I was flipping satellite channels tonight, and I ran across the supposedly classic “The Day The Earth Stood Still.” I’m kind of appalled that this was some of the best that the fifties had to offer for SF, because it seemed pretty schlocky to me, but that’s from someone speaking from the century of the Jetsons.

Anyway, it did occur to me that there were some interesting parallels between it and what we’re attempting to accomplish in the Middle East.

There’s a comments box below. Discuss.

The San Jose Mercury says that the Marines just fought their “biggest battle of the war.”

Results?

Three lost tanks, eight wounded.

Here comes a potentially interesting showdown, from a federalism standpoint.

Mark Steyn says that the war is pretty much over. But the key point is in the last graf:

But, for everyone other than media naysayers, it’s the Anglo-Aussie-American side who are the geniuses. Rumsfeld’s view that one shouldn’t do it with once-a-decade force, but with a lighter, faster touch has been vindicated, with interesting implications for other members of the axis of evil and its reserve league.

Yup. One of the benefits of doing this was to show that Afghanistan wasn’t a fluke–we can pretty much take on any country we want, at least one that’s being run by thugs, and has no popular support, at relatively little cost.

Mr. Assad, Mr. Arafat, mullahs in Iran, Kim Jung Il, maybe even Mr. Mugabe, all take note.

There’s a new sheriff in town…

Early missile defense system concepts were nuclear, because it was assumed that was the only way to ensure that a payload delivered to the right neighborhood would take out the missile. This would have resulted in so much collateral damage that it was abandoned early on, and gave a bad name to the concept of defense against missiles per se.

Thus, it was a breakthrough in missile defense when we developed (and continue to improve) the capability to guide projectiles with precision. This allows us to not only not use nuclear explosions, but to get away without using explosives at all. The high speed of the interceptor provides it with sufficient kinetic energy to kill the target from the collision alone.

This has apparently had a nice spinoff for a war in which we’re trying to minimize collateral damage. I don’t know if we’re doing this, but the Brits have come up with a bomb with no explosives. It’s basically just a thousand pounds of concrete which, when dropped from a height to a precise target (using the same smart guidance techniques as more conventional munitions), can do a lot of damage, but without having to explode. It’s like something that ACME might manufacture, except it really really works.

The terminal velocity on one of these things would be several hundred miles per hour, I’d guess, given the density. I wouldn’t want to be in a tank in a narrow city street when one of these things falls on it, but it’s quite possible that one could be standing next to it when it occurred, and not be injured, or even have overpressure on the eardrums. But you definitely don’t want to try to fair catch it.

Saves money, saves lives. Cool.

So we may be able to use such weapons quite surgically, even within a city. We may find out in the next few hours.

Mikhail Gorbachev says we must “end this bloodbath” in Iraq.

Actually, Mickey, that’s exactly what we’re doing–ending a multi-decade bloodbath. Funny, though, I don’t ever recall hearing calls from you to Saddam to end any bloodbaths. Maybe I just missed them?

Though it may be a little premature for us more cautious types, Jonah Goldberg already has some postwar plans for Iraq, including a name change, in which he deservedly bashes lots of folks, from Jacque Chirac to Terry McAuliffe (who I note hasn’t been getting that much air time lately–I wonder if the Dems have figured out what a liability he is?–I hope not).

It’s pretty entertaining.

The Times of London says that the end is near for the regime.

One interesting quote:

Although Saddam is alleged to have sent death squads southeast of Baghdad to block the retreat of Republican Guards, his commanders may not have dared to report how much punishment they have taken.

This is one of the practical reasons not to be a brutal dictator. When you always shoot the messenger, you’re bound to live a life of delusion, because no one will be willing to acquaint you with reality.

Jay Manifold (who really needs to put in a title for the HTML of his index page) says that the “meteor shower” (which was really a single object that exploded high in the atmosphere) over Chicago last week could have been a lot worse. It wasn’t another Tonguska, but it could have killed a lot of people, and done a lot of damage.

You’ve probably seen the email going around about how to argue with a pacifist. You know, the one that says that you should just listen to their arguments, and then suddenly, without warning, punch them in the nose? Rinse, lather, repeat until they get the point?

Well, someone sent it to some peace activists, and they took it as a physical threat. They’re upset because they can’t get the police to do anything about it. But my favorite line of the story was the last one:

Police filed an initial report after receiving a complaint and will likely interview Howell, Atkinson said. But because it contained no specific threats, the e-mail is most likely not criminal, Atkinson said.

Diana Hirschi, who issued Thursday’s press release, worries the e-mail might jeopardize protesters, who have already been pelted by eggs during recent rallies.

“I’m a pacifist,” Hirschi said. “But if somebody punched me in the nose, I don’t know what I’d do.

[Update at 2:10 PM PST]

Someone in the comments section was looking for the original essay. Here’s a link to it.

And thanks to Dave Neiwert–a lefty freelance journoblogger (whose politics can be inferred from his blogroll–Atrios tops the list…) through whom I found it because he was whining about it. In his foolishness, he takes it to be “…describing how to physically assault war protesters.” He obviously misses the point as well.