Lance Quazar
Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
Just like the U2 incident? oh, wait, we did admit that was real....
If Soviets broke into a U.S. base in '57, would it have started a war?
- Thread starter Dr.Jonesy
- Start date
Just like the U2 incident? oh, wait, we did admit that was real....
Matt deMille
New member
Lance Quazar said:Just like the U2 incident? oh, wait, we did admit that was real....
The Russians shot the U2 down over THEIR airspace. Of course they're going to put a media machine behind it and make the US look like evildoers. That's how politics work. But the U2 didn't crash in a highly secured "non-existent" facility. Also, it was a HUGE deal. It was superior technology the Russians wanted. The Cold War had "deals" in place where we were "supposed" to share our secrets with the Russians. It was a chance to publicly cry "foul" and thus force us to divulge more tech secrets. The Russians had everything to gain, nothing to lose. The publicity of Spalko killing some guards would NOT be a gain to the United States, because they'd have to give up all of Area 51's secrecy to do it. It's like giving up a dollar to get a dime, simply not a good return on the expense (of the secrecy). Indeed, the only "gain" would have been the right to say "bad dog!" But where's the gain? There's no tech secrets to be harvested. If anything, it could only lead to war, something which the US didn't want any more than the USSR, so they wouldn't do it even if they could. Publicizing Spalko's infiltration would be a "no-win" situation for everybody, the United States most of all. The U2 was a "no-lose" situation for Russia. Huge difference.
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
I will happily concede my U2 comparison was a bad analogy for the reasons you pointed out.
However, your posts seem to break down into the following two arguments -
1) The US was too afraid/intimidated to confront the Russians for fear of escalation, so they would just sweep the incident under the rug.
2) The U.S. would rather tolerate the Soviet army literally invading our shores and slaughtering our soldiers rather than admit that we have a "secret" base out in the desert.
The first one isn't true and the second one is just ridiculous. As long as they were engaging in "covert" actions against "secret" facilities, then the Soviets could act with impunity? Even on American soil?
Come on...
However, your posts seem to break down into the following two arguments -
1) The US was too afraid/intimidated to confront the Russians for fear of escalation, so they would just sweep the incident under the rug.
2) The U.S. would rather tolerate the Soviet army literally invading our shores and slaughtering our soldiers rather than admit that we have a "secret" base out in the desert.
The first one isn't true and the second one is just ridiculous. As long as they were engaging in "covert" actions against "secret" facilities, then the Soviets could act with impunity? Even on American soil?
Come on...
Montana Smith
Active member
The base itself wasn't secret. A bunch of kids in a hot rod could have crashed through the gates if they felt like it.
As bases go it's pretty open and visible. The secret is the purpose for which it's used.
The US would have to prove, or believe 100%, that the attack was Soviet-sanctioned, while the Soviets themselves would be denying all knowledge.
Also as far as 'secret' bases go, the security was utterly inadequate. It wouldn't take more than a group of terrorists to gain access to it, and therefore wouldn't need to be backed by a foreign country. Spalko's unit might as well have been a gang lead by the son of Belloq, planning to retrieve the Ark.
As bases go it's pretty open and visible. The secret is the purpose for which it's used.
The US would have to prove, or believe 100%, that the attack was Soviet-sanctioned, while the Soviets themselves would be denying all knowledge.
Also as far as 'secret' bases go, the security was utterly inadequate. It wouldn't take more than a group of terrorists to gain access to it, and therefore wouldn't need to be backed by a foreign country. Spalko's unit might as well have been a gang lead by the son of Belloq, planning to retrieve the Ark.
Matt deMille
New member
Security is a weird issue. Not every facility is Fort Knox or NORAD. They don't all have massive walls. Area 51 has traditionally handled security in a very subtle way. There is no fence. They simply have a vague perimeter marked by orange posts every few hundred feet. They almost "invite" you in. Thing is, once you are past the perimeter, they do not have to answer any questions and can do what they want to you. You have many miles of desert where they can easily intercept you, by land or air. And that's not even the real base. The desert just leads to Groom Lake. The real secrets of Area 51 are located miles back into the mountains, at S4, and then underground. You just can't travel 30 or 40 miles through hostile territory without being intercepted. And once captured, you're already trespassing, already in violation. You're screwed. The security is formidable to say the least.
Granted, in 1957, Area 51 was a smaller facility. The S4 site may not have been built yet. I could easily image the Roswell wreckage sitting in a warehouse just as "Kingdom" depicted it. But even then, as Montana pointed out, if a rogue group broke the perimeter, the Russians could easily deny involvement. In fact, Spalko's team probably had that in their briefing. It's standard black op protocol: "If you're captured, we will deny any involvement or knowledge of your existence" (thank you, Rambo).
And yes, Lance, the secrets at Area 51 were well worth the lives of some soldiers, in the eyes of those in charge. Even were it not for the alien artifacts kept there, the development of secret planes (the U2, Blackbeard, etc.) were enough of a technological and financing secret that the folks in charge would have just written those guys off without a second thought.
You've got a good heart, Lance. You have idealism and like to think better of your government and fellow man. But I'm afraid you really underestimate just how ruthless people can be when keeping secrets. Not just the American military, but all military and government. It's human nature. The more they have to protect, the more ruthless they will be. I mean, damn, they're willing to kill civilians just for entering the 27-mile exclusion zone (the signs clearly posted there say, as is well known, "Use of deadly force authorized". If they'll kill their own civilians just for snooping, they'd sure as hell not care about soldiers whose job it is to die defending the country. And make no mistake about it, the powers-that-be consider keeping these secrets critical to "defending the country". As far as they're concerned, it's a war not of field battle, but of secrets, a battle the public doesn't need to see. The soldiers at Area 51 would just be casualties -- a few among countless others who die in black operations year in and year out.
Spalko's penetration of Area 51 would be, at most, explained to the families as a "training accident", while behind-the-scenes American agents would be yelling at Russian agents who'd be denying the whole thing. Then, behind THOSE scenes, the American equivalent of Spalko's team would be sneaking into some Russian facility.
Granted, in 1957, Area 51 was a smaller facility. The S4 site may not have been built yet. I could easily image the Roswell wreckage sitting in a warehouse just as "Kingdom" depicted it. But even then, as Montana pointed out, if a rogue group broke the perimeter, the Russians could easily deny involvement. In fact, Spalko's team probably had that in their briefing. It's standard black op protocol: "If you're captured, we will deny any involvement or knowledge of your existence" (thank you, Rambo).
And yes, Lance, the secrets at Area 51 were well worth the lives of some soldiers, in the eyes of those in charge. Even were it not for the alien artifacts kept there, the development of secret planes (the U2, Blackbeard, etc.) were enough of a technological and financing secret that the folks in charge would have just written those guys off without a second thought.
You've got a good heart, Lance. You have idealism and like to think better of your government and fellow man. But I'm afraid you really underestimate just how ruthless people can be when keeping secrets. Not just the American military, but all military and government. It's human nature. The more they have to protect, the more ruthless they will be. I mean, damn, they're willing to kill civilians just for entering the 27-mile exclusion zone (the signs clearly posted there say, as is well known, "Use of deadly force authorized". If they'll kill their own civilians just for snooping, they'd sure as hell not care about soldiers whose job it is to die defending the country. And make no mistake about it, the powers-that-be consider keeping these secrets critical to "defending the country". As far as they're concerned, it's a war not of field battle, but of secrets, a battle the public doesn't need to see. The soldiers at Area 51 would just be casualties -- a few among countless others who die in black operations year in and year out.
Spalko's penetration of Area 51 would be, at most, explained to the families as a "training accident", while behind-the-scenes American agents would be yelling at Russian agents who'd be denying the whole thing. Then, behind THOSE scenes, the American equivalent of Spalko's team would be sneaking into some Russian facility.
DeepSixFix
New member
That's exactly the point. If the soviets knocked out the guards and tied them up the effect wouldn't be the same. I thought the "breaking-into-the base-dressed-as-U.S. soldiers was a perfect Cold War opening.Montana Smith said:
Matt deMille
New member
Indeed. I'm actually surprised that no audience members were "confused" about it, either. In this day and age of the studios lowering every movie's intelligence level to cater to the clueless, it's relieving to see Indiana Jones still maintaining a higher level. Reds dressed as Yanks sneaking in? If anti-studio Lucas wasn't in charge, I bet the studio would have insisted on Spalko's team wearing Russian uniforms so as "not to confuse the audience".
Makes me think better of KOTCS, considering this.
Makes me think better of KOTCS, considering this.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Matt deMille said:
Really? You never cease to amaze me...
Stoo
Well-known member
What a beauty. If deMille is "surprised that no audience members were confused", then he's making large assumptions about the intelligence of movie-goers...much like the assumptions of the studio execs he's criticizing.Rocket Surgeon said:
For obvious reasons, it would have been much more confusing if they *weren't* in disguise.
Kooshmeister
New member
Montana Smith said:
The question is, are they following Indy independently of the Russians, because they suspect him? That's what I think, as after the Russian car crashes into Brody's statue the FBI disappear.
No. The guy on the left, in the passenger seat, is one of the dudes from inside the diner. He and the other guy run outside after the fistfight starts, and two cars pull up. The first is being driven by an older, balding Russian, and the first agent from the diner gets in the backseat. The second is being driven by the hefty Russian with glasses. The second agent from the diner gets in the front passenger seat.
All four men are Russian spies, and the reason the second two skedaddle is because they hear police sirens, and in fact they pursue Indy and Mutt just as tenaciously as the other car beforehand - theirs is the one which smashes down a gate, which I sort of doubt the FBI would do. They continue pursuing them even after the first car crashes. The only similarity between the driver of the second car and Agent Smith is that they both wear glasses.
Last edited:
Golddragon71
Member
Matt deMille said:
"should you or any member of your IM Force be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."
Thank you Mission Impossible (1966-1973)