Friday, October 31, 2014

Rule 5?

Cracked posts a very good piece of gun-handling advice.

I always recommend that people follow the four rules, but I’ve always maintained that they are not quite good enough.  There are other items, like keeping a clear head (no distractions), not getting tunnel vision*, understanding how to operate your weapon (or being watched by someone that does) and so forth. 

One huge rule that I always, always, ALWAYS follow, which I don’t think that anyone has given enough thought to, is the safety rule that Cracked talked about in this gruesome article:

If you manage to drop a firearm, DO NOT attempt to catch it.

"Just let it go, man.  Let it go..."

Modern firearms pretty much all have “will not fire unless the trigger is pulled” safeties of some sort on them.  You are relatively safe that if your gun goes clattering to the ground, that it will not discharge as a result 

There are some exceptions, REMINGTON, but those are few and far between

Trying to catch said gun, however, is about the most patently unsafe thing you could possibly do, because you are going after that weapon, which is falling uncontrollably, with ten things that the trigger on that weapon was expressly designed to be actuated by – your fingers. 

Bet you thought I was going to say something else, right?

More people have shot themselves trying to catch a dropped piece than I care to think about, because when you grab a falling gun, you have no way to ensure that you aren’t grabbing it by its trigger, which is the only way to guarantee that the “a dropped gun won’t go off” safety will fail miserably. 
This is your brain on a poorly-caught gun.  Any questions?

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Like, Whoa, Man!!!

Deep thought for the day:

I have come to the realization that every person should have at least one other person on this planet that they love more than they love themselves. 

If there isn’t one person on this good Earth that you wouldn’t gladly take a bullet for, it’s my honest opinion that you’re doing it wrong. 


Monday, October 27, 2014

Tam Posts a Timely Discussion, Reinforcing My Comments on "Unthinkable"

At the link, you will read about a real-world example of the "turkey shoots" that I discussed as applies to my post below.

You will recall that I made the argument that, contrary to popular belief, the allies could have bested the German Wermacht without the help of the Russian Army.  Many people, based on sheer numbers alone, argue that we could never have beaten the Germans without Russia, since Russia committed so many millions of troops to the effort.

I argue that with allied air superiority, that battles, such as the tank battle at Kursk, which consumed so many millions of lives, would never have even happened had it been Britain and American fighting on the allied side.  Russia ALWAYS loses a lot of men when it goes to battle.

America and Britain, however, owned the skies, and any time the German Army tried to move without the cover of bad weather, we systematically picked them apart using air power, with ground forces to hem them into the killing field.  The one time post-D-day that they managed to mount an offensive that set us back, was when the weather did not allow large-scale air sorties to occur.  As soon as the weather cleared, the offensive crumbled.  We had our struggles fighting the Germans before we held air superiority, but once we bested the Luftwaffe, it was only a matter of how many German sholdiers we'd have to kill before Hitler capitulated.

Tam discusses the killing fields at Falaise.  I was born in 1980, so I never saw them in real life, and I've only seen a few pictures, but the idea of what happened there - the sheer magnitude of the suffering and death - haunts me.

Falaise is why we did not need the Russians to win.  We killed and captured more German soldiers at Falaise than the Russians did at two Kursks, and our loss of life was negligible in comparison.  The Russian involvement in the war did nothing, really, other than to raise the total allied body count.  We could have handled the Wermacht without them, but it would have been immeasurably horrible for the poor Germans on the ground.

Monday, October 20, 2014


I got involved in a “what if” discussion about “OperationUnthinkable” over the weekend.  It was very enjoyable, this mental masturbation of considering all of the things that might have been, had this alternative history actually taken place. 

First and foremost, I wonder what it would be like to drive a Russian sports car?  Tam did a post that I can't find,  which was essentially a picture of two cars, one of them a 1990 mercedes sports car that looked awesome, and the other, a Trabant, one of those awful 2-stroke nightmares that the luckiest among the East German population could acquire, and said something to the effect of “take the world’s most intelligent, industrious people, put one group under communism, and one under captitalism, and this is your result."  Makes me wonder what  Russian sports car would even look like… 

A lot of the arguments against the possible success of “Unthinkable” came from arguments revolving around sheer numbers.  I think there were three soviet tanks for every allied tank, and four soviet soldiers for every allied soldier, and so the folks in the conversation that thought “Unthinkable” was, well, un-doable, generally relied on that fact.  Based on sheer numbers alone, the Soviets would be our masters in any confrontation.

Most people do, in fact, consider the Eastern Front to have been the actual war in Europe, whereas the western front was simply a side-show, and they base that on sheer numbers.  As Tam has pointed out (can’t find that post, either), that is probably simplistic thinking.  I also have a more nuanced view of the situation, and consider that the war against Germany was won by the following key factors. Without any one of these, things would have gone very differently:

Allied Supply and Industry

Germany could not touch us when it came to the ability to produce war materials.  Russia could not touch Germany in that same regard, and would likely never have surpassed Germany if it were not for Allied lend/lease programs keeping Russia in oil and ammunition and food.  Without Allied supply, Russia would have almost certainly collapsed after the first few months of war.

The United States Air Force

At the same time that Allied supply chains were dwarfing those of the Axis, Axis supply was being pounded to dust by a relentless air bombing campaign by the Allies.  This also served to degrade the strength of the Luftwaffe, putting them on more equal terms with the degraded Russian air forces.  Without this, German supply could possibly have dwarfed Russian supply, and they could have had a chance at winning a war of attrition with the Russians (maybe). 

The Russian Winter, and German Arrogance

No German commander gave the situation in Russia it’s due regard, specifically as applied to winter, but also as applies to the will of the Russian man, and their ability and willingness to feed their people into the meat grinder, and finally, in having the humility to withdraw and set up defensive lines and perimeters during the worst times of the year instead of attempting to press forward and outstrip their ability to supply.  The Russian winter gave the Russian army a chance to gain a foothold, as Germans outpaced their supply in many fronts. 

Notice that the Russian Army doesn’t make this list.  That is on purpose.  If you look at the total number of Russian casualties, and carry that over to the US and British armies without considering these other facts, you would be tempted to exclaim “there is no way that Britain and the US could have absorbed such massive quantities of casualties!”  And so you’d be tempted to add the Russian Army to that list.

I agree.  They could not have. 

But they would not have, either, and that’s what the folks arguing that line fail to see.  The war in Western Europe was entirely different than the war on the Eastern front, for one reason – the plains and steppes of the eastern front.  The spaces to maneuver were massive, but there was no cover from the air.  Neither side had much of an airforce left towards the end, and so the war was a ground war, won by gross tonnage of men and equipment each side was willing and able to feed into the grinder. 

Consider one famous battle, the battle of Kursk, and think about that battle had one of the belligerents had an actual, operating air force at the time of the battle.  Think about masses of German tanks, sitting out on the open steppes, with nothing to protect them from wave after wave of B-17, B-29, and B-24 bombers.  The entire front of that battle could have been carpet bombed ten times over by the time the Germans fielded an offensive, and no offensive would have ever occurred.  Instead of the largest tank battle in history, you’d have had an unremarkable, nearly casualty-free (for the allies, anyway) bombing campaign (made possible by the absolute allied air superiority at that time of the war, and also their superior supply chains for the bombs and fuel), followed by another unremarkable “mopping up” campaign where stragglers that survived the bombardment were destroyed by ground forces and artillery.  How many would have been lost had that battle been fought between Germany and the Allies, instead of Russia?  I’d argue not many allied troops at all, and probably not as many Germans as actually died, because they would never have been able to field such a force in the first place.    

That battle, alone, as I recall, was responsible for 350,000 Russian casualties, which is damn close to the total casualties of the allies in the entire European war!  If it had been fought against Germany by the US and Britain, the “Battle of Kursk” would have been no different than the “turkey shoots” that US and British air corps inflicted on the Germans and Japanese later in the war on their own fronts.  Couple the horror of this air bombardment with the fact that the Germans would not have been nearly so reluctant to surrender to the Americans, because they knew they’d be treated better, and you’ve got an entirely different dynamic at Kursk. 

I guess what I’m trying to say is that, yes, the Russians lost a lot of men in the war, but historically, the Russians ALWAYS lost a lot of men when they went to battle.  You might argue that the Russians did the lions’ share of the work by fighting these massive battles of attrition against the Germans, and I’d agree, but it was not necessary that they did so in order for the Allies to win.  With our supply and our air power, we could have fought the entire German army ourselves, and we’d have still won.  We just wouldn’t have had to kill every one of them to make it happen, as the Russians found necessary. 

So any argument that the Russians would have been a formidable foe that the other allies could not have handled as easily as they’d handled the Germans tends to fall flat.  Fighting the Germans in mountainous, treed western Europe is entirely different than fighting them on the steppes of Russia.  Our air force became useless in ground support roles in several instances of direct fighting in western Europe, but on the steppes and plains of Russia? 

No surface army could move without air cover, and air cover is one thing that Russians would not have had once the allied lend/lease and alliances dried up. 

Moving on to supply chains.  Even if they could have found someone to supply them (as they were still incapable, even as late as 1945, of supplying themselves) they could not have defended their ports for long.  The American and British navies would easily have crushed the Russians, again, because moving surface ships after 1938 without air cover was suicide, especially against an American Navy that had just fought the largest naval war ever seen, and won handily. 

Every port the Russians had would have been in allied hands in a matter of weeks, which was a key advantage the Germans never gained against Russia because of their lack of a strong navy. 

An Atlantic Ocean empty of German “wolf packs” meant that supply would be pretty much uncontested to any port on Earth (except for those few controlled by Japan in the very early days of the war against Russia), so Allied supply would be unfettered.  Add in the fact that we would no longer be diverting a huge portion of our supply to the Russian cause, or to the bottom of the atlantic, or, after August 1945, to the Pacific Theater, and I think no person could argue against the statement that the balance of supply would be tipped drastically in allied favor.  Drastically. 

So now we’ve got material superiority, and air superiority.  We still don’t have manpower superiority, but with smart deployment, as discussed before, we wouldn’t need it.  The entire Russian army in Germany was being supplied by 20 locomotives.  They wouldn’t last the first week before allied bombings took them out.  If the Russians weren’t quick to retreat, we could have had them cut off from retreat and re-supply in a matter of a few days, using encircling tactics, and avoiding direct confrontation with the main body of the Russian Army whenever possible.  All that would be needed is to repel any counter-attacks, which again, would be made easier by the fact that our air force would be constantly degrading their ability to make war, tighten the noose, and wait for their supplies to run out. 

It was pretty well known that the only reason the Russian army stayed in force during the war was that they hated the Germans more than they hated Stalin.  But give them a chance to choose between surrendering to a benevolent force like the US and British, and starving to death? 

There would be no Stalingrad.  No fights to the last man.  The second they got rumbly in their tummies, they would hoist the white flag. 

If they did not, it would only change the outcome by a few weeks and a lot of Russian blood, anyway.  No Russian force, encircled, cut off from supply, and out in the open, could possibly survive the allied air barrage that we were capable of laying down.  B-29s were almost impervious to Russian anti-aircraft batteries.  Don’t forget, too, that we had nukes and they did not.  The T-34 was  good tank, but even it could not withstand a 500 pound bomb, much less a 12 kiloton nuclear blast. 

It would simply be a case of how many Russians you had to blast to smithereens before they gave up.  But give up they would, without a doubt. 

But I still don’t think that such a thing could have been done without the Russians attacking us, first.  Believe it or not, my biggest reason for thinking that it might not have worked was popular opinion and politics.

No one could have possibly foreseen how powerful and dangerous the USSR was going to get.  In 1945, they were our allies.  How could you possibly convince the American and British pubic, now that they’d won their hard-fought victories, to make war on a key ally and keep fighting?  How could you convince the troops?  Especially when they all knew of the massive attrition rates that the Russians had inflicted on the Germans? 

How do you explain to them that it won’t be the case when we go up against them? 

I think that this, more than any other thing, is the reason that I do not believe that “Unthinkable” could ever have worked.  The US and Britain were tired of war, and would never have supported such an endeavor.  Turns out I was right, because they didn’t, and “Unthinkable” never got it’s legs under it. 

Without that, the campaign never started, and we had 60 years of nuclear brinksmanship and fear as a result. 

Pity I never got to drive that Russian sports car.  

Requested Update

ASM826, co-blogger over at “Borepatch” left this comment below:

<i>Any updates you can share?</i>

Yeah.  I've been kind of dragging my butt a bit for the last couple of days.  Just feeling low over all of this, coupled with the fact that I just missed a big deadline on a project last week, so I've got clients that are righteously pissed off at me right now.  It's one of those things where there's nothing that I could have done, but the owner doesn't care, or know enough about the process to know that he's coming down on me for something that was outside my control.  It’s crisis management time, and I’m not really that good at crisis management without allowing it to stress me out beyond description. 

It's just the job, you know?  You apologize and move on, and try not to let the fact that you've got health issues effect your judgment and your ability to handle the injustice of it all (but fail miserably in the process, if you’re me)... 

"What are you bitching about?  This doesn't look all that hard!"

As for my heart, it's pretty much been established at this point that the surgery didn't work, and I'm going to have to do it again. 

Right now, my cardio-electrophysiologist is in the same boat with me as I'm in with my client right now - it probably wasn't his fault; it was probably out of his control, but I'm still righteously pissed off.

I’ve got a theory as to what happened and why the surgery failed.  My a-fib and a-flutter was triggered in large part by swallowing – cold liquid or a big mouthful of food, as it went down my esophagus, would trigger a-fib almost every time.  To me, this meant that the spot on my heart that was having the issue was right up against my esophagus.  Why else would swallowing trigger it? 

After the surgery, the surgeon confessed to me that there was a spot that needed to be ablated, which he was unable to properly ablate because the spot was so close to my esophagus that he was worried about “cooking” my esophagus and causing esophageal lesions, ulcers, or even worse, literal holes in the damn thing. When he said that, I had a twinge of fear that I set aside quickly out of denial, that maybe he hadn’t fixed me. 

Turns out that is exactly what happened – he got 5 spots on my heart that had bad conductivity, but were likely not the true cause of my a-fib and a-flutter, and missed the one spot that needed to be ablated, out of an abundance of caution for causing worse problems. 
"Well, Mr. Goober, we got that non-life-threatening heart arrhythmia taken care of,
but you now have a hole in your swallowing tube, so no eating for 60 to 90
days while it heals."  

I’m still taking those horrible anti-arrhythmic drugs that make me so tired, and keep me from being able to get my heart rate up enough to perform simple things like walking up flights of stairs without getting light headed.  There were a couple times deer hunting last weekend when I thought I was going to go down, and I told my brother in law to not panic if I did an just give me time to come back to.

"No worries.  I'll be able to get myself out of here with my heart not working right.
Piece of cake!'

The update that I’ve gotten since my last post is not any more heartening or encouraging…  I went to a second doctor to see what their opinion was on this, and the upshot is this:

One:  In 30 days, I get to put on a Holter monitor and wear it for 30 days to count and categorize the arrhythmias.  This will help them determine 100% whether the surgery failed or not (but I already know it did – I haven’t gotten any relief at all from it). 

Two: The course of treatment will almost certainly include a second surgery, and from what I can tell, no one wants to try and do that until 24 months have passed from the first surgery, so it looks like I’ve got a minimum 2 more years of fighting this shit until I have another chance of being fixed.

Three: I’ll be on the arrhythmic drugs and the blood thinner for at least another two years. 

One ray of light, I did complain about the constant bleeding from my psoriasis as a result of the blood thinners, and the second doc switched me from Xarelto to Eliquis, which is supposed to minimize bleeding.  Maybe my bedsheets won’t look like a scene from Dexter every morning anymore, so I guess there’s that. 

I’m trying to focus on the positive things in my life right now.  Mrs. Goober is almost 4 months along now, and the baby is healthy and growing as it should.  It wouldn’t cooperate at the time of the last ultrasound, so we still don’t know if it’s a boy or a girl.  The Mrs. is funny with all of her cravings and being hungry all the time.  She usually eats like a bird, so when we went to Napa yesterday to get brake pads for her car, and a new radiator hose to replace the one that was looking sort of used up, she suddenly had a craving for, of all things, Taco Bell.  So I made “a run for the border” and she got a bunch of absolute crap to eat, and she was so happy… 

The savor of stoned teenagers and pregnant women since 1973

I'm trying really hard to not let the looming spector of my myriad of health problems take away from the joy of making our second child, but it's hard.  I've been so physically broken for so long now, it feels very hopeless.  

Saturday we made the first 75 pounds of sausage from the deer we shot last weekend.  I made 25 pounds each of bratwurst, Italian, and breakfast sausages, both in bulk and in links.  I used pork butts we got from a local supplier to mix 50/50 with deer.

I recently inherited my Great-Grandfather’s 1902 vintage cast-iron sausage stuffer when my Great Uncle Larry stopped making sausage, so we were able to use it to make our sausage this year, and it was fun to use that machine that had been used, through the years, by likely hundreds of my family and ancestors.  I plan to do a post on it soon, because it is really a cool machine, but I need time to do some research on it first. 

I have a steelhead trip coming up on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of November.  It’s a work-related trip.  I’m bringing some folks from work, including an architect from one of my projects, and one owner.  We’re getting a cabin up Hell’s Canyon and will spend three days up there fishing for steelhead.  One of the guys coming along knows how to run a jet boat in the canyon, so that if I have heart issues while we’re up there, he can get everyone out.