Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Tsunami bomb NZ's devastating war secret": NZ Herald, June 30 2000

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:09 PM
Original message
"Tsunami bomb NZ's devastating war secret": NZ Herald, June 30 2000
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 01:10 PM by Minstrel Boy
Note: this isn't to argue that the tsunami was other than a natural occurance. I believe it was. It's just to say, once again, that the military has a different take than us on what is unthinkable, and is presuming to fold forces of the natural world into its mandate.

Tsunami bomb NZ's devastating war secret

30.06.2000
The New Zealand Herald
by Eugene Bingham


Top-secret wartime experiments were conducted off the coast of Auckland to perfect a tidal wave bomb, declassified files reveal.

...

Professor Thomas Leech's work was considered so significant that United States defence chiefs said that if the project had been completed before the end of the war it could have played a role as effective as that of the atom bomb.

Details of the tsunami bomb, known as Project Seal, are contained in 53-year-old documents released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Papers stamped "top secret" show the US and British military were eager for Seal to be developed in the post-war years too. They even considered sending Professor Leech to Bikini Atoll to view the US nuclear tests and see if they had any application to his work.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=14727
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jesus H. Christ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. There was a program on the History Channel last night
about how the US military is secretly hiding UFOs.

Shall we start a thread on that too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. So you don't believe in ufos either?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well, seeing how no one elected you judge of thread
content, your name isn't Skinner, and there is no Mod symbol next to your name, then yes, feel free to go start your own UFO thread.

Jesus H. Christ indeed.

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It didn't take long
for someone to blow the "UFO" raspberry in order to shout down the topic.

My link is a respected daily, four years before the tsuanmi, discussing declassified papers. If you have anything to say on that subject, jump on in. As I will on your UFO thread I anxiously await.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. India has commissioned it's military to investigate the cause of the

tsunami.

and don't forget oil men have been bombing the floor of the ocean with sound waves of some kind for 24 hrs. a day, not too far from where the tsunami started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Straw man lately?
Nobody has ever suggested that blowing up large amounts of explosives underwater wouldn't be able to cause some kind of small disturbance in a limited area. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that the military wasn't working on such a plan, as there is a lot of historical precedent for this kind of work. However, that's completely irrelevant to the current situation in Asia. The point, as has been made time and time again, is that such research is not applicable to the Sumatra quake and resultant tsunami, and its constant invocation as evidence in support of the man-made tsunami theory isn't supported by anything in the publically available data on such military experiments. It's beyond me to understand why people see the need to bring this up again to disprove an assertion that's never been made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The poster clearly states that he is not insinuating this premise
in the Sumatra quake.

He just wants to discuss this research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. From the OP...
>It's just to say, once again, that the military has a different take
>than us on what is unthinkable

Nobody to my knowledge has ever described military research into causing small tsunamis as untinkable. What has been correctly described as wrong on many, many occasions is any possible association of this research with the events off the coast of Sumatra. This information was posted before. It was irrelevant then, it's still irrelevant now. Please excuse me for questioning the motives of the OPer, but I've seen too many threads like this in the past two weeks, many of them with far worse motivations, so I admit I've got a bit of a hair trigger on the subject at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. and again,
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 02:16 PM by Minstrel Boy
The New Zealand Herald is not talking about "small Tsuanmis." It's describing tsunamis that would have the same impact as a Hiroshima. Also, it is describing their intentional, not incidental, creation, and as a weapon, which has been derided here by some as "tinfoil."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. many people are in denial about military applications of
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 01:28 PM by Minstrel Boy
natural phenomenon. That's no straw man. And these articles are not discussing "some kind of small disturbance in a limited area":

..."United States defence chiefs said that if the project had been completed before the end of the war it could have played a role as effective as that of the atom bomb."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carl Brennan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. .............
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Devastating tsunami bomb viable, say experts" NZ Herald, June 30, 2000
Devastating tsunami bomb viable, say experts

30.06.2000
by Eugene Bingham


Tsunami experts believe a bomb secretly tested off the coast of Auckland 50 years ago could be developed to devastating effect.

University of Waikato researchers believe a modern approach to the wartime idea tested off Whangaparaoa could produce waves up to 30m high.

Dr Willem de Lange, of the Department of Earth Sciences, said studies proved that while a single explosion was not necessarily effective, a series of explosions could have a significant impact.

...

"You can't confine the energy. Once the explosion gets big enough, all of its energy goes into the atmosphere and not into the water. But one of the things we discovered was if you had a series of explosions in the same place, it's much more effective and can produce much bigger waves."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=14884
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. I found an interview regarding this in Diego Garcia news
the other day... whatever the Diego Garcia news may be.


------------


Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vpigrad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. Interesting
It does make you wonder why Diego Garcia was not hurt at all. It's also funny how the military spin machine started spinning the story about how Diego Garcia wasn't hurt only hours after the tsunami. Even CNN republished one of the army spins not long afterwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. there are geographic reasons why
Diego Garcia was not affected...

theProdigal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. No, evidently it wasn't - but in these D. G. News they were referring
to the New Zealand thing. It was part II of an interview, couldn't find part one.



---------------------

Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Diego Garcia was not affected by the tsunami
because of the steep rise from the ocean floor to its peak (Diego Garcia is a volcanic atoll) at just a few feet above sea level. if it had been a more gradual rise (as in a body of land on a shelf rather than at the top of a mountain) then the tsunami would have wiped Diego Garcia clean...geography...nothing more...

theProdigal

in case you are curious :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4149637...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. But I DIDN'T say Diego Garcia was affected by the Tsunami! I said
I read in Diego Garcia News that New Zealand - as the original poster said - had evidently been trying out some strange weapons there (decades ago).


-----------

Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. sorry...thought you were vpigrad... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carlvs Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Topology - not Conspiracy
The damage a tsunami can do to a coastline has a lot to do with a the underwater topology of the coastal area. You need a long, relatively shallow run-up to the coast in order for a wave to do its worst.

According to info I got off of globalsecurity.org, the underwater topology of the area of Diego Garcia in the direction the tsunami was coming from is very different:

"...Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, situated on the southernmost part of the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge. To the east lies the Chagos Trench, a 400 mile long, underwater canyon that ranges in depth from less than 1,00 meters below the surface to depths that plunge to over 5,000 meters. It is one of the deepest regions of the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is located to the west of Chagos Trench, which runs north and south. The depth of the Chagos Trench and grade to the shores does not allow for tsunamis to build before passing the atoll. The result of the earthquake was seen as a tidal surge estimated at six feet.

"...Small islands with steep slopes usually experience little run-up - wave heights there are only slightly greater than on the open ocean. This is the reason that islands with steep-sided fringing or barrier reefs are only at moderate risk from tsunamis."


As for your so-called "military spin," I think it had more to do with letting the families and dependents of the units located at the facilities there know that they were OK, since there can be up 3,000+ people on the atoll at any one time


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. would such a weapon have been a violation of ENMOD?
(international treaty on hostile modification of the environment)

http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod /

Both New Zealand and the US have ratified it, I notice.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donailin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Probably, But NIMROD would hve approved, I'm sure
Bush, that is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
23. Self-delete
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 05:49 PM by NickB79
I failed to read the italics print you put in before the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. Noting the date too... 1944
Decades, millions of man hours and billions of dollars ago...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC