In the last few years, I've slowly stopped watching the 24/7 news networks out of the United States. I watch BBC, CBC and Al Jazeera but nothing American.

The basic reason for this is simple. I've become annoyed with the US media's obsession with 9/11.

Truthfully, I recognize it as a day of great significance. I don't mean to belittle its importance -- but it is not unique in its place as a major turning point in history or national identity.

This year will mark the 10th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks. In that time, I do not believe there has been a single 24 hour period in which any 24/7 news network has not mentioned 9/11 at least once. I haven't done a study, but this strikes me as a very safe bet.

To me, this seems ludicrous -- that it hasn't been allowed to fade from the public consciousness at all.

To provide some historical perspective:
Were they still talking about Pearl Harbour every day in 1951?
Were they still talking about the fall of the Berlin wall every day in 1999?
How about the moon landings every day in 1979?

I know the way the media operates has changed... but those are events of similar or (perhaps) greater historical importance than 9/11. It's hard to quantify, but it's also hard to see what makes 9/11 so singularly deserving of this obsession.

Other major events in the same media age certainly haven't got the same treatment. Katrina and the South East Asian Tsunami faded from public dialogue quickly enough. North East Africa has been completely redefined in the last month (and I don't mean Egypt) but the media barely covered that even as it was taking place.

I really don't understand the obsession. But, really, here's my question to you:

How long after the attacks of 9/11 do you expect to have the first 24 hour period in which not one of the 24/7 news networks in the United States mentions that day? Our first 9/11 free day, as it were.

If you'd told me on that day that it would take 10 years, I'd have laughed at you. But, at present, it seems impossible to me that such a day will come before the 10th anniversary.

So, anyone care to place a wager? Will it come before the 15 year anniversary?

And does anyone else find this time-line fluffing insane?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Is this a flame bait? The differences between a natural disaster and 9/11 are rather obvious and it's really a shame that you can't/won't see them. For the record, 65 years later people are still talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Also, leave the media out of it. They're just selling whatever crap that their target market demands. Obviously Aljazeera and ABC/NBC/whatever US network have different audience. And to answer your question, which I believe it's rhetorical since you've already answered yourself, you have the right to choose what news channel you watch:

Is this a flame bait?

Are you comparing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that marked the beginning of the atomic age, with 9/11?

I don't really "flame bait".

I just think that the amount of coverage and attention given by the media to 9/11, so long after the event itself, is disproportionate when compared to the coverage and attention given to events of comparable magnitude.

9/11 is part of history now, not current events. As such, it should be addressed primarily in that context.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Of course not. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, however atrocious and eventually useless, they were actually legit war actions.

Fooglmog, 9/11 IS part of the current events. (Sorry about the "flame bait" part.)

It will continue for as long as most Americans will remain sheep to media sensationalism.

Which is to say, forever :).

9.11 is 7 month away.
why bring this up now?

aren't we still doing some kinda war that was initiated because of 9/11? why shouldn't it still be in the news, if it hasn't been closed out?

oh, so you're who watches cbc

"however atrocious and eventually useless,"

former yes, latter? absolutely not.

Congrats on contributing to the 24 hour mentioning of 9/11.

Maybe I read that wrong. It seems to me you just stated that the 2 decisive powerplays that brought the Japanese to the table and agreeing tothe unconditional surrender that the allies were demanding was "eventually useless"

that these actions that prevented the dreaded x-day (the invasion of mainland japan that would probably cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions) was eventually useless?

The firebombing of tokyo killed many many more people than those 2 atomic bombs. It just never got the same attention. No matter how ou look at it I don't think you could classify the psycological impact of the atomic bombings as "useless"

forgetting the fact that it spawned V-J day, in a twisted way it revealed the true horror of the atomic weapon and was a major player in future deterent of using the devices when they became thousands of times more powerful.

Maybe that's just me though.

9/11 is over quoted by the spin machine of the american media, aka the american propaganda machine.

Major point of the answer is in the last line. There wasn't 24/7 news channels for any of those (except the fall of the wall which wasn't american, therefor does not matter)

Try running a NATIONAL 24/7 news network, there isn't much to talk about in terms of BREAKING NEWS on a national level. So what should we talk about that will get our viewers emotional (angry? sad? empathetic?)



There you have it.



Now...you watch CBC? My god. At least CTV has Marcia MacMillan. I don't know what it is about her, but she's got some nerdy librarian thing going on. I would do dirty things to her...on air.

Because anyone who doesn't think 9/11 was the most important thing to happen EVER is un-American!!! BURN THE TRAITORS!


Foog - I think maybe the answer you're looking for is loosely related to concepts like imminent domain - blanket justification for opinion/action, and to quiet those nagging feelings that something's not quite right.

I find it amazing how you people could think the intentional massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was justified just to "finish off" a nearly finished army. Could the Japanese have carried the effort after their land army, airforce and naval forces were severely decimated by their continuous losses? Probably not. Japan was already in peace talks with Soviets. Given time they would have eventually extended the same offer to the US.

Nukes. Nice to see that after 60+ years American mindsets still haven't changed. Massacre of innocents = just a means to an end = good for ol' America. With such a blatant hypocritical mindset do you still wonder why a significant part of the world loathes the US?

"We can have thousands of nukes and use them whenever we want (and we have in the past and won't hesitate to use them again) but you can't have even 1 because you're far more dangerous than us" Lolwut?

9/11 is a drop in the ocean compared to the systematic genocide inflicted upon the Japanese.

"he firebombing of tokyo killed many many more people than those 2 atomic bombs. It just never got the same attention"

bombs away lemay did a wonderful job, and it got plenty of attention. even to this day, you can go to the history channel or military channel, and watch a couple hundred superfortresses burn their island.

nouda doesn't understand history very well.

"just to "finish off" a nearly finished army."
they were nearly finished off on iwo, when from 22.8k they had 200 alive.

"Could the Japanese have carried the effort after their land army, airforce and naval forces were severely decimated by their continuous losses? Probably not"

there is footage of civillians in the streets, women and children, grandparents, practicing military drills. The answer, even though you seem sure of your probably not, is absolutely yes. They estimated as low as 250k american soldiers.. go look at ground invasions of wwii, tell me how it worked out for the civilians. Furthermore, after hiroshima, they had a.. i forget, few days to a week? to surrender, and yet they passed on not a single word. So america dropped another, and to this day i want to visit the uss missouri

"Japan was already in peace talks with Soviets. Given time they would have eventually extended the same offer to the US."

While we continued to burn their island to the ground? they build with paper and wood, maybe they'll learn of stone one day?

"Nice to see that after 60+ years American mindsets still haven't changed. Massacre of innocents = just a means to an end = good for ol' America."

Yea, that whole liberating the planet and giving to back to whomever it belonged to, they are some bad, bad fluffing people. Makes you with the fascists in europe and the imperial japanese in the pacific had won. then those filthy americans with their human rights and their equality for all would be dead, and we'd all be german japanese or enslaved in death camps

who wants a nice leisurely walk to bataan?

You are absolutely correct. The use of those atomic bombs was way over the line for the Japanese. Even after brutally killing tens of millions of innocent civilians in the countries they conquered, raping the women before/after taking them away from their homelands, treating POWs like they weren't human (treating them worse than the civilians in the countries they destroyed, by using them for biological experiments and torture), attacking other countries' military assets without provocation (which kinda forced us to declare war on them and Germany in the first place).

And all that was before the Japanese started losing the war. You know, where the Japanese resorted to cannibalism of POWs, mass-suicides, kamikaze attacks, and mass-killings of POWs (and civilians). Ooh, remember the times they would herd hundreds of POWs into bunker chambers, douse them with airplane fuel, set them on fire, and watch as they were burnt to death? That was mostly due to an order that went out telling the Japanese soldiers to kill the POWs in any way they could before the Allies could get to them.

And yeah, there's the reason that American lives were worth more than the lives of the Japanese back then. Why waste all that time and American lives when you could just make a couple Japanese cities disappear, while achieving the same ultimate objective?

rearm them and send them into north korea!

?

Japan is "rearmed".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

*knock, knock*

uh, there is no door?


it was a joke. i never said a good one.
(i do believe it is against their constitution to wage war, isn't it? offensively?)

"This was intended to prevent the country from ever becoming an aggressive military power again. However, within a decade, America was pressuring Japan to rebuild its army as a bulwark against Communism in Asia after the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War,"

wikipedia, to be sure, but i forget that sometimes the wwii specials i watch don't focus on ten years later :P

Japan isnt allowed, by constitution, to have a standing army

they have bypassed this by having a "Defense force" and the JMSDF (navy) is an extremely powerful one.

Yeah, it's actually still in their constitution. But it's been re-interpreted to allow for a "self-defence force". At present, their "self-defence force" has a budget about the same size as Germany's military.

It's true that they've stayed away from building offensive capability. They couldn't operate a major army unit independently overseas. But they've got some damned fine equipment.

Their Navy in particular is impressive. There's an argument to be made that in combat operations, it outclasses every navy in the world except the US. Though that's a tight race.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

well fooglmog, that is mostly true

Japan is one of the extremely limited allies that the US has exported the aegis system to (i believe they were first) and that system alone makes their DDGs among the worlds elite

however, there was recently a huge mess involving the building of a helicopter carrier. their constitution prohibits any offensive weapons, and carriers have long since been known as offensive weapons.

it was a rather large deal over there not too long ago.

Japan is seriously lacking in one area though, their UNREP capabilities are seriously lacking compared to other navies of their size. this can be blamed on the defense only mindset however. they rely heavily on the US 7th fleet when it comes to long range campaigns

i did a quick look and couldn't find anything, but does america give japan aid to keep its navy/defensive force up to par? Or do the Japanese take care of it themselves in a similar way canada takes care of ours?

(nobody aids us in money or weapons, not that i was ever told at least)

Japan's Defence Force is entirely funded from national sources. After all, Japan does have the third largest economy in the world... and their entire expenditure constitutes less than 1% of GDP.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The US doesn't aid them, we just base a fleet and a few squadrons of aircraft at their home islands.

ok, that was a dumb/poorly worded question, but thank you for the answer (i just should have realized :P)

would japan be considered a strong ally of the united states? i guess my question of aid was more of a would they side with america, or would they side with china?

and then that would go to say that they would side with america, no?

another thing i probably could have realized on my own with only a little thought :P

read my post.

Japan US relations have strained a little recently, but with the large amount of technology sharing and the military support that we have based there, i would have to say they would side with us. however i highly doubt they would get involved in ANY conflict unless it was a extreme lats resort, I.E. someone attacked them first.

I'll agree with most of that mrford.

I wouldn't call the Helicopter Carrier debate a mess. It's a serious political issue, and they dealt with it. One of those ships is already in service, and the second is due to be commissioned in March.

You're absolutely right about the aegis system. They have six aegis destroyers in service... and two of them are brand new. Those new ships have got some serious balls on them.

Where the Japanese Navy really excels, though, is in ASW. They have the best platforms in the world for that.

And the fact that they have no aspirations of building real carriers means that they've invested a good chunk of money in surface-to-surface capabilities too.

You're right about unrep though... and their fleet composition means that they lack the capabilities that are inherent to other similarly sized navies. But if they went toe-to-toe with the French, British or Chinese fleets, I'd be a lot happier sitting on a Japanese ship than on the other side.

*** *** ***

Japan is a close ally of the United States -- and considers China to be their largest threat. Frankly, Japan is more likely to end up at war with China than the US is.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

i had no idea that post was there, sorry dude. i had completely over looked it :(

well i was thinking china would, as the whole proximity thing. but i have no idea what their relations/geopolitics are, which is where my questioning comes from, as you guys seem to have the answers :P

I still play Jane's Fleet Command to this day!

the japanese have a sub that is better than the virginia class?

Braden... in North America and (to a lesser extent) Europe, we have a habit of talking about "Asia" as if it's one entity. It's not.

China, Japan, India, South Korea... they're all huge economies and are all forced to trade with one another -- but none of them like each other. There's a lot of bad blood between them all.

It's essentially the same as the Germany/Russia issues. They've done awful things to one another in the past. Except, in the case of Russia/Germany, this only goes back about 100 years. In the case of Asia, they've had problems just as recently but they also have a couple thousand years of the same thing before that.

China sees itself as a competitor with the United States. They don't quite want the same thing as cold war USSR/USA, but they want to compete for global position.

South Korea and Japan both align themselves with the US. They hate each other, but play nice for the most part because the US wants them to. Neither likes China, but both look down on India.

India's pretty independent. They hate China, and have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to Japan and (to a lesser degree) South Korea. They tend to align themselves with the US globally, but regionally they oppose a lot of the US's actions because they support Pakistan.

*** *** ***


No, they have different subs which are also very capable. The Japanese navy operates exclusively diesel-electric submarines. The Virginia is nuclear. Electric submarines will always be potentially quieter than nuclear submarines... but the nuclear submarines have other advantages like not needing to surface.

The Japanese submarines are excellent, as is the Virginia class submarine. They have different advantages and weaknesses... and which would be more effective depends on how you choose to use them.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

and the us needs pakistan as an ally in terrorism, that i understand. you tied that all in rather nicely. thank you.

why does india have issues with south korea? japan i guess from wwii or does it stem from well before that?

i know the virginia class is just short of two billion dollars, i'm guessing deisel electric is far cheaper :P

but at the same time i would have thought the deisel electric would make the more noise than the nuclear, but i guess they have made a lot of advancements since donitz's time

Korea was effectively controlled by the Mongols in the 13th century. The Mongol invasions of Japan in that time were launched on Korean ships.

They haven't really got along since. But in 1910, Japan annexed Korea and essentially used their people as slaves and tried to erase Korean culture. That didn't end until after WWII.

India and Korea actually have strong relations officially. There's no bad blood there really. But they do see one another as competitors. The real issue between the two is a latent racism that exists among East Asians against those from the Indian sub-continent. This is furthered by the fact that Korea and Japan have both created vibrant modern economies of the type that India has tried and failed to create.

They do work together just fine in business. But their friendship doesn't extend beyond that from what I understand.

***

Yes, diesel electric boats are much cheaper than nuclear. The reason they're quieter is because, when they're using their electric systems, they have very few moving parts. The thing that really makes noise on a nuclear boat is the cooling pumps... when you're running electric, that's not a concern.

From what I've read, the new Soryu class submarine can stay submerged for at least a couple weeks at a time without running its diesel... so it's effectively an electric boat.

The main advantage that the Virginia has over it is speed. It's significantly faster.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

japan and korea i know have a storied past to say the least. i think the 38th parralel was an agreement between the japanese and the russians originally? we all know how well that has worked out

i haven't been able to find class name for this japanese sub, i'd like to take a look at it's weaponry (i would imagine it is less offensively equipped than the trident carrying virginias :P)

the Virginia Class Submarine isn't Trident ICBM armed

it was developed to be small, and be more comfortable in the shallow water operations that our mission area is moving towards with all the special operations deployments that are tasked to our submarine force.

Japan's newest class submarine is a AIP system, and is the Soryu class. It has no Vertical Launch system and can carry Torpedos, Harppon ASMs, and/or tube launched mines

The class name is Soryu... it has some accents on it though, and the forum here doesn't let me write it properly.

And the Virginia class doesn't carry the Trident... it carries Tomahawks. Cruise missiles, rather than ICBMs ;)

The Soryu carries Harpoons... which is an anti-ship missile with a range of about 70 miles. Far short of the Tomahawk (which has a range of about 1500 miles), but the harpoon is more likely to get past the counter-measures deployed on ships.

Again, just different weapons for different kinds of fighting.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

/me slaps foogl

i just said EXACTLY what you did. lol

ohio class, wow, i had no idea they didn't use them. i mean, i only assumed they would.

tomahawk it is

(i need to start refreshing before i hit enter.. i'm destocking bushels on team server.. or trying to, way too late again)

there were Nuclear armed tomahawks with tactical (only 200kt) warheads. BGM-109A (TLAM-N) was their designation. They were supposedly taken out of service with SALT though.

Only SSBNs had the machinery and capability to launch ICMBs. Neither the 688, 688i, Seawolf, nor Virginia class have/had this capability. They are not SSBNs, they are SSNs or "attack submarines"

blah if they stop mentioning they won't easily get public support to invade Iran... hehe j/k

anyhow 9/11 should be mentioned every single day for the rest of eternity...so should every other such attack or terrorist act...so we may never let our guard down and never forget what extremism can do
thank you come again!

in before 9/11 was an inside job to create wars for oil control and world domination.

"braden
Member
Posts: 648 Feb 7th 2011, 17:11:02
rearm them and send them into north korea!"

we had gone so, so long without mentioning it

i tried foog :(

it shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. da people protecting da us shouldn't have let it da happen. no, i don't have to be on my guard because i'll let some insane nutt armed with a box cutter crash my plane in the ground because i'm a good little christian. dude, if it ain't a gun, you really need to quit waving that thing at me.

I am going to go ahead and just agree with this entire post.

With one addition you Canadian scum. It's spelled Harbor.

Just note, I have no idea if you are Canadian or not. But you spell things wrong and you seem like a North American. Which is really loosely claimable if you are in fact a Canuck, as they really have no say in anything important. Maybe Hockey.