snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 November 2015, 09:08 AM
blinkingblythe blinkingblythe is offline
 
 
Join Date: 08 August 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 98
Military Are there standing orders for prisons to be bombed if war breaks out on U.S. soil?

A few days ago, I was reading a web forum, and somebody mentioned that
if war broke out inside the United States (I guess meaning civil war, or a massive
invasion or nuclear attack), that the government will order the military to bomb the prisons. The post was very vague , but I am assuming that he ment with the inmates still inside. :O

I did a quick Google using various words, and phrases in quotes but came up empty.
One one hand, this sounds like an incredibly cruel and heartless thing to do, but
on the other hand, it kind of makes sense, at least with Maximum Security/Supermax
prisons. Many/most people in those facilities have nothing to lose, or value of human life, and they could potentialy be turned into soldiers or terrorists by the enemy.
If anyone can shed some light on this, I would be grateful.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22 November 2015, 03:25 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,536
Default

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any valid reason for a prison to be bombed with the inmates inside. If a prison happens to be located in the immediate area of some sort of conflict, the the prison would be evacuated and the prisoners would probably be moved to a different facility.

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 November 2015, 04:17 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,445
Default

Whenever I hear about bombing prisons, I think of the recommendations that had been made to bomb the Nazi concentration camps. When I first heard of it, it sounded nonsensical, but then I realized the point was that while some prisoners would of course be killed in such attacks, many more would be saved by the disruption of the defenses and fences, allowing them to escape - at least hopefully.

If the government wanted to kill all the prisoners, there would be bombs placed within the prisons, allowing them to be imploded on the prisoners. The only point to bombing secure structures like prisons would be to release the prisoners when one did not think the prison staff would do so on orders from the central government.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22 November 2015, 04:56 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
When I first heard of it, it sounded nonsensical, but then I realized the point was that while some prisoners would of course be killed in such attacks, many more would be saved by the disruption of the defenses and fences, allowing them to escape - at least hopefully.
Its still nonsensical. Unless most of the guards are taken out, too, the prisoners are still going to be at a disadvantage. Even assuming many or most of the prisoners have been set free, they're still in enemy territory with little or nothing to get them past what would surely be now alerted forces.

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22 November 2015, 09:33 PM
blinkingblythe blinkingblythe is offline
 
 
Join Date: 08 August 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psihala View Post
Its still nonsensical. Unless most of the guards are taken out, too, the prisoners are still going to be at a disadvantage. Even assuming many or most of the prisoners have been set free, they're still in enemy territory with little or nothing to get them past what would surely be now alerted forces.

~Psihala

I don't think they would bomb the barracks where the prisoners were kept, but outside near the perimeter fence so the inmates could escape through the breach. Of course the following factors have to be considered:

- they would have to do this when the prisoners
were in the yard for excersise (did the guards allow every prisoner out of the barracks at once? I doubt it), and know when that time that was, and hope that the nazis did not get wind of their plans

- they would have to take out the guard towers and
the guards and dogs on the ground with machine guns which would mean sending in fighter planes or parachuting troops in to do this

-yes, many prisoners would still die from flying shrapnel, stray bullets and even the blast waves.

-The allied troops would have to continue to fight to save the prisoners and themselves from incomming nazi troops/SS, and this would most likely be a suicide mission if they can't capture the area (supplies would be very limited after the assault).

I am sure many allied brass wanted to do this badly, but alas, reality once again slams down it's huge, ugly fist. :\
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23 November 2015, 01:43 AM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psihala View Post
Its still nonsensical. Unless most of the guards are taken out, too, the prisoners are still going to be at a disadvantage. Even assuming many or most of the prisoners have been set free, they're still in enemy territory with little or nothing to get them past what would surely be now alerted forces.

~Psihala
Sure - but there were a few mass breakouts anyway. One at Sobibor, one at Treblinka, and an attempt at Birkenau, Prisoners breaking out of camps would be at a huge disadvantage, but might have some chance. Prisoners staying in the camps faced certain death.

At any rate, what I always heard was not the camps were to be bombed, but that the rail switchyards that served a few of the largest the camps were to be bombed in order to prevent the prisoners from being moved deeper into Axis controlled territory before the camps were liberated. This was not done for a variety of reasons - some thought that such a mission was just too low of a priority relative to the risk. Some thought that such a mission would be a waste compared to bombing industrial targets. Some thought that it was not an appropriate mission for the western allies to do in an area that would be liberated an controlled by the Soviet Union. Some were simply still not convinced that the camps were actual extermination camps. Remember, this is just a few years after the Western powers turned away Jewish refugees. There were plenty of anti-semites in allied command who felt no urge to help the Jews in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23 November 2015, 01:46 AM
CannonFodder's Avatar
CannonFodder CannonFodder is offline
 
Join Date: 27 February 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 5,288
Default

If war breaks out inside our borders, then there will be many targets with a much higher priority than prisons.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23 November 2015, 01:56 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,118
Default

By which I guess you mean FEMA camps. (Ow. I deserved that.)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23 November 2015, 02:18 AM
CannonFodder's Avatar
CannonFodder CannonFodder is offline
 
Join Date: 27 February 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 5,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
By which I guess you mean FEMA camps. (Ow. I deserved that.)
Well, yeah. Obviously those have to come first.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23 November 2015, 11:34 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,216
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonFodder View Post
Well, yeah. Obviously those have to come first.
And don't forget the flagpoles on military bases being over-run. If the last survivor is a weak climber or just doesn't have the guts to climb to the top of the flag pole to get the ball at the top with the flag emergency destruct kit in it, our only hope is an incdendiary device dropped from above. So that puts prisons third on the list at best.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ben Carson: Prisons prove being gay is a choice TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 15 12 March 2015 02:39 PM
Al Qaeda boss Ayman al-Zawahri marks 9/11 with call for more attacks on U.S. soil snopes War, What Is It Good For? 0 13 September 2013 06:37 PM
Chinatown building roach-bombed into collapse snopes Crash and Burn 0 13 July 2013 06:22 PM
Eye Tattoos Become Newest Trend in Prisons Miguelito Loveless Fauxtography 19 13 January 2010 09:03 PM
Why the Obama cartoon cover bombed snopes Snopes Spotting 0 22 July 2008 08:14 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.