Remnant of "Red Scare" repealed.

[BlueTrain]

What I want to know is, what happened to the Emergency Broadcast System on 9/11? It has actually functioned for weather alerts like tornados but it sure seems like the 9/11 emergency warranted something.

 

[LizzieMaine]

EBS doesn't exist anymore. It was replaced by the Emergency Alert System in 1997, which is a much more automation-dependent setup reflecting the fact that most radio stations no longer have actual humans on staff at all times.

As for 9/11, there was no need for it -- the attack happened, as the attackers intended, while all the New York-based network news morning shows were on the air live, so continuous coverage began within minutes of the planes hitting. I've always felt sorry for that poor schmuck who was being interviewed about his book on Howard Hughes when Matt Lauer rudely cut him off to announce the plane hitting the first tower. So much for your book tour, buddy.

The EAS is activated on a national level only by the President. On 9/11 the President didn't know about the attack until after the networks were already on the air with it.

 

[BlueTrain]

Okay, but what's the point, then? Presumably the purpose of the system was to tell us what to do, not simply to tell us that something happened. I don't remember there being any government announcement telling us that we were either supposed to do something or not do something. Maybe there was but that morning was a pretty intense thing around here. One of those "I remember where I was" moments.

Otherwise, we're just on our own.

 

[LizzieMaine]

EAS is mostly used nowadays for regional weather and natural-disaster emergencies, and it seems to work pretty well for that purpose, but there really doesn't seem to be any point to it anymore as a national alert system. Remember that it was developed in the mid-1990s, when the internet was in its infancy and nobody had ever heard of satellite radios in cars, smart phones, podcasts, or any of the rest of the techno stuff people take for granted today, and you could argue with the popularity of the internet what it was in 2001, that it was even obsolete then.

This has always been the case with such national alert systems. Conelrad was developed at a time when standard-broadcast AM radio was still the dominant form of broadcasting, and it was pretty much obsolete by the end of the 1950s due to the rise of television and FM broadcasting, which led to the development of the EBS. That was a practical thing into the 1980s, but the rise of radio automation during that decade caused real problems with it, leading to the development of EAS as a "digital-based" successor -- unfortunately, that system was rolled out just as what "digital" meant was turning into something entirely different from what the people developing EAS were looking at when they started the project. Technology has simply moved too quickly for any broadcasting-based emergency system to keep up.

Although when the EM pulse comes and takes out all your fancy microprocessor doodads and all that's left is spark transmitters and crystal sets, you bet they'll wish they'd kept up some kind of AM-based analog system.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't listen to any of those things. Don't have a cell phone, don't wear a watch, don't watch television and I don't listen to the radio. What I'm doing now is it.

 

[ChiTownScion]

And then there were the Federal Signal Thunderbolt sirens. By the late 1950's, every firehouse in Chicago had one on its roof. Imagine the hilarity which ensued when, after the 1959 Chicago White Sox took the American League pennant, then Fire Commissioner Robert Quinn ordered the sirens to blast in celebration... after failing to notify television and radio media outlets the reason for the alarm, of course.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We had a WWII air raid horn on a pole on my street, right across from my cousin's house, and it went off every day at 11:30 am (the "dinner whistle") and 9:15 pm (curfew). God help you if you happened to be standing there when it blew.

This isn't the actual unit -- ours finally came down in the 1990s -- but it's the same model. Apparently it's called a "Scream Master," and it made the classic WHAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO familiar to all viewers of Battle-of-Britain movies. When you are standing directly below it, it is very very loud.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

When I was a small boy (late '50s to early 60's), we lived across the street from the steel mill where my father worked as a machinist. Mounted on the top of a nearby steel mill building was one of those sirens. It was used mostly to summon the volunteer fire fighters to the station.
But every Saturday, at about the time my cartoons were interrupted by "a test of the Emergency Broadcasting System" on the TV, the siren was tested. So, the TV was showing the Civil Defense "CD" logo with the attention tone, an "air raid siren" was wailing across the street, and, heaven help me if a small airplane happened to be flying overhead at the moment. It scared the (insert your favorite fright substance vulgar word here) out of me!

 

[Stearmen]

I don't listen to any of those things. Don't have a cell phone, don't wear a watch, don't watch television and I don't listen to the radio. What I'm doing now is it.

Then you are, Sierra Oscar Lima!

 

[BlueTrain]

Are you saying that the internet is an inadequate source of information? We still get the paper, too, a small, local newspaper (The Washington Post). Curiously, no one here at work ever seems to talk about current events. This is where I was on the morning of 9/11. We were having a company meeting and the cell phones started going off.

I otherwise don't do any social media. I do read comments on news articles (usually skipping the article) but they are always so negative. I still don't listen to the radio and instead devote that time, such as it is, to listening to CDs, usually in the car. I don't wear a watch mainly so I'll have one less thing to fiddle with and, anyway, I'm surrounded by clocks. I'm not tied down to a rigid schedule so I don't need them that much. Cell phones are too expensive.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Great discussion.

I thought that, with the end of the (first) Cold War, Civil Defense & duck-and-cover drills were a thing of the past.
However, recently I've seen several articles about how the rich are again investing in home fallout/bomb shelters.

http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/252875937-story

Some things never change, I'm afraid.

 

[Edward]

I was nine when the BBC broadcast Threads, a dramatised portrayal of the effects of a Soviet nuclear attack on the UK, concentrting on the stories of two families in Sheffield. One of the most terrifying things I've ever seen - it was worked on by experts for its realness, both the effect of the nuclear bombs in the initial strike, and the oimpact on the socieity and culture thereafter. (The organised state basically ceased to exist, and society reverted back close to the Middle Ages). Only a few weeks ago I was telling an undergraduate class how they'd never knowe how scary iot was to watch something like that when it was a realistic proposition... Whatever the geopolitis of it all, we're very lucky, most of us, to have lived through an era where conflict and the brutal effect of conflict has not been on most of our doorsteps in Western Europe and the US.

The real lesson, I think, is the extreme ease with which both "history" and "what everybody knows" can be and is manipulated by those with an interest in such manipulation, especially when "history" is largely the product of scholarship funded by politically-aligned think tanks, which often, themselves, receive support from sources desirous that certain conclusions be reached.

There's a reason why so many books on the history of World War II and the runup to that war have been subsidized by the CIA -- the history of Praeger Publishing since 1950, to mention one such firm, is very interesting to examine from that perspective. To quote Mr. Orwell, "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."

I've certsinly grown up around this sort of thing, being from Northern Ireland. The popular mythologies surrounding something like King William III's campaign for the British crown bear so little resemblence to historical reality, it's shocking. Other traditions do much the same with Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden.

History can be a funny thing. Churchill said history would be kind to him because he intended to write it--and he did, too. Of course, he didn't write all of it. Then, too, so did everyone else who lived long enough. I have a theory about who writes history. At first, it's the generals who write the history. They're the oldest, usually. It's something like 40 or 50 years later that those who were privates get their chance to write a little history. While the generals (and admirals) are writing their histories, the privates are too busy earning a living. But they get their chance, too, in the end.

The interesting thing about Churchill is the strength of the mythology around him. If you were to describe the man accurately today to the average English person, steeped in pop culture influences of the strong, cigar-chomping, war-winning leader with the Wildean wit, they'd first not be able to recognise who you were describing, and then they'd likely accuse you of being a Nazi sympathiser. Churchill has become godlike for many in England, and criticism of him is highly controversial. This seems to be predominantly a posthumous thing: the country at large in 1945 certainly decided they'd had enough of the man, electing instead Clement Attlee's Labour government (Churchill was elected prime minister once only, in 1951). When Churchill's funeral barge sailed up the Thames, the crane operators who famously bowed their cranes "in respect", as the media reported, actually had to be paid overtime to be there, under orders, to do so. It was not the spontaneous act opf loyalty or respect that it weas reported as. Miners and their families in the Welsh valleys cheered the death of the man, a political villain to them after he had called for troops to be turned on striking miners.

Duriong his lifetime, the view of Churchill in the nation was nuanced, with those for, against, indifferent, critical, and all points inbetween. These subtleties have all been lost in the popular discourse as he has become a figure of legend - at the cost of real histroy which recognises the nuance.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, the thing about Churchill, as well as Kennedy, Nixon (who were friends), Lincoln, and most of anyone else you would name, is that most everything is true but it doesn't mean they weren't human and never made any mistakes. They were, after all, leaders and did things that not everyone agreed with. Churchill, for example, is well-known for making bad decisions now and then. Lincoln was sometimes dictatorial (but what about Davis?). And so on. They had clear objectives in mind and never blamed anyone else for anything they did. Who are we to criticize people like that. Save your criticism for the living, if you think you can get away with it.

 

[MisterCairo]

I was nine when the BBC broadcast Threads, a dramatised portrayal of the effects of a Soviet nuclear attack on the UK, concentrting on the stories of two families in Sheffield.

I saw that in a high school economics class. One of our classmates was quite shaken by it and missed the next day's class...

 

[LizzieMaine]

The problem begins when any historical figure is placed on a pedestal, above all possible criticism. Churchill's posthumous cult of personality -- hey look, he's fighting Daleks alongside The Doctor! -- has so obscured the reality of the man -- hey look, the Bengal Famine! -- that he resembles more a figure out of a propaganda movie than anyone who ever actually walked the earth.

This mythmaking around good old Winnie is just as potent in the US as it is in his homeland, maybe even more so because we here never saw him up close. But if you go back and review the press in the years after WWII, a great many Americans were very disturbed by his saber-rattling from the sidelines. Many even saw him as deliberately trying to instigate a Cold War as a vehicle for returning himself to political power, and his whole "Iron Curtain" thesis was not greeted with anything near resembling universal acclaim when he first declared it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We had a film in the US around the same time called "The Day After," which took a similar ultra-realistic view of the consequences of a nuclear strike -- and it was very reflective of the attitude of the mid-'80s, that sense that the button could get pushed at any time. The propaganda mills ran overtime to convince people that the Soviets were ready to launch missiles at any moment, to the point where a little girl from Maine became a world celebrity for about fifteen minutes for writing Yuri Andropov a letter asking him if this was really so. And the Soviets, for their part, were just as convinced that the US was planning a first strike. Paranoia ran thick and heavy thruout that decade -- not as bad as The Fifties, but bad enough.

 

[BlueTrain]

Part of that may be human nature. We can't quite get our minds around the fact that both good and bad can exist within the same person. So for political and military leaders we either remember the best or the worst. And for those who are still living, it's the same thing: we usually just recognize the best or the worst in them. That's probably true for family members, too. And sometimes, it's surprising what we do.

Several years ago my son was in the army. We went to visit him halfway through his training and I went back when he finished. There was a big dinner in the NCO club then, too. I found it rather surprising to see photos of WWII German generals on the wall. Perhaps these days it is more difficult to ever admire an enemy as was sometimes the case in WWII.

That reminds me of a funny incident during part of the graduation ceremony when my son finished his training, just before he went overseas. Each trainee in turn stepped forward and announced his name and hometown. One young man, in his local accent and in a loud voice, said "Nashville, Tennessee!" It broke everyone up. But you had to hear it in his own accent.

And while I was there (not during the ceremony), one of those sirens went off because there was a tornado warning.

 

[Edward]

The problem begins when any historical figure is placed on a pedestal, above all possible criticism. Churchill's posthumous cult of personality -- hey look, he's fighting Daleks alongside The Doctor! -- has so obscured the reality of the man -- hey look, the Bengal Famine! -- that he resembles more a figure out of a propaganda movie than anyone who ever actually walked the earth.

This mythmaking around good old Winnie is just as potent in the US as it is in his homeland, maybe even more so because we here never saw him up close. But if you go back and review the press in the years after WWII, a great many Americans were very disturbed by his saber-rattling from the sidelines. Many even saw him as deliberately trying to instigate a Cold War as a vehicle for returning himself to political power, and his whole "Iron Curtain" thesis was not greeted with anything near resembling universal acclaim when he first declared it.

Exactly. One migth reasonably have expected that objectived historical analysis would have taken over by now, but if anything objective analysis of Churchill has entirely disappeared from the popular discourse.

We had a film in the US around the same time called "The Day After," which took a similar ultra-realistic view of the consequences of a nuclear strike -- and it was very reflective of the attitude of the mid-'80s, that sense that the button could get pushed at any time. The propaganda mills ran overtime to convince people that the Soviets were ready to launch missiles at any moment, to the point where a little girl from Maine became a world celebrity for about fifteen minutes for writing Yuri Andropov a letter asking him if this was really so. And the Soviets, for their part, were just as convinced that the US was planning a first strike. Paranoia ran thick and heavy thruout that decade -- not as bad as The Fifties, but bad enough.

I've yet to see The Day After, but have long planned to watch them both back to back once I have the flat fniished and my new tv system in.... I find it fascinating to see how different cultures approach the same thing differently. Even in the internet age, it's fascinating to see how things vary between the US and the UK. We may share far more than a language, but we're also much more distinct from each other than many realise.

Part of that may be human nature. We can't quite get our minds around the fact that both good and bad can exist within the same person. So for political and military leaders we either remember the best or the worst. And for those who are still living, it's the same thing: we usually just recognize the best or the worst in them. That's probably true for family members, too. And sometimes, it's surprising what we do.

That's exactly it: popular discourse has become almost entirely lacking in nuance. In Churchill's case this has been significantly in his favour, where the less attractive sides of his personality and beliefs have been whitewashed from the record and any attempt to speak of them is howled down. Others have fared less well at the hands of popular history - Richard III and Macbeth among them.

Several years ago my son was in the army. We went to visit him halfway through his training and I went back when he finished. There was a big dinner in the NCO club then, too. I found it rather surprising to see photos of WWII German generals on the wall. Perhaps these days it is more difficult to ever admire an enemy as was sometimes the case in WWII.

Of course this also takes us full circle to the question of what a military is about, and what can be expected of it. Are they simply a professional military who have no responsibility for the politics of their political leaders, or are they equally culpable? Where do we draw the line? There is, of course, some idea of this enshrined in international law - and the Nuremberg trials marked a watershed moment in twentieth century jurisprudence, with positivism completely rejected in favour of a natural law approach. Opinions vary greatly where there is more nuance than with the Nazi menace, and especially where it affects one's "own side". See, for instance, the controversy stirred up by the publication in recent years of an academic book which claimed that allied soldiers had been responsible for a number of rapes as they moved through occupied France. The vitriol against the female academic who authored the book was extreme, and based predomninantly not on any analysis of the historical evidenced she claimed, but rather on a complete refusal to accept that such a thing could be possible. Alas, life is rarely so simple that only good and perfect people do good thinhs, and bad and wicked people do evil.

 

[BlueTrain]

That also reflects the way people 70 years after the fact see things differently from the way they did when the war was actually going on.

A similar argument has been made that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary because the Japanese were just about to give up anyway. Such a viewpoint has never been held by those who were actually doing all the fighting, mainly because they weren't ready to give up at all.

In the case of the German Army in WWII, it is true they followed orders as issued by their leaders, as did everyone else's. But the war crimes trials were about specific acts that were contrary to international law, not simply for waging war.

 

[tonyb]

... I don't remember there being any government announcement telling us that we were either supposed to do something or not do something. ...

As I recall, it was suggested we go shopping.