Threat Assessment Series Historical Review Societal Reaction to Unconventional Wartime Bombing Campaign Another Threat From Offshore * * * Version 1.01 - Release 19 Jul 2005 Copyright 2004-5 by Lee Knoper All Rights Reserved i. Change Notice ---------------- This transmittal is a revised release; changes made since the previous release are denoted by a pipes symbol ("|") in column 1. ii. Distribution ---------------- Aside from "fair use" quotations, this copyrighted document may be freely copied and distributed ONLY in its complete and unaltered form, ONLY for strictly non-commercial purposes and ONLY if proper credit is given. Credit must note that the document is copyrighted, and must include the full title, version and release date, the author's name and e-mail address, and some indication of where it can be obtained. Example of a typical citation: "Another Threat From Offshore," version 1.01, release 19 Jul 2005, copyright 2004-2005 by Lee Knoper . The current version is available at URL . This document may NOT be distributed for financial gain, in whole or in part, either by itself or as part of another work. This document may be made available ONLY where it can be accessed by the general public without fee or fee based subscription. Its appearance in any given context should not be construed as an endorsement of that context, or of its responsible individuals. In case of questions concerning these limitations, contact the author at . iii. Status ----------- To check the current status of this publication, note the version number or release date in the title block above and refer to "Status of Papers > ATFO" URL ------------------------------- Article as originally posted to USENET in three parts: 1. Introduction (and article threading administration). 2. Historical review. 3. Threat assessment in contemporary context. =============================== Path: local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.flxtek.net!news.flxtek.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:51:02 -0500 Sender: lk-mail@c09-baja-az Newsgroups: misc.survivalism Subject: [Intro] Another Threat from Offshore From: Lee Knoper Organization: Baja Arizona Net (Western Gadsdenia) References: <250520041929229309%timcmay@removethis.got.net> <86k6x5ur1z.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> Summary: Morphing "nuke threats to sats" thread => airborne chem-bio threats in general Keywords: threat, offshore, aircraft, balloon, fusen bakudan, fugo, fu-go, WMD, WMC Reply-To: Lee Knoper Date: 17 Jul 2004 11:51:52 +0700 Message-ID: <86eknb9qxj.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 68 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.186.104.191 X-Trace: sv3-BviQTx1NJN3BBsRWIO5ZuRuFV3x8O83CnR4QncVOQ7CgbThrxwwhOMylKnzBoNcyF/kGzRREAZ/PuUg!9JEc1QfvjwfTf+Dx8z39zylwt8ahjyHJrcfv9xm+LgYvS07Rw7KBr3lNrWN/7XrAhMawA83t9vPw!fESNvuVJng== X-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.survivalism:720876 Administrivia - drawing on two previously unrelated thread leaves: a) "Subject: Re: Kill the Elderly, Women and Children. Just DO IT!" (Frank White, 18 Apr 2004) b) "Subject: Re: Orbital Nuclear Blasts" (Tim May, 25 May 2004) This article is the first in a series of three with similar Subject headers. The remaining two are: 2. [History] Another Threat from Offshore 3. [Assess] Another Threat from Offshore The second and third articles in this series expand and build on the two threads referenced in Administrivia. The second article ("History"), a long one, gives a concise historical review and detailed description of fusen bakudan (fugos), the Japanese balloon bombs of World War II. It highlights the actual impact of these weapons on the United States and Canada. A Google search of the archives turns up relatively few hits for this artifact in all of USENET. Most of these occurrences exhibit only a cursory mention of fugos, or the poster simply provides a vector to more information, or a quote. The most recent mention of fugos here in was by Frank White, in Apr 2004. I included the Message-ID of Frank's post in the References header. Ordinarily I would be highly disinclined to post an article of this length (~80 KB) to a non-binary newsgroup. However, it's still well within the generally recognized nuisance limit of 100 KB. In any event, I think the subject matter is highly relevant to the post-11 Sep 2001 threat environment. I hope the usual audience will find the article both interesting and thought provoking. It could be argued that this review would be more appropriate in, say, or . However, my interest is in actual emergency preparedness, not in just academic study or historical curiosity. Because the atmosphere of emphasizes the need to take personal action to ensure one's safety and security, I feel that the information is more appropriate in this newsgroup instead. I ask the indulgence of the audience for this infrequent demand on bandwidth. The third article ("Assess") parallels Tim May's recent comments about a nuclear threat from close-in offshore locations and the potential economic impact of such a launch. In contrast, my article is in the context of chemical and biological threats - especially the latter. It lightly visits threat and vulnerability assessment relating to fugo-like weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass casualty in the evolving threat environment. I included the Message-ID of Tim's post in the References header. All three of these articles appear as followups to my "Coming Up: Long Article in the Queue" advisory message of 16 Jul 2004 00:19:04 +0700. Very little of this information is original or unique; it's mainly just obscure. It does not provide any substantive fodder for Tango operatives. In fact, in recent years fugos have received renewed public attention, mostly in conjunction with events commemorizing WWII. Final reminder: Those of you who face bandwidth constraints might want skip the next article ("History") in this series because of its size (~80 KB). Lee_K "NO, NO, DOCTOR FARRIS - HE'S THROWING THE SWITCH!" -- Dr Phillips, in "The Doom Machine," Suspense radio theater, 04 Mar 1962. ------------------------------- Path: local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.flxtek.net!news.flxtek.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:44:51 -0500 Sender: lk-mail@c09-baja-az Newsgroups: misc.survivalism Subject: [History] Another Threat from Offshore From: Lee Knoper Organization: Baja Arizona Net (Western Gadsdenia) References: <86k6x5ur1z.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> Summary: An historical and descriptive review of WWII Japanese balloon bombs Keywords: threat, offshore, aircraft, balloon, fusen bakudan, fugo, fu-go Reply-To: Lee Knoper Date: 18 Jul 2004 00:45:43 +0700 Message-ID: <86brie1q9k.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 1626 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.186.104.113 X-Trace: sv3-Y3uYRgo3mvqdoD8+Sd/hMl0biL7DQGnkwXUxZqvgi6rOiy+o8IMIy2kpRcJtCMz+aKf92UGEXtChEaC!EDqZNGILaz/9a9VV7s6J922UfDE5F9c4oMLP41BVMatczat9J3Vm61yd/Snf6Br5ksZPGz8qYQT7!d1cMbO8IlA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.survivalism:721067 [Was: "Subject: Re: Kill the Elderly, Women and Children. Just DO IT!"] This article is the second in a series of three with similar Subject headers. The other two are: 1. [Intro] Another Threat from Offshore 3. [Assess] Another Threat from Offshore [Long and detailed, this article has several embedded links and many footnotes. It is intended as standalone background material for a cursory threat and vulnerability assessment that is covered in part three. The objective was to take a snapshot of online resources and capsulize this information for USENET reference until better informed and more motivated talent comes along.] On 18 Apr 2004 03:51:00 GMT, fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote: > And let's not forget the Japanese Balloon Bombs. Late in > the war the Japanese sent a bunch of simple but sturdy > weather balloon sized floaters with clockwork run bombing > platforms and destruct charges attached up high enough so > they reached the jet stream and were whipped across the > Pacific to America. The idea was that the incindiary bombs > they contained would rain down over the western woods and > start fires that would destroy huge tracts of forest and > cause the U.S. to have to divert millions of men to fight > them. This mention is a good launching point for a review of the balloon bomb weapon system. The full name of the Japanese balloon bomb weapon was "fusen bakudan" (fire balloons). [1] It was also known as "fugo" or "fu-go." Aside from Frank's mention, above, a Google check in for the associated keywords turns up only a 1999 thread (spillover from crossposted discussion). Expanding the search scope to examine all of USENET, it appears the topic has received relatively little coverage - which IMHO is rather remarkable, given the implications in the post-11 Sep 2001 threat paradigm. In acquiring background information on this weapon system I attached priority to online resources. I did so primarily out of consideration for the global community of , because many readers might not have ready access to generally acknowledged reference works on the subject. The quality of online material varies. Some sources rely on wartime articles from the print media, which were written for the general public rather than for an audience of technologists or military analysts. Information from that era may reflect confusion or even official disinformation. In addition, during at least part of the Japanese campaign, news about fugo discoveries in North America was heavily censored by the U.S. Office of Censorship. Understandably there is some variation in reported facts. On balance I think it's better to have a reasonably good, consistent body of information on the subject here in than none at all. However, serious investigators should consult more definitive reference works, several of which are cited at the end of this article. Terminology variants and errors can be significant when using search engines. (For example, some Web sources misspell "balloon.") This article uses the variant "fugo" as a western convenience, except when quoting other sources verbatim. Verbatim quoting also accounts for the mixed units of measurement (imperial and metric); I retained the usage of the source. So much for the preface of this article.... Lighter than air balloons have long held a fascination for humans. Their timeline is easily followed, from their probable origin in early China, to their much later popularization in France and the U.S. for lofting objects and even humans, in the 1780s. [2] In the U.S. from 1784 onward, small unmanned hot air balloons often were used for celebratory purposes. Sometimes they were launched in numbers large enough to be described as "fleets" (e.g., Independence Day in Peoria, Illinois). Yet despite the obvious hazards, this tradition didn't fade until the Depression of 1929. [3] For centuries, armies in eastern Asia had used hot air balloons, mainly for signaling. [4] Japan in particular certainly recognized the military potential of lighter than air balloons, having used them for warfare back in the 1800s. [5] Later, during the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese used a manned observation balloon to monitor troop movements for their surprise attack on Port Arthur, Russia, on 09 Feb 1904. [6][7][8] In fact, the Japanese air force was said to have had its roots in a "balloon society." [9] Japan's military "Project Fu-Go" actually was initiated in 1933. The goal of the project was "to design a constant altitude balloon capable of carrying explosives over enemy positions ... [.]" [10] The project occasionally was referred to as "Project 32" or "The Windship Weapon." [11] In 1942 Japan dusted off Project Fu-Go and gave its war industry the green light to implement it. Most historians see this envigoration as a response to Lt Col James H Doolittle's surprise B-25 raid of 18 Apr 1942 ("Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo"), because the shocked Japanese civilian population demanded retaliation. [12][13][14] A minority opinion is that reverses suffered by the Japanese military during the Battle of Midway on 04 Jun 1942 may have been contributory. [15] If Japan had an aeronautical edge over the Allies, it was a fledgling understanding of the jet stream. In contrast, the first American awareness of it reportedly did not occur until November 1944, when B-29s (which flew higher than B-17s) made bombing runs on Japan. [16] In the northern hemisphere the jet stream is more prevalent during the winter months. One segment of it swoops down across eastern Asia, then back north across Japan and eastward, to the western parts of Canada, the United States and even northern Mexico. Japan exploited this phenomenon to conduct a strategic bombing campaign against the U.S. using balloons that carried incendiary and antipersonnel bombs. Unfortunately for the Japanese, much of the target area generally was cold and wet during the same time frame, limiting the effectiveness of this weapon system. [17][18][19] Japan developed at least two types of fugos - Type A and Type B. The program for the Type A fugo was managed by the Japanese army, whereas the one for the Type B was managed by the navy. [20][21][22] One well written but less substantiated report mentions the development of a third type of fugo, for launching from submarines. This version was intended to carry a "special incendiary" payload only, for targeting the forested areas of the U.S. [23] I could not readily confirm this third version or discover additional detail without ready access to definitive historical reference sources. In propaganda broadcasts the Japanese threatened to use fugos to send suicide pilots, but all fugos launched during WWII are believed to have been unmanned. [24] (Nevertheless, in 1947 balloon enthusiast Don Piccard modified and flew a Type A fugo that had been recovered intact during the war, thus demonstrating that manned flight with one was possible. [25]) Chronologically, types A and B were deployed in the opposite order of their designators. (A wire services report in Aug 1945 indicated the reverse, [26] but the preponderance of contrary information suggests that this report was in error.) Following this cue and discussing the two types in reverse order.... The Type B fugo had a lifting envelope made of a "rubber covered Habuti silk" nine meters in diameter. Three hundred of this type were manufactured, but only 34 were launched against the U.S. [27] A less detailed report says that 200 were released, beginning in June 1944. [28] This version occasionally carried telemetry equipment for tracking purposes but had no ordnance. [29][30] These fugos are believed to have been test vehicles only. (The initial project date of 1933 suggests that the Japanese at least intermittently had been testing fugos for many years already by this time.) None of the Type B fugos were known to have reached the U.S. Eventually the navy's fugo program was merged into the army's program and the latter assumed sole project management. [31] The Type A fugo was slightly larger than the Type B. A somewhat indistinct photo of one can be seen at . A good descriptive drawing and a better photo of a fugo (from a book by Robert Mikesh) are at URL . The lifting envelope was ten meters in diameter and was constructed of laminated tissue paper. One source says the paper was available only in squares "about the size of a road map." [32] Another source says they came in five sizes. [33] Six hundred pieces [34] were glued together with an adhesive made from the root of a potato-like plant. [At the first link in the preceeding paragraph, the callouts in the drawing refer to the envelope material as "fly paper" (unhumorously, it appears).] The pieces were glued together over a lighted jig. Wherever too much light showed through, one or more additional layers were added. After a 24 hour leak check (and patching, if necessary), [35] a lacquer was applied to the completed assembly to waterproof it. [36] (One wire services article described the envelope as being constructed of "five layers of paraffined rice paper." [37]) The envelope color typically was tan, [38] gray, white or greenish-blue [39] and may have varied a bit from production lot to lot. The Type A (paper) fugo apparently leaked less hydrogen than the Type B (rubberized silk). [40] Teenage students (girls in particular) were found to have the best manual dexterity for building the envelopes. [41][42][43][44] These youths were given highly compartmentalized work in secret work environments. Sometimes their teachers assisted with supervision. [45] The envelopes of both types of fugos were filled with hydrogen gas. A pressure relief valve about 16 to 18 inches in diameter was mounted to the bottom of the envelope. [46][47][48] A cloth girth belt was affixed around the lower third of the envelope. [49] Fifteen hemp shroud lines for the flight control package and ordnance were attached to grommets on this belt. [50] (The drawing at shows probably twice as many actual attachment points, with short intermediate "Y" risers combined in pairs just below the girth belt.) The lower ends of the 43 foot long shroud lines converged at a "bungee shock cord" that also had a rigid backup link. (The shock absorber segment is not always easy to distinguish in photographs, though.) [51] At the bottom end of the bungee link, four suspension cables were attached to hold the "automatic altitude control device." At the base of this package was a four spoked wheel about three feet in diameter, made out of cast aluminum. The wheel served as a kind of pylon for holding the ballast bags and the ordnance. [52] Attached to the periphery of the wheel were 36 paper bags, each containing 4.5 [53] or six [54] pounds of sand ballast. Also attached were two [55], four [56] or five [57][58] incendiary bombs and one 15 Kg (33 lb) high explosive (HE) antipersonnel bomb. [59][60][61] One source refers to the incendiary devices as "thermite bombs" [62], but this may have been confusion with an onboard "magnesium charge" that was intended to destroy the envelope. [63] Clearly the lifting envelope itself was a simple affair, heavily constrained by the Japanese wartime economy. Construction took advantage of whatever resources could be mustered. [64][65] Nor was the payload especially noteworthy - photos suggest that regular aircraft HE ordnance was used. However, the control mechanism was more complex. Many reports even refer to it as "ingenious." [66][67][68][69] One source calls these weapons "an ingenious and malevolent curiosity." [70] The balloon was at the mercy of air currents over great distances - from about 5,000 to 8,000 miles, depending on where one actually landed. The design challenge for the flight control system was to at least keep the balloon in the jet stream, because out of all the flight variables, this one probably was the most predictable. There also had to be some kind of fire control system to drop the ordnance when the weapon was over the target. The "automatic altitude control device" handled both requirements. It kept the balloon within the altitude range of 25,000 to 35,000 feet above mean sea level. [71][72] (Another source gives an upper limit of eight miles. [73]) The nominal flight level was 38,000 feet. [74] Above this altitude, the pressure relief valve would crack open and vent a little hydrogen to reduce lift. Alternatively, another source says "an altimeter activated a valve to vent hydrogen" at this altitude. [75] (However, the drawings and photographs do not evidence any kind of link between the control unit and the relief valve.) Prior to launch, the ballast bags and ordnance were attached to the aluminum wheel located just below the flight instrument and fire control package, or "gondola." The destructive charges were attached to the gondola and balloon. The weight of the completed weapon system is reported with wild variation. It ranges from "about 50 pounds" (quoting a Japanese source, possibly referring to the HE bomb alone), [76] to "200 - 300 pounds" (including 162 pounds of sand ballast but not the ordnance), [77] to a gross carrying capacity of "794 pounds" ("ballast and bombs"), [78] to a "lifting capacity [of] 800 lbs at sealevel and 400 lbs at 32,000 ft." [79] When the atmospheric conditions were deemed favorable, the charges were armed and the envelope was partially filled with hydrogen gas [80][81]. The Type A held about 19,000 cubic feet of hydrogen. [82] The weapon was then launched. After attaining nominal flight level, the balloon might further ascend as a result of hydrogen expansion (from heating while in sunlight) or from reduced atmospheric pressure at high altitude. [83] If expansion continued, then some of the hydrogen would be vented until the weapon descended to within the desired altitude range. Each time the weapon descended below 25,000 feet [84][85] or nine kilometers (29,505 feet) [86] (depending on information source), a barometric pressure switch and sequencer triggered the release of a ballast bag. One source further states that if the balloon -remained- below the minimum altitude despite the release of a ballast bag, then at two to three minute intervals an additional bag was released [87] until either the ballast was expended or the balloon ascended above the minimum altitude. Some sources say that ballast bags were released in diametrically opposite pairs, to maintain platform balance. [88][89] The combination of ballast shedding and hydrogen venting kept the balloon in the altitude range where the jet stream was generally understood to exist. (Of these two altitude control mechanisms, the dominant one probably was ballast shedding. Normal hydrogen leakage from the envelope, though minimal, likely precluded the need to frequently vent.) After the last sand filled ballast bag was dropped (or bags, if dropped in pairs), a second barometric pressure switch took over. >From this point on, every time the balloon descended below 27,000 feet, an incendiary bomb was released. [90] The incendiary bombs served as the very last "ballasts." [91][92] After all were released, three fuses were initiated. [93] One blew a link that dropped the 33 lb HE bomb. Another fuse set off a charge of "picric acid" [94][95] or multiple "thermite charges" [96] (depending on information source) to destroy the gondola. [97][98][99] A third fuse set off a one pound "magnesium charge" on the side of the lifting envelope. [100][101] The intent was to deny or reduce the intelligence value of any remains that might be recovered. Japanese engineers had carefully determined the lift and ballast requirements for the flight. Targeting accuracy was not a high priority because the weapon was intended to start fires and create panic through semi-random delivery. Plans had called for constructing 15,000 Type A fugos, but production reached only about 65% of this target. (The shortfall was due to U.S. bombing raids, which were believed to have damaged key production facilities, including two of the three hydrogen generating plants. [102]) Published figures for completed Type A fugos range from 9,000 to 9,300. [103][104][105][106] Of these, perhaps only about 6,000 were actually launched. [107] Curiously, serial numbers on recovered fugos ran as high as 15,980. [108] [Shortly after V-J Day a wire services report claimed that the fugo production goal, based on postwar inspection of Japanese military records, actually had been 120,000. [109] This report may have reflected a slipped decimal point, or embellishment by the victors (who wrote the history). If not, and if the fugo campaign had continued, then the usual assessment of it as an ineffective nuisance weapon might have been significantly different.] By definition, northern hemisphere jet streams are currents of air at altitudes ranging from 25,000 to 48,000 feet, that are between 100 and 300 miles wide, and about 5/8 mile (3,300 feet) thick. Their speeds range from 57 to 300 mph. [110] Only about 10% of either type of fugo (A or B) carried telemetry for tracking purposes. [111] The telemetry characteristics varied over time, apparently as a result of ongoing research and development of the weapon. Allied radio triangulation of telemetry signals from the Type A fugos revealed that they traveled the distance from Honshu, Japan to North America in typically three to five days. The average speed was determined to be around 150 mph. [112] Philip Jacobsen, a U.S. radio intercept operator in the Pacific theater during that time frame, and now a military historian, recalled: "They had a two tube radio transmitter that sent a wavering tone actuated by a multivibrator for altitude and pressure readings by means of 24 differing signals. It transmitted on two frequencies alternating between each every ten minutes. "In some test balloons, different frequency ranges were used after each sandbag was dropped for monitoring purposes. Up to four Japanese Army HFDF stations were used, in part, to monitor the progress of the balloon bomb transmissions that lasted about 80 hours, which was usually enough time to reach the continental U.S." [113] The test phase of Japan's fugo campaign was conducted in June 1944. The Japanese only lightly incorporated fugos in their propaganda campaign. In an English language broadcast on 04 Jun 1944, the Japanese warned that the balloon launches up to that point had been only a test, and that waves of -manned- balloons would soon replace them. [114] Since there is no evidence that pressurized gondolas had been built, this claim obviously was a bluff. Historians are not well agreed about the effectiveness of the propaganda efforts. The balloon onslaught began in earnest on 03 Nov 1944, [115] "after U.S. air defense facilities had been deactivated." [116] The first balloon discovered in the target area was about 66 miles south of San Pedro, California (the Los Angeles harbor area) the following day (04 Nov). [117][118] The first land based sighting reportedly was near Kalispell, Montana in December 1944. [119] Without devolving into the minutiae of calculations and assumptions here (see footnote instead), the speed of the San Pedro specimen while en route would have been somewhere between 83 and 102 mph, assuming the shortest possible route. [120] The barrage continued through 20 Apr 45. [125] However, balloons were intermittently launched even later, because fugo telemetry signals occasionally were heard almost up to V-J Day (14 Aug 1945). [126] Seven hundred fugos were launched in Nov 1944, twelve hundred were released the next month, [127] and the peak monthly launch of three thousand occurred in Mar 1945. [128] That same month a U.S. Navy task force report noted that =hundreds= had been spotted over the Aleutians on a single day. [129]) Somewhere between "less than 500" [130] and "about 1,000" [131][132] fugos are believed to have landed in the United States. Between 285 [133] and "an estimated 355" [134] were actually found. Seventy three fugos were found in Canada. [135] (Some of the numeric differences between reports apparently are due to duplicate sightings, or to not distinguishing those on land from those just off the coast. Some of the still airborne fugos in coastal areas were intercepted. Fugos that fell in the ocean near these areas may or may not have washed up on shore, or been destroyed at sea.) At the time of this writing a complete map of known locations where fugos were found was not yet available on the Web. However, several years ago the North Dakota Historical Society published a long article with a detailed map of U.S. fugo landing locations. [136] A map of fugo sitings for the state of Montana alone is at . Lattitudinally, fugos landed in areas ranging from the Alaskan Territory (U.S.) [137] and the Northwest Territories (Canada) all the way down to the U.S./Mexico border state of Sonora (Mexico). [138][139] Longitudinally, fugos showed up in areas ranging from the Aleutian Islands and the Hawaiian Islands to as far east as Michigan [140] and the provincial border between Manitoba and Ontario, Canada. [141] Altogether fugos were found in seventeen U.S. states [142], two widely separated (trans-Pacific) U.S. territories, six or seven Canadian provinces and at least one state in Mexico. "They fell [...] most frequently in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California and Montana." [143][144] Although there are unconfirmed or poorly documented reports of WWII fugos being discovered as late as the 1960s, the last officially recorded discovery took place in 1955 (Holy Cross, Alaska). A forensic examination determined the associated ordnance to be "still lethal" despite ten years' exposure in the Alaskan bush. [145] There is one mention of another fugo being found in Oregon in 1992, but no details are available. [146] Initially U.S. officials were unsure of the true origin of these dangerous airborne objects. [147][148] There was speculation that the weapons might have come from enemy submarine landing parties on U.S. beaches, or perhaps even from German POW camps or Japanese-American internment camps. [149] Certainly the Japanese propaganda broadcasts had mentioned balloon weapons in June 1944 (and probably earlier), but the idea of them coming all the way from Japan on their own was hard to accept. Nevertheless, authorities hastily recovered and examined these balloon weapons. The top two priorities were: a) to find out where they came from, and b) to determine how serious a threat they were. In the meantime, to prevent panic by the North American public and to deny intelligence value to the Japanese, U.S. and Canadian officials censored all reports relating to fugos, beginning on 04 Jan 1945 [150][151] and continuing through May. [152] Working with U.S. Army Intelligence, the Military Geology Unit of the U.S. Geological Survey performed microscopic and chemical analyses of sand from the fugo ballast bags. [153] Geologists narrowed down the most likely origin of the sand to two locations on the east coast of the main island of Honshu, Japan. One suggested location turned out to be very close to actual launching sites; the other one was a dead ringer. [154] Separately, Canadian geologists detected furnace slag in some of the ballast bags. [155] Collaboration between the U.S. and Canada helped fine tune the targeting of Allied bombing in Japan to stop fugo production. A U.S. government threat assessment report that emerged in March 1945 was known simply as "BD-1." [156] Several possible uses of fugos were enumerated. In descending order of concern they were: 1) bacteriological or chemical warfare, or both; 2) transportation of incendiary and antipersonnel bombs; 3) experiments for unknown purposes; 4) psychological efforts to inspire terror and diversion of forces; 5) transportation of agents; and 6) anti-aircraft devices. [157] In Dec 1944, Col Murray Sanders, a bacteriologist from Ft Detrick, Maryland, visually examined recovered fugos in Washington state: The balloons were brought in, [...] We examined them, and then we went away to make our own individual reports. Mine scared them stiff.... I told them that if we found Japanese B-encephalitis on any of the balloons we were in real trouble. Mosquitos were the best vectors - and we had plenty of those in the States - and our population had no defenses against B-encephalitis.... [F]our out of five people who contracted it would have died, in my view. Anthrax is a tough bug.... [The Japanese had] used it in China. They could have splattered the west and southwest of Canada and the United States. They could have contaminated the pastures and forests and killed all the cows, sheep, horses, pigs, deer - plus a considerable number of human beings. The hysteria would have been terrible; [...] [158] Some of the fugos did indeed carry a "celluloid" container that held about 1,120 cc of a turbid, green tinted liquid. There was great concern that this liquid might be a biological weapon component. U.S. and Canadian scientists independently analyzed both the liquid samples and the sand in the ballast bags for a possible biological threat. By July 1945 they had concluded that neither one presented an infectious threat, but further details about the liquid were not provided. [159] Publicly, U.S. officials downplayed any concerns about the fugos by ridiculing them and portraying them more as nuisances than as significant threats. [160][161] Privately, though, official concern was greatly heightened after four incidents in Washington state. On one occasion, a fugo landed on the runway of an Army installation (but caused no damage). [162] Another fugo landed in Everett, "uncomfortably close to the Boeing plant." [163] Yet another snagged on telephone lines (an infrastructure target, although in this case there likely wasn't much damage). [164] However, the fourth incident probably gave the greatest impetus to implementing a better defensive strategy. In March 1945, a soggy fugo at Cold Creek, Washington, [165] knocked out electrical transmission lines leading from the Columbia River's Bonneville Dam to the Hanford Works [166] and killed the cooling pumps for Reactor B. This reactor was producing nuclear materials for the Manhatten Project. [167] The resulting downtime caused three days' production loss. [168] In any case, private citizens sometimes had different recollections about the number of fugos that actually arrived, and vastly different views about the effectiveness of this weapon. For example, a former civil defense chief in Rio Vista, California (about 40 miles east northeast of San Francisco) recalled that in a specific one month period they experienced about nine fugo related fires in the area every day. [169] Similar anecdotal reports may have faded or been lost because of censorship during the war, and an urge to "get on with life" after the war. Officials probably also hadn't forgotten the public furor that erupted following the "Battle of Los Angeles" (24-25 Feb 1942). Radar had detected an unidentified aerial bogey out at sea, about 120 miles west of LA. [170][171] At 0225 hours, air raid sirens screamed, radio stations went off the air, all cities in LA County were blacked out and 12,000 volunteer air raid wardens reported to their posts. [172] Searchlights combed the skies, and air defense actions lit up a 30 to 40 mile long stretch of coastline. [173][174] Four coastal batteries fired at indeterminate aerial objects, expending 1,400 to 1,600 rounds (depending on information source) [175][176] of 12.8 lb shells from three inch anti-aircraft guns. Orange tracers were also very visible. The heavy initial barrage lasted about 45 minutes; thereafter shells were fired intermittently for another hour. [177] A little over three hours later the blackout ended and sirens gave the "All Clear" signal. [178] Jagged metal fragments from exploded shells were everywhere, and a lengthy traffic jam paralyzed the city that morning. [179] An extensive search after dawn found no evidence that a threat had even existed, much less had been neutralized. [180][181] However, anti-aircraft shell duds and falling fragments had damaged buildings and structures. Some cows in a diary herd were casualties. Numerous traffic accidents occurred in the blacked out intersections, including three fatalities. One civilian was killed by shrapnel, three were trampled, and as many as three deaths from heart failure (differing reports) occurred during the melee. [182][183] The scene in LA was later described as being "reminiscent of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast." [184] There was no conclusive evidence that a fugo was involved, but that was one of several theories advanced - perhaps an earlier version, perhaps launched from a submarine to test coastal defenses. [185] (After the war, the Japanese denied that they had "attacked" LA. [186]) The Army and the Navy issued conflicting reports, triggering a heated controversy. Censorship was imposed to quench the maelstrom, but not before east and west coast newspapers published editorials harshly criticizing military and civil officials for incompetence. [187] Already on the west coast, "housing prices had dropped dramatically as people moved away from 'invasion beaches'" (hinting that the LA battle was related to manipulation and land speculation). [188] This incident did little to reassure coastal residents of their safety. Arguably, it wasn't an -enemy threat- that authorities feared so much as it was the =public reaction=. Consequently, a response plan for fugo sightings and incidents was developed to take these actions: a) track the telemetry signals; [189] b) create a special air defense zone to protect military and war industry assets near Seattle ("Sunset Project"); [190] c) integrate the detection and tracking of fugos into the air defense system; [191][192] d) attempt aerial intercepts of fugos ("Operation Firefly") [193][194]; e) treat fugos as chemical and biological hazards during recovery, cleanup and disposal operations; [195] f) establish a "smoke jumper" capability to respond to forest fires caused by fugo incendiary drops (555th Parachute Infantry Batallion, assigned to "Operation Firefly"); [196][197] g) quietly stockpile decontamination supplies in western areas of the U.S. that were considered to be at risk ("Lightning Project"); [198] h) advise farmers' organizations and veterinarians to be alert to unusual diseases in their animals (but without elaborating); [199] and i) conduct a B-19 aerial reconnaissance of the U.S. Pacific Northwest, in an attempt to locate and recover landed fugos. [200] The number of attempted aerial interceptions is not easily discovered from online sources, but for the duration of Operation Firefly fewer than 20 fugos were actually shot down by aircraft. [201] In addition, on more than one occasion recovery personnel arrived at scenes fully suited up in chemical-biological protective gear. They prodded fugo debris with long poles, looking for possible chemical or biological weapon components. [202] Several close calls occurred in which people handled fugo components apparently without realizing the danger. (Fugos sometimes landed with unexploded ordnance or with destructors still intact; civilians may have thought these duds were safe to handle.) [203] However, the only recorded casualties on the U.S. mainland took place on 05 May 1945 in a remote area near Bly, Oregon. A church minister, his wife and five children had gone on a Sunday picnic. A downed fugo was discovered, and moving it caused a detonation that killed the wife and all five children. [204][205] Two weeks after this fatal accident, censorship was lifted [206] so that warnings could be issued to the general public in the western U.S. and Canada to avoid any fugos that might be encountered. When fugos were discovered as far east as Michigan, the broadcast of these warnings was expanded to include all areas west of the Mississippi River, and were directed at children in particular (since summer vacation from school was coming up). [207][208] By May 1945 Japan had virtually stopped launching fugos because B-29 raids had destroyed some of the key production facilities, including two of the three hydrogen generating plants. [209][210] The production cost per fugo was about USD $220 at the pre-war rate of exchange. [211] No doubt the effectiveness of the fugo as a strategic weapon system will long be debated. And as mentioned above, civilian perceptions of this weapon differed from government pronouncements, which often reflected disinformation and propaganda. There is little question, though, that in economic terms it cost the U.S. and Canada more to address the threat than it cost Japan to present it. Force multiplier was evident, and the Japanese goal of diverting enemy war resources was accomplished. At the very least I hope that this article dispels any notions by North Americans that "It can't happen here," because it already has. This concludes my historical review of this weapon system. In the third (and final) article in this series, I'll lightly visit the threat assessment aspects of offshore sources of such weapon systems. As a USENET courtesy and to improve readability, I respectfully ask that followups (if any) judiciously dequote material unrelated to immediate comments. Please also note that this article was oriented to the audience. FWIW, I'd prefer that additional newsgroups not be added to followups, since this unnecessarily raises the noise floor by inviting dialog from individuals who are not synchronized with the working environment. The article can easily enough be retrieved from archives by referencing the "Subject:" or "Message-ID:" headers. Thank you! Lee_K Prof Stewart: "Hey, wait a minute - where's that light coming from?" Prof Gormby: "It looks like a fire!" Prof Stewart: "Maybe we can see from the window...." Prof Gormby: "Not one fire - a THOUSAND fires!" Prof Stewart: "Down there, toward the bay - Berkeley, Oakland...and over in the city! Why? What started them?" Prof Gormby [opens window]: "Can't you hear why, Jim? GUNFIRE!" Prof Stewart: "Yes...they're not waiting for the plague to do the job." Prof Gormby: "No, they're already out in force - the looters, the maimers, the robbers...people with the hate and a grievance. It's started already. It'll get a lot worse...." -- "The Scarlet Plague," by Jack London; adapted for radio by Les Crutchfield; Escape radio theater, 08 Apr 1954. Footnotes: [1] "Fire Balloon," Online Encyclopedia, at . Definition and overview. [2] "History of Fire Balloons, and Web Links," by Thomas Taylor, Overflite (commercial entity); at . [3] "History of Fire Balloons, and Web Links," ibid. The source references a mention in the book, _The First Forty Years 1902-1942_, by Julie White (autobiography). [4] "Attack of the fire flier," David Hambling, The Guardian (UK), 14 Jun 2001. Originally the article was at , but it has been removed. However, it was also posted to a newsgroup and still can be seen via archive retrieval, at . [5] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," by John Covington, at . [6] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," Ex-Air Gunners: Short Bursts (online edition), Oct 2002; [British] Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum; Brandon, Manitoba, Canada; at . [7] "Battle of Port Arthur," Wikipedia, at . [8] "Lshunku," Wikipedia, at . Mentioned for historical clarification only: The location in question was known as Port Arthur during the Russian occupation, and as Ryonjun during the Japanese occupation. It is now known as Lshunku Port, and is part of China. [9] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [10] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. [11] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," by Philip H. Jacobsen; The Associates of Military History Web site, at . Jacobsen was a radio intercept operator in the US military during WWII and helped tracked fugos from Station H in Hawaii. He is now a military historian. [12] "Balloon Bomber," by Tech Sgt Timothy P Barela, [USAF] Airman magazine, Feb 1998, at . The article quotes Robert C Mikesh, the USAF officer who wrote the book __Japan's World War II Balloon Bomb Attacks on North America_ (Smithsonian Annals of Flight #9). [13] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," INS (news) article, The Seattle Times, 09 Feb 1946; at . (Multiple transcribed articles appear on this page; other footnotes here that cite different articles will use this same URL.) This site is excellent. Stelzriede was a US Army Air Corps B-17 navigator during World War II. The niche WWII information on his site is quite popular, and he has been persuaded to also offer it on CD-ROM. [14] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," by WWWPubCo and OkieLegacy.org, at . [15] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [16] "Montana Earth Science Picture of the Week," by Rod Benson, Earth Sciences teacher, Helena High School, Helena, MT; at . "These men were first to experience the winds because their airplanes could fly higher than the older B-17s." The page includes an outline map of Montana with callouts to 30 locations throughout the state where fugos were known to have landed. This graphic previously accompanied an article by Larry Tanglen that appeared in the Winter 2002 issue of "Montana, The Magazine of Western History" (a publication of the Montana Historical Society). [17] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. "It was hoped that the incendiaries would start vast fires in the great forests of the western parts of the U.S. and Canada." [18] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [19] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. [20] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [21] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [22] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. [23] Unattributed, at . (Despite this being a "UFO and X-Files" site, the article is well written and illustrated, and includes a newspaper photo and news clipping. The article itself is just not attributed.) [24] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," AP news article, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA; 15 Aug 1945; at . "The Japanese radio threat to send balloons carrying suicide pilots never materialized. There was no indication any balloon was manned." [25] "Don Piccard - 50 Years of Ballooning Memories," by Peter Stekel; Balloon Life, July, 1997; at . [26] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. [27] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [28] "Fu-Go," by Steve Silverman ("Drop Zone"), science teacher, Chatham High School, Albany, NY; at . [29] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [30] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. [31] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [32] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [33] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [34] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. [35] "The Balloon," by Paul Welch, [Canada] Digital Collections, at . Welch's contribution to the site is a collection of informative pages commemorating his grandfather, Erle Guy Welch (1905-1997), who was a former "Squadron Leader, Command Armament, Western Air Command of the Royal Canadian Air Force (R.C.A.F.). His division was responsible for monitoring, locating and disarming Japanese air balloon bombs launched against North America." [36] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. [37] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. [38] "Preflight," BalloonLife, Jul 1999, at . Cited for the "tan" color reference. [39] "Saw Wife and Five Children Killed by Jap Balloon Bomb," AP news article datelined Lakeview, Oregon; The Seattle Times, 01 Jun 1945; at . [40] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [41] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," Los Angeles Times, 16 Jan 1994, at . [42] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," unattributed, at . [43] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [44] "Attack of the fire flier," lbid. [45] "Fu-Go," (Drop Zone), ibid. [46] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. The size of the pressure relief valve can be interpreted from the photo (unattributed; apparently from wire services). The caption is missing, but an accompanying note ostensibly identifies FBI Special Agent W G Bannister, AAF Maj J E Bolgiano and Army Intelligence Capt W Boyce Stanard examining a fugo that landed in Kalispell, MT on 11 Dec 1944. (The undelineated adjacent article is unrelated.) [47] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [48] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. A "gas relief valve" is identified at the bottom of the envelope in "Fig. 39. General arrangement of Japanese paper bombing balloon." Figure 39 is actually "borrowed" from Robert C Mikesh's book, __Japan's World War II Balloon Bomb Attacks on North America_ (Smithsonian Annals of Flight #9). (For details on the book, see section "For Further Study," below.) [49] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [50] "The Balloon," lbid. [51] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. The number of shroud lines is given in "Fig. 39. General arrangement of Japanese paper bombing balloon." See footnote [48] for additional information. [52] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [53] "The Balloon," ibid. [54] "Fu-Go," (Drop Zone), ibid. [55] "Balloon Bombs: What Are They?"; ibid. [56] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," by Marshall Stelzriede, at . [57] "Forest Service Head Gives More Details on Jap Balloons," UP article datelined Washington; The Seattle Times, 01 Jun 1945; at . [58] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. [59] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. (Seen in "Fig. 39. General arrangement of Japanese paper bombing balloon.") [60] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. [61] "The Balloon," ibid. [62] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [63] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [64] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [65] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. [66] "Saw Wife and Five Children Killed by Jap Balloon Bomb," ibid. [67] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. [68] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. [69] "The Balloon," ibid. Footnote 1 to article in periodical: "When the Japs Bombed North America," by Jerry MacMullen, Liberty Magazine (Canada) Ltd; J L Rutledge, Publisher; Toronto, Canada; 04 May 1946. [70] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [71] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. [72] "Forest Service Head Gives More Details on Jap Balloons," ibid. [73] "Montana Earth Science Picture of the Week," ibid. [74] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. [75] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [76] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. Article mentions fully loaded weight "according to one Japanese source." [77] "The Balloon," ibid. [78] "Montana Earth Science Picture of the Week," ibid. [79] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [80] "Balloon Bombs: What Are They?"; ibid. [81] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [82] "Japanese Balloon Bombs in WWII," USAF Museum, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base; at . [83] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [84] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. [85] "Forest Service Head Gives More Details on Jap Balloons," ibid. [86] "Fire Balloon," ibid. [87] "The Balloon," ibid. [88] "Fire balloon," ibid. [89] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [90] "Forest Service Head Gives More Details on Jap Balloons," ibid. [91] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. [92] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [93] "The Balloon," ibid. [94] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [95] "The Balloon," ibid. [96] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [97] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [98] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. [99] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [100] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [101] "The Balloon," ibid. [102] "Fire Balloon," ibid. "B-29s had destroyed two of the three hydrogen plants needed by the project." [103] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [104] "Japanese Balloon Bombs," ibid. [105] "Montana Earth Science Picture of the Week," ibid. [106] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. [107] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [108] "Jap Balloon Blew Up Near Tacoma Feb. 28; One Found Near Orting," The Seattle Times, 18 Aug 1945; at . "The possibility that the Japanese launched many thousands of the balloons may be indicated by the numbers on certain parts of the devices -- numbers which ranged as high as 15,980." [109] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [110] "A Jet Stream Runs Through It," by Keith C Heidorn, Suite101.com, 01 Nov 2002; at [111] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [112] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [113] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. [114] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [115] "Japanese Balloon Bombs in WWII," ibid. [116] "Japanese Balloon Bombs," ibid. [117] "Army Air Forces in World War II: Combat Chronology of the US Army Air Forces, November 1944," U.S. Army Air Forces Net, at . "FRIDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 1944 [...] The first report is received of a Japanese balloon SW of San Pedro, California; the US Navy recovers some apparatus, envelope, and rigging." [118] "The Balloon," ibid. [119] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. "The first [land based] discovery of a [fugo] in North America was made by two woodchoppers, who discovered a balloon on the ground near Kalispell, Montana in December, 1944." [120] Tokyo Japan was in the GMT+9 time zone. At the time, San Pedro CA was in the U.S. PWT time zone (PDT, even in Nov) (GMT-7). The exact launch and recovery times are unknown. However, most of the balloons were launched at 1600 hours Japan time. [121] As for San Pedro, the moon was 99% full that night, [123] but it was a record wet November; it's a haphazard guess that any sightings at sea in the vicinity of Los Angeles probably occurred during daylight hours. So, assuming a launch at 1600 (GMT+9) on 03 Nov, and the EARLIEST practical recovery (dawn) at 0600 PWT (GMT-7) on 04 Nov: from 0700 GMT / 03 Nov to 1300 GMT / 04 Nov is 30 hours (24 + 6) The reported recovery date has to be adjusted because the International Date Line was crossed in an easterly direction (add 24 hours). [122] Therefore, an optimistic transit time was about 54 hours (24 + 6 + 24 hours). For the LATEST practical recovery (dusk), add 12 hours to get 1800 PWT / 04 Nov (which is 0100 GMT / 05 Nov); this works out to 66 hours (54 + 12). The [improbably short] great circle route from Tokyo Japan to San Pedro CA would have racked up 5,498 miles. [124] A fast transit time of 54 hours would mean a speed of ~102 mph. A slow transit time of 66 hours would mean a speed of ~83 mph. All factors considerd, the actual speed probably was much higher. [121] "The Balloon," ibid. "Released at about 4 p.m. the balloons would travel all night, [...]" [122] "Sailing Through Science," at . [123] "NCDC Climate at a Glance," U.S. National Oceanographics and Atmospheric Administration, at . [124] "How Far Is It" distance calculator, at . [125] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [126] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [127] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [128] "Greatest Fear About Jap Balloons Was That They Might Bear Deadly Germs," ibid. [129] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. "But official guesses that it [the total number] may be in the thousands are based partly on a navy task force report that hundreds were sighted in a single day off the Aleutians, headed for California." [130] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. "[B]ut it is believed that less than 500 of them actually reached U.S. territory, with most of the rest self-destructing over, or falling into, the sea." [131] "Fire Balloon," ibid. "Some guesswork gives the total number that made the trip at about 1,000." [132] "Balloon Bombs: What Are They?"; ibid. "It's estimated that nearly 1,000 reached North America." [133] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. "Only 285 were accounted for in reports turned in to American and Canadian authorities." [134] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. "An estimated 355 of the airborne bombs were credited with reaching U.S. territory, some getting as far as Michigan and Texas." Datum is attributed to Tom Crouch, chairman, Department of Aeronautics, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. [135] "The Japanese Mission," by Paul Welch, [Canada] Digital Collections, at . "Of those 9000 Balloons, only a mere 290 are actually known to have landed; 73 of these in Canada." [136] "Fu-Go," Drop Zone, ibid. (In this footnote the referenced hardcopy article is "The Japanese Balloon Bomb Campaign in North Dakota," The Journal of North Dakota History, Vol 64, No 1, Winter 1997, pp 21-26.) [137] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. Holy Cross, Alaska (62 deg 12' N / 159 deg 46' W), on the Yukon River, is specifically mentioned. Apparently more than one fugo was recovered from this area - geological analysis of ballast sand from another one was performed earlier, in Nov 1944. [138] "Fire balloon," ibid. "Balloon envelopes and apparatus were found in Montana, Arizona, Saskatchewan, in the Northwest Territories, and in the Yukon." "In the meantime, the balloons continued to arrive in Oregon, Kansas, Iowa, Manitoba, Alberta, Northwest Territories, Washington State, Idaho, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, northern Mexico, Michigan, and even the outskirts of Detroit." [139] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. "However, they were reported as close in as the Aleutian Islands and Hawaii and as far away as Michigan, Texas and Sonora, Mexico." [140] "Fu-Go," ibid. "[T]wo balloons found their way to the state of Michigan." In an Oct 1985 thread in , one participant - apparently citing Mikesh - references a 23 Feb 1945 fugo landing site in Grand Rapids, MI as "site #71." [141] "The Balloon," ibid. "...73 landing in Canada as far east as the border between Manitoba and Ontario." [142] "Fire Balloon," ibid. "[Fugos] were found in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Michigan and Iowa ... [.]" Alaska and Hawaii (Hawaii was mentioned in [139], above) were still U.S. Territories (only later to become U.S. states). [143] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. [144] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. Locations noted include the [dry] Santa Clara River bed (15 Jan), Moorpark (17 Jan) and Oxnard (21 Feb). [145] "Balloon Bombs: What are they?"; ibid. "The last one found in North America was in Alaska in 1955 - its payload still lethal after 10 years of erosion." (This was the Holy Cross AK site.) [146] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. "One was found in Oregon in 1992." [147] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. "The Allies thought they were coming from Japan but were not sure." [148] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. "When the US first heard about the balloon bombs the [sic] didn't believe it." [149] "Fire balloon," ibid. "Nobody believed the balloons could have come directly from Japan. It was thought that the balloons must be coming from North American beaches, launched by landing parties from submarines. Wilder theories speculated that they could have been launched from German prisoner of war camps in the US, or even from Japanese- American internment centers." [150] "Fire Balloon," ibid. "NEWSWEEK ran an article titled 'Balloon Mystery' in their January 1, 1945, issue, and a similar story appeared in a newspaper the next day. The Office of Censorship then sent a message to newspapers and radio stations to ask them to make no mention of balloons and balloon-bomb incidents, [...]" [151] "The Effect on Canada," by Paul Welch, [Canada] Digital Collections, at . "On January 4th, 1945, the Office of Censorship censored the air balloon topic." [152] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. "[...], so even though some government and military officials and newspapermen knew about the bombing balloons early on, the general public was not told about them until May of 1945, about six months after they were first launched." [153] "Fire balloon," ibid. "Working with Colonel Sidman Poole of US Army Intelligence, the researchers of the Military Geological Unit began microscopic and chemical examination of the sand from the sandbags [...]" [154] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. "A USGS Mineralogist, Dr. Clarence S. Ross, studied samples from Balloons [...]" He suggested two possible sites; one was Ichinomirya, which turned out to be an actual site. [155] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "Ballast from another balloon found in Canada contained distinctive particles of blast furnace slag, giving another clue to its origin." [156] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [157] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. [158] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [159] "The Japanese Mission," ibid. The USPHS, USDA, Canadian Dept of Agriculture, and the Animal Research Institute in Hull, Quebec, all analyzed samples of the greenish liquid from fugo specimen #21 (Fort Ware, B.C.). [160] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. "The official line was to ridicule them, [...]" [161] "Residents of West Warned - Told to Prevent Injury or Damage; No Property Damage Yet From Flights," unattributed news source datelined Washington; The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA; 22 May 1945; at . "The army and navy said they wanted to reassure the nation that the balloon attacks are so scattered and aimless that they do not constitute a military threat." [162] "Jap Balloon Blew Up Near Tacoma Feb. 28; One Found Near Orting," ibid. "It was learned that one of the balloons hit a military objective but no damage was done. The balloon landed on the runway at Paine field, an army airfield at Everett." [163] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [164] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. "Another one of the balloons landed on telephone wires at Keyport, near Bremerton." [165] "World War II - POW Camps: 1942-1945 Prisoner of War Camps in Oklahoma," ibid. [166] "Hanford Progress," by John Wagoner, Manager, Richland Operations Office, DOE-RL Hanford Works; 26 Jan 1998. "[...], 'Hanford Works' was shorthand for Hanford's Manhattan Project-era name, the 'Hanford Engineering Works.'" [167] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. "Of the over 300 incidence [sic] recorded about the Fugos [...] none caused stoppage of war related activity, except for one case where a balloon landed on a power line at Cold Creek in Washington state. It caused the first SCRAM in history, taking down the first reactor used to make plutonium." "Deprived of its electric cooling pumps, 'B' Reactor shut down." [168] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "It was three days before full production could be resumed." [169] "Japanese 'Fu-Go' Balloons: Recollections of the U.S. Government's Successful Coverup," by James Easton, PULSAR online, issue #1, at: . Quoting Professor Jack Sidener, Chinese University, Hong Kong, who passed along the WWII experiences of his father: "Came across your note re Fu-Go balloons on the web, and can add some info. My dad was civil defense chief in the town of Rio Vista, about 40 miles inland from San Francisco. He's gone now, but a few years ago he recollected that in the month of July (1944? 45?) there was an average of 9 fires per day around Rio Vista, which means 270 incendiary bombs dropped in one month. We used to watch them from Main Street, little white dots overhead, sometimes a couple of airplanes apparently snagging them in nets and hauling them out to sea. My dad and the police said they were balloon spiders; one piece of a shot balloon which dropped into the Sacramento River very visibly was said to be a 'publicity stunt' -- part of the amazingly successful repression of the facts about their success." [170] "The Army Air Forces in World War II; Defense of the Western Hemisphere: The Battle of Los Angeles," Museum of the City of San Francisco, citing _The Army Air Forces in World War II_, edited by Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, Office of Air Force History; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1983; vol 1, pp 277-286. "Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles." [171] "US Army Defends West Coast from Weather Balloon (February 24, 1942)," by Chia Evers, at . Several citations are referenced. "When an unidentified radar signature was discovered 120 miles off the coast of Los Angeles, California, in the early hours of February 25, antiaircraft batteries went to Green Alert -- 'ready to fire.'" [172] "Battle of Los Angeles," by Paul T. Collins, at . "[...] at least a million Southern Californians awoke to the scream of air-raid sirens as Los Angeles County cities blacked out at 2:25 AM. Many dozed off again while 12,000 air raid wardens reported faithfully to their posts, [...]" [173] "Battle of Los Angeles" (Collins), ibid. "But the news was being written with fingers of light three miles high on a clear star-studded blackboard 30 miles long." [174] "The Army Air Forces in World War II; Defense of the Western Hemisphere: The Battle of Los Angeles," ibid. "Residents in a forty-mile arc along the coast watched from hills or rooftops as the play of guns and searchlights provided the first real drama of the war for citizens of the mainland." [175] "US Army Defends West Coast from Weather Balloon (February 24, 1942)," ibid. "Over 1,400 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition were fired from the ground, [...]" [176] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. "Four anti-aircraft batteries lit up the night sky with more than 1600 rounds." [177] "Battle of Los Angeles, 1942," by Los Angeles Almanac, Given Place Publishing Co, 2004; at: . "Hundreds of thousands of residents, ignoring blackout rules, snapped on lights and spilled into the streets to watch sweeping searchlights and orange tracer shells streaming into the night sky." [178] "Battle of Los Angeles" (Collins), ibid. "At 3:36, however, they were shocked and their slumbering families rudely roused again, [...] "The roar of the 37th Coast Artillery Brigade's anti-aircraft batteries jolted them out of bed and before they could get to the windows the flashing 12.8 pound shells were detonating with a heavy, ominous boomp - boomp - boomp, and the steel was already raining down. [...] The firing continued intermittently until 4:14." "The blackout was lifted and sirens screamed all clear at 7:21." [179] "The Battle of Los Angeles, 1942," by Temnz Sword, UFO Universe, Winter 1993, pp 9-14; at: . "There was a massive trafflc jam that lasted into the morning rush hour paralyzing the city of Los Angeles." [180] "The Battle of Los Angeles, 1942" (Temnz Sword), ibid. "Considerable damage had been done by the antiaircraft fire. Several unexploded shells fell to earth and in some cases into homes of local residents." [181] "The Army Air Forces in World War II; Defense of the Western Hemisphere: The Battle of Los Angeles," ibid. "These mysterious forces dropped no bombs and, despite the fact that 1,440 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition were directed against them, suffered no losses." [182] "Battle of Los Angeles, 1942" (LA Almanac), ibid. "Frightened drivers, speeding through darkened streets, collided with one another, resulting in three traffic fatalities. As many as three other persons were reported to have died from fatal heart attacks. Gunners expended more than 1,400 rounds of ammunition that caused quite a bit of damage to structures on the ground." [183] "US Army Defends West Coast from Weather Balloon (February 24, 1942)," ibid. "Three civilians had been trampled, three others died in car accidents [...]" [184] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. "The overall reaction was reminiscent of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast." [185] "History of Fire Balloons, and Web Links," ibid. "Most likely balloons were launched off a submarine, to test the US Coastal Air Defense." (This theory was just one of several.) [186] "US Army Defends West Coast from Weather Balloon (February 24, 1942)," ibid. "At the end of the war, the Japanese denied that they had launched any sort of an attack against the US on the night in question, [...]" (But "attack" could be a translational error or a semantic evasion.) [187] "Battle of Los Angeles" (Collins,), ibid. "The press responded with scathing editorials, many on page one, calling attention to the loss of life and denouncing the use of the coast artillery to fire at phantoms. The Los Angeles Times demanded a full explanation from Washington. The Long Beach Telegram complained that government officials who all along had wanted to move the industries were manipulating the affair for propaganda purposes." [188] "US Army Defends West Coast from Weather Balloon (February 24, 1942)," ibid. [189] "Japanese Balloon Bombs: Project FUGO," ibid. Jacobsen: "In the latter part of 1944, we became aware of them at Station H in Hawaii and were tasked to track them for a few weeks on a low priority basis." [190] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "To protect the strategic installations surrounding Seattle, the Army initiated 'Sunset Project,' an integrated radar warning and fighter control system." [191] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "In addition, a contingent of hundreds of civilian spotters, called the Ground Observer Corps, was trained to scan the skies for strange objects." [192] "Ground Observer Corps - Aircraft Warning Service, 1944," by John E Clements, at . Clements was a Ground Observer at post "X-Ray 461" (later to become "Gimble 23"). "During World War II, the Ground Observer Corps, Aircraft Warning Service was established by the War Department." [193] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "[...]; the first air interception of an unidentified balloon was fruitlessly attempted on December 19 over Los Angeles." [194] "A Fu-Go Fire Balloon," ibid. The article mentions three incidents, each including the date, location, aircraft type, pilot's name, military unit and assorted other details. [195] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "In at least a few instances, civilians were startled to see recovery personnel dressed in full protective garments prodding balloon wreckage with long poles, searching for evidence of germ-dispensers or chemical agents." [196] "Attack of the fire flier," ibid. "The 555th (Triple Nickle) Parachute Infantry Battalion, an all-black unit of the segregated US Army, was assigned to neutralising the fugos." [197] "Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII," ibid. "These 'Smoke Jumpers' were the first to jump to a forest fire and fight them the way we do today." (Smoke jumping actually began in the 1930s.) [198] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "Also, supplies of decontamination chemicals and sprays to counter any possible use of germ warfare were quietly distributed in the western states." "[...] the Army's Western Defense Command quietly began to stockpile decontamination supplies in areas deemed at greatest risk." [199] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "Farmers' organizations and veterinarians were advised by government agencies, without elaboration, to be particularly watchful for unusual diseases in crops or livestock." [200] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [U.S. Army Col Murray] Sanders commandeered an old B-19 bomber and started a personal aerial reconnaissance of the Pacific Northwest, searching for downed balloons." [201] "Fire balloon," ibid. "Fighters scrambled to intercept the balloons, but they had little success; the balloons flew very high and surprisingly fast, and they destroyed fewer than 20." [202] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. [203] "Jap Balloons Fell In Sixteen States," ibid. "Near Moxee City, Wash., a sheepherder found a fallen balloon with live bombs, dragged it behind his automobile [...] "A small boy in Washington state found an anti-personnel bomb, which looked to him like a toy airplane. He wound the "propeller" -- the arming device in the nose -- [...]" [204] "Fu-Go," ibid. "While Reverend Archie Mitchell was parking the car, [...] [...] Elsie Mitchell and five children aged 11 - 13 were killed." [205] "Saw Wife and Five Children Killed by Jap Balloon Bomb," ibid. "In addition to Mrs. Mitchell, the others killed were Sherman Shoemaker, 12, Jay Gifford, 12, Eddie Engen, 13, Joan Patzke, 11, and Dick Patzke, 13." [206] "Paper Threat - The first intercontinental weapon system: Japanese Fu-Go balloons," ibid. "[...], instantly killing one of the adults and all five children. Incredibly, secrecy remained in place for another two weeks. Finally, on May 22, over a month after Fu-Go launches had probably ended, the US government issued a statement warning of the Japanese balloons and the hazards of handling strange debris." [207] "Japanese Fugo Bombing Balloons," ibid. "It was also feared that, with the end of the school year approaching, there would soon be many children exploring in remote areas where unexploded bombs were most likely to be found." [208] "Residents of West Warned - Told to Prevent Injury or Damage; No Property Damage Yet From Flights," ibid. "With the approach of warm weather and the end of the school season, the statement added, 'It is desirable that people and especially children living west of the Mississippi River be warned of this possible hazard and cautioned under no circumstances to touch or approach any unfamiliar object.'" [209] "Balloons That Bombed: 49 Years Ago, Japanese Explosives Drifted Into Footnotes of Ventura County History," ibid. Quoting Bert Webber, an Oregon based historian: "[...] the balloon bomb attacks would have been stepped up by the Japanese if the U.S. forces had not started even more intensive aerial bombing over Japan with B-29 Superfortress bombers." [210] "Balloons," unattributed; on a UFO site, but referencing the following (as footnote 13) for the cite used in this article: "FROM THE COURIER," Official Publication of the East Benton County Historical Society; Kennewick, WA; Jan 1997; at . [211] "The Japanese Mission," ibid. "It is estimated that each balloon cost $220 American to build in 1945. In all, an incredible 9,000,000 Yen or $2,000,000 American was spent by the Japanese, constructing these bombs." Footnote 1 to article in periodical: "When the Japs Bombed North America," by Jerry MacMullen, Liberty Magazine (Canada) Ltd; J L Rutledge, Publisher; Toronto, Canada; 04 May 1946. Topical music for multimedia enthusiasts: "I Did What I Could With My Gas Mask," by George Formby (c. WWII) (2:38, MP3, 1.81 MB): . For further study: 1. _Japan's World War II Balloon Bomb Attacks on North America_ (Smithsonian Annals of Flight #9), Robert C Mikesh, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, 1973 (96 pages); ISBN 0874749115. (Formerly GPO 4705-0009.) Reprinted by Aero Publishers, 1982; ISBN 0816839506. 2. _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_, by Richard Rhodes, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986. Reprinted 01 Aug 1995 (928 pages); ISBN 0684813785. Also published as a PDF file on CD-ROM (23 Jul 2002); ISBN B00006G3GO. 3. _Silent Siege III: Japanese Attacks on North America in World War II_, by Bert Webber, Webb Research Group Publishers, Medford Oregon, 01 Dec 1992 (301 pages); ISBN 0936738731. 4. _Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II_, by Peter Williams and David Wallace, Simon & Schuster, New York, 01 Mar 1989 (303 pages); ASIN 0029353017. 5. _David Wallechinsky's 20th Century: History With the Boring Parts Left Out_, Little, Brown and Company; 01 Sep 1996 (835 pages); ASIN 0316920568. 6. _Jericho Beach and the West Coast Flying Boat Stations_, by Christopher Weicht, MCW Enterprises, 1997 (288 pages); ASIN 0-9681158-0-2. 7. "Balloons Of War," by John McPhee, New Yorker magazine, 29 Jan 1996, 52:60. 8. "Secrets of WWII - Japan's Last Secret Weapon," The History Channel. (The program is rebroadcast occasionally.) 9. "In Search of History - U.S. Invaded" (segment only), The History Channel. (The program is rebroadcast occasionally.) Note: This article uses an Internet citation form (document name, author) rather than a research or literary form (author: document name). It uses the same form of footnote (square brackets) throughout, thus preserving exact strings. This form accomodates the string search features of browsers and document viewers. It also separates brackets from punctuation marks to maintain readability in the proportional font atmosphere that dominates the Internet. -30- ------------------------------- Path: local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.flxtek.net!news.flxtek.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:31:57 -0500 Sender: lk-mail@c09-baja-az Newsgroups: misc.survivalism Subject: [Assess] Another Threat from Offshore From: Lee Knoper Organization: Baja Arizona Net (Western Gadsdenia) References: <250520041929229309%timcmay@removethis.got.net> <86k6x5ur1z.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> Summary: Morphing "nuke threats to sats" thread => airborne NBC/R threats in general Keywords: threat, offshore, aircraft, balloon, fusen bakudan, fugo, fu-go Reply-To: Lee Knoper X-No-Archive: yes Date: 21 Jul 2004 01:32:59 +0700 Message-ID: <867jsyr0kk.fsf@gnus.c09.baja_az.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 487 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.186.106.110 X-Trace: sv3-cecnd/pWZ3P7DLrBG79ag0K1f/SbWdxhtDrXyhOllHC6UowkFjvdS4yN5ia+cWJmLZ/KnVHcEfFkhLp!Rba0uFbBgwxw7Sf3RIzsONeDY74NuSy3j5N8tMoYXtNhUDILRpH5hBiV6KVVsVwpwBDf/FBGz+rk!I+YL/rq7yg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@flxtek.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.survivalism:721848 [Was: "Subject: Re: Orbital Nuclear Blasts"] This article is the third and final in a series with similar Subject headers. The previous two were: 1. [Intro] Another Threat from Offshore 2. [History] Another Threat from Offshore Ths article lightly reviews threat and vulnerability considerations related to possible terrorist use of balloon devices to carry out conventional, nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological attacks against civilian populations. On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:29:22 -0700, Tim May wrote: > The current issue of "Scientific American" has a fairly good > article about orbital nuclear blasts and the effects they > could have. [...] > [...] > The article convinces me that, if the scenarios are > accurately described, it would be fairly easy for a small > group on a fishing boat (later to be scuttled, perhaps) to > launch a "pop shot" straight up from any one of many > anonymous firing positions (anonymous in that the location > is not traceable...and if the boat is scuttled, perhaps even > the crew with it, not traceable easily, if in deep waters) > and wreak havoc on the world financial markets. I don't have convenient access to the SciAm article, but I thought these comments were pretty interesting. Even though they constitute "creative speculation," IMHO this mention probably was the first meaningful reassessment of a potential nuclear threat that I've seen in in well over a year. The significance is that it could involve an expendible mobile offshore platform other than a military vessel. Shortly after 11 Sep 2001, I began to more closely examine the possibility of conventional, nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological threats that originate just offshore or from remote areas of a country. We need not look back any further than the Japanese fugos of WWII, which I covered in the previous article in this series. Recently a two hour PBS NOVA program gave an unexpected assist to my ongoing threat assessment. The second hour of the program [1] opened with a story about California pollution monitoring equipment that had recorded gradually increasing levels of certain airborne pollutants over time. The curious aspect was that stringent state regulations had long before been established to ban or reduce the pollutants in question, and there was no evidence of new violations. A little scientific detective work revealed that the pollution was originating in...China. This portion of the NOVA program focused on China's "hyperactive" economic development, not on its contribution to global pollution. Consequently, no details were offered about the atmospheric transport of pollutants to California. Fortunately, a Web search provides us with some useful background information, and the probable basis for some of the NOVA coverage. NASA's Global Tropospheric Experiment (GTE) [2] gathered data concerning the flow of atmospheric pollution over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. [3] The Pacific Exploratory Mission (PEM) flew DC-8 and P-3B aircraft out of California, Hawaii, Christmas Island, Fiji, Tahiti, and Easter Island to create horizontal and vertical profiles of airmasses over the Pacific. [4] These aircraft were equipped with instruments to perform chemical signature analysis. The object was to track specific chemicals associated with atmospheric pollution over transoceanic distances. The pollutants of interest differentiated between natural and manmade sources of emissions. For example, tracked pollutants included methyl chloride (CH3Cl, a tracer associated with burning biomass), and tetrachloroethylene (C2Cl4, a tracer associated with industrial operations). The degree of threat posed by an airborne chemical or biological agent depends on the comparative lethality of the agent in question and the degree of exposure at destination. The ability of an uncontainerized agent to survive temperature extremes, moisture, ultraviolet radiation and other effects while en route is a related consideration. Not all behavior is widely known. Tropospheric chemistry and photochemistry are dominant themes within atmospheric physics, but are considered to be still in their infancy. Nevertheless, atmospheric conveyance of even trace amounts of harmful substances over vast distances is a common transport mechanism and a growing sociopolitical concern. Now, the great circle distance between the Pekin Municipal Airport and the Los Angeles International Airport (PEK-LAX) is 6,251 miles (10,059 KM). [5][6][7] Perusing the data on the many Web sites that deal with Pacific ocean climatology, it's hard to estimate the true distance that windborne pollution might travel. The actual path can vary considerably. However, a significant part of the path taken by the northern sub-polar jet stream often coincides with the PEK-LAX great circle route (i.e., a coastal-Aleutian orientation). [8] Thus, the great circle distance is a reasonable "working figure" for the purpose of this discussion. The fact that common pollutants could travel well over six thousand miles in open air and be captured by field monitoring equipment hints at a far more sinister potential. The WWII fugos demonstrated that conventional munitions could be delivered consistently (albeit unpredictably) over intercontinental distances via the jet stream. As in the offshore nuclear threat assessment quoted at the opening of this article, a realistic balloon based threat for other types of attacks could originate outside of territorial waters and drift in on surface winds. Alternatively, it could originate almost anywhere on land, and rely on prevailing winds. Between chemical and biological threats, the latter arguably is of elevated concern because of potentially greater persistency (e.g., anthrax) in the target zone, along with contagion and the chance contributory actions of other vectors (e.g., mosquitos, wildlife, domestic animals). Fugo-like delivery vehicles carrying biological weapons could almost fit the Islamic reference to a "Black Wind," mentioned in a recent article posted by Halcitron (links and relevant quote in footnote). [9] Reflecting on the Japanese fugo: a) it was a strategic weapon system; b) specimens did indeed hit tactical and strategic targets; c) it did indeed divert nontrivial wartime resources to address the threat; d) it =could= have carried chemical or biological weapons, possibly with greater ease than conventional ordnance; and e) it was an inexpensive instrument of asymmetric warfare, using a relatively weak force to attack the vulnerable underpinnings of a strong force. Two foibles of this weapon system that tend to rise to the top of the list are: a) the bomb release mechanism, and b) targeting. Obviously the balloons arrived in the target zone, but the ordnance was released in semi-random fashion, mostly where it did not pose much threat. A lot of the ordnance apparently was also lost en route, even before arrival in the target zone. The bomb release mechanism probably could have been improved without requiring more modern technology. Adding even an elementary target sensing capability would have allowed the weapon to give preference to high value targets before eventually dropping the ordnance randomly. For example, fugos could have been equipped with a mechanical "thermal rate of rise" detector. Urban heat islands [10][11][12][13] and thermal updrafts in mountainous areas (most of which are forested) in the western U.S. and could have been more accurately targeted with chem-bio and incendiary weapons, respectively. The U.S. "total suppression" policy for forest fires (referred to as wildfires in current terminology) that existed from the 1930s through recent years was well intentioned, but is now generally recognized to have been unfortunate. Many forests have become "doghair thickets" of volatile fuel. Most have struggled through years of what increasingly is being termed a megadrought. They also have been ravaged by insect infestation and disease. Thus, the vulnerability is far greater today than it was during WWII. Media reports quoting USFS sources note that about 40-million acres of U.S. forest need urgent action to reduce wildfire susceptibility. The current population of the U.S. is about 115% larger than it was during WWII. [14] Moreover, today's population is far more urban, and the urban heat island phenomenon is more distinct today than it was during WWII. As the profile drawing in one image example illustrates, [15] urban heat islands potentially are more detectable at altitude than at ground level. Contemporary fugos could be far more deceptive and treacherous than their predecessors. Simple pyro devices could substitute for the military incendiary bombs that fugos carried; a number of chemicals spontaneously combust when exposed to air. Arrangements involving binary combinations could also be used. Contact initiators could be added. (In last summer there was speculation about whether terrorists might have been responsible for some of last year's U.S. wildfires.) Recall the WWII fugo that landed on high voltage transmission lines near Cold Creek, Washington, disabling Hanford reactor "B." Taking a cue from this incident, another destructive payload for a hypothetical contemporary fugo would be to trail a long conductive thread or cable. In fact, the U.S. used a somewhat similar weapon in Iraq during Gulf War I. One version of the Tomahawk cruise missile deployed spools of "carbon-carbon fiber thread" to short out and trip high voltage transmission lines. [16] The intent was to create temporary outages without significantly damaging the electrical power infrastructure. However, in the windy environment of Iraq the threads proved to be unexpectedly persistent, and continued to be a nuisance long after their release. Summarizing the above, the more likely uses of balloon weapons launched from close-in offshore locations or from remote incountry areas would be to: a) deliver conventional bombs (notably incendiary weapons, for some target areas); b) deliver chemical and biological weapons; c) attack infrastructure targets such as electrical transmission lines; and d) cause public concern ranging from uncertainty to outright panic, and resulting economic instability. Clearly a nine meter balloon isn't needed to launch such an attack. Anyone who has toyed with helium filled mylar or rubber balloons can attest to their behavior over a 24 hour period. That time frame is more than enough to allow them to drift toward mainland targets after release in onshore surface winds from international waters. A more durable envelope might be needed, but it's quite feasible. [Last minute editorial decision: I redacted lengthy additional comments concerning OpFor method, opportunity and access, as well as more detailed observations about associated threat and vulnerability. -LK] Such a delivery mechanism could be deployed against practically any country that became the target of antisocial or malevolent operatives, once the wind patterns became known. A full sized fugo could carry conventional, low yield nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons. A smaller balloon platform is more suited for incendiary and chem-bio weapons, and resource diversion. Neutralizing these airborne threats without causing collateral damage or loss of containment could be a significant challenge. Dealing with inert decoys would be almost as time consuming and expensive as dealing with live weapons. A great deal of preparedness activity addresses common inconveniences of everyday life, such as severe weather, earthquakes, criminal predation, and shortages of fuel and consumer commodities. For some individuals civil unrest is an additional consideration. The types of terrorist attacks described in this article admittedly are at the upper end of the threat spectrum. Nevertheless, in recent years government repeatedly has told us that terrorists may use both conventional and unconventional weapons in attacks on civilian populations. My contention (and the basic theme of these articles) is simple: "If a threat is real, then the response must be realistic." Government officials allude to "elevated chatter" or "credible evidence, but we don't have (or can't provide) any details." If terrorist attacks against civilian populations using conventional or unconventional weapons are in fact real possibilities, then the reasonable and prudent response is to prepare for such contingencies. This response requires solutions that are both pragmatic and have substance. Certainly that was the U.S. reaction to threats to native soil during prior conflicts. Yet, nearly three years into the "war on terrorism," the realism of responses to these claimed threats is highly debatable. The only general warning mechanism offered to the public has been a color coded alert system, supplemented by narrative reports to be broadcast as needed. Although the alert colors indicate the level of government concern, the system poorly communicates the desired public reaction. Individual responses for the various alert conditions are remarkably vague and unsubstantial, and no performance benchmarks are set (e.g., immediate action drills and time frames). No feedback is given concerning public responses to alerts. For all practical purposes the alert colors are less meaningful than traffic lights at an intersection. A cynical viewpoint is that this system is just a wishful CYA mechanism for public officials. Media reports about disaster exercises often are just fluff pieces. "After Action" reports usually are restricted to government agencies; rarely are sanitized, "for public consumption" versions offered. The outcome of most disaster exercises is a predictable call for greater cooperation, more personnel, more regulations and increased funding. The FEMA and DHS Web sites offer precious little information about establishing home shelters against nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological threats. FEMA still uses the phrase "safe room" almost exclusively in conjunction with tornado shelters. Old or reissued construction plans for fallout shelters might still be available from FEMA in printed form, but if there are any scanned versions the download links are not obvious during site searches. Nor are there any obvious links on the FEMA and DHS Web sites to order specific printed materials on safe room or fallout shelter construction from the U.S. Government Printing Office. There is a tremendous reality disconnect here, a sense of recklessly negligent parentalism. Either the above behavior seriously belies the claims about threats, or the priorities are badly scrambled. (Then there are the various theories....) The unreality of responses to presumably real threats is a threat and vulnerability consideration all by itself. In most metropolitan areas (and in some rural areas) civil defense sirens probably are the single most effective warning devices. However, in the U.S. these sirens haven't been sounded in decades. Even the heightened public concern after Black Tuesday wasn't enough to persuade government officials to at least =test= some of these warning devices. In contrast, public and private sector responses to perceived threats during WWII and the Cold War were far more timely and substantive, and involved the civilian population to a much greater extent. During WWII, the U.S. government readily accomodated citizen volunteers for such responsibilities as civil defense wardens and spotters in the Ground Observer Corps. During the Cold War, construction plans for fallout shelters were made available in variations ranging from simple projects to major undertakings. Public shelters were established, and their locations were prominently marked. Private citizens normally do not have access to information about specific threats. Government can't (or won't) provide it. Ongoing problems with government intelligence entities are disconcerting. The astounding reality disconnect between claimed threats and proffered protective measures speaks volumes all by itself. Either a threat exists, or it does not. If it exists, then the response must be realistic. It must be pragmatic and substantive. Readers can judge for themselves the substance and veracity of claims made by government officials about possible conventional, nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological attacks by terrorists against civilian populations. Collect and analyze information from a wide variety of sources. Compare notes with people of like mind and act according to your own threat and vulnerability assessment. In closing, please note once again that the above discussion relates to strictly hypothetical scenarios. As a USENET courtesy and to improve readability, I respectfully ask that any followups judiciously dequote material unrelated to immediate comments. Lee_K On the counter I saw a newspaper, flipped it open. The headlines: "CRISIS...ACUTE!" I read the story, dispatched from Washington. "The federal government is herewith suspended, due to the emergency. All officers, including those of the armed forces, will put themselves under the orders of any functioning local authority, by order of the acting president...." -- "Earth Abides," by George Stewart; adapted for radio by David Ellis, Part One; Escape radio theater, 05 Nov 1950. Footnotes: [1] "China Revs Up," NOVA, Public Broadcasting Service. An overview is at URL . First aired on 20 Apr 2004, it has since been rerun at least once. [2] NASA, Global Tropospheric Experiment (GTE) program, home page at . [3] NASA-GTE Long Range Transport: TRACE-A and PEM-Expeditions, at . (TRACE was the Atlantic study; PEM was the Pacific study.) [4] "Continental sources, transoceanic transport, and interhemispheric exchange of carbon monoxide over the Pacific," by A C Staudt et al [associated institutions include Harvard University, Florida State and NASA], Journal of Geophysical Research, date not evident (probably circa 2000), at . [5] Airport codes, International Air Transport Association, at . [6] Calculator, Great Circle Distance, home page, at . [7] Calculator, Great Circle Distance, with parameters set for PEK-LAX distance in miles, at . [8] "Jet Stream Analyses and Forecasts at 300 mb," California Regional Weather Service, at . [9] "THE BLACK WIND COMING??" posted by Halcitron to on 14 Apr 2004 09:55:05 GMT, citing . (Just one interpretation.) Viewable from archive at . "The Black Wind [...] may depict an intentional economic disaster as a direct result of a terrorist attack - 'an economic implosion.'" "In Islam, the huayra yana is the black wind. In a symbolic sense, a black wind spreads similar to the act of throwing ashes into the air. The dust particles appear momentarily suspended then carried along by an invisible stream before dissipating and falling to the ground." [10] Drawing, urban heat island =profile=: "image002," JPEG 408 x 255 (22.4 KB), by Virginia Gardening, at . [11] Remote Sensing Advanced Technology: Urban Heat Island Mapping: "dcb thermal" [best example!], JPEG 540 x 400 (59.7 KB), by World Surveillance Inc, at . [12] "Sol-Vent Urban Heat Island" (thermal isobars in plan view plot): "London," JPEG 605 x 403 (46.1 KB), by Maria Kolokotroni, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Brunel University, Uxbridge, U.K.; at . [13] "An Urban Heat Island: Washington, D.C.," by Paul Baumann, Dept of Geography, SUNY, Oneonta, NY (several images and plots - slow to load); at . [14] "US Population by State from 1900," by Demographia, at . The census 2000 population figure was 281,421,906. The census 1940 figure was 132,164,569. [15] Drawing, urban heat island =profile=: "image002," ibid. [16] "Cyber War Against Iraq," by Charles R Smith, Newsmax, 13 Mar 2003, at . The same article is also viewable at InfoWar Monitor, at . "Another version of the Tomahawk used in the 1991 Gulf War deployed small spools of carbon-carbon fiber thread over Iraqi power plants and electric grids. The fiber spools unwound and fell over the live wires. The resulting shorts blew most of the Iraqi electric power grid for the remainder of the war. Iraqi efforts to clear the spools and restart the electric plants were foiled by desert winds, which blew more spools back into the live wires." Topical sounds for multimedia enthusiasts: "Deadly Germs," by jmm (30 Oct 2002) (3:32, MP3, 4.85 MB), Section D of "The Four Part Study of September 11, 2001," Aural Paintings CD-ROM, Vol I (best experienced with headphones): Referring page (list of selections): Free information and commercial products for creating "safe rooms" for nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological and weather threats (some of which also include nuclear blast shelter plans): a) "Bomb Shelter / Safe Room Information," by Ki Canada, at . Focuses on fallout shelters, but implies adaptability to safe rooms as well. Multiple downloadable plan sets for fallout and blast shelters. b) "How to Implement High Security Shelter in the Home," by Joel M. Skousen, CD-ROM (USD $25.00), at . The CD covers safe room placement and layout, features, facilities, structural considerations, working drawings and plans, and lists of equipment, products and suppliers. Plans are suitable for DIY or contractor. c) "Smartroom: Protecting Your Family," by Wallsmart Corporation, CD-ROM (USD $19.95 limited time special sale price), at and . The CD includes building and construction plans, list of suppliers (direct links also provided) and contractors, and budget and cost guidelines. Plans are suitable for DIY or contractor. The site has an optional flash presentation, slide show and free downloadable demo (2.47 MB). Pre-download registration requires disclosure of username and e-mail address only. (The demo is 26 pages; the full package is 379 pages.) d) "Safe Room with IQAir Air Purifiers with Duct Kits," at . The equipment is pricey, but the site has specifications and several drawings that could give intrepid DIYers some foundation ideas. e) "Civil Defense Now! - Free Shelter Plans," by Richard A Fleetwod, Survival Ring, at . The subject matter references only fallout shelters. Multiple downloadable plan sets. -30- ------------------------------- [End; -LK] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administrivia. Please advise the author or resource maintainer of any errors or omissions so that this resource can be properly maintained. If this file is made available online for download, the author respectfully asks that the following filenames be used if at all possible (where "8x3" refers to the traditional DOS filenaming convention and "Ext" refers to extended filenaming systems): 8x3: atfo101.txt (or filename extension of archiver) Ext: atfo-1.0.1.txt (or filename extension of archiver) Changes made since the previous release are denoted by a pipes symbol ("|") in column 1. [Minor (patch level) changes do not require a filename change.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revision Log See the pipes symbol ("|") in column 1 for the most recent changes. Note that interim revisions may not have been released. Release_Date Vers Description_of_Revisions 19 Jul 2005 1.01 Repackaged the series as a single text file to make it available via Web. 17 Jul 2004 1.00 Start of initial release, via publication to USENET, over three day interval. -30- Document owner: Lee Knoper You are viewing URL: Page last modified: 1617 UTC / 19 Jul 2005 Copyright 2004-2005 by Lee Knoper - All rights reserved