Slashdot Mirror

The POWs in Guantanamo do get Red Cross visits. As to the rest of their status - in order to receive the full protection of the Geneva Convention as a combatant you have to obey the Law of War. Al Qaida doesn't do that, quite the reverse. Their basic strategy of directly targeting civilian noncombatants constitutes a war crime. They are quite rightly recognized as unlawful combatants. And do note, it isn't that this categorization is unknown internationally, but rather that various advocates refuse to acknowledge that it exists.

The black sites? Last time I looked they were for detention and interrogation.

Now, there are a couple of factors that make these discussions more interesting. First, is the fact that Al Qaida teaches its members to lie about their treatment and not cooperate.

Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay

. . . Police in Manchester, England, discovered the manual, which has come to be known as the "Manchester document," in 2000 while searching computer files found in the home of a known al Qaeda member. The contents were introduced as evidence into the 2001 trial of terrorists who bombed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. . .

The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison."

Chapter 17 instructs them to "be careful not to give the enemy any vital information" during interrogations.

Another section of the manual directs commanders to teach their operatives what to say if they're captured, and to explain it "more than once to ensure that they have assimilated it." To reinforce the message, it tells commanders to have operatives "explain it back to the commander."

One consequence of this lying, and international pressure on their behalf, is that committed terrorists have been released who then return to Jihad again, killing who knows how many.

Recidivism rises among released Guantanamo detainees

(Reuters) - The proportion of militants released from detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay who subsequently were believed to have returned to the battlefield rose slightly over the last year, according to official figures released on Monday.

In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity

Second, as does sometimes happen in war, service members will occasionally exceed their instructions, lose control, or develop a mental illness, and then engage in behavior that constitutes a war crime. Some people want to pretend that those actions are deliberate policy rather than the illegal actions of an individual or particular group. One prime example is the incident at Abu Ghraib. It resulted in a number of American soldiers going to jail, including the infamous Lynndie England. An isolated incident by a small number of soldiers that took an extraordinary number of pictures in a very short time, and gave a black eye to the US military and the United States. The actual events were magnified by the work of the media - the New York Times put stories and/or pictures on the front page 47 times.

Pay? Nobody pays me to post. But I do like to see the discussion occasionally enter the realm of facts even if it aggravates some people.

After all, facts that contradict some political view are "flamebait."

I don't understand how the takeaway from this is bad news for Blackberry. The same announcement that Samsung's Knox was approved said that Blackberry 10 is approved.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119929
“We are pleased to add Blackberry 10 and the Samsung Knox version of Android to our family of mobile devices supporting the Department of Defense,” the spokesman said. “We look forward to additional vendors also participating in this process, further enabling a diversity of mobile devices for use within the department.”

This delay was "released" on Friday, I can't find anything relating to this at all. I wonder if this was spawned by Al Jazera or the like and it went viral. Can anyone find an actual official release? All I see is the same opening paragraph, political filler, but no authentic, non-repudiable source. http://www.defense.gov/releases/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases There was a delay for a Minuteman III test out of Barksdale but that was released on 2/28/13 for an upgrade to it systems: http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291773

Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it.

He obviously didn't try very hard since it didn't get extended. I doubt Bradley Manning was a factor here. They could have reduced and modified the US military presence in a variety of ways. They could have offered a bunch of foreign aid and other incentives. I think it more likely that Obama wanted to get out and bribed the Iraqis to provide him political cover.

And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?

Well, his administration is claiming the spending is going down. I don't know how to reconcile your numbers with those numbers since I don't know what's not included in the Obama administration figures and whether the numbers you quote (for FY 2011 and 2012) are real or estimates made at some point in the past.

Make crap up? Instead of sounding like a dick, you should have attempted to correct me in a more polite manner. Do you talk that way to your family, friends or coworkers? I doubt it, Mr condescending internet know-it-all tough guy.

Here are my articles:
http://olive-drab.com/od_army-horses-mules_lastpack.php
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1023/Presidential-debate-101-Does-US-military-still-use-horses-and-bayonets
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/a/militarydogs.htm
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2006/working-dogs/

Limit your Google search to the past year only and you will get articles talking about robot mules. Robot mules are being developed to support front line troops starting with the marines. And If you actually read your links you would have noticed that they are dated from 2007, or 5 years ago. They also only describe their use by special forces in unique situations (mountainous regions in Afghanistan). There are no plans for deploying pack animals as ground support to front line troops (AKA grunts or ground pounders). Horses are used but their number is minuscule and limited to special forces and parades. That means you wont find grunts riding horses nor will you see mules delivering supplies to solders on the battle field.

Think before you speak.
 

Is this site a better read AC
"Military Medicine Embraces Disney’s Customer-Focus"
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60615

The relative number of reserve and National Guard active are not that large compared to the total reserve force. The current goal is no more than three or four deployments over the course of a career - assuming there is a need for that force level deployed to a war zone, which seems unlikely to me.

Managing the Reserve Components as an Operational Force

In January 2007, the Secretary of Defense established total force utilization guidelines that included the planning objective for involuntary mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units and individuals of a “one year mobilized to five years demobilized ratio.” This guideline does not mean that every Reserve member will serve one year out of every six years. . . .

Many skills that are useful to the uniformed military are difficult to acquire through traditional accession policies, are challenging to obtain on short notice, or are only needed for a limited duration. These skills might include cutting edge, technical skills such as those possessed by engineers, scientists, or information technology professionals, as well as specialized skills such as languages and cultural understanding. Flexible affiliation options allow the Services to meet requirements with individuals who may be willing to volunteer for some form of military service for short periods of time or in response to specific emergencies, but for whom traditional affiliation programs are not of interest. Thus, removing barriers that limit Reserve members from contributing more to defense missions is an ongoing and necessary process.

- - -

-- a lot of people who have finished their tours are told that they must re-up

I think you're confused. Service members were not told they must re-up, but rather some had their service period involuntarily extended by a "Stop Loss" order due to critical wartime need. Now some service members face the prospect of having their service period involuntarily shortened as the military has started shrinking again.

Stop Loss Special Pay

Stop loss provides a valuable and critical tool to quickly retain and generate forces to surge in a major conflict. However, as deployment schedules stabilize, the department must then adapt and minimize its use of stop loss. The secretary of defense announced in March a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of stop loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances.

Army Stop Loss Special Pay
Soldiers, veterans and survivors of those whose service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss between September 11, 2001 and September 30, 2008 can apply to receive $500 for every month, or portion of a month, they served under Stop Loss.

More soldiers will face prospect of early-outs

USA defence budget for 2011 = $708 - $695.7 billion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.html, http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13281)

USA defence budget for 2007 = $740 billion (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

NASA budget has varied between $33.514 billion in 1968 to $17 billion these days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)

One years USA defence spending exceeds the entire NASA budget for 50 years.

Lets not forget all the soldiers dying in Afghanistan ..... More soldiers in 3.5 years than GWB's in 8 full years.

A quick Wikipedia search shows about 2000 US deaths in Afghanistan to date and about 4000 in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom so I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

DoD Taps Commercial Internet Providers to Help Protect Defense Industry Networks

-http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=787
----- http://dibnet.dod.mil/
----- http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15266

"Weapons manufacturers and thousands of other Pentagon contractors are responsible for protecting much of the militaryâ(TM)s most sensitive data.

But the Defense Department of late has lost confidence in industryâ(TM)s ability to secure its intellectual property from cyber theft. It also has recognized that the government has limited technological tools to protect industry-held data.

So the Pentagon is now asking companies to voluntarily sign up for data-security programs offered by Internet service providers such as Verizon and AT&T.

This new approach to protecting defense industry data is the latest twist in a cybersecurity pilot program that began four years ago when the Pentagon asked companies to voluntarily share information about network intrusions and malware attacks.

In exchange for volunteering details about cyber intrusions, the government would analyze the malware and send back to industry valuable intelligence on the source and scope of the hacking.

Over the past four years, 36 companies have signed up for the exchange program.

But that is hardly enough, considering that there is an estimated pool of 8,000 companies that are believed to be eligible for this program.

The number was calculated based on how many companies have employees and facilities cleared for classified work, said the Pentagonâ(TM)s Deputy Chief Information Officer for Cybersecurity Richard Hale.

The Pentagon would like to see at least 1,000 companies join the so-called âoeDefense Industrial Base Cyber Security/ Information Assuranceâ program, Hale said in a May 14 conference call with defense journalists and bloggers.

In an extraordinary move, the Pentagon last week announced it is expanding the program to allow commercial Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, to offer cybersecurity services to participating defense contractors. The expanded information-assurance program is called Defense Industrial Base Enhanced Cyber security Services.

The Defense Department agreed to provide classified and unclassified âoethreat signaturesâ to three commercial ISPs so they could develop security tools that they could sell to defense contractors in a fee-for-service arrangement.

Hale said he could not discuss the cost of the ISP services, and stressed that it was entirely up to each defense firm to decide whether to sign up for the services.

Since the May 11 announcement that the program is being expanded, more than 250 companies have expressed interest, Hale said.

âoeWe are starting to see responses,â he said. âoeWe think thereâ(TM)s pent-up demand for participation. But itâ(TM)s too early to tell how many companies are going to join.â

The Pentagon concluded that it made sense to use ISPs â" which have access to advanced cybersecurity tools â" to provide network protection services to defense contractors. The alternative would be to have to share classified information with the contractors and expect them to use that data to build their own cybersecurity systems, said Hale.

Eric Rosenbach, deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, said the three ISPs that so far were approved for the program had to meet stringent security requirements and had to invest their own money in building the highly classified infrastructure and technology that is needed to protect defense industry networks.

âoeThe defense industrial base faces unrelenting attacks from sophisticated actors who are trying to steal intellectual property and sensitive defense information

The White House, Department of Defense, the State department and the CIA beg to differ.

The Department of Defense says "Navy Looks to Bolster Capabilities in Persian Gulf" (2012):
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67586

The State Department notes in a briefing by Secretary of State Clinton on her visit to India in May 2012 that peace in the Persian Gulf is important:
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/05/201205085219.html#axzz1vAEAsbH0

The White House's press briefing includes references to carriers in the Persian Gulf (2012):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4912/

This is the CIA's World Fact Book entry for Iran. Look at the map saying "Persian Gulf".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

The State Department shows the same map for Iran ("Persian Gulf"):
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/ir/

The CIA's Persian Gulf War Task Force was last reviewed and updated in January 2012.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/gulfwar/index.htm

In their last report to Congress last month, the DOD very specifically detailed how they wished to *relax* the ITAR constraints: see
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15198
who just points the report itself.
From the exec. summary:
"In summary, the Departments agree that maintaining non-critical satellites and related components on the USML and monitoring low-risk launch activities provide limited national security benefits. Moreover, this practice places the U.S. space industrial base at a distinct competitive disadvantage when bidding against companies from other advanced satellite-exporting countries that have less stringent export control policies and practices. Transferring select items from the USML to the CCL would allow for controls consistent with other technologies and would help enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. space industrial base, while continuing to protect U.S. national security needs."

The budget for the Department of Defense is being cut though.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

FY 2013 Base Budget has a reduction of $5.2 billion compared to FY 2012. The budget for Overseas Contingency Operations (which includes Afghanistan and Iraq) has a separate budget request which shows a reduction of $26.6 billion compared to FY 2012.

That sounds like a big cut, until you look at how much the defense budget has grown since 2001. You'd have to cut about 60 times that much to put us back where we were just over a decade ago. (Or 100 times that much, if you look at total cost rather than just the budget per se.)

And as for our unbudgeted wars, there seems to be a growing consensus that they've cost us 3 or 4 trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.

The budget for the Department of Defense is being cut though. http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf FY 2013 Base Budget has a reduction of $5.2 billion compared to FY 2012. The budget for Overseas Contingency Operations (which includes Afghanistan and Iraq) has a separate budget request which shows a reduction of $26.6 billion compared to FY 2012.

This is excellent news!

In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.

A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO).

From that page, you can reach:

• Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) Memorandum by David M. Wennergren, 16 October 2009 - this is the overall DoD policy on OSS
• Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Military Software - OSD Report, May 2011 - this is guidance on how to develop and use OSS
• DoD Open Source Software (OSS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - this has lots of answers to questions about OSS, focusing on DoD issues
• Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense - 2003 Study by MITRE Corporation performed for DoD - a report by MITREs Terry Bollinger showing that the DoD was already using OSS widely in 2002-2003.

If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) group.

This is excellent news!

In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.

A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO).

From that page, you can reach:

• Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) Memorandum by David M. Wennergren, 16 October 2009 - this is the overall DoD policy on OSS
• Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Military Software - OSD Report, May 2011 - this is guidance on how to develop and use OSS
• DoD Open Source Software (OSS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - this has lots of answers to questions about OSS, focusing on DoD issues
• Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense - 2003 Study by MITRE Corporation performed for DoD - a report by MITREs Terry Bollinger showing that the DoD was already using OSS widely in 2002-2003.

If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) group.

This is excellent news!

In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.

A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO).

From that page, you can reach:

• Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) Memorandum by David M. Wennergren, 16 October 2009 - this is the overall DoD policy on OSS
• Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Military Software - OSD Report, May 2011 - this is guidance on how to develop and use OSS
• DoD Open Source Software (OSS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - this has lots of answers to questions about OSS, focusing on DoD issues
• Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense - 2003 Study by MITRE Corporation performed for DoD - a report by MITREs Terry Bollinger showing that the DoD was already using OSS widely in 2002-2003.

If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) group.

This is excellent news!

In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.

A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO).

From that page, you can reach:

• Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) Memorandum by David M. Wennergren, 16 October 2009 - this is the overall DoD policy on OSS
• Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Military Software - OSD Report, May 2011 - this is guidance on how to develop and use OSS
• DoD Open Source Software (OSS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - this has lots of answers to questions about OSS, focusing on DoD issues
• Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense - 2003 Study by MITRE Corporation performed for DoD - a report by MITREs Terry Bollinger showing that the DoD was already using OSS widely in 2002-2003.

If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) group.

This is excellent news!

In some ways this policy (of the US Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) picks up from the the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies. Unfortunately, the DoD just changed the URLs for some of its information on Open Source Software (OSS), and doesn't (yet) have redirects, making them hard to find and compare. So here are new links to the DoD stuff on open source software, if you want them.

A good place to start is the Department of Defense (DoD) Free Open Source Software (FOSS) Community of Interest page, hosted by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO).

From that page, you can reach:

• Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) Memorandum by David M. Wennergren, 16 October 2009 - this is the overall DoD policy on OSS
• Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Military Software - OSD Report, May 2011 - this is guidance on how to develop and use OSS
• DoD Open Source Software (OSS) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - this has lots of answers to questions about OSS, focusing on DoD issues
• Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense - 2003 Study by MITRE Corporation performed for DoD - a report by MITREs Terry Bollinger showing that the DoD was already using OSS widely in 2002-2003.

If you are interested in the topic of DoD and OSS, you might also be interested in the Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS) group.

By the same token, everyone can agree that spending cuts are necessary. Except the Dems of course. Note that the biggest proponent of NOT cutting Defense Spending is Obama's Secretary of Defense, not the Republicans

Hold on...this isn't the Secretary of Defense suggesting a spending cuts? What about Obama suggesting Defense Spending Cuts Here. It seems your information is wrong. Every proposal that the Democrats have made included defense spending cuts. It was the Republicans who refused to cut defense spending.

The rest of your post I completely agree with though.

They are already cutting the defense budget by half and the social security / medicare budget is already twice that of the defense budget. I'm all for some sort of safety net and taking care of old folks but holy shit thats a lot of money.

Really? Take your lips away from the Fox News kool-aid. Presently, the US defense budget is $671B for fiscal 2012, which is 20% higher than the highest year of the Bush II era. With the exception of 1998, US defense spending has increased every year that it has been reported, with Obama significantly out spending Bush II, even if you factor in the supplemental spending for the Iraq and Afghan wars (listed as OCO, ongoing combat operations, in the cited sources). The only time the US defense budget actually changed downwards from the previous year was in 1998, when it dropped by a whopping 6/10 of one percent.

They are already cutting the defense budget by half and the social security / medicare budget is already twice that of the defense budget. I'm all for some sort of safety net and taking care of old folks but holy shit thats a lot of money.

Really? Take your lips away from the Fox News kool-aid. Presently, the US defense budget is $671B for fiscal 2012, which is 20% higher than the highest year of the Bush II era. With the exception of 1998, US defense spending has increased every year that it has been reported, with Obama significantly out spending Bush II, even if you factor in the supplemental spending for the Iraq and Afghan wars (listed as OCO, ongoing combat operations, in the cited sources). The only time the US defense budget actually changed downwards from the previous year was in 1998, when it dropped by a whopping 6/10 of one percent.

I'm waiting to hear from the fiscal conservatives who want to cancel the space program and asteroid-hunting programs because the Federal Government shouldn't be spending taxpayer money on such useless endeavors.

Usually those wingnuts cue a response from the other wingnuts complaining about how many schools we could build with the military budget.

No. Those "other wingnuts" complain about how many schools we could build for a tiny fraction of the military budget, say the cost of occupying Iraq for a week, or procuring a single B2 bomber...don't even go there, dude.

Exactly. The DoD 2012 budget request is $670.9 billion.

This is ripe of someone cutting 10% off the top and extrapolating it to $BIGNUM to make it look good politically. Apples to apples, the DoD budget, if sustained for 10 years, would cost a total of $6,709,000,000,000, 9.8 times as much as this plans to "save" and over 47% of the current national debt. Just because is says the N-word it looks a lot better than it really is. Nuclear defense is cheap. Just how much do you think it costs to house a few thousand ICBMs compared to a few million troops?

Nope. But the US has shown willingness to use the guns it has. Now explain to me again how this makes the US the "good guys" again.

It really depends on the use the arms are put to, doesn't it? Kuwaitis were pretty happy when US led coalition forces removed Saddam's army from Kuwait in 1991. Of course there were many Europeans that protested against the US for planning to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait, but virtually none when Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait, thus demonstrating the moral bankruptcy of the "Peace" movement.

The French (practically no oil) were pretty happy when the mainly US and British forces of the Allies removed Nazi German forces from France. Likewise the Dutch (practically no oil), Danes (practically no oil), Belgians (practically no oil), and Luxemburgers (practically no oil). Many Italians (practically no oil) were glad to be rid of the Fascist government, as many Germans (practically no oil) were happy to be rid of the National Socialist government.

Australians (practically no oil) were happy to have not been invaded by the Japanese, which the US presence helped, and the Philippinos (practically no oil) were thrilled to see the Japanese (practically no oil) removed by American forces.

South Koreans (practically no oil) are quite happy that they are not governed by the North, a fate prevented by US arms. The South Vietnamese (practically no oil) almost made it, they defeated the 1972 invasion by North Vietnam with American air support. Unfortunately the "peace" movement influenced the US Congress to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, including medical supplies. South Vietnam fell to another conventional invasion by tanks and infantry divisions from North Vietnam.

The vast majority of Eastern Europeans (pretty much no oil) are happy to be free of Soviet rule, and many West Europeans (mostly no oil) are happy to have avoided that fate. American arms made a substantial contribution to that end.

The people of Taiwan (practically no oil) are still free today in large part to America.

The Iraqi people are free today, with a budding democracy, and are rebuilding their country. They are happy to be free from Saddam which wouldn't have happened without American intervention. Despite the large number of people killed by terrorists and insurgents (the vast majority of the dead), they were really no worse off than Saddam’s long term average death rate, and now violence is down overall by about 90%. They have a chance, but not a guarantee, of being able to build a decent country. That is a chance they never would have had under Saddam or his sons.

American arms have helped stop and reverse the world wide trend toward despotism at least twice, helping to turn the tide against fascism, and soviet communism.

America has used its military power in humanitarian relief efforts, such as after the 2004 tsunami, and in Haiti.

So, what has your country done?

The United States does not spend all that to insure there won't be any way. The US spends all that and has that giant military established to "provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country."

http://www.defense.gov/about/#mission

Assuming arguendo that drone-fired weapons don't constitute "hostilities," what about F-15's? Helicopters and ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles? F-16's and EA-18's? (Note: that's the DOD's press release, so it's probably reliable.)

Here's a great graphic breaking down just who is sending what. Breakdown for the US: 12 ships, 153 airplanes, 228 cruise missiles. It doesn't break down by aircraft type, but it's a fair bet they're not all UAVs.

Because now that Osama is dead, this abomination is now to protect from mysterious random people....

Lets clarify this a bit, shall we?

Yes, it will help protect us from mysterious people - currently unknown people who are in contact with terrorist groups, as well that people plotting attacks. That is the point after all, isn't it?

Although most people on Slashdot seem to oppose spying on anyone, most Americans are OK with spying on people in direct contact with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda (organizations trying to kill large numbers of people, not Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul voters ... unless they happen to be eco-terrorists engaged is actual terrorism).

And maybe you've forgotten, the Patriot Act has been amended in the past to address civil rights concerns.

As to Osama being dead... let's try a thought experiment.....

If Steve Jobs were to die tomorrow,... would Apple computer vanish? Would the board of directors and senior executives vanish? The tens of thousands of employees and contractors? The factories that make Apple products? The thousands and thousands of stores that sell their products? The tens or hundreds of millions of customers that own or are buying Apple products? Would the products vanish? Would any of it vanish anytime soon if Steve Jobs died tomorrow? The answer is: No. The Apple board of directors would name a new CEO and the company would continue. Apple might ultimately fail and vanish after some years due to lack of vision, or drive, or by losing its iconic chief visionary, but it wouldn't vanish immediately. It is also possible that they would benefit from Jobs exiting the scene... it would take time, probably years, to determine.

So, what about Al Qaeda? Now that Bin Laden is dead,... has it vanished? Has Al Qaeda's world-wide leadership vanished? Have the tens of thousands of varied terrorists and insurgents around the world swearing loyalty to Al Qaeda vanished? Have the caches of weapons and cash vanished? Have the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that they trained vanished? Have the hundreds of thousands or millions of active supporters around the world vanished? Have the tens of millions of Muslims that approve of them vanished? The answer is: No. Al Qaeda has named successors to Bin Laden, and they are carrying on in their various plots and campaigns of destruction, murder, and mayhem. In a sense they may even be more lethal now --- Al Qaeda's leadership has vetoed some planned attacks in the past since they projected that it wouldn't meet the Al Qaeda standard for body counts. The new leadership may take what they can get. Of course, if you have enough incidents killing dozens or hundreds at a time, you can still reach a total body count in the thousands. So, yes, Al Qaeda is still dangerous.

It has been understood by anyone interested that this is a problem that will almost certainly last decades - that was being discussed not long after 9/11. Here is something from 2007: Pace Says War on Terror Will Require Decades of Effort. What is the alternative? Give in the their demands? Bin Laden's demands are that the United States convert is Islam, throw away the Constitution, and govern by harsh Sharia law. In case you are wavering about which way to go, here are the top ten reasons this may not be a good thing from the previous link:

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

I think you've got it. There have been suggestions that the US had no court anywhere that ObL could have been tried. The obvious place is the ICJ/World Court in the Hague.

The US has a perfectly adequate legal system to handle the likes of Bin Laden.... right here. fact sheet

But it's not clear what the charges might have been. It's likely that the US "had nothing on the guy" for the WTC attack, other than his publicly praising the people who did it, and that's not exactly a criminal act

US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Also, Bin Laden admitted or demonstrated his association with the 9/11 attacks on multiple occasions.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

No doubt there is plenty of other material evidence linking him to other crimes under either the Law of War or US criminal law.

The US has been openly and loudly calling this "justice". This isn't being missed by people with similar desires in the rest of the world. Since the US government has effectively announced that killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice", we can expect that many others in the world are planning to bring the US to "justice" in a similar fashion.

You've got this wrong on two points. First, I very much doubt that any group of would-be terrorists is just waiting for the US to "bend the rules" so that they feel justified in attacking. Second, the US is at war with Al Qaeda under the authority of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11, so raids to capture or kill its members is completely legitimate. It is also quite fair seeing as Bin Laden declared war on the US in the 1990s.

I think you've got it. There have been suggestions that the US had no court anywhere that ObL could have been tried. The obvious place is the ICJ/World Court in the Hague.

The US has a perfectly adequate legal system to handle the likes of Bin Laden.... right here. fact sheet

But it's not clear what the charges might have been. It's likely that the US "had nothing on the guy" for the WTC attack, other than his publicly praising the people who did it, and that's not exactly a criminal act

US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Also, Bin Laden admitted or demonstrated his association with the 9/11 attacks on multiple occasions.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

No doubt there is plenty of other material evidence linking him to other crimes under either the Law of War or US criminal law.

The US has been openly and loudly calling this "justice". This isn't being missed by people with similar desires in the rest of the world. Since the US government has effectively announced that killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice", we can expect that many others in the world are planning to bring the US to "justice" in a similar fashion.

You've got this wrong on two points. First, I very much doubt that any group of would-be terrorists is just waiting for the US to "bend the rules" so that they feel justified in attacking. Second, the US is at war with Al Qaeda under the authority of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11, so raids to capture or kill its members is completely legitimate. It is also quite fair seeing as Bin Laden declared war on the US in the 1990s.

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/

So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times. The government not only holds onto old conflicts which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts semi-frequently. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents to school exchange trips to locking up the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.

The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US -- it's still less than 20% of the US def

The US Navy's aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships are an important part of relief efforts because they're mobile helicopter launching platforms. In a disaster, helicopters (and V-22 Ospreys) are the only good way to get around.

When President Obama said something in response to the earthquake, the first thing he said was that aircraft carriers were on their way:

“We currently have an aircraft carrier in Japan and another is on its way,” he said at the news conference. “We also have a ship en route to the Marianas Islands to assist as needed.”
...

On his Twitter feed this morning, Noriyuki Shikata, deputy cabinet secretary for public relations and director of global communications at the Japanese prime minister's office, said the Japanese government requested U.S. forces in Japan to support efforts to rescue people and to provide oil and medical aid via the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, adding his thanks to the U.S. government.

-http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63136

Here's a report from today on defense.gov:

... The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan is now off the coast of Japan’s main island of Honshu and the USS Tortuga is expected to arrive today.

According to reports, the Reagan is serving as place for Japanese helicopters to land and refuel. There are two escort ships with the Reagan and four more destroyers on the way to conduct search and rescue, according to reports.

The Tortuga is loaded with two heavy lift MH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters. The USS Essex, an amphibious ship carrying a 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is still a couple days away.

The USS Blue Ridge, a command ship loaded with relief supplies, has left Singapore but it will get to Japan after Essex.

-U.S. Forces Provide Relief Aid to Japan (wikipedia links added by me)

The Navy just spent $662-million renovating the USS Enterprise. They're going to "throw it away" in 2 years, because it's an expensive ship to operate. I propose dedicating this ship to disaster relief. They can keep it in Hawaii, remove the fighter jets, and load it with heavy lift helicopters and everything that could possibly be needed in any type of disaster. Japan needs a lot of tents right now, but there probably aren't many in the Ronald Reagan's inventory.

This is an evolution of my posts here last summer, "To Save the Gulf, Send the Enterprise" - thank you all for visiting, the feedback, and the +1's. :)

When Disaster Strikes, Send the Enterprise. Or at least do a proper study, before throwing the ship away.

The US Navy's aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships are an important part of relief efforts because they're mobile helicopter launching platforms. In a disaster, helicopters (and V-22 Ospreys) are the only good way to get around.

When President Obama said something in response to the earthquake, the first thing he said was that aircraft carriers were on their way:

“We currently have an aircraft carrier in Japan and another is on its way,” he said at the news conference. “We also have a ship en route to the Marianas Islands to assist as needed.”
...

On his Twitter feed this morning, Noriyuki Shikata, deputy cabinet secretary for public relations and director of global communications at the Japanese prime minister's office, said the Japanese government requested U.S. forces in Japan to support efforts to rescue people and to provide oil and medical aid via the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, adding his thanks to the U.S. government.

-http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63136

Here's a report from today on defense.gov:

... The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan is now off the coast of Japan’s main island of Honshu and the USS Tortuga is expected to arrive today.

According to reports, the Reagan is serving as place for Japanese helicopters to land and refuel. There are two escort ships with the Reagan and four more destroyers on the way to conduct search and rescue, according to reports.

The Tortuga is loaded with two heavy lift MH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters. The USS Essex, an amphibious ship carrying a 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is still a couple days away.

The USS Blue Ridge, a command ship loaded with relief supplies, has left Singapore but it will get to Japan after Essex.

-U.S. Forces Provide Relief Aid to Japan (wikipedia links added by me)

The Navy just spent $662-million renovating the USS Enterprise. They're going to "throw it away" in 2 years, because it's an expensive ship to operate. I propose dedicating this ship to disaster relief. They can keep it in Hawaii, remove the fighter jets, and load it with heavy lift helicopters and everything that could possibly be needed in any type of disaster. Japan needs a lot of tents right now, but there probably aren't many in the Ronald Reagan's inventory.

This is an evolution of my posts here last summer, "To Save the Gulf, Send the Enterprise" - thank you all for visiting, the feedback, and the +1's. :)

When Disaster Strikes, Send the Enterprise. Or at least do a proper study, before throwing the ship away.

I wish your post was true, but unfortunately it's only a half-truth. The institutional spending done by the DoD may be trending downward, but the operational spending done by the DoD is astronomical.

The $660 billion I quoted included Overseas Contingency Operations (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Total baseline DoD funding in FY2010 was $534 billion, OCO was $130 billion, for a total $664 billion.

Interesting way to look at it, given the economic and quality-of-life differences between the U.S. and China. Weapon systems and soldiers are cheaper to produce, maintain, and operate in China. U.S. labor and materials cost more. For a more equitable comparison, consider how much cheaper the DoD would be if it did not need to comply with environmental regulations. They would save over $1B annually simply by ceasing environmental restoration efforts!

I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...

Your link shines little light on Assange's case. It reveals that the Swedish government has connections with the US to share anti-terrorist intelligence. It appears to have worked..... until last weekend.

It is possible that Assange will be hoisted on his own petard. Consider: Assange released stolen classified secret American military and diplomatic dispatches. Some of the dispatches released by Assange's Wikileaks showed the discreet connections between Sweden and the US to share anti-terrorism intelligence. As a result of the revelations, the Swedish parliament may have forced their Justice ministry to cut off ties to the US. As a result of severing the intelligence ties, the Swedes may have missed vital intelligence that could have prevented the suicide bombing. The Swedish Justice ministry is not amused by the bombing, and being forced to cut ties with the US as a result of Assange's revelations, and cuts no slack for Assange in prosecution. Ouch. No American pressure required - only the natural result of screwing with anti-terrorism intelligence in a time of widespread threat of terrorism, as Wikileaks has done repeatedly. (I think various people like to use the phrase - "blowback") We will be lucky if the recklessness of Assange and Wikileaks doesn't end up killing large numbers of people. Sweden may only be the first to see the result of Assange's handiwork, I doubt if it is the last.

“My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability,” Gates said on ABC’s This Week. “One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others -- that's not my arena.

“But there's also a moral culpability,” he added. “And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”

Those consequences could be the loss of innocent lives, Gates said, and not just those of American troops.

“If I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents,” the secretary said.

Gates said that having an intelligence background, he knows that “protecting your sources is sacrosanct.” He noted that “there was no sense of responsibility or accountability” associated with the leak of information. WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, (Secretary of Defense) Gates Says

We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.

Not quite. Secretary of Defense Gates said that the release of the stolen classified documents by Wikileaks is "likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States".

Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened. (Re: NATO comment, see below. -CF) " We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States and are examining mitigation options," Gates wrote in the letter. "We are working closely with our allies to determine what risks our mission partners may face as a result of the disclosure."...

Over the summer, the Pentagon created a team of more than 100 personnel made up of mostly intelligence analysts from various branches of the Defense Department as well as the FBI, who were involved in the round-the-clock review. Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain

The phrase, "sensitive intelligence sources or methods" is primarily referring to satellites & signal intelligence. Allies and informants, key resources when fighting a counter-insurgency, have been put at risk by being named.

“My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability,” Gates said on ABC’s This Week. “One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others -- that's not my arena.

“But there's also a moral culpability,” he added. “And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”

Those consequences could be the loss of innocent lives, Gates said, and not just those of American troops.

“If I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents,” the secretary said.

Gates said that having an intelligence background, he knows that “protecting your sources is sacrosanct.” He noted that “there was no sense of responsibility or accountability” associated with the leak of information. WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says

With apologies to an unnamed NATO official (what sort of job did he have?) the Taliban are starting to hunt down people. (The Taliban have assembled a group to examine the Wikileaks documents.)

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated

I don't know how much this thing is projected to cost (didn't RTFA of course) but it definitely needs to carry much more than 200 pounds. I'm in the military, in the Infantry no less, and I'm having a hard time seeing why this is better than a pallet and a forklift. This thing, http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2005-01/2005011205a.jpg , can lift a pretty considerable load, maybe some AF guy can clue in, but I'm guessing you could probably buy 10 of those things vs. one set of this exoskeleton thing, easy. As far as combat applications, I can't see what this thing can offer, given the cost, potential maintenance issues, and a person to operate. 200 pounds is a .50 cal with spare barrel, and 3 cans of ammo (300 rounds). Or, a Mk 19 and 2 of the big cans of ammo (96 rounds). An up-armored humvee will carry this, plus a whole lot more ammo, plus my (and everyone's) stuff, plus give me a ride. It might be able to go places the humvee can't go, but what it brings isn't worth it vs. the cost. It would give the gundham crowd boners though.

I don't think anti-American terrorists are innocent, but they do have a point about that whole imperialistic bastards thing. As of 2009 we have 716 pieces of DoD property (Warning: PDF) in foreign countries. That doesn't count the almost five thousand bases we have on US territory.

According to Newsweek, a man named Khalifa Abdullah was killed after the release of these documents

Yes. According to Newsweek, a man was assassinated after the release of the documents. But apart from the simple fact of an assassination having occurred, Newsweek provides no evidence that it has anything to do with the leaked documents.

From your Nesweek article:

One short handwritten note, shown to NEWSWEEK, said: “We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.” The screed, written on the letterhead of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s defunct Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, bore the signature of Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official and former inmate at the American lockup in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who had been released into—and subsequently escaped from—Kabul’s custody last year.

And now from a DOD press release:

In early June, the ISAF intercepted orders from Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Omar, who directed his fighters to kill innocent Afghan civilians. This order is in direct contradiction to Omar’s instructions last year urging his followers to minimize civilian casualties in an attempt to compete with the ISAF’s population-centric tactical directives.

Did you catch the part about early June? The only evidence Newsweek provides that the killing of Abdullah is the fact that his neighbors have death threats from a man who ordered civilians killed months before the Wikileaks affair started. Oh, that and the fact that the Taliban, "quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency." Something they've been saying since fucking forever, and something it's very much in their interest to say right now. It's entirely to their advantage to make Wikileaks look as dangerous to NATO collaborators as possible—cuts down on collaboration, you see?

So. If Wikileaks got Khalifa Abdullah killed, which document is the smoking gun? Searchable copy of the site here. I'll wait. Don't bother using Khalifa as part of the search query, by the way. There's only one document containing it, and that just happened to be one of several drivers stopped along a road while out to fetch firewood.

The Newsweek story is entirely disingenuous. How many petty assassinations are there in that country every month? Apart from having occurred on the same day as the leaks, and the Taliban making scary noises about how very dangerous is is to collaborate with Americans, what fucking proof is there that Khalifa Abdullah's death had anything to do with Wikileaks? What grounds for suspicion?

The Wikileaks documents may well get people killed. It may already have done so. Do you have even a shred of proof, however, that Khalifa Abdullah was killed because of it?

The article also links to: http://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/oss/Open_Source_Software_(OSS)_FAQ.htm#Q:_Doesn.27t_hiding_source_code_automatically_make_software_more_secure.3F

Excerpt:

    Q: Doesn't hiding source code automatically make software more secure?

No. Indeed, vulnerability databases such as CVE make it clear that merely hiding source code does not counter attacks:

        * Dynamic attacks (e.g., generating input patterns to probe for vulnerabilities and then sending that data to the program to execute) don’t need source or binary. Observing the output from inputs is often sufficient for attack.
        * Static attacks (e.g., analyzing the code instead of its execution) can use pattern-matches against binaries - source code is not needed for them either.
        * Even if source code is necessary (e.g., for source code analyzers), adequate source code can often be regenerated by disassemblers and decompilers sufficiently to search for vulnerabilities. Such source code may not be adequate to cost-effectively maintain the software, but attackers need not maintain software.
        * Even when the original source is necessary for in-depth analysis, making source code available to the public significantly aids defenders and not just attackers. Continuous and broad peer-review, enabled by publicly available source code, improves software reliability and security through the identification and elimination of defects that might otherwise go unrecognized by the core development team. Conversely, where source code is hidden from the public, attackers can attack the software anyway as described above. In addition, an attacker can often acquire the original source code from suppliers anyway (either because the supplier voluntarily provides it, or via attacks against the supplier); in such cases, if only the attacker has the source code, the attacker ends up with another advantage.

Hiding source code does inhibit the ability of third parties to respond to vulnerabilities (because changing software is more difficult without the source code), but this is obviously not a security advantage. In general, “Security by Obscurity” is widely denigrated.

There's a real question as to whether the US still has working nuclear weapons. Much of the production capability was shut down years ago. For over a decade, the US had lost the capacity to make nuclear "pits". They used to be made at Rocky Flats, which shut down in 1993. Los Alamos now has a limited production capability for new nuclear pits, but no pit made there has been tested in an actual detonation. The complete ban on nuclear testing, even underground, means there's some doubt about whether new physics packages actually work. Current practice is to build duplicates of designs from the 1970s.

One of the non-radioactive materials for H-bombs is out of production, and attempts to make more of it have not been successful.

There's also a tritium shortage. Tritium, with its short half-life, has to be replaced periodically. That's getting to be a problem.

The second team is building these things today. Early atomic bombs were designed by Nobel prizewinners. Today, the people involved are far less qualified and not very motivated. Almost everybody who ever designed a bomb that went off has retired. There's a proposal to design a "dumber bomb" with a very long shelf life, but without testing, nobody really has confidence that would work.

Well, we disagree. That is not THE meaning, it a one of 3.5^10000000 meanings (give or take infinity other ones).

Ever wonder how those reverse-lookups work? Someone enters the source text in originally and then the reverse look is just a hash table of the original inputs "keyed" to the output of the first keying. Or do you think that someone has a piece of software running that computed all known MD5 hashes up to 393 characters? That would be 393^256 (10^664) records in the database? That is more data than is stored on every CD plus every hard disk on the planet, but I digress.

I guess I am just old fashioned, I found the answer by going to defense.gov and found the 1 page fact sheet PDF that had the mission statement on it and "broke it" that way (typing it forward into one of those reverse look ups in fact). You are making me feel pretty clever though. I'm a "real" code breaker. Very cool!

Good day to you sir.

BTW: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0410_cybersec/docs/CYberFactSheet%20UPDATED%20replaces%20May%2021%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

I was using the wrong mission statement, sorta! I had a hunch this was an MD5 hash, but when pasting the text from the Cyber Command Fact Sheet, the hash didn't match. Apparently the "correct" version is missing the comma after "synchronizes" and uses a space instead of a hyphen in "full spectrum". So close, but no hash.

I was using wrong mission statement! When I copied the statement from the Cyber Command Factsheet, the md5 hash wasn't matching. Apparently the "correct" version is missing the comma after "synchronizes" and uses a space instead of a hyphen in "full spectrum". So close.

It is never a happy occasion to realize that a not-for-profit group, no matter how destitute or successful, is undeserving of charitable donations. And just last week I had such an unhappy realization. I wanted to donate a sizable sum of money to the OpenBSD Foundation for development of the OpeBSD operating system and other related projects.

My uncle, an old Unix graybeard from the Seventies, devoted his retirement and considerable savings to teaching inner-city youth about computers and programming. He recently passed away and left instructions in his will that I donate money, in the amount of US $100,000, to the most meritorious Free, Unix-like operating system as according to my own research into the matter.

I immediately looked at OpenBSD and began to review its technical merits, of which there are many. Despite lacking serious symmetric multi-processing support and drivers for recent graphics hardware, OpenBSD security and code-auditing are second to none. One only has to take a look at the bevy of routers that ship with OpenBSD to know how many people successfully depend on it everyday.

The OpenBSD Foundation is also behind several software packages widely adopted in other operating systems, such as OpenBGPD, OpenCVS, OpenNTPD, and OpenSSH. OpenSSH, for instance, is what allows clueless Mac users to remotely log into their systems safely, blissfully unaware of hackers.

After looking at the technical merits of OpenBSD and related projects, I owed it to the memory of my uncle to check out the history of the people behind it all. But that's when I ran into some interesting decisions regarding OpenBSD advocacy and funding made my OpenBSD's lead developer, Theo de Raadt.

In 2003, Mr. de Raadt trash-talked the United States military and its various aid projects for the Iraqi people. But at the time, OpenBSD was receiving a multi-million dollar grant from the United States Department of Defense. After the interview was published the DOD cancelled funding, which left several OpenBSD projects in limbo for quite some time thereafter.

This is just one of the more public instances of Mr. de Raadt sharing unpopular personal opinions while acting as OpenBSD's public advocate and costing the project considerable time and money. And, unfortunately, there are others.

Another time, Mr. de Raadt visited his native South Africa to receive a donation from a wealthy politician but unexpectedly refused it at the podium, instead making a speech in which he equated the use of non-Free graphics drivers with Apartheid. Mr. de Raadt left without the check but later claimed to have won an important moral victory.

Mr. de Raadt himself is at the root of the problem, but here I can't really separate the man from the project; Theo de Raadt is OpenBSD. So donating toward OpenBSD's goals means handing over money to this crackpot activist, if he would even accept it. That's too bad because OpenBSD would be further ahead without these sorts of megalomaniacal antics.

Digging even further back in time, it's clear that this pattern of behavior is nothing new. Theo de Raadt was one of the incipient developers of NetBSD, but harass[ed] and abuse[d] both users and developers of NetBSD. His colleagues subsequently locked him out of the project, de Raadt forked OpenBSD, and the rest is history.

After reviewing these facts, it is clear that I will fail to honor my uncle's memory and all of the hard work he did in life by donating to OpenBSD. If I wanted to dishonor him, maybe. And I find it highly likely that Theo de Raadt

You're full of shit. If that were true the DoD wouldn't have to sign multi-million dollar contracts with Iridium for upkeep and airtime. See http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=2769, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iridium-03a.html, http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=412313, http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3235, etc.

You're full of shit. If that were true the DoD wouldn't have to sign multi-million dollar contracts with Iridium for upkeep and airtime. See http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=2769, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iridium-03a.html, http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=412313, http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3235, etc.

The DoD has been struggling with this same issues as well, they recently issued guidance that opened up social media on their networks.

http://socialmedia.defense.gov/index.php/2010/02/26/dod-official-policy-on-newsocial-media/

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

I found a lot of the media coverage to be selective, and the headline on this /. posting to be somewhat misleading