Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 March 21

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous desk
< March 20 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 22 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


March 21

edit

Smell from old books

edit

How can I overcome the smell from old books and photos (but no visible insects or damage to the books)? Is there any special name for this and it is allergic to some people. Thank you.175.157.25.204 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "musty books", and a number of possibilities turned up. Here's one:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The smell of which you complain gives them a je ne sais quoi. The last thing you want to do is remove it. After all, 'you' are a guardian of such text, until they pass onto a future generation.--Aspro (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me, there is nothing better than the smell of old books. It adds to the experience of reading them. If you smell it again, you can recall the whole (or at least part) of the written words within the books. This is why putting on a certain after-shave or perfume whilst studying is recommended, so long as you put on the same before your exam. It helps you remember. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the somewhat pleasant pulpy smell you get from pretty much any old book, but there is also the distinctly unpleasant mustiness that can also develop, particularly if mildew or mold has been able to take hold. Besides being cloying, the smell can exacerbate asthma and trigger allergic reactions. Pretending that these smells are beneficial is absurd; even just from the point of view of the book, that smell can indicate levels of moisture conducive to rotting, which will end up damaging or destroying the thing. Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Why do old books smell? which quotes Strlič, M., Thomas, J., Trafela, T., Cséfalvayová, L., Kralj Cigić, I., Kolar, J., & Cassar, M. (2009), Material Degradomics: On the Smell of Old Books. Analytical Chemistry, 81 (20), 8617-8622 doi:10.1021/ac9016049 [NOTE: this paper is not open access.] Also The Smell of Books referencing the same research. Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get baking soda <g>. Seriously - deacidification is important. Collect (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions:
1) Mask the odor with something pleasant, like peppermint oil. However, be careful not to get this on the books, as it might damage them. Morgue workers sometimes apply a strong scent right under their nostrils. Note, however, that this isn't likely to prevent an allergic reaction.
2) Read photocopies or electronic copies of the books, instead.
3) Lessen your exposure by only having one one musty old book nearby, as you read it, as opposed to sitting amongst stacks of them as you read. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True story: My brother entered the rare books collection at the library with a friend of his, who comes from Appalachia. His friend went into an immediate sneezing fit, and my brother said "So, it's true, Hillbillies really are allergic to books". Fortunately, his friend wasn't armed with a little brown jug with XXX written on the side, at the time. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Is there any map generator that generate maps from ground up, with doing tectonics plates style stuff and etc...?

edit

Is there any map generator that generate maps from ground up, with doing tectonics plates style stuff and etc...?201.78.161.92 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "map", it sounds like you mean terrain. If so, what you're looking for is "procedural terrain generation" (a kind of procedural generation). This page lists various work done on that, including some that emulate geological actions like plate tectonics and erosion. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Small town America"

edit

What exactly is a "small town" in America? "Small town life has been a major theme in American literature, especially stories of rejection by young people leaving for the metropolis", but being British I'm never quite sure what the term actually refers to. Looking at the "Town" article it seems that many parts of the US use "town" to refer to what in the UK would be a village, while other parts of the US use "town" to mean what would we would call a city. What sort of place are Americans refering to when they talk about "small towns"? Would the place I grew up (pop. approx. 6000 when I lived there) be an example of "Small town America" if it was in America? 62.172.108.24 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town#United States discusses the differing meanings of "city" and "town" in different US states, and the often blurry distinction between the two. Mostly, "city" doesn't have the special meaning in the US that it has in the UK (formerly ecclesiastical, now a special status conferred by the government). So there are some very small cities in the US - the smallest I'm immediately aware of is Dunsmuir, California at 1600 people, but I'm sure we'll beat that. Some places (e.g. Stirling City, California) have "city" in their name, but are designated as census designated places, boroughs, townships, towns, hamlets, etc. But when US media, and particularly politicians, say "small town America", they're often not really talking about people who live in small towns, but instead they're harking to somewhere like Bedford Falls or Mayberry, ideal Norman Rockwell-ish communities where they contend "real Americans" live. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tying in with Finlay's last comments, see Middle America (United States), which often functions as a synonym. You'll note that both "small" and "middle" have little actual connection to the subject. "Middle" Americans might come from anywhere and "small" town Americans might come from anyplace with less people than Chicago. This is partly due to perspective, as with the term "Yankee", which also changes meaning depending on context. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USians often use "town" in a form of litotes. President Obama recently said "Austin is a great town" - [2] - this is a sort of casual understatement. While not as large as London, Austin is larger than San Francisco (by population, 11th largest in the states - List_of_United_States_cities_by_population).
The point is, many rather large cities/metropolises can be casually referred to as a "town", but that doesn't mean anything about their size or legal status. I guess that could be confusing from a British perspective, so I just wanted to clarify. My WP:OR is that Wimborne Minster would be squarely part of "Small town America" if we warped it across the pond. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elmer, New Jersey "The Small Town with the Big Welcome" (pop. 1,395) might be a good example of a small town. It has a highway crossing the main road, where the town's only electric traffic light was located last time I visited. See Google maps. It's a little more built up now.
The town I grew up in in the 70's had two traffic lights, one bank, one grocery store, one department store, no liquor stores, one gas station, an Seven Eleven and a Burger King and a Dunkin Donuts, two (!) pizzerias, and no buildings over two storys except for two that had been built in the 1800's. Most of the land was farm tracts and farm tracts returned to woodland, with a few hamlets with three very small elementary schools and one building for junior high and high school. Nowadays the population has increased fivefold, there are about 20 traffic lights, ten banks, six drug stores, two regional junior high schools, forty fast food places, and no one walks home from school anymore or leaves their house or car doors unlocked. That's not a small town any more. Hud (film) will also give a good portrayal of a small town, as will To Kill a Mockingbird (film).μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that a substantial portion of the US population lives in suburbs or exurbs. So, that particular 'burb may be "small" even if it's hub city is quite large. (And, in the case of Los Angeles, the actual city is dwarfed by all the 'burbs, but I believe London is even more extreme this way.) StuRat (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that "small town" does not include suburbs or exurbs; it suggests a city or town that is not part of the metropolitan area of another city, not large enough to have a metropolitan feel on its own, but not so small that you have to go to a larger city to make routine purchases or, hopefully, to find a job. My intuition is that this implies a population in the range 2,000 up to maybe 40,000. Something like that, anyway. --65.94.50.15 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very relative statement. Elmer is about 30 miles and 30 minutes from both Philadelphia PA and Wilmington DE, but it is most definitely a "small town". μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small town implies not only the population or location or form of governance, it implies a certain level of familiarity with your fellow locals. If a town is small and isolated enough for basically everyone to know everyone else, that's "small town America". If the town is a suburb or an exurb or a bedroom community where people live, but work elsewhere, and where people are part of a much larger, intermingled community, that isn't a "small town". In a small town, the people you work with are the people you go to church with are the people you see at the market are the people you socialize with etc. etc. In other living arrangements, you have entirely different social circles. --Jayron32 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't mention the population of the village of Dunbar, can you give its location? μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring Medeis's facetious attempt to pretend to not understand your response, I'm not sure Dunbar's number plays into it. Dunbar's number is more about maintaining a successful organization; the effective size that a group of people can be to work together in as a cohesive unit: things like companies and churches deal with Dunbar's number, because the social dynamic changes drastically when one crosses that threshold, and thus managament techniques change. The number of acquantainces one can maintain knowledge of is much higher than Dunbar's number, the average average person physically knows about 80,000 people in a lifetime, though at any one given time, probably interacts and knows something like a few hundred, maybe 1500 people. In communities that small, you'd know every face you see on a daily basis, and probably could recall all of their names. If everyone you interact with in your daily life is in that identical set of people, that's a small town. If only a tiny percent of the people you interact with you know well enough to recognize, you're living in a large urban area, regardless of the political subdivision you live in. --Jayron32 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

findeing my wifes fathers history with space center

edit

frist thank you for your responce if you do or can help me , my wifes father past on some time ago and said that her dad uset too worke for the space program at kennedy , i am not sure about what he did but do know he was in the Navy at the time and that would half too be around 1960 too 1970 I think or maybe later on.. his name is Bernard Brazill (Mike) i did try and could not find a page for the past emploeys . it would be relly great if i could surpirse her with some information about her dad . may you have a gret day , william moede USMC. <- Contact details redacted. Any replies will be posted here, and email addresses are an invitation to spammers ->

, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmoede1 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Service records [3] are available for "next of kin". Collect (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat scrunchies save wildlife reliable?

edit

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/scrunchies-prevent-wildlife-death-study-finds/6337222 ? 97.122.124.15 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, but the extremely small sample size means it can't be verified until a larger study us done. Also, they didn't consider potential harm to the cat. Similar to normal collars, there's the risk of it getting caught on something, but the risk may be greater in this case. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
114 cats over 2 years seems a pretty decent start in terms of research??? I think if there were real danger issues to the cat, they'd have come out during the study. --Dweller (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers today, sadly have to publish lots of papers to justify their existence. never mind the quality. --Aspro (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They mentioned that bells become less effective over time. They didn't go into detail as to why, but my guess would be that the cat's natural stalking behavior can be refined to the point where they move too slowly to ring the bell, until within pouncing range. (Cats must be intelligent enough to learn what approach works best when hunting.) StuRat (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cats do find ways of silencing the bell or moving in such a way as to not let the bell ring. I haven't the vaguest idea where I read that since it was years ago, so this isn't complete OR.
The scrunchies are likely much safer for the cats since various other collars can get caught on sticks or fence posts and strangle the cat. I would think that the scrunchie would come off easier than a regular collar. Before I was born, my family had a cat that accidentally hung itself from our back fence because the collar got caught on the pickets. That said, in the last couple years or so, my local animal shelter has taken in two cats who have gotten their paws through their collar for some reason and the collar then had to be surgically removed from their armpits and the armpits then stitched together. One cat lived and the other eventually succumbed to infection. I don't see how the scrunchies would be better in that regard. Dismas|(talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question: Assessing the effectiveness of the Birdsbesafe® anti-predation collar cover in reducing predation on wildlife by pet cats in Western Australia Catherine M. Hallemail, Joseph B. Fontaineemail, Kate A. Bryantemail, Michael C. Calver, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia Published Online: January 25, 2015. The research was specifically into the Birdsbesafe® collar (BBS) rather than any old scrunchie and concludes; "To date, the BBS is the only predation deterrent that reduces significantly the number of herpetofauna brought home. It is unsuitable where endangered mammalian prey or large invertebrates are vulnerable to predation by pet cats". Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, the sleigh-bell scrunchy with flashing strobe light and random hissing attachment! μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No parking" cones in the UK

edit

No intention of doing this anything (either way) myself, just curious...

I've seen people who live near me in the UK using "no parking" cones outside their homes to try to prevent others from parking where they could legitimately do (ie not private spaces etc). This semms like a misuse of the cones, but I wondered if they're actually doing anything wrong by doing this? A link to any relevant law or bit of highway code would be interesting. No advice sought, thank you, as (I repeat) I have no intention whatsoever of taking any action, whether copying or obstructing. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, I'm pretty sure they are legal, as private construction firms use them all the time, as when they repave a driveway and want to warn people not to drive on it until it sets. Now the usage you described could possibly be illegal, although I suspect it would fall under a broader category, such as "using emergency signals in a non-emergency situation" or "installing false signage". StuRat (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pavement that isn't ready for use isn't the same thing the original poster's talking about. It's more like parking chairs, a custom in some of the snowier US cities. --65.94.50.15 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly relevant. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A private individual can not impose his own rules on a public highway even if it is out side his house. Is it illegal? Well the police may not take any action because they have better things to do but yes, it is obstruction. If you want to keep the space out side your house clear for a very good reason (like there is a funeral hearse calling that day) the council will permit cones without any fuss.--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use for construction sites is provided for in statutes - the firms are obeying the law which in many cases requires the vehicles be kept a certain distance away from the site. Collect (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anectote alert: Outside my house, we have white lines, shaped like a capital I, for parking spaces along the road. I'm not a driver, so I hadn't known what they meant until recently. One day a guy came along in his car, parked it, then came over to me to ask if he needs a permit to park there. I said I didn't know, but he said, "It says so on that sign." I asked him what sign, and he pointed to one which was right next to my house, and I said, "Oh, I have never seen that before." He just burst out laughing, got back into his car and drove off. As I say, I am not a driver. I use mountain bikes. I know that people in my area did used to use cones, though, until these white lines made them redundant. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 02:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a related issue here in the US, where one private school feels free to park buses on the road, which only has one lane in each direction, thus closing the road in one direction for about an hour as students arrive in the morning and then leave in the afternoon. There seems to be an area to the south of the school for buses, but for whatever reason they decided they would rather park in the street for an hour: [5] (go to the satellite view, which doesn't show the buses, but you can get an idea for how tight the spacing is). I wonder if this is illegal. (They don't bother to put out traffic cones to close the road, but somehow I doubt if that would make it legal to do so.) StuRat (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have school buses in the UK (the kids use public transport/are driven to school by a parent/walk), but in Japan we had them, and they would park actually inside the playground to let the kids out. Then they would go away and park in a designated area (which they presumably rented), then come back later to take the kids home again. Then park back at the designated area. This is a decent system, I believe. Parking inside the playground is done for safety. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 03:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parking on the playground doesn't seem like a good idea, because the bus will leave ruts when driven over wet ground, and possibly get stuck. Of course, I am assuming this "playground" isn't paved. If it is, then I'd expect lots of injuries from playing children. A designated (paved) parking area for buses seems like a better idea, with designated areas for each group of children to wait for their bus. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I can understand your concerns, but in rural Japan, there are very narrow roads. It was much safer to have the kids get into the buses in the playground (this is a kindergarten, I am talking about). The playground itself was covered in sand and stones, yes, but not too deep. There was rock underneath. Of course, this in itself could be a safety risk, as they had special climbing things, like castles and stuff which were at least 12-foot high. Nobody ever got injured in the whole two years I was working at that place, except for one boy who got stung by a bee. However, at a language centre I worked at previous to that, one boy (not from my class) was hit by a car after running out of the place when lessons were over. Thankfully, he wasn't injured much. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 12:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have school buses in the UK, but they are usually run by private companies. At two schools near to where I live they use designated parking areas on school premises, as in Japan. Dbfirs 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we just don't have them here in Scouseland, because I have never ever seen one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are rare in Scouseland, but there are a few routes designated as school services and operated by the Corpie. They are not really recognisable as School buses and might turn into normal service Corpie buses at some stage. Dbfirs 10:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have some 'dedicated' school buses in Hampshire (I live near two large schools), which are yellow (perhaps apeing US practice), but the majority have standard livery and are redeployed to ordinary public service outside school transit periods: additionally many pupils simply use ordinary public timetable buses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If other local residents are stupid enough to not park where the cones are placed then the the system will work. however no residents in the UK have any right to park outside their own property unless there is some sort of accepted designation written on the road surface "Disabled Parking" is a fairly common one. (Although this seems to refer to the type of vehicle permitted rather than a specific house occupant). Technically the cones are an obstruction on the highway, but being of little consequence are of little interest to the traffic authorities or the police. There is nothing, except the natural reticence of English people, stopping anyone moving the cones and parking there. Internationally they may be used temporarily by construction firms to request people not to park obstructively during the works but this will be obvious to the parker and not what the OP is asking about. Richard Avery (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they put the cones in the road, they might be committing an offence under the Highways Act 1980, section 137 "wilfully obstructing the free passage of a highway"; if they put them on the pavement (sidewalk), it's the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 28 "wilfully causing an obstruction in any public footpath or public thoroughfare". I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to get the police or council to act on this, or if it would succeed in court. Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion (from a UK police forum, not an official source) may prove informative on the actual responses to be expected. A persistent cone-planter could find themselves on the wrong end of an injunction or an ASBO, but the police (generally) have more important things to worry about. Tevildo (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you could construct the following scenario: Person A moves a cone to their parking space to reserve the spot. A gust of wind blows the cone onto the road. A driver (motorcycle or whatever) is struck and loses control of their vehicle. …continue scenario to its tragic end.
A state attorney may (or may not) charge person A with manslaughter. Our articles on recklessness, criminal negligence et al may indicate if such a possibility exists in UK legislation. I am, of course, ignoring here the trauma which is experienced by A, even if no culpability is given. --80.121.81.32 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Oops: --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be manslaughter - see Manslaughter in English law. Gross negligence manslaughter requires that the negligence "shows such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime", and it's unlikely that leaving a cone in the road would count as any sort of negligence. Unlawful act manslaughter requires an unlawful act "that is likely to do harm to the person", and obstructing the highway (the unlawful act in question) is only _likely_ to cause inconvenience and annoyance, not harm - the fact that it _did_ cause harm in this case is irrelevant. Tevildo (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo, I think that advice is worth what you were paid for it. In the US you might get both a manslaughter charge for illegally putting a cone in the road and a civil suit for wrongful death. Deaths caused by similar actions often result in serious criminal penalties. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that it might be manslaughter in some jurisdictions. I equally have no doubt that it would not be manslaughter in England, as anyone who reads our well-referenced article on the subject can confirm. Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting replies, thank you all. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See constructive manslaughter" "In the United States, misdemeanor manslaughter is a lesser version of felony murder, and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the homicide if the misdemeanor involved is a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions, which means that a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea." μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to cite any laws or rules, but our local police force (South Wales) regularly conduct random checks of street parking areas, and remove any cones put out for this purpose. If the name of the person who reserved it is on the cone, they are often warned personally that parking outside your own home is a privilege not a right. Their Twitter page regularly posts pictures of offending cones being removed. Not aware of any 'convictions' though, just warning that they aren't allowed to do it... gazhiley 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear attack on US - policy for prisons and correctional institutions?

edit

Assuming 75% of the US isn't vaporized, what would be the policy for these types of establishments. Obviously the detainees cannot let themselves out, nor would government be likely effective enough to administer to their needs. This is a tough question that touches on all sorts of ethical frontiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.247.80.54 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many such do incorporate some agricultural activity - and all have electrical generators, so I doubt they would be as urgent a problem as hospitals where there is no such possibility of being self-sustaining. At this point, the gigatonne weapons are not likely to be used as much as small tactical weapons which are of far greater value - the aim of war is not "obliteration" but usually one of physical conquest - and a radioactive desert is scarcely worth that amount of effort. MAD was not very likely when the parties were chess players, which is what wise warriors have always been. Alas, MAD was more of an internal psychological exercise. Personal opinion expressed - no reliable source needed. Collect (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MAD = Mutual assured destruction. --NorwegianBlue talk 10:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A triage system would probably come into operation. The most dangerous would be euthanized and at the other end of the scale.. those who were incarcerated for smoking a little weed would be freed so that they can help clear up the mess. Just like in the second world war when the US needed cannon fodder. In war-time, peacetime ethics goes out the window.--Aspro (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Penal Battalion. A nuclear war would not happen spontaneously. It would start with conventional forces, and when one side starts to lose personnel to the limit that they need more people, then convicts would be used - this is an historical fact. If it did come to all-out nuclear exchange (which is unlikely - even Putin is not that MAD), then most of the people in the prisons woud be on the battlefield anyway. Despite what Aspro says above, euthanasia would not be used, as even in times of war, there are legal issues to deal with, such as the Geneva Convention. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 03:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'War Powers Act' permits anything. Euthanasia is not explicitly excluded. One has to look at the practical side. If the devastation is so great that one can not feed the survivors, what does one do with the inmates of correctional institutions? Those in government that have to consider such an event in oder to prepare, have laid out plans. I think that these where formulated during the earl 1960's . They consider how many doctors, police etc would survive a nuclear attack and did the same sums as were done during the second world war in the event that the Nazis invaded Britain. Peter Laurie touched upon this in his book Beneath the City Streets. --Aspro (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
You seem to be forgetting the Attack at Pearl Harbor. Assuming there's no warning, it's reasonable to expect most guards will flee their posts and if the prisoners are not in lockdown there will be a lot of score settling and a prison break. There's no way we can answer this since we have no precedent upon which to make a prediction, dozens of alternatives are possible, and there are hundreds of prisons across the US. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pearl Harbour was not a nuclear attack. It was just an attack by a bunch of fighter-bombers at an isolated spot in Hawaii. Given, it was American territory, but nothing much happened, except to draw the US into the war. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your point that a surprise nuclear attack couldn't happen is obviously false, and my example shows that wars don't always build expectedly up from minor aggressions. I won't argue the minutiae. One might also look at HEMP. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Minor aggressions'? We were already two years into a global war. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 01:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Radar was not widely used in 1941, and the planes were actually spotted from some remote ships, but the warnings went unheeded. Even so, such an attack (against America, anyway) would be much harder to execute in terms of "sneaking up" on us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not by the USA but it had been used in the RAF since 1939 at least (OR: my father trained on its use in 1939) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll again point to HEMP as a very easy way for NK or Iran (or a more powerful enemy) to launch a crippling attack without warning. KT, you have obviously understood my point, so I am not sure why you are nitpicking. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No nation would suddenly and without warning launch a nuclear attack on another, without there being a build-up of tensions for some reason or another, which would inevitably be displayed on the news, and planned for by both countries (and hopefully avoided). Also, look at Tsar Bomba. This nuclear bomb is so big, that if dropped on the UK, it would also kill people in New York AND Moscow. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was the case in the Cold War, neither the Russians (who, as Marxists, did not believe in an afterlife) nor the Americans were suicidal, due to MAD. It would have been obvious who attacked and against whom to retaliate. But crazy suicide-bomb and IED regimes and agents needn't vaporize any portion of the land of the US with dozens of landstrikes, and "nations" need not be the aggressors. Again, read HEMP. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-woolsey-and-peter-vincent-pry-the-growing-threat-from-an-emp-attack-1407885281 and http://video.foxnews.com/v/4097630242001/woolsey-threat-to-electric-grid-keeps-me-awake-at-night/?#sp=show-clips from former CIA director James Woolsey.
Any agent like ISIS could cripple the US electric grid, with estimates of 75-90% casualties in the US within a year after an attack with one-to-three small weapons detonated at high altitude. There are plenty of crazy actors who might do this on their own or as a proxy for another country that would remain behind the curtain. Should, say, Russia back an ISIS false flag operation that launched three HEMP missiles from San Francisco, New Orleans, and New York at once, how would the US react? Whom would it bomb? Meanwhile all the jails and prisons would be out of power, food, and water in a day or two at best. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a situation (not a nuclear attack, but a natural disaster) is an important plot point in A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe. A lot of prisoners manage to escape, other are trapped, and with emergency workers overwhelmed by the demand on their capacity, no one has time to give the correctional facility in the middle of the disaster zone much attention. --Xuxl (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015_March_21&oldid=1138634355"