Britain, History, Military, Second World War, Society, United States

Dresden and the Allied bombings of World War II…

70 YEARS ON

Today, the blossoming of Dresden in the east of Germany stands in stark contrast to how the city looked from the ruins of the Allied bombings towards the end of World War II.

British and American bombers dropped 3,900 tonnes of explosives on the Saxony city during four raids on 13th-15th February 1945, killing an estimated 25,000 people and reducing the city to rubble.

The bombing, ordered by Royal Air Force marshal Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris, was widely criticised because of the indiscriminate and ‘blanket bombing’ which hit civilian areas as well as military targets – killing thousands of innocents.

Over two days and nights in February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), turned the city into a sea of flames and rubble.

The resulting firestorm is said to have reached temperatures of over 1,500C (2,700F), destroying over 1,600 acres of the city centre.

The victims – mostly women and children – died in savage firestorms whipped up by the intense heat of 2,400 tons of high explosive and 1,500 tons of incendiary bombs.

It was initially claimed that up to 250,000 civilians lost their lives in the Dresden bombings but an official report released after the war showed the casualty figure was in fact closer to between 22,500 and 25,000.

A police report written shortly after the bombings showed that the city centre firestorm had destroyed almost 12,000 houses, including 640 shops, 18 cinemas, 39 schools, 26 public houses and the city zoo.

The destruction of Dresden has been subjected to much fierce debate in the 70 years since the war. No one has ever been charged over the bombings, but several historians both in Germany and former Allied nations hold the opinion that the bombing was a war crime.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, ultimately responsible for the attack, distanced himself from the bombing of Dresden shortly afterwards.

An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack said:

… ‘Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas.

… At one time, and well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance…. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front… and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.’

Bomber Command, which suffered the highest casualty rate of any British unit, losing 55,573 of its 125,000 men, eventually gained a memorial in 2012, but sections of society in Britain were outraged and disgusted with public recognition being given to such attacks. It is the view of many that such a memorial should never have been authorised by the British Government because of the attacks on civilians and on non-strategic targets.

Standard
Arts, Research, Science, Technology, United States

DNA Phenotyping…

FORENSIC COMPUTER SCIENCE

Intro: DNA Phenotyping is the prediction of physical appearance from DNA

Until now, DNA left at the scene of a crime only proved useful if it was already stored in a database and could be matched to a suspect.

A team of forensic experts, however, have now devised a way to recreate the face of a person, including eye and skin colour, using as little as 50 picograms (0.05 nanograms) of extracted DNA.

Called DNA phenotyping, the tests also determine the person’s ancestry, if they have freckles and can be used to match with distant relatives.

DNA phenotyping is the prediction of physical appearance from DNA and is a technique being pioneered by Virginia-based Parabon Nanolabs (example pictured). The technology can be used to generate leads in cases where there are no suspects or database hits, or to help identify remains, for example.

DNA phenotyping is the prediction of physical appearance from DNA and is a technique being pioneered by Virginia-based Parabon Nanolabs (example pictured). The technology can be used to generate leads in cases where there are no suspects or database hits, or to help identify remains, for example.

DNA phenotyping is the prediction of physical appearance from DNA and is a technique being pioneered by Virginia-based Parabon Nanolabs.

The technology can be used to generate leads in criminal cases where there are no suspects or database hits, or to help identify remains, for example.

Samples can be potentially taken from as little as a fingerprint.

Parabon’s Snapshot Forensic system is said to be able to accurately predict genetic ancestry, eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, freckling, and face shape in individuals from any ethnic background.

Each prediction is presented with a ‘measure of confidence’.

As an example, the test can say a person has green eyes with 61 per cent confidence, green or blue with 79 per cent confidence, and that they definitely don’t have brown eyes, with 99 per cent confidence.

Based on ancestry, and other markers, the test also creates a likely facial shape.

From all of this information, it builds a computer generated e-fit.

And the test will predict how two people are related, as distant as third cousins, and great-great-great-great-grandparents.

‘DNA carries the genetic instruction set for an individual’s physical characteristics, producing the wide range of appearances among people,’ explained Parabon Nanolabs.

‘By determining how genetic information translates into physical appearance, it is possible to “reverse-engineer” DNA into a physical profile.

‘Snapshot reads tens of thousands of genetic variants from a DNA sample and uses this information to predict what an unknown person looks like.’

The project was supported with funding from the the US Department of Defense (DoD).

Samples can be taken from as little as a fingerprint. Parabon's Snapshot Forensic system is said to be able to accurately predict genetic ancestry, eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, freckling, and face shape in individuals from any ethnic background (example pictured).

Samples can be taken from as little as a fingerprint. Parabon’s Snapshot Forensic system is said to be able to accurately predict genetic ancestry, eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, freckling, and face shape in individuals from any ethnic background (example pictured).

Each prediction is presented with a ‘measure of confidence’. As an example, the test can say a person has green eyes with 61 per cent confidence, green or blue with 79 per cent confidence, and that they definitely don’t have brown eyes, with 99 per cent confidence. A series of example charts is pictured.

Each prediction is presented with a ‘measure of confidence’. As an example, the test can say a person has green eyes with 61 per cent confidence, green or blue with 79 per cent confidence, and that they definitely don’t have brown eyes, with 99 per cent confidence. A series of example charts is pictured.

Ellen McRae Greytak, Parabon’s director of bioinformatics told Popular Science that the system has been used in 10 cases across the US, and the first department to release a Snapshot report was the Columbia Police Department.

It produced a profile for a ‘person of interest’ in the murder of 25-year-old Candra Alston and her daughter Malaysia Boykin in 2011. (Investigators in South Carolina are hoping the DNA technique could lead to to a breakthrough in the unsolved murder case of Malaysia Boykin, three, (left) and her mother Candra Alston (right) in 2011).

The only piece of evidence left at the scene was an unspecified DNA sample.

There were no witnesses to the murder, so the local authorities turned to the forensic phenotyping and found the person was a male with dark-skinned, brown hair and brown eyes (profile pictured).

There were no witnesses to the murder, so the local authorities turned to the forensic phenotyping and found the person was a male with dark-skinned, brown hair and brown eyes (profile pictured).

There were no witnesses to the murder, so the local authorities turned to the forensic phenotyping and found the person was a male with dark-skinned, brown hair and brown eyes.

Mark Vinson, a cold case investigator with the Columbia police department, said that more than 200 people were interviewed in connection with the deaths.

Around 150 of them submitted their DNA – but none matched the sample left at the scene.

 

Ancillary:

FIND LONG-LOST RELATIVES USING YOUR DNA

Family history site Ancestry has extended its AncestryDNA service – a home testing kit that unlocks the secrets of a person’s genetic ethnicity – to the UK.

The results can be cross-checked with millions of family trees to help people discover unknown relatives.

It uses microarray-based autosomal DNA testing, which looks at person’s entire genome at more than 700,000 locations using saliva.

Since it was released in 2012, AncestryDNA has been used by around 700,000 people.

All of these results have been stored on a secure, encrypted database, and each set of results is linked to a person’s individual Ancestry account and subsequent family tree.

AncestryDNA can help people identify relationships with unknown relatives through a list of possible DNA member matches.

 

Standard
Asia, China, Economic, Europe, Government, Intelligence, Middle East, Military, National Security, NATO, Society, United States

US Defence Strategy…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 7, 2012 by markdowe

SHIFT IN AMERICA’S DEFENCE STRATEGY

On Saturday, 07 January, 2012, the Editorial of the Daily Telegraph focused on America’s shift in defence strategy, following Thursday’s announcement by President Barack Obama. The US is to focus less on Europe and more on Asia following the rising threat of China.

The Editorial states:

‘The Pentagon briefing room rarely hosts all of America’s service chiefs, let alone the president. Its use by Barack Obama to announce the conclusions of his defence review was designed to add a sense of drama – and the occasion certainly lived up to its billing. Future historians will probably conclude that this was the week when America’s entire foreign and defence strategy pivoted decisively away from Europe and towards the Pacific. More ominously, it might also mark the onset of a new, if concealed, arms race between the US and its aspiring rival, China.

First things first: America’s military dominance will remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Mr Obama might have announced spending cuts of almost $500 billion over the next decade, but this amounts to a light trim for a defence machine with an annual budget of $650 billion, amounting to 45 per cent of all military expenditure in the world. America is not axing capabilities in the foolish fashion of British governments; rather, its power is being focused on the great strategic challenges of the next century. These can be simply summarised: the struggle for mastery in Asia, home of the world’s most populous countries and fastest-growing economies, and responding to sudden crises. To this end, the US will reduce its presence in Europe, cut 90,000 soldiers and bulk up in the Pacific, with new bases in Australia and elsewhere. As for other flashpoints, few will be surprised that the US policy stresses the goals of containing Iran and guaranteeing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

On a purely military level, two points stand out. The US might be cutting its army, but it has ruled out reducing its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, each of which packs more punch than the entire air forces of most countries. While China’s defence budget has recorded double-digit increases for the past decade, it has still launched only one carrier – an old Russian model of doubtful combat value. Second, Mr Obama stressed his determination to invest in “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance”. Put simply, the US will seek to extend its lead in the most advanced combat systems: where scores of troops – and hundreds of support staff – might once have been required to dispatch a senior al-Qaeda operative, now one unmanned drone can do the job.

America’s new course could well be shifted by a strategic shock akin to the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, this plan will have momentous consequences for Europe and Asia alike. For decades, the US has underwritten the security of the Atlantic as well as the Pacific, effectively allowing Europe a free ride and permitting a string of Nato members the luxury of running down their defence budgets. This era is rapidly coming to a close. Yet with a few honourable exceptions, such as Britain and France, European powers have failed to fund their armed forces adequately, or deploy them when needed. Germany, in particular, must overcome the burden of its history and face up to the responsibilities that go with being the Continent’s leading economic power.

Mr Obama’s address studiously refrained from mentioning China, the country that probably has most at stake. Beijing’s leaders will now have to make far-reaching choices of their own. As events in Burma have shown, China’s “peaceful rise” has alarmed many of its neighbours: for most countries in the region, American power and values remain far more appealing. Moreover, China has grown rich largely thanks to trade, not least with the US. Faced with the net of containment that America is quietly laying across the Pacific, China will search for the Achilles’ heel of the US Navy, perfecting a new generation of missiles capable of destroying aircraft carriers from hundreds of miles away, working out how to cripple the internet, and how to blind the US satellite network, on which all its military assets now depend.

The world will pay a bitter price, however, if this veiled arms race between America and China escalates. History shows that free trade and military rivalry – however disguised – make for uncomfortable bedfellows. Beijing has gained rapidly in both wealth and power. The manner in which it chooses to pursue them now will have consequences for us all.’ [sic]

 

MD responded:

Whilst the US has declared China as a threat and announcing Asia as a priority, America is also to invest in a long-term strategic partnership with India. India will become the new powerful Asian ally of the United States in the region. In rolling out its new strategy, the Pentagon has made clear that the fronts for potential conflicts are shifting towards China. The US says that all of the trends – whether that is demographic, geopolitical, economic or military – are shifting towards the Pacific and, that over the long-term, China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and security in a variety of ways.

It shouldn’t be in any doubt that China has unsettled its neighbours over several years with the expansion of its navy and improvements in missile and surveillance capabilities. The Pentagon is anxious about China’s strategic goals as it begins to search for a new generation of weapons.

The US defence strategy followed a major diplomatic push by Washington to expand security partnerships with its allies in the region. Last month, the US, India and Japan held their first trilateral meeting in an attempt to counter China’s rising influence in the Asia-Pacific.

China has advanced its influence in the region, along with allies like North Korea, Pakistan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Over recent years it has established itself as a growing, and sometimes bullying power in the Pacific, particularly in East Asia. Most of the countries, though, in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have festering territorial disputes with China. America’s new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China also stems from the fact that the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the centre of gravity of world economic activity.

But is America’s new stance the beginning of something that could fan Cold war-style antagonism?

Standard