Request To Allow Class Time Conflict Overlap: Fill & Download for Free

He didn't.Hitler saw the Japanese as an inferior race, and regarded them with fear and contempt. However, after Germany and Japan became allies, he was forced to hide his true opinions in public and feign politeness.In Mein Kampf, Hitler divided the human race into three categories. Aryans at the top, who were the originators of all cultural and scientific advances; the common mass of non-Aryan humanity in the middle; and Jews at the bottom. He specifically referred to the Japanese as a people who were able to progress only by imitating Aryan advances. If they ceased to do so, Japan "would stiffen and fall back into the sleep out of which it was startled seven decades ago by the Aryan wave of culture".Despite seeing the Japanese as inferior, Hitler several times expressed his fear of their great numbers and military strength. His private conversations contain warnings of 'a wave [that] comes foaming down from Asia and surprises a Europe benumbed by civilisation' or that Japanese military success in the Far East would mean that 'the white race will disappear from those regions' — something he regretted.Hitler's private reaction to the Japanese conquest of Singapore in early 1942 offers an illuminating insight into his opinions. Four days before the fall of the city, he expressed grudging admiration when he told Goebbels that the Japanese 'national idealism' was praiseworthy and he wished he had 'more allies like them'. On the day of Singapore's capture, he told a Romanian visitor "I rejoice, yet am terribly sad at the same time". However, a month later he told the senior German diplomat Ulrich von Hassell that rather than be at war with the UK, he would rather send 20 German divisions to Britain to help them "roll back the yellow race" in Asia.As for the alliance with Japan, on 17 May 1942 Hitler told his companions that some journalists were criticising the Reich for 'betraying its own racial principles' by allying with the 'Yellow Peril'. In Hitler's opinion, such criticism was short-sighted because the alliance was currently convenient and opportune. It had been clear to him that the United States was about to enter the war against Germany; but now they were distracted by having to fight Japan as well. He added that in a life-and-death conflict, he would be willing to 'make an alliance with the Devil himself' in order to win.In other words, Hitler used the same comparison to the Devil to describe his alliance with Japan as Churchill did to describe his own alliance with the Soviet Union.As for the question of 'honorary Aryan' status for the Japanese, it is true that the phrase seems to have been circulating as a matter of hearsay during the 1930s. However, no such declaration or official ruling ever seems to have been made by the German authorities, and there is zero evidence that they actually regarded Japanese people as being equal to Aryans.For example, Countess Hanna von Hatzfeldt was the daughter of a high-ranking Japanese statesman who had married a German woman back in the 1870s; she herself then married a member of the German aristocracy. She was thus classed as a Mischling 1st degree: half-German, half non-Aryan. In 1934 she and her own daughter were denied membership of several prestigious charitable organisations on the grounds of their non-German blood. Two years later, her son-in-law was expelled from the SA and his medical licence was revoked because he was married to a Mischling.The Countess wrote to the authorities asking for her family's case to be reconsidered, and mentioned the rumour that the Japanese had been declared honourary Aryans:I have heard from various sources that following a certain incident, the government has issued a formal decree in which all Japanese and their offspring would be considered Ehren Arier.However, no such decree existed, as far as we know. Even so, all ended well for the family since they had connections at the highest levels. The German ambassador in Tokyo personally intervened asking for Ausnahmebehandlung ('exceptional treatment') for the family since they were related to the highest ranks of the Japanese nobility.This is a case where 'the exception proves the rule': there would be no need to ask for an exception to the rule if the rule did not exist. People of Japanese blood were not considered Aryan, honorary or otherwise; but specific individuals could be granted an exemption from the racial laws if it was politically or diplomatically convenient.The 'certain incident' mentioned by the Countess von Hatzfeldt might refer to something that happened in October 1933. The Nazis took power earlier that year, and immediately began implementing racist policies against Jews. However, for the most part the laws and regulations they passed did not use the word 'Jews' specifically, but instead referred to 'non-Aryans'.This caused much confusion, since nobody — not even the Nazis themselves — were quite sure if the law should literally be applied to all non-Aryans (which would include Finns and Hungarians, not to mention the Japanese) or if 'non-Aryan' was simply a euphemism for 'Jewish'. Some government agencies chose to interpret the phrase widely, others narrowly, as they saw fit.A draft bill (which would eventually become part of the 1935 Nuremburg Laws) forbidding marriage between Aryan Germans and non-Aryans used the phrase 'Jews and coloured persons' instead: that would help assuage the Finns and Hungarians, but not the Japanese.(To clarify; the term ‘Aryan’ as it was used in the mid-20th century refers to speakers of Indo-European languages such as German, Italian, Greek, Farsi, and Hindi. It was believed — in a theory that has since been debunked — that when the original Indo-Europeans settled Europe, Iran and northern India they called themselves ‘Aryans’ in their own language.)Dr Otto Urhan was a German citizen of mixed race, with a Japanese mother. On 18 May 1933 he was dismissed from his job at the Institute of Biology for Agriculture and Forestry because he did not have pure Aryan blood. At the September Nuremberg rally, Alfred Rosenberg made a speech condeming 'race-mixing' with the 'yellow race'. Both these incidents became front-page news in the Japanese press and were angrily condemned.Finally, in October 1933 came the news that the nine-year-old daughter of Dr Takenouchi, a Japanese citizen living in Berlin as a sales executive for a Japanese company, was racially harassed and then physically attacked by other children on her way to school, because she was 'coloured'.While this might normally be a minor incident, it happened when the Japanese media was already hyper-alert for signs of German racial prejudice towards them. The story of the innocent Japanese schoolgirl, a victim of Nazi racism, hit the headlines and caused outrage in Japan.The German foreign minister Konstantin von Neurath — who had been appointed to the position before Hitler took power, and remained there until he was replaced by a more fervent Nazi in 1938 — saw this as a problem. As an old-school diplomat, he saw his duty as maintaining friendly relations with potential allies such as Japan.Therefore, on 23 October 1933 Neurath issued a public apology for the bullying of Fräulein Takenouchi, and assured the people of Japan that under Nazi race doctrine they "were not included among coloured peoples". This declaration was picked up and repeated by the American and British media. It seems to be the origin of the idea that the Japanese had been awarded the status of ‘honorary Aryans’.To the English-speaking world, this supposed new status of the Japanese was evidence of Nazi hypocrisy; they were willing to bend even their most passionately-declared racial policies to suit their political convenience.However, quite apart from the fact that the Foreign Minister had no authority to make such a statement and other Nazi officials did not agree with him, there is still a wide non-overlap between 'non-Aryan' and 'coloured'.On 15 November 1934, the Foreign Ministry called a meeting between different departments of the Nazi regime to discuss this whole question. Their motivation was the same as before: they felt that the broad-brush condemnation of all 'non-Aryans' was a hindrance to their diplomatic efforts, and they proposed replacing the phrase by the unambiguous term 'Jews' in all legislation. Another suggestion on the table was to amend 'Jews and coloured persons' to 'Jews and members of primitive races', to make it clear that the 'civilised' Japanese were not included in that category.However, the Foreign M‌inistry's proposal went nowhere. Dr Walter Gross of the NSDAP Racial Policy Office led the opposition, arguing that any dilution of the Party's racial policies would be seen as weakness. Two months later, Gross wrote a formal reply to the proposals stating that putting the Japanese in the same category as Aryans would be as ridiculous as calling "the Negro tribes of Africa" Aryan.A specific incident can serve to illustrate how the policy was applied. A young woman named Hilde O. (her full surname has been redacted) was a German citizen, the daughter of a Japanese mother and German father. In January 1936 she wrote to the authorities complaining that she had been subjected to racial abuse in the streets, being called a 'Deutsch-Jap Misch-Masch', and having "Japs out!" shouted at her; and since then her friends had refused to associate with her for fear of being accused of Rassenschande ('Race defilement'), and she was now unable to find a job.She asked for an official document declaring her Aryan status, and to support her case declared that her family had voted for the Nazis ever since 1925, and she flew a swastika flag outside her house.Her request was summarily denied:Due to the Japanese race of your mother, you are not to be regarded as Aryan according to the latest legislation, and therefore a general certificate of your German blood is out of the question.So much for 'honorary Aryan' status. The reply also offered the unhelpful advice that if anyone else shouted abuse at her in the street she should consider suing them for slander.What about Hitler's own views on the question?Another young half-Japanese woman was called Hatsuko F. (again, surname is redacted). In 1937 she was at a dance with a friend of hers, who was a cadet in the Luftwaffe. An officer who was also present saw them dancing together, stormed over and called the cadet 'a disgrace to his uniform' and ordered him to leave the dance hall. F complained and asked the authorities for an official explanation: their reply blandly gaslighted her, telling her that the cadet had been reprimanded for 'improper conduct while in uniform' but this had nothing at all to do with her 'Japanese appearance'. No apology was offered.Three years later, Hatsuko had met a new man, another Aryan German, and wanted permission to marry him. On 21 September 1940, her request was considered personally by Adolf Hitler, who discussed it with the head of his Chancellery, Dr Hans Lammer.(Just reflect for a moment that at the height of the Battle of Britain, with a German invasion fleet massing in the Channel ports, the German head of state thought it was a valuable use of his time to review whether to allow the marriage of one German man to his half-Japanese girlfriend.)Hitler's initial reaction was to forbid the marriage. The German race must not be polluted by being contaminated by non-Aryan blood. (Again, so much for the idea that Hitler saw the Japanese as 'honorary Aryans'.)However, Lammer persuaded him that since several other marriages between Germans and people of Japanese blood had been permitted in the past for diplomatic reasons — to avoid upsetting the Japanese media and government — it would be 'inconvenient to go against precedent' this time.Hitler begrudgingly conceded the point and authorised the marriage, but told Lammers that this must be the last. 'Preserving the German race' was more important than 'reasons of foreign policy'. Lammers, a wily bureaucrat, suggested to the Führer that rather than officially ban interracial marriages entirely, which would attract negative publicity, it would be better to use deliberate delaying tactics (dilatorische Behandlung) to prevent any such marriages taking place.There were all sorts of regulations and requirements to permit an official marriage in the Third Reich, especially if one of the partners was not a German citizen or was non-Aryan in race. Lammers's proposal was simply to spin out the bureaucracy through endless delays or requests for clarification that eventually the prospective couple would just give up.Hitler ageed to this strategy. It presumably appealed to his preference for working obliquely and rarely putting controversial decisions into writing.The specific examples and quotes in this answer are taken from a thesis by Harumi Shidehara Furuya on Nazi racism towards the Japanese: https://www2.uni-hamburg.de/oag/noag/noag1995_2.pdf

Status Code DefinitionsEach Status-Code is described below, including a description of which method(s) it can follow and any metainformation required in the response.10.1 Informational 1xxThis class of status code indicates a provisional response, consisting only of the Status-Line and optional headers, and is terminated by an empty line. There are no required headers for this class of status code. Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, servers MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client except under experimental conditions.A client MUST be prepared to accept one or more 1xx status responses prior to a regular response, even if the client does not expect a 100 (Continue) status message. Unexpected 1xx status responses MAY be ignored by a user agent.Proxies MUST forward 1xx responses, unless the connection between the proxy and its client has been closed, or unless the proxy itself requested the generation of the 1xx response. (For example, if aproxy adds a "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards a request, then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue) response(s).)10.1.1 100 ContinueThe client SHOULD continue with its request. This interim response is used to inform the client that the initial part of the request has been received and has not yet been rejected by the server. The client SHOULD continue by sending the remainder of the request or, if the request has already been completed, ignore this response. The server MUST send a final response after the request has been completed. See section 8.2.3 for detailed discussion of the use and handling of this status code.10.1.2 101 Switching ProtocolsThe server understands and is willing to comply with the client's request, via the Upgrade message header field (section 14.42), for a change in the application protocol being used on this connection. The server will switch protocols to those defined by the response's Upgrade header field immediately after the empty line which terminates the 101 response.The protocol SHOULD be switched only when it is advantageous to do so. For example, switching to a newer version of HTTP is advantageous over older versions, and switching to a real-time, synchronous protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources that use such features.10.2 Successful 2xxThis class of status code indicates that the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.10.2.1 200 OKThe request has succeeded. The information returned with the response is dependent on the method used in the request, for example:GET an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in the response;HEAD the entity-header fields corresponding to the requested resource are sent in the response without any message-body;POST an entity describing or containing the result of the action;TRACE an entity containing the request message as received by the end server.10.2.2 201 CreatedThe request has been fulfilled and resulted in a new resource being created. The newly created resource can be referenced by the URI(s) returned in the entity of the response, with the most specific URI for the resource given by a Location header field. The response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. The origin server MUST create the resource before returning the 201 status code. If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server SHOULD respond with 202 (Accepted) response instead.A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just created, see section 14.19.10.2.3 202 AcceptedThe request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not been completed. The request might or might not eventually be acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes place. There is no facility for re-sending a status code from an asynchronous operation such as this.The 202 response is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to allow a server to accept a request for some other process (perhaps a batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring that the user agent's connection to the server persist until the process is completed. The entity returned with this response SHOULD include an indication of the request's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the user can expect the request to be fulfilled.10.2.4 203 Non-Authoritative InformationThe returned metainformation in the entity-header is not the definitive set as available from the origin server, but is gathered from a local or a third-party copy. The set presented MAY be a subset or superset of the original version. For example, including local annotation information about the resource might result in a superset of the metainformation known by the origin server. Use of this response code is not required and is only appropriate when the response would otherwise be 200 (OK).10.2.5 204 No ContentThe server has fulfilled the request but does not need to return an entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. The response MAY include new or updated metainformation in the form of entity-headers, which if present SHOULD be associated with the requested variant.If the client is a user agent, it SHOULD NOT change its document view from that which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place without causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although any new or updated metainformation SHOULD be applied to the document currently in the user agent's active view.The 204 response MUST NOT include a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.10.2.6 205 Reset ContentThe server has fulfilled the request and the user agent SHOULD reset the document view which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place via user input, followed by a clearing of the form in which the input is given so that the user can easily initiate another input action. The response MUST NOT include an entity.10.2.7 206 Partial ContentThe server has fulfilled the partial GET request for the resource. The request MUST have included a Range header field (section 14.35) indicating the desired range, and MAY have included an If-Range header field (section 14.27) to make the request conditional.The response MUST include the following header fields: - Either a Content-Range header field (section 14.16) indicating  the range included with this response, or a multipart/byteranges  Content-Type including Content-Range fields for each part. If a  Content-Length header field is present in the response, its  value MUST match the actual number of OCTETs transmitted in the  message-body.   - Date   - ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent  in a 200 response to the same request   - Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might  differ from that sent in any previous response for the same  variant If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request that used a strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. If the response is the result of an If-Range request that used a weak validator, the response MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers. Otherwise, the response MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been returned with a 200 (OK) response to the same request.A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly, see 13.5.4.A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial) responses.10.3 Redirection 3xxThis class of status code indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. The action required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is GET or HEAD. A client SHOULD detect infinite redirection loops, since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection. Note: previous versions of this specification recommended a  maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware  that there might be clients that implement such a fixed  limitation. 10.3.1 300 Multiple ChoicesThe requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of representations, each with its own specific location, and agent- driven negotiation information (section 12) is being provided so that the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation and redirect its request to that location.Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content- Type header field. Depending upon the format and the capabilities ofthe user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection.If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; user agents MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.10.3.2 301 Moved PermanentlyThe requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).If the 301 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued. Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after  receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents  will erroneously change it into a GET request. 10.3.3 302 FoundThe requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field.The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued. Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed  to change the method on the redirected request. However, most  existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303  response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless  of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have  been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which  kind of reaction is expected of the client. 10.3.4 303 See OtherThe response to the request can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303 response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second (redirected) request might be cacheable.The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303  status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the  302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react  to a 302 response as described here for 303. 10.3.5 304 Not ModifiedIf the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server SHOULD respond with this status code. The 304 response MUST NOT contain a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.The response MUST include the following header fields: - Date, unless its omission is required by section 14.18.1 If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without one (as already specified by [RFC 2068], section 14.19), caches will operate correctly. - ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent  in a 200 response to the same request   - Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might  differ from that sent in any previous response for the same  variant If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the response MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers.If a 304 response indicates an entity not currently cached, then the cache MUST disregard the response and repeat the request without the conditional.If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry, the cache MUST update the entry to reflect any new field values given in the response.10.3.6 305 Use ProxyThe requested resource MUST be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the proxy. The recipient is expected to repeat this single request via the proxy. 305 responses MUST only be generated by origin servers. Note: RFC 2068 was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a  single request, and to be generated by origin servers only. Not  observing these limitations has significant security consequences. 10.3.7 306 (Unused)The 306 status code was used in a previous version of the specification, is no longer used, and the code is reserved.10.3.8 307 Temporary RedirectThe requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field.The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI.If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.10.4 Client Error 4xxThe 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user.If the client is sending data, a server implementation using TCP SHOULD be careful to ensure that the client acknowledges receipt of the packet(s) containing the response, before the server closes the input connection. If the client continues sending data to the server after the close, the server's TCP stack will send a reset packet to the client, which may erase the client's unacknowledged input buffers before they can be read and interpreted by the HTTP application.10.4.1 400 Bad RequestThe request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.10.4.2 401 UnauthorizedThe request requires user authentication. The response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field (section 14.47) containing a challenge applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Authorization header field (section 14.8). If the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those credentials. If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the prior response, and the user agent has already attempted authentication at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the entity that was given in the response, since that entity might include relevant diagnostic information. HTTP access authentication is explained in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43].10.4.3 402 Payment RequiredThis code is reserved for future use.10.4.4 403 ForbiddenThe server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead.10.4.5 404 Not FoundThe server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other response is applicable.10.4.6 405 Method Not AllowedThe method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the resource identified by the Request-URI. The response MUST include an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the requested resource.10.4.7 406 Not AcceptableThe resource identified by the request is only capable of generating response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request.Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are  not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the  request. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a  406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of  an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable. If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further actions.10.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication RequiredThis code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (section 14.33) containing a challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization header field (section 14.34). HTTP access authentication is explained in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43].10.4.9 408 Request TimeoutThe client did not produce a request within the time that the server was prepared to wait. The client MAY repeat the request without modifications at any later time.10.4.10 409 ConflictThe request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enoughinformation for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required.Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) request, the server might use the 409 response to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the response entity would likely contain a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the response Content-Type.10.4.11 410 GoneThe requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event is common for limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to individuals no longer working at the server's site. It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as "gone" or to keep the mark for any length of time -- that is left to the discretion of the server owner.10.4.12 411 Length RequiredThe server refuses to accept the request without a defined Content- Length. The client MAY repeat the request if it adds a valid Content-Length header field containing the length of the message-body in the request message.10.4.13 412 Precondition FailedThe precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (header field data) and thus prevent the requested method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.10.4.14 413 Request Entity Too LargeThe server is refusing to process a request because the request entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from continuing the request.If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry- After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client MAY try again.10.4.15 414 Request-URI Too LongThe server is refusing to service the request because the Request-URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret. This rare condition is only likely to occur when a client has improperly converted a POST request to a GET request with long query information, when the client has descended into a URI "black hole" of redirection (e.g., a redirected URI prefix that points to a suffix of itself), or when the server is under attack by a client attempting to exploit security holes present in some servers using fixed-length buffers for reading or manipulating the Request-URI.10.4.16 415 Unsupported Media TypeThe server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the request is in a format not supported by the requested resource for the requested method.10.4.17 416 Requested Range Not SatisfiableA server SHOULD return a response with this status code if a request included a Range request-header field (section 14.35), and none of the range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of the selected resource, and the request did not include an If-Range request-header field. (For byte-ranges, this means that the first- byte-pos of all of the byte-range-spec values were greater than the current length of the selected resource.)When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the response SHOULD include a Content-Range entity-header field specifying the current length of the selected resource (see section 14.16). This response MUST NOT use the multipart/byteranges content- type.10.4.18 417 Expectation FailedThe expectation given in an Expect request-header field (see section 14.20) could not be met by this server, or, if the server is a proxy, the server has unambiguous evidence that the request could not be met by the next-hop server.10.5 Server Error 5xxResponse status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the request. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user. These response codes are applicable to any request method.10.5.1 500 Internal Server ErrorThe server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.10.5.2 501 Not ImplementedThe server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request. This is the appropriate response when the server does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource.10.5.3 502 Bad GatewayThe server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid response from the upstream server it accessed in attempting to fulfill the request.10.5.4 503 Service UnavailableThe server is currently unable to handle the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The implication is that this is a temporary condition which will be alleviated after some delay. If known, the length of the delay MAY be indicated in a Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client SHOULD handle the response as it would for a 500 response. Note: The existence of the 503 status code does not imply that a  server must use it when becoming overloaded. Some servers may wish  to simply refuse the connection. 10.5.5 504 Gateway TimeoutThe server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response from the upstream server specified by the URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the request. Note: Note to implementors: some deployed proxies are known to  return 400 or 500 when DNS lookups time out. 10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not SupportedThe server does not support, or refuses to support, the HTTP protocol version that was used in the request message. The server is indicating that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the same major version as the client, as described in section3.1, other than with this error message. The response SHOULD contain an entity describing why that version is not supported and what other protocols are supported by that server.(Source: - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C))

A United States aircraft carrier group is one of the most secure entities on the planet.What I feel is most misunderstood is that carriers never travel alone. There are numerous ships always traveling around a carrier to ensure its safety against a number of possible enemy threats. This is to ignore many layers of satellite, missile, and ground based defenses. Together, they create many layers of protection for the fleet against a vast array of dangers which the carrier could one day face. Together, through an overlapping mesh of threat deterrent systems, they function at the highest level of defense that technology can provide.A carrier battle group (CVBG) consists of an aircraft carrier (designated CV) and its large number of escorts, together defining the group ... CSG or CVBG normally consist of 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.[2]That said, they aren't invulnerable by any stretch of the imagination. Its doubtful that anyone could out fight a carrier in the ocean through the use of fighters or bombers, such as the iconic Battle of Midway in World War II. Because of its many layers of defense, most other systems built by rival carriers would not be a major threat to the ships. Instead, I would envision the threats coming from newer technologies few people are talking about currently. The first of these, is the hypersonic cruise missile systems.HypersonicsHypersonics have made a lot of news in the last few years, as progresses in the scramjet have made it possible to travel at speeds never before imagined. In 2011, the United States tested a hypersonic missile with speeds exceeding Mach 6 and are capable of creating missiles and aircraft which could one day reach Mach 20, more than 15ooo miles per hour. China, Russia, and even India have invested much work into the creation of hypersonic weapons systems like the Chinese Wu-14 and the Indian Shaurya.Current U.S. missile defense sensors and interceptors are designed primarily to hit ballistic missile warheads that travel in predictable flight paths from launch, through space and into ground targets. China surprised U.S. intelligence agencies last year by conducting three flight tests of the Wu-14 in January, August and December. The vehicle traveled at speeds up to Mach 10, or nearly 8,000 miles per hour. U.S. intelligence agencies assessed the Wu-14 to be a nuclear delivery vehicle designed to break through U.S. defenses. In addition to China, Russia and India are working on hypersonic strike vehicles.To put the capabilities of these weapons in perspective, the Indian Shaurya clocked in at a speed of about Mach 7.5. That means that in its test, it could cover the distance of San Francisco, California to Phoenix, Arizona in roughly the same time as a TV commercial break. A test for an American system this year may see the distance of California to Hawaii covered in the same amount of time. What this means for warfare is a highly unpredictable, impossibly fast moving weapons system that will test every technological capability in our arsenal, but push for an era of threat deterrent systems most of us aren't even ready to conceive of yet.The threat of hypersonic missiles means that, in spite of the numerous defenses, something that fast will simply be able to outrun any defenses or tracking systems that can be produced. With a system like that, it is feared that a missile could be created that could deliver a nuclear warhead, one which would explode over the carrier group. Add to this that, in the future, these systems may be able to be deployed from submarines, allowing the missiles to be launched from virtually anywhere.To counter the threat of hypersonic missiles, a new generation of counter ballistics is being developed. The push towards solving the hypervelocity problem has devised even more radical new systems, which not only give the United States added defense against hypersonics, but also give the military additional capabilities, as well.One of these defense systems is the electromagnetic railgun. The railgun uses focused electrical energy to create a magnetic field that pushes a ballistic projectile at speeds around mach 7. A hypervelocity weapon itself, the projectiles have the capabilities of intercepting incoming cruise and ballistic missiles of both the extreme speed and conventional variety. What's more, the weapon can be used to attack not only incoming missiles, but also land targets, as well. On top of this, the weapon system surpasses older conventional naval guns in range and utility. While modern weapons can fire a projectile around 13 nautical miles, the railgun can be fired as far as 110 nautical miles, and it does this without the use of dangerous munitions which would need to be stored on ship and handled by crew members. Because the entire bulk of the missile systems doesn't need to be used, assault ships armed with rail technology can store hundreds more railgun rounds than they could conventional missiles. One last benefit that the railgun offers? It costs about 100x less to operate than any other alternative. That's a game changer.Submarine WarfareNew generations of submarines are now capable of operating undetected like no other generation of subs before. They've proven themselves in combat trials to be capable of greeting the carrier fleet from beneath the surface with frightening stealth and capabilities.The Gotland-class submarines of the Swedish Navy are modern diesel-electric submarines, which were designed and built by the Kockums shipyard in Sweden. They are the first submarines in the world to feature a Stirling engine air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which extends their underwater endurance from a few days to weeks.[2] This capability had previously only been available with nuclear-powered submarines.In 2004, the Swedish government received a request from the United States of America to lease HMS Gotland – Swedish-flagged, commanded and manned, for a duration of one year for use in antisubmarine warfare exercises. The Swedish government granted this request in October 2004, with both navies signing a memorandum of understanding on March 21, 2005.[5][6] The lease was extended for another 12 months in 2006.[7][8][9] In July 2007, HMS Gotland departed San Diego for Sweden.[10]HMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier.[11] The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US fleet against diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.[12][13]Advances in submarine technology left US naval shipbuilders and commanders rather embarrassed. As yet, that was their purpose in taking part in the war games. The fleet was again challenged in 2006 when a similar vessel, one of the Chinese Song-class attack submarine quietly surfaced within nine miles of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. The vessel was close enough to strike with one of its 18 homing torpedoes. None of the ships escorting the Kitty Hawk within the carrier strike group detected the Song until it breached the surface.The 2004 exercises validated many concerns for the aging fleet, and the 2006 shot across the bow cemented them. Still, in light of the last decade since, many of these concerns we've had about the new generation of subs have left many fears sunk. For instance, ships like the Song and the Gotland were not meant for deep sea operations. Their revolutionary systems, while novel, limit their range. They are short range ships that do not possess the range for true "blue water" operations, exactly what the aircraft carrier was engineered to do. They were, instead, designed for missions nearer to their home ports in the North Sea and the waters surrounding China in primarily defensive roles. This allows ships like the modern carriers to maneuver out of range for most of their purposes, limiting the threat of the new silent running submarines. Added to this reduction in threat is the fact that China has slowed its purchasing of new subs, further limiting its naval presence in the coming era of warfare and its threats to the United States Navy. In the interim decade, the US Navy has also been updating its systems, particularly in the form of the new Gerald R. Ford class super-carrier to replace many of the Nimitz ships. The new carriers are loaded with new technologies, many developed with insights gleaned from the missions against new technology submarines.Cyber WarfareCyber Warfare is the unappreciated threat to all military defenses. Many people talk about it as being something terrifying, but few people understand the nature of the threat posed to the US Military, or any other military for that matter.Cracking has become a major sector of cyber warfare. An example would be the Stuxnet virus, made famous for its approach to disabling Iranian nuclear refinement operations. Joel Brenner, a Senior Counsel at the National Security Agency, in his book America the Vulnerable, describes why Stuxnet was so incredible. It was a worm, a self-replicating virus, which utilized not just one, but four previously unknown vulnerabilities in Microsoft operating systems to spread itself throughout a worldwide infection. Once spread, it sought out particular Siemens centrifuges, like those used by the Iranians to refine Uranium, and bring them down. This virus baffled engineers for months, unaware that random system outages were really the result of advantage sabotage from outside the country. What it showed was the threat to even extremely powerful and well defended military systems. More perplexing, the Stuxnet virus, Brenner postulates, could have only have been created by one of a very few groups who would have had the technological capability to create it, that being the national governments of either United States, Russia, China, Israel, or one of a few members of the European Community. It goes way beyond the capability of the midnight hacker savant or the college computer science nerd out for kicks. This was deliberate and ingeniously engineered attack conducted by nations.He continues in his book to describe the threat posed by China. China is a special case in that, besides a cyber warfare branch of the People's Liberation Army, China also has the added asset of tens of thousands of nationalistic, "Patriot Hackers". These individuals form a community of cracker groups which focus on exploiting all international information vulnerabilities from corporate, to military, and even personal. This core group of international hackers has been responsible for countless patent thefts and billions in lost research and development to the benefit of Chinese corporations, but is also responsible for compromising classified information worldwide. China's hacker community is distinctly different from that of nations like the United States, which, if a pattern could be set, would be better described as anarchistic and anti-government, and even those in Russia, who are much more geared to cyber crime for profit. China's hackers, instead work together alongside, or at least to the benefit of, China's national government. All this while still be officially "unaffiliated" with the government for diplomatic and legal reasons. Effectively, the Chinese have a clandestine cyber national guard, growing in capabilities and there isn't really a thing the world can do about it.From Cyber-warfare 'is a growing threat'Future state-on-state conflict, as well as conflicts involving non-state actors such as al-Qaida, would increasingly be characterised by reliance on asymmetric warfare techniques, chiefly cyber-warfare, Chipman said. Hostile governments could hide behind rapidly advancing technology to launch attacks undetected. And unlike conventional and nuclear arms, there were no agreed international controls on the use of cyber weapons."Cyber-warfare [may be used] to disable a country's infrastructure, meddle with the integrity of another country's internal military data, try to confuse its financial transactions or to accomplish any number of other possibly crippling aims," he said. Yet governments and national defence establishments at present have only limited ability to tell when they were under attack, by whom, and how they might respond.The US Defence Department's Quadrennial Defence Review, published this week, also highlighted the rising threat posed by cyber-warfare on space-based surveillance and communications systems."On any given day, there are as many as 7 million DoD (Department of Defence) computers and telecommunications tools in use in 88 countries using thousands of war-fighting and support applications. The number of potential vulnerabilities, therefore, is staggering." the review said."Moreover, the speed of cyber attacks and the anonymity of cyberspace greatly favour the offence. This advantage is growing as hacker tools become cheaper and easier to employ by adversaries whose skills are growing in sophistication."From: Navy Battles Cyber Threats: Thumb Drives, Wireless Hacking, & ChinaSome of those vulnerabilities are forehead-smackingly simple, once you know where to look. “You can walk around any ship, most aircraft, and you can find either USB ports or serial ports that were put there for maintenance,” said Leigher. “They were done for good engineering reasons” — to download diagnostic data, for example — “but the engineer wasn’t thinking about computer security.” What if an enemy agent under cover as a contractor or even as a civilian on a good-will tour slipped a virus-loaded thumb drive into one of those ports? What if the bad guy simply tricked a sailor into doing it for him?From: Page on ali-cle.orgU.S. computer experts playing the part of foreign hackers managed to shut down all communications among the U.S. Pacific fleet, and could have shut down the entire western half of the U.S. power grid.Having said all this, it is plausible a group of hackers which are well enough organized and with enough backing could comprise our carrier's systems. It is possible that infected equipment could be installed on the ships themselves, since it is economically impossible to produce all the technologies built for these ships in government controlled factories, nor even, all in the United States. Foreign manufacturing produces gateway points for hardware to be slipped in with infected files that could then reproduce throughout the vessel's internal secured networks and systems. If this were to happen, it is possible that these ships could be brought down through their own control systems, hypothetically locking up their systems, halting their communications, melting down their reactors, crashing them into the rocks, or just causing them to float dead in the water. This is broadly hypothetical, but has precedent.In the 1980's Russia had poor abilities to produce microchips and the soviets worked to steal technology from the West, decades aheads of them technologically speaking. Because of a defector, the United States was able to know what it was Soviet spies were after. The Americans allowed flawed microprocessors to be stolen and their programs copied. These were made so well that they passed an initial inspection, only break down chemical and manufacturing facilities and overpower turbines in the Trans-Siberian pipeline. When soviet spies stole plans for gas-line pumps, they were unaware that it was intentionally designed to pump with much more pressure than the pipes were ever meant to handle. William Safire of the New York Times in 2004 was the first to break this story 25 years later. In his words, "The result was the most monumental, non-nuclear explosion and fire, ever seen from space."While this is purely hypothetical, all the necessary ingredients are in place for the possibility of cyber-threats from other nations, or even cyber-terrorism. For that reason, the United States military created the US Cyber Command. On June 23, 2009, the Secretary of Defense directed the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command to establish a sub-unified command, United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). Full Operational Capability (FOC) was achieved Oct. 31, 2010. The Command has three main focus areas: Defending the DoDIN, providing support to combatant commanders for execution of their missions around the world, and strengthening our nation's ability to withstand and respond to cyber attack. I couldn't find a video. I don't think they want me talking about it.SummaryI don't think that anyone out there thinks the aircraft carrier is almighty. It's vulnerabilities are well known. While these vulnerabilities are at the center of many debates within military circles, they aren't enough to mean that the carrier is dead. The truth is that the carrier will live on, so long as there is a need for them which outweighs their costs and the risks to use them.Frankly, many involved in the debates taking place today over the future of the carrier don't consider the big picture of why the ships exist at all. They are quick to note the massive costs of these floating cities, and the potential loss of life if one were sunk. The best can list off a few times when vulnerabilities in the system have been discovered. This, however, doesn't mean the sky is falling and that the end of American blue water dominance is nigh. What is equally important is understanding how even the new technologies have vulnerabilities themselves, and to realize that other new technologies are being equipped to counter them warfare's endless waltz.That said, of all the people who say that the costs are too high, I never hear anyone offer the only real thing that could serve as a true threat to the carriers; a better alternative. Show me a better method for giving the military the ability to utilize strong diplomacy to preserve peace and I will agree with you, the air craft carrier needs to be a museum. An example of this would be the recent parking of a floating runway off the coast of Yemen to deter Iranian support of rebels, thus preventing an escalation of the Iran/Saudi proxy wars. This is what the carriers do and why we will need them in the future.This is why, in spite of the costs and the risks, the Navy is currently in the process of replacing their Nimitz class supercarriers with the new Gerald R. Ford class housing improvements to the technology suite and boasting a lighter crew requirement. In light of super death nuke missiles moving at 10,000 miles an hour and an army of Chinese hackers, people often view tactics as old as a war that ended 70 years ago as outdated. What all the vulnerabilities showcase is that only the most powerful nations in the world have the means to create the threats necessary to put the United States' carrier fleet at risk. For those willing to even try, no attack being guaranteed. of course, would surely have resigned themselves to nothing less than the beginning of World War III. I'm not saying that the fleet can't be defeated through some means known or as yet uncreated. I'm just saying that anyone who wants to sink a few very powerful ships are going to need to be able to follow it up with something far, far more intensive, because even if you can take down the Navy's aircraft carrier fleet, all of them, you then must deal with the rest of the Navy, along with the US Air Force, Army, and the United States Marine Corps. Good luck with that.If this answer interested you, you may also enjoy Jon Davis's answer to What is the future of war?Thanks for reading!For more answers like this check out On War by Jon Davis and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Jon Davis on Patreon: Help support in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.