer attack from here, at the…." The commander at SAC DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR!
I have the exact same condition. It would irk me beyond all belief when my high school physics teacher would say "nuke-ya-ler" instead of " nuke-lee-ar". I feel your pain.
YOU FOOLS! You do not understand the true nature of language! Language is a dynamic thing, both spoken and written. It changes over time. It changes over space (regional accents). It is beyond your puny comprehensions!
Your fear and loathing of so-called "mispronounciation" only reveals your ignorance!
Variance in Language is a *good* thing. It provide more accurate and personal means of communication when older forms begin to erode. Language merges into pidgins when cultures meet. New concepts are absorbed. Oboslete concepts are abandoned and old but applicable concepts ressurected.
Language can be used as a measurement of cultures. Linguistics can reveal details about the military (ie The form "Nucular" shows the prevalence of Southern Accents in the military due to most training facilities locations in the American South and widespread recruitment from southern and midwestern regions, and how military culture unconsciously mimics this accent).
Abandon peevishness and COMPREHEND!
(NOTE: Use of this rant as a handout is permitted under section 84-B paragraph 18, OPERATIONAL ORDER: PEDANTIUM)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:32:20 EDT
From: Michael Layne
Also…And this is just a pet-peeve. People saying "Nuculer". You can thank Eisenhower for that one. He may not have been the first user of that pronunciation, but he was certainly the most famous. He uttered it frequently in any official pronouncements regarding nuclear issues.
I remember some antinuke on a TV talk show claiming that "Ee-lectricity generated by Nuculer Power is _Radioactive_"!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:32:18 EDT
From: Michael Layne
The film is 'The Peacemaker', anyone know if its any good? I haven't seen it.
Horrible Bad Evil Eldrich SAN Sucking Horror
No, I like HBEESSH, it's much worse than that
Clooney is bad, the female lead is forgettable and the plot…………
In the second to the last scene, the bad guy with the backpack nuke which, by the way he's holding as if it only weighed 5-10 kg, runs into a church with about a minute left before detonation.. Clooney shots him and then tells the kids in the choir to run for it.. Yeah, Right. It's a nuclear weapon, how far can you run in a minute. Then he and the female lead find they can't defuse it, so they fix it so only the conventional explosive will blow. And it does.
So Clooney, the FL, and about twenty cops are standing around the building. No Hazmat suits, no nothing. Nobody seems to be in the least bit upset that the entire area is being dusted with plutonium……..
Last scene is Clooney and the FL in the swimming pool. The world has been saved, everybody is fine, nobody even mentions radiation hazards…….
Arrrghhhhhhhh……
And yes, the whole movie is that dumb….
People in plague infested lands should tell people to avoid things like a showing of "Peacemaker".
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:14:41 -0700
From: Christian Conkle
And I remember a Front-Line special on PBS saying the radiation generated by a single pellet of uranium can be stopped effectively by a sheet of paper, it's the radioactive water that's the problem, and it's transported in rail cars capable of withstanding a 100 foot drop onto a huge iron spike designed to puncture rail liquid transports, collisions with moving trains, falling off of bridges, etc. Radioactive electricity? I'm no physicist, but it's probably the same as background rads. Oh, and a TV set will irradiate you way more than a pellet of uranium, according to that special. Not all at once I'm sure, but accumulated over time, and how much time do you spend sitting in front of a uranium pellet?
Nuclear power and it's dangers don't scare me, the chemical plant upwind of me scares me.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:47:19 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Christian wrote:
Radioactive electricity? I'm no physicist, but it's probably the same as background rads.
All electricty is non-radioactive. The generation process used in nuclear plants relies on heat generated by the nuclear reaction to turn water to steam, which then drives steam turbines that actually produce the electricity (probably left out a step somewhere, but that's the basic idea). The radio-isotopes cannot produce electricty themselves.
[Incidentally, this talk about electricity being (or not) radioactive reminds me of something I saw on a talk show once, where a "natural medicine" freak claimed that none of his products "had any chemicals in whatsoever". I spent the next 20 minutes screaming at the TV (it was the double expresso I had about an hour earlier: I'm not normally that excitable). I guess this just shows the quality of science teaching that people get in high schools. Sigh….]
Sorry, rant mode over.
Oh, and a TV set will irradiate you way more than a pellet of uranium, according to that special. Not all at once I'm sure, but accumulated over time, and how much time do you spend sitting in front of a uranium pellet?
Yes. This is a good one. When I went on my work radiation safety course, I had to fill in a form saying what "radiation producing devices do you intend to use?". And they were surprised with the answer "computer monitors". By the way, anyone live in a granite rich area… 40% above normal background counts as I recall. Anyway, uranium is no big deal (depending on which isotope you use: I use non-radioactive uranyl acetate to stain sections for electron microscopy)… the heavy metal poisoning from uranium (unless it is the enriched reactor-grade stuff) will kill you before the radiation does!
Nuclear power and it's dangers don't scare me, the chemical plant upwind of me scares me.
Strange but true. Most chemical plants have windsocks (so you know which way [upwind] to run when the siren goes off).
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:54:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "G. Wyckoff"
Graeme wrote:
All electricty is non-radioactive. The generation process used in nuclear plants relies on heat generated by the nuclear reaction to turn water to steam, which then drives steam turbines that actually produce the electricity (probably left out a step somewhere, but that's the basic idea). The radio-isotopes cannot produce electricty themselves.
This is all true. The closest thing we have to "radio-isotopes directly producing electricity" are radio-thermal generators such as the ones used on deep space probes. But most people are basically unaware that the nearest nuke plant isbasically just a steam plant, and the "pollution" coming from the cooling tower is just, well, water.
Yes. This is a good one. When I went on my work radiation safety course, I had to fill in a form saying what "radiation producing devices do you intend to use?". And they were surprised with the answer "computer monitors". By the way, anyone live in a granite rich area… 40% above normal background counts as I recall. Anyway, uranium is no big deal (depending on which isotope you use: I use non-radioactive uranyl acetate to stain sections for electron microscopy)… the heavy metal poisoning from uranium (unless it is the enriched reactor-grade stuff) will kill you before the radiation does!
Hmm. When I did my rad safety course as an undergrad, the instructor had a box. He's holding it and tossing it around. He puts it on a desk and asks, "So, if I told you there was a radiation source in this box and than asked you to hold it, how many of you would do it?"
<silence>. "How many of you would do it for five bucks" <he slaps five dollars on the table> "Alright, it's an alpha emitter and I'll give you ten bucks." <I and one other guy raise our hands, glaring at each other becuase we want the ten bucks: I was a student, I needed beer money.>
"Well, the rest of you can go home, than becuase picking up radiation for money is waht you are all going to get paid to do, and if you don't want to accept the risks of handling something like an alpha emitter that I have been holding unshielded for five minutes, assuming I know what I'm doing, you don't want to accept the risk of working with radioactive Sulfer, carbon, or good forbid iodine, either. And I'm keeping my 10 bucks."
ObDG bad guy: A radiation instructor who worshipped Azathoth in his spare time.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:58:15 +0900
From: Jay and Mikiko Noyes
Just curious, but why does it bother you?
Well, actually you should refer to the fine post by Eric Brennan in which he compares the angels depicted in Prophecy with the kind of angels discussed by your average New Agers. The biblical angels were definitely not a touchy-feely bunch (check out the story of Azrael when you get the chance) and certainly weren't interested in whether you were being properly nurtured. Burning swords definitely get mentioned. 'Course, maybe its just the new agers that drive me nuts.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:31:23 EDT
From: Michael Layne
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:14:41 -0700 Christian Conkle writes:
Nuclear power and it's dangers don't scare me, the chemical plant upwind of me scares me.
I know the feeling well. For nearly forty years, I lived in South Charleston, WV, near the FMC and Union Carbide plants, and almost across the river from the plant at Institute, which is the same type as the one in Bho Pahl, India!
The coal-burning John Amos Power Plant in this area probably gives off more rads (C-14 in its stack gases) than I'd get by having Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant (yes, I deliberately misspelled it in the subject line) as a neighbor!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:18:06 +0100
From: Ian/Cath Ford
OK, you hit my button then guys. Ranting likely to follow…
:: A whole bunch of stuff talked about nukes and chemical plants and the like…
The coal-burning John Amos Power Plant in this area probably gives off more rads (C-14 in its stack gases) than I'd get by having Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant (yes, I deliberately misspelled it in the subject line) as a neighbor!
Right. Yes, chemical plants are dangerous. So are nukes. The basic assumption is that people know what we're doing with the technology we employ. Most of the time that's right. But not always.
Three Mile Island was a case in point. No one knew how far it was going to go - the thing was, basically, out of control and could have blown the roof off (literally, not metaphorically).
Winscale was pretty much the same story. As was Fermi I. Then there's Brown's Ferry: inspection team checking the emergency core cooling system. Very dark, so they use a *candle* as a light source in amongst wires and all sorts of stuff. Fire ensues and the emergency core cooling system goes down: basically the reactor is running without a safety net. Fortunatly it's not needed…
The point is that humans are fallable (sp?? - apologies to language purists) They can screw systems up by not doing what they're supposed to. It can happen with nukes, it can happen with chemical plants. I work 2 miles down the road from Sizewell - the UK's only PWR based on the design for TMI. It has a licence (OK, I don't spell right OK: heck, I'm only a teacher…) to chuck radioactivity into the environment - sea and air. As far as I know it's the only major civilian facility in UK to have one. Scares me - but then so does the asbestos they're currently taking out of the building I work in which they've only known about for 10 years. See, people screw up: that's the scary bit. And I didn't even have to mention somewhere in the Ukraine.
Rant mode off. Apolgies for the waste of space: this one gets to me.
Thanks for the thought provoking stuff on nuclear war btw. Brought back some bad dreams from childhood. Lay off PIRA though, they aren't about to send nukes off (not even continuity faction). There are more interesting terrorists groups who could have this stuff - look at the militia for a start…
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:26:16 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
It's the nuclear waste and the prospect of the storage contracts for something that needs to be stores safely for a very LONG time that scares me! Is the contract going to the lowest bidder???
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Petherick
Yes. This is a good one. When I went on my work radiation safety course, I had to fill in a form saying what "radiation producing devices do you intend to use?". And they were surprised with the answer "computer monitors".
Hmmm, we're straying pretty close to the "grammar and pronuciation" debate here.
Speaking as an occupational health professional who may have to present on workplace radiation exposure …
It's extremely difficult to explain that the difference between ionizing radiation (what most people think of when they hear "radiation" and "radioactive") and non-ionizing radiation. To most people, radiation means a clicking Geiger counter and glowing stuff.
And yes, televisions and computer monitors do produce a very small amount of X-rays (ionizing radiation) in addition to the electric and magnetic fields (non-ionizing radiation). In almost all cases, however, the X-rays are absorbed by the lead and barium salts added to the glass.
Your exposure to ionizing radiation is probably greater from the book that you're holding. The clays used to produce fine paper (that used for books, covers, magazines, etc.) contain enough radioactive isotopes to produce radiation levels above the background.
By the way, anyone live in a granite rich area… 40% above normal background counts as I recall.
Hey! It's you flat-landers who have below normal background radiation exposures. :) Those of us living on the Pre-Cambrian shield are just fine …
Anyway, uranium is no big deal (depending on which isotope you use: I use non-radioactive uranyl acetate to stain sections for electron microscopy)… the heavy metal poisoning from uranium (unless it is the enriched reactor-grade stuff) will kill you before the radiation does!
Actually, all isotopes of uranium are unstable and, therefore, "radioactive". Some isotopes, however, have much less activity and are strictly alpha emitters (for non-physicists, the slow particles that are stopped by paper).
The toxic hazard of depleted or non-enriched uranium is considerable and is certainly the primary concern in some circumstances. Mainly when there are above normal concentrations in well water, resulting in a chronic exposure that may damage the kidneys. Perhaps in the future radiation induced cancer might develop but that's not an immediate concern.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:39:07 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
Shane wrote lots of good stuff, re:
Someone asked about running a game with Islamic or quasi-Islamic terrorists following Nyarlathotep.
<snipola>
The big N has always been strongly connected to Egypt and the Middle East. I don't see any problem with him appearing as Muhammed or Jesus or anyone else. He's a Master of Disguise, y'know? I mean, if there's some supernatural law preventing him from appearing as some holy figure, then how come the guys who make Southpark can draw Jesus getting the stuffing beaten out of him by Satan? (Great episode, BTW.)
And as far as love being the true message of Islam, well, that depends on who's true Islam you're talking about. Or any other religion, for that matterI ain't singling out Islam. I mean, AUM Shinrikyo was a millenial Buddhist religionmillenial Buddhism!?! "The Devil can quote scripture" and all that. A leader with enough charisma can twist any religion into a weapon, regardless of the original intent of that religion.
IMO, all this brings up another juicy Lovecraftian theme: people may well further the aims of the servants of the Old Ones simply by not taking them seriously. "You're saying the FBI and CIA should investigate this group because they believe they can resurrect Hitler? Go back to your desk!" Heck, this ought to be a factor in every DG game.
Absolutely. The main thing that's going to get us killed, in the real world or the Mythos world, is this very thing. I like adventures that reflect real-world problems, trying not to be too heavy-handed about it, but using the Mythos as a metaphor to bring into relief what we are doing to ourselves and the world. (I think this is the case with virtually all the modern Mythos fiction, BTW—I'm not doing anything unusual.) Not taking real threats seriously is right up near the top of the list.
Finally, as regards the linguistic purity debate: I'm an English teacher, and I used to teach Freshman Comp, so I've done a LOT of grammar and spelling nitpicking in my time. More than enough to last me a lifetime. This is email, not something for publication, not a job application, not a term paper. I won't get into whether nitpicking is justified in those other areas, but in an informal discussion like this, I hope nobody's gonna waste any time over stuff like that. We've got people from all over the world here, too, and English often isn't their native language. As long as I can understand it, it's OK by me. That said, I love making fun of people who say "nucular," too. Just don't pick on me for saying "y'all." There are perfectly valid historical linguistic reasons for it.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:01:42 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
The biblical angels were definitely not a touchy-feely bunch (check out the story of Azrael when you get the chance) and certainly weren't interested in whether you were being properly nurtured. Burning swords definitely get mentioned.
I prefer my angels kind of like that one on the cover of the DG book. More into scourging than nurturing. Again, _Kult_ has lots of good stuff for that. "Touched by an Old One"—very nice, whoever posted that! (We've had so much traffic lately, I'm accidentally deleting things after just skimming them.)
As regards continuing nuclear dangers, yeah, us folks in Asia are still a mite nervous. I remember when there was that tense time when N.Korea was saying how it was going to nuke Seoul—this was just after the "Great Leader" died. There were maps in the news magazines showing the range of the missiles, and Fukuoka was well within range. Closest major Japanese city, in fact. And even the S.Koreans don't have much love for Japan.
Duck and cover!
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:47:36 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
:: A whole bunch of stuff talked about nukes and chemical plants and the like…
I recall when the now closed nuclear plant in my area was still in the planning stage the intended site was literally straddling the San Andreas fault line and the proposed cooling system was liquid sodium.
The ramifications of such a design screw-up would be lots of fun to role-play.
Living through them would have been another question entirely!
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:13:45 -0400
From: "R. Menzi"
I recall when the now closed nuclear plant in my area was still in the planning stage the intended site was literally straddling the San Andreas fault line and the proposed cooling system was liquid sodium. «<
Sounds like the Indian Point reactor we have in the NYC area. 30 miles Upstream, blast radius of 30 miles, built on a fault line. It's got alot of powerful lobbyists on its side and has a pretty bad policy for EPA inspectors. Next to nothing has reached the press about it because whoever is behind it has some well-placed friends.
The ramifications of such a design screw-up would be lots of fun to role-play. Living through them would have been another question entirely! «<
It get better: the meltdown emergency evauation plan for the area north of NYC consists of *asking for volunteers* to drive school busses in an get the people out. One thing New Yorkers are not is /that/ stupid.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:17:21 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
The ramifications of such a design screw-up would be lots of fun to role-play. Living through them would have been another question entirely!
Hello Phil and everyone else,
Just a quick question about this, How does the system over in the USA allow the siting or even the consideration of siting a plant like that in an obviously hazardous area. Over in the UK the planning system admittedly would be sidestepped (the Government has reserved the right to determine certain applications i.e. The Department of Energy would be the planning authority in question) but even given this there would be at least a local enquiry, even a public enquiry where local people and anyone with a 'material consideration' not necessarily financial can be represented and heard at a planning inquiry. There could even be an appeal to the European Court on environmental grounds, (there would have to be an environmental impact assessment first).
I understand that the American (USA) Planning system is a zoning system and once an area is zoned as long as development meets the zoning ordinances requirements all that is needed is a building permit, in the UK the right to develop has been nationalised to prevent innapropriate development (ie ripping up the kiddies playing field and building a chemical works, extreeme example there), is there a mechanism whereby developments such as a Nuclear Reactor can be opposed.
One final question, given that zoning ordinances are agreed at, (I think), a local level why does anywhere zone for Nuclear reactor, I mean you can just see the meeting:
"Gee, what should we do with that vacant lot on the cliff top?"
"You mean the one next to the Faultline and the dormant volcano?"
"Yeah, that's the one."
"Hey lets zone it for a Nuclear Reactor!"
"Yeah good idea."
Just imagine Kroft Industries getting incentives from this lot to develop a new experimental facility in their county. 3 eyed fish anyone or just fish eyed kids.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:44:46 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
Just a quick question about this, How does the system over in the USA allow the siting or even the consideration of siting a plant like
Fair question. I'm going to try to set aside my personal feelings and give you the most favorable possible answer to our power industry.
When the American govt. first started pushing reactor construction in the private sector they let the word get around that they were going to build research reactors of their own and that they would supply the resulting incidental electricity to surrounding communities which they said would be, "too cheap to meter". This blackmailed the power companies into getting into the plant construction business. At the time of the early plant construction the requirement for Environmental Impact Reports did not yet exist and geologists were not consulted. Thus, halfway into the design process of the Rancho Seco reactor a geologist hears about the planned location at Point Reyes, turns VERY pale, and starts making phone calls. A little later a chemist hears that they plan on using SODIUM for a coolant, turns even paler, and tries to explain to someone what a loss of coolant accident would mean when molten sodium metal met the atmosphere!