

Beware of Japanese Balloon Bombs - Shivetya
http://www.npr.org/blogs/npr-history-dept/2015/01/20/375820191/beware-of-japanese-balloon-bombs

======
stewartbutler
PSA: old bombs are dangerous bombs. If you find something you suspect may be
unexploded ordinance, contact the police or (in the US) regional ATF office.
Many of the compounds used in older explosives (e.g. TNT) grow more unstable
as time passes, actually increasing the change of accidental detonation

Case example: while I don't remember all of the details (it was 15 years ago),
there was an exhibit in a small museum in my hometown that had several civil
war era percussion fuse cannon balls. An explosives-certified agent at the
local ATF office heard that one of the curators would occasionally show
children visiting the museum how neat they were, since they would warm up when
you shake them. Ends up they were still live, but that the explosive had
degraded; a little more energy (say, from dropping it after shaking it for a
while) could have set the charge off, killing or seriously injuring the kids
at the exhibit. They were safely destroyed, but it stuck in my mind as a
cautionary tale not to screw around with old ordinance.

~~~
abandonliberty
"they would warm up when you shake them"

That's insane. I can't believe no one was slightly concerned about this.

~~~
mikeash
Indeed. It would hardly be more clear if a little flag popped out reading "I
am still dangerous." I wonder what sort of misunderstanding causes a person to
think this is reasonable.

~~~
stewartbutler
It struck me as ridiculous when I heard the story, but I can somewhat see how
it happens -- first, civil-war era means that it is /old/, which makes it seem
less dangerous unless you know about the age->instability relationship with
explosives; second, it looks like an inert ball of iron, so there is nothing
that really screams 'hazardous' to an uneducated viewer.

~~~
mikeash
I can understand thinking that it's inert and safe initially, but the fact
that it warms up when shaking it conclusively disproves that idea.

------
rurounijones
I imagine most of them are in the ocean somewhere, still, plenty of WWII
ordnance is found all over the world, always good to remember that things like
this are possible.

Off-topic: Do we really need all the "Diabolical plan", "Wicked weapons"
spiel. This isn't a 1940s comic book. It was a war and all sides were up to
this sort of off the wall stuff (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb)
for example ) as well as more conventional ways of killing people.

~~~
Roboprog
I had to laugh at that part, as well. Sure, a B-24 is a "Liberator", and B-17s
were, uh, friendly???

I think they meant to write "desperate", rather than "diabolical", for a plan
to blow random holes in the countryside. Not that I would want to be under one
when it came down, regardless of country of origin.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
In Japan, a very crowded country, it might have seemed effective to drop bombs
at random - killing people at random as a terror campaign. But California is
mostly empty space. Making random black spots on remote pastures and empty
hillsides has a lesser effect on moral.

I think it likely that the Japanese command were merely profoundly ignorant of
the living situation in America including population density.

~~~
cmsmith
As I recall there was no expectation that the bombs themselves would cause any
significant casualties. The intention was for them to start forest fires,
which would hurt US civilian morale and require manpower to put out.

------
jnardiello
Nice way to start a WWII article "Those who forget the past are liable to trip
over it."

Especially considering that "the past" doesn't exist and that history is
written by winners. It changes according to current political needs and in
this specific case western history is us-centric and russians were just
"passing-by" when in fact it was mainly thanks to the russians that germany
was defeated.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Casualties says it all.

Related to the article: These japanese bombs are surely interesting for geeks
but saying "evil geniuses" is a bit overstating as, to me, they seem as a
desperate attempt to hurt US inland.

My2cents

~~~
viggity
I won't take a definite stance, but would probably agree with you that the
USSR had a bigger role defeating Germany than the US/UK. However, I would
contend that "casualties says it all" is the wrong way to look at it.

The Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped to deal
with war (ex. having two soldiers share a rifle during the battle of
Stalingrad). I haven't looked, but it would be more interesting to see total
german casualties on the western and eastern fronts. And further more, how
many of those casualties were caused my the miserable russian winter vs actual
combat.

~~~
njharman
> Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped

That is simplistic (and largely wrong) view fueled by propaganda and post war
"Winners (or current cold war combatants) rewrite history) OP is talking
about.

The German invasion of USSR caught them completely off guard, without the
organization or material needed to fight. Reeling they did what they had to
(sacrifice hundreds of thousands) to save Moscow, and buy time to move
production east and organize a real defense. It was a heroic sacrifice and
amazing military victory to survive the blitzkrieg.

Later in the war USSR had the most of everything planes, tanks, artillery, and
still men. Arguably the best tank of the war, one of if not the best ground
attack plane.

During the later winter offensives it was the Germans who sent their troops
ill prepared for war. And all the Hitler no retreat orders led to many german
meatgrinders.

~~~
ajuc
But it's confirmed that during many battles political officers shoot at soviet
soldiers that tried to retreat.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_in_the_Red_Army)

Hard to expect small casualties when you shoot your soldiers with machineguns
from the back.

~~~
njharman
First, they expected huge casualties. That is part of my point. Manpower was
one of their only resources at start of war. The leaders and the people made
the tough decision to sacrifice them to stay in the war. Unlike two previous
victims of Blitzkrieg.

Second, those weren't universal. Only used in specific circumstances (as your
link states). And IIRC, largely done away with later in the war after USSR
production caught up and they won strategic initiative.

~~~
ajuc
> Unlike two previous victims of Blitzkrieg.

Please. Had USSR had the territorial situation of Poland (Germany to north and
west, german allies participating in invasion south and east) it would fall
just as well.

No point in sacrificing hundreds of tousands of lives (which BTW Poles did in
1944 in Warsaw Uprising anyway - bad mistake of Polish government).

BTW a lot of USSR early problems with German betrayal were self-inflicted (red
terror disposed of big part of educated officers for example, also Stalin
prepared invasion of his own - there was infrastructure prepared to attack,
not to defend).

------
njharman
Wow, that was ridiculously adjective laden writing. diabolic, dastardly,
wicked.

~~~
krakensden
Especially from (USA) National Public Radio. A nation that bestowed only hugs
and cuddles upon the Japanese.

------
MechSkep
After the single lethal attack in 1945: "Several Japanese civilians have
visited ... to offer their apologies for the deaths that took place here, and
several cherry trees have been planted around the monument as a symbol of
peace" [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon)

------
Udo
_> The plan was diabolic_

As far as wars go I would say that a scattershot plan designed to cause forest
fires in order to distract the enemy is about one of the most benign things
they could have come up with given the technology at their disposal.
Interesting as the bomb itself is, the article seems to be unnecessarily
polemic.

