Slashdot Mirror

I don't doubt your ability to cherry-pick details that (when presented out of context) make Iraq look sinister. However, I have to base my conclusions on the survey's main results, which you are welcome to read for youself. In short, while the Iraqi government were no angels, they weren't a significant threat to the US either.

It's better to go in and mitigate a possibly overstated risk than to hand some reactors and nuclear fuel over to a little pot-bellied, dog-eating dictator and wake up ~10 years later to a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Funny you should mention that... that's exactly what we woke up this morning. So by your own measure, Bush's foreign policy has failed us.

I'll put the Bush record of mitigating world threats up against the Clinton record any time, anywhere. Maybe you won't, but clear-thinking people will compare the two and realize that in times of consequence such as these, it's not safe to vote Democrat.

Clear-thinking people look not only at the imagined hazards of voting Democrat, but also at the actual damage incurred by inept Republican policies. You can wave your arms about what you think Democrats might do, but we know for a fact what Republicans done: they've started, bungled, and lost an unnecessary war. As far as what the American public thinks about that, I think you'll find out in November.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left.

part-time troops now constitute more than 40 percent of the occupation force in Iraq, up from roughly a quarter of the troops who were part of the invasion force.

I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the Korean DMZ. The zone itself is covered in landmines, and each side has more than a million men guarding it (with United States troops already being part of the South Korean force). An invasion by either side would be a long and bloody struggle to get more than a couple miles into the other country.

Wrong. North Korea has 70% of its army already stationed along the DMZ, with numerous tunnels to move troops and material under it. It undoubtedly has laready targeted every defense structure along the DMZ and several miles inland, as the South Koreans and the US no doubt have with respect to North Korean defenses. According to Pentagon estimates, a North Korean surprise attack would easily overwelm the forces currently stationed in South Korea. In fact OPLAN 5027 assumes that any ROK-US counterattack would begin at least 20 miles south of the DMZ on day 20 to 35 of the invasion.

Now there are some civilian anaylsists that suggest that the DoD is overestimating the initial effectiveness of a DPRK invasion, but I believe Iraq has shown how well political motivated think tanks plan a war.

Ever notice how the US used the no-fly zones as a pretext to bomb whatever they wanted to with no questions asked?

How does that invalidate the statement about the French stoped enforcing the no-fly zone once they started getting bribed?

The french stopped enforcing the no-fly zone as a direct consequence of the US bombing in Operation Desert Fox.

The original poster actually claimed:

Ever notice how the French abandoned enforcing the no-fly zones when the UN started up the "Oil-for-Food" program

• The Oil-for-Food programme started as Resolution 986 on 14 April 1995.
• The french withdrew from Operation Southern Watch effectively 15 December 1998.

Yes, Google does turn up many pages. But that is not my question.
This is the Copperhead:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m712.htm

This is a regular cannon round:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m107.htm

Note the differences between the two. From those two pages, it does not appear that the Copperhead is anything like a regular shell. The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon.

The question is: Is the Copperhead more like a laser guided rocket than an artillery shell? Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does? Regular rockets do not. They accelerate over a longer distance than an artillery shell does. That SLAM is what would damage the electronics in the shell.

Yes, Google does turn up many pages. But that is not my question.
This is the Copperhead:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m712.htm

This is a regular cannon round:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m107.htm

Note the differences between the two. From those two pages, it does not appear that the Copperhead is anything like a regular shell. The only similarity they have is that they are both launched from the same cannon.

The question is: Is the Copperhead more like a laser guided rocket than an artillery shell? Does it experience the same initial SLAM that the conventional round does? Regular rockets do not. They accelerate over a longer distance than an artillery shell does. That SLAM is what would damage the electronics in the shell.

Even more impressive than that is the new XM982 GPS guided arillery round. The engineering required to make a modern guidence computer and control mechanisms survive several thousand Gs is absolutely mind-blowing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m982-155.htm

The new hotness is Excalibur http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/m982-155.htm GPS guided 155mm round, the tube artillery equivalent of JDAM.

The advantage here is that one does not need an observer in line-of-sight, lasing the target, in order to put steel on it. Terrain, weather and hostile response can really make it difficult to get the laser energy in the right spot for a Copperhead shoot.

"Field Artillery: when it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight..."

WTF? Have you been watching Fox news lately or something?

This is the sad state of affairs we have come. The neo-con government is prevents the showing of the coffins of the U.S. soldiers who given their lives for their country, so no one sees the price the country is paying. There have been plenty of U.S. military casualties lately, and I think it does disservice to their memory and to their families that most Americans, like the parent, are ignorant of the fact. Want the stats? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_ca sualties.htm

Some links:

KH-11
KH-12
KH-13
KH-13

From what I can gather, the KH-11 is vulnerable to a laser attack. The KH-12 generation has some countermeasures against laser attacks and the ability to detect them. Additionally, it can manuever in orbit to avoid attacks. It does not however have "stealth" technology to make it invisible to radar and infared. The KH-13 may or may not have "stealth" technology, but may not even exist.

Only the latest generation, if it exists, has the stealth technology making it invisible to radar and infared.

The only thing clear from the article is that China can track the *some* US satellites and attempt to blind them. Not specified is what class of satellite is being tracked and whether or not the attempts are successful.

Some links:

KH-11
KH-12
KH-13
KH-13

From what I can gather, the KH-11 is vulnerable to a laser attack. The KH-12 generation has some countermeasures against laser attacks and the ability to detect them. Additionally, it can manuever in orbit to avoid attacks. It does not however have "stealth" technology to make it invisible to radar and infared. The KH-13 may or may not have "stealth" technology, but may not even exist.

Only the latest generation, if it exists, has the stealth technology making it invisible to radar and infared.

The only thing clear from the article is that China can track the *some* US satellites and attempt to blind them. Not specified is what class of satellite is being tracked and whether or not the attempts are successful.

grounding all the Blackbirds and relying on Satallites was a really good one.

Be assured that the SR-71 was replaced with a more capable spacecraft. It is likely that the Chinese only shined lasers on the satellites they could see. Meanwhile the US has nasty laser weapons of its own.

Both countries have IRBMs that can easily reach each other (and parts of China), but not the West.

Both countries have IRBMs that can easily reach each other (and parts of China), but not the West.

Sorry, but China's growth rate is a prime example of the catch-up effect. In short, China's growth rate is double-digits (or near there) because they were using their labor so inefficiently until recently that they only have one direction to go. Besides, if GDP growth was proof of a country's greatness, perhaps China better look in their rear-view mirror, because Azerbaijan is catching up fast.

As for China being the next world superpower, call me when they get a navy. Sure, they can nuke us, but they can't even get past Chile's navy to hold the nuked territory, much less our own, and it's not like we don't have a few nukes to play with. Heck, the US has 2/3 of the quantitative aircraft carrier fleet in the world, and 4/5 of the deck space.

"one hit to a battleship"

Israel has never had a battleship or anything nearly that large. Missile ships are their mainstay.

Here's a recent list:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/navy-equipment.htm

Unfortunately, it's been done.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_re construction.htm

Well, those aren't conspiracy theories.

"Axis of evil" is rhetoric, just as much now as it was then. Accurate? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's just political rhetoric, not a conspiracy theory.

As for WMD, to requote something I've said before, which applies here:

To quote something I've said before, but which applies here:

[w]hile I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "Iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/

And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.

As for "secret prisons", again, to requote something I said a couple of days ago for the sake of expediency:

I believe there are extraordinary circumstances where military or intelligence components may want to keep the capture of an enemy completely secret, and that this need

1) Where is Osama?

My own personal belief, and the prevailing belief of many in the intelligence community, is somewhere in the regions surrounding the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

If you mean "where is he" as in "why haven't we captured him yet", well, it's because we haven't found him. As to "why", there are many reasons. I don't blame Clinton, but a general lack of human intelligence is one major reason. Both parties have been guilty of being tempted by the expansion of electronic and satellite surveillance, at the severe detriment of human intelligence.

(Some believe we purposefully have not "found" him, or even that the US was in a relationship of sorts with bin Laden on 9/11, to make it appear that bin Laden was the mastermind when in reality it was Cheney & Co. That, of course, is utter tripe.)

2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

To quote something I've said before, but which applies here:

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/ [iraqwatch.org]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/ [globalsecurity.org]

And as for nuclear

Hey look! They have a snazzy web form for emailing complaints directly to the contacts!

http://www.teamdeepwater.com/contacts/email/?sendt o=8

It's a little hokey - change the number at the end of the url to change the contact you're emailing. This are linked from the contacts page.

Here's the official take on the project:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/deepwater.htm

I'm sure it would be a shock to the project if a mob of people started calling in to complain:

http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/contacts/

CPO Jeff Murphy
Integrated Deepwater System
Deepwater Public Affairs
Office: 202-267-2649
Facsimile: 202-267-4020

Margaret Mitchell-Jones
                Communications Director
Integrated Coast Guard Systems
Office: 571-218-3352
Facsimile: 571-218-3342

Jim McIngvale
                Director, Sector Communications
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
Office: 228-935-3971
Facsimile: 228-935-5766

Kenneth B. Ross
                Senior Manager, Strategic Communication
Maritime Systems & Sensors, Lockheed Martin
Office: 856-722-6941
Facsimile: 856-273-5744

Remember these are military ships...

1. Blind spot in watch cameras.

This was simple, obvious, and cheap to address. This "simple" vulnerability was overlooked creating an excellent attack vector. It doesn't look like it would be too hard to storm the bridge of the ship undetected. I hope they don't have to anchor off the coast of Yemen any time soon.

2. FLIR Equipment not rated for -40 deg (or 125 deg probably)

The DoD Inspector General investigates parts that "do not conform to Original Equipment Manufacturer specifications." The fact that the Coast Guard will not talk to the Inspector General tells me all I need to know.

Perhaps the requirement gets more real when it is stated this way "we might have to deploy to Alaska or the Middle East. We really need our systems to work in these regions. If we loose the ability to maneuver safely in bad weather everybody on the ship might die."

3. Use of non-shielded cable in "secure" communications systems.

Is it so hard to believe that you can eavesdrop on unshielded cables at a reasonable distance? Have you tried Tempest for Eliza to broadcast your mp3s to a radio via an unshielded computer monitor?

I would think that it would be harder to believe that the US could create a chain of underwater microphones to track every ship in the Pacific (SOSUS). I find it even harder to believe that film canisters could be ejected from space parachuting to Earth only to be caught in mid-air by an airplane (Corona). Governments make it their business to do what the other guy considers impossible.

With military grade technology the system is the solution. The mission of the crews is not to compensate for the oversights built into the technology they rely on to survive. Whenever classified information is compromised lives are put at risk. Whenever mission-critical military systems fail lives are put at risk. That is why this is a major problem.

Government employees in their respective acquisition offices (AO) have a retirement to protect. Their fate (in part) is tied to the success of projects they oversee. No AO wants to hear about fundamental problems in the system they are procuring late in the process when schedule and cost are affected (remember, contractors build these systems AT COST + an "award fee"). Besides the design was approved... What happens to the career (and pension) of the government employee who approved the acquisition of a product that didn't meet the WRITTEN NEEDS of the Coast Guard for a NATIONAL SECURITY system? There is incompetence; but there is more fear than incompetence.

Lockheed Martin (in Colorado) has had problems executing their contracts. When an organization is not doing well nobody wants to hear about problems. Lockheed emphasizes "ethics" training (he makes reference to three "ethics" investigations). The purpose of this training and the purpose of the investigations (by anonymous hot-line) is to legally cover the corporation. "Ethical misconduct" can be a federal crime. Just ask Boeing. Lockheed doesn't have anything to loose now that they have extensive data from three investigations covering their liabilities.

Lockheed Martin is well known for crappy business practices. I had the misfortune of working with one of their products - The Defense Messaging System (DMS). They had one of those huge mega-indefinite supply contracts they milked for so many years....What a total piece of pigslop.

Many government contractors go out of their way to shaft the US government, all in the name of the dollar. I hate these unethical bastards!

I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/

And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.

And as an aside, no, dealing with "terrorists" (I realize that is a vague term), especially in other nations, is not a problem for civil authorities and courts. It is a military problem, and one of critical national defense interests. Perhaps one day Europe will wake up, too, since they've got the growing ranks of militiant Panislamic radicals practically on their doorstep.

A heavy water plant is not a nuclear reactor. Nothing in a heavy water plant is radioactive. Or, for most processes, even toxic. Here's a tutorial on heavy water plants. They're not very complicated or especially large. This is the easy step in the process.

The next step is a nuclear reactor fueled with natural uranium and moderated with heavy water, which can be used, with difficulty, to produce plutonium. This is the route Pakistan took. Here's Pakistan's heavy water plant and its companion nuclear reactor. Israel's Dimona reactor is also of this type. So this is the standard route to nuclear weapons for small countries. This step is much harder and riskier, but the technology is half a century old.

There are other approaches. The United States initially used water-cooled graphite-moderated reactors fueled with natural uranium for plutonium production, as did Russia. Britain used air-cooled graphite-moderated reactors. (Bad idea. The Windscale reactor had a fire in 1957, releasing a considerable amount of radioactive material.) Once both countries had uranium-enrichment capability, newer reactors mostly used low-grade enriched uranium. Both the US and the USSR got so good at plutonium production that both now have tons (literally) of the stuff in storage, in addition to the weapons using it. A nuclear weapon requires about 5Kg.

I'm glad to see that someone still remembers things like Iran/Contra and the Shaw (and the CIA engineered coup that brought him to power in the first place).

In the early 1970's Iran was the shining star of capitalism in the Middle East, and was the biggest US interest in the region. The US sold some of it's finest military hardware to the Shaw - some $20 Billion in arms from 1970-78 mostly coming from Oil profits. Meanwhile, the Shaw jailed or tortured some 20,000 political prisoners to keep the country "friendly" to US companies. The Islamic leaders used the resulting unrest among the population to launch their revolution.

To anyone who has studied the history, the foreign policy blunders that led to Iran becoming an enemy of the United States are painfully clear. What we should be asking ourselves now is how to keep it from happening again in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[April 30, 2003] Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday. Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some--including Osama bin Laden--had used this as a justification for terrorism.

source

...which just might partly explain why the only attempted terrorist attacks since then have been by "homegrown" terrorists without solid operational ties to bin Laden, who already got what he wanted.

The US have been out of Saudi Arabia for several years now.

Less than thirty seconds of googling gives Military: Saudi Arabia Facilities. That's a lot of bases for a military that has "left Saudi Arabia".

It's true that the US troops that went through Saudi Arabia to launch the war against Iraq aren't there any more. But that's because now they're in Iraq.

Have you heard even once Bin Laden or one of his cronies say "Thank you for leaving Saudi Arabia"?

Why would he, when they haven't?.

Peter (who doesn't post often enough to bother getting an account)

Ramstein

Although ricin has been prepared in crystalline conditions in the laboratory in small quantities, it becomes necessary for purposes of toxological warfare to prepare relatively large quantities in a high state of purity. This neccesitates that as much as possible of the nontoxic material present be removed in the process.

Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

via Global Security

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street, burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge. Do I need to go on?

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

The glass was placed there to foreshadow the upcoming apocalypse in the middle east.

where upon the US Congress (pdf link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/d od/jp3_12fc2.pdf) will unleash 1000 A-Bombs unto the region unless our noble nobel winners (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/) can remind the administration of the impact a large glass field could have upon our environment.

Some U.S. mines are designed to self-destruct after a preset deployment period. "All [scatterable] mines have a safe-arm time from (45 seconds to 2 minutes). When mines fail to arm they will self-destruct immediately. SD times are not exact, mines actually self-destruct in a window between 80 to 100 percent of their SD time ie. mines with a 4 hour SD time will start to SD in 3 hours 12 minutes." See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fascam.htm Also http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/pol icy/army/fm/20-32/index.html

Pinochet, the Shah, Marcos, and Park Chung Hee, while not particularly nice guys, weren't within orders of magnitude of Stalin, Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe.

Just to give you a heads-up, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power as a result of Iranians' anger regarding the US-supported Shah. You also conveniently left out the Taliban, whom the US supported during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, we equipped the Taliban with the same Stinger Missle launchers that we're now trying to buy back from the warlords ($80,000 apiece) and people on the street.

I wonder how much we'd have to spend to buy back these landmines?

This is actually a pretty moot issue. Anti-Tank landmines are not a future-thinking weapon. I have a friend who is a tank commander in the National Guard. Tanks are actually being phased out from the US military because they're too slow and vulnerable. In the case of the DMZ between North and South Korea, it's a small enough footprint that surveillance equipment and response rockets would do the job to stop any column of tanks attempting to cross.

Seth

> How do they categorise what is collected in their database as child porn? I have yet to see an automated system that can look at a photo and describe what it is (although several have been promoted over the years) I imagine that the decision as to what category the pics falls under must be made by a human. So my question is whose standard do they apply for the process?

Indeed. And it gets even murkier when one considers famous images such as this (SFW).

The article indicates that hashes of the images will be kept, not the images themselves. This is dangerous since there's no accountability for what image "TSxnWMoHpb9QY" is. Without reversability there's no way to clean the database if it gets subverted.

judging by the picture I'm about to give you, the concept UAV talked about above isn't the first "shape shifter" in the military. Just take a look at this Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/images/v-22-dvic281.jpg

Boeing has long been a target of the French DGSE intelligence service:

In early 1993 the CIA obtained a long DGSE list of the most important intelligence targets in the United States, which included Boeing, among other companies. The DGSE agents were mainly interested in the navigation system of Boeing's new jumbojet to pass on to French companies, including the Airbus syndicate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/france/ dgse.htm

What's good for the goose...

Do the people who plant IEDs have IED? Are these devices IED? Did they go to IED? I doubt they went to IED and I'm pretty sure they didn't attend the IED! I'm also fairly sure they didn't go to IED.

Acronyms are for lazy, stupid people. IMO. YMMV. HAND.

The Russians have sent Tu-95 bombers and their recon variants nosing around American airspace just like we send surveillance aircraft to say howdy to them and the Chinese. Unless there's an accident you probably won't hear about it. As late as 1999 Russia sent Tu-95's up to Alaska and also out to Iceland. Since those Tu-95's are more or less the counterpart of our B-52, that's quite a bit more threatening than an unarmed converted passenger airliner, although back in the Cold War sometimes the American and Soviet aircrews waved to each other.

Only an insane man would argue that a fuel-air bomb or daisycutter is somehow near equivalent to a nuclear bomb, even one of Hiroshima vintage. To say that about modern day nuclear bombs would be outright false. All one has to do is look at some of the past's above ground bomb tests to know that this is false. Let me present you one:

Operation Crossroads

Take a look at the Baker test (1946), which was part of Operation Crossroads. Notice the mushroom cloud of water - from the site:

At its greatest extent, the water column was 2000 feet (600 m) across, with walls 300 feet (100 m) thick, and 6000 feet (2 km) tall, holding a million tons of water.

Now, let's compare this blast to daisycutters and MOABs - please reference these links:

GBU-43/B "Mother Of All Bombs"

The Daisy Cutter Bomb

MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst)

Now, these sites seem to reference the fact that the destructive area for both of these conventional devices are about "600 yards", or 1800 feet, across. This area is only, at most, the size of just the water column of the Baker test. I can guarantee you that had that test been conducted on a real target, the destructive area (for just blast effects, mind you) would not have been localized just to the column of the mushroom cloud. Please note that the Baker test had only a yield of 23 kilotons. From the Operation Crossroads web page again:

...The closest ship to surface zero was the USS Saratoga. Eight ships were sunk or capsized, eight more were severly damaged. Sunk vessels were the USS Saratoga, USS Arkansas, the Nagato, LSM-60 (obviously), the submarines USS Apogon and USS Pilotfish, the concrete dry dock ARDC-13, and the barge YO-160.

This was only blast effects on the ships, which don't count the radiation aspect. Since MOABs and daisycutters do not have this aspect, I won't post about it here, though it can't really be discounted if you want a comparison of such conventional weapons to nuclear weapons.

Finally, we must also note that the Baker test was only a standard fission bomb test, of relatively low yield (compared to say, the more modern W87 warhead, which has a yield of 300-475 kilotons). One should also note that when a target is selected for these weapons, multiple warheads are targetted for a single target in most cases (since they tend to be larger cities or bases). Even so, a single modern warhead has the equivalent destructive power as 15-20 Baker tests.

How anybody - the media, the layperson, generals, the president - anybody - can equate the two in destructive power, that they can somehow be used (or should be used) interchangibly - is sheer madness. They aren't interchangible, they in no way compare in destructive power, and once you calculate in radiation effects, one can only see that such devices are in fact madness and tributes of hubris to our destructiveness as a species. To claim otherwise is to show a lack of knowledge and humbleness about these devices.

Sometimes I wonder if the test ban treaties over the years have been a wrong thing. By only being able to "test" these devices on computers and such other simulations, we have removed an effective deterrent to the use of these devices. All we have left now are the pictures and movies of past tests. I doubt nothing else could cement the destructive power capabilities in the minds of generals and others, outside of a personally witnessed live test, while at the same sh

I can't believe this was modded insightful.

Sure, the states need a military to defend itself from 'rival nations marching in'. However, does the US expect half the world to come marching in? Because last I checked, the US military budget is half of the annual spendings on defense worldwide. Yes, that's right folks, the US spends half of all the money spent on defense. Also, 80% of the increase in military spending was due to the US last year. ( see for instance http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spend ing.htm for the numbers in 2004. US spending has only increased since then.)

I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army. You have a mostly offensive army which is basically strong enough to take on the rest of the world.

"Remember, there are no world police."

Yes there is. It's the states. Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws, and guided by _your_ interests, with a guiding principle of fear, feeded by _your_ government because some fscking Saudi Arab made up some so-called global terrorist group which is _absolutely_ no threat to the imperialist empire the states have become.

Actually Israel's nuclear delivery systems are traditionally thought to be free-fall gravity bombs and SRBM/IRBMs based off the Jericho series of missiles. The AGM-142 series "Popeye" missile is also thought to be nuclear capable, that is what the new submarine based cruise missile is based on.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/mis sile.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/iaf-equipment.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doc trine.htm

Actually Israel's nuclear delivery systems are traditionally thought to be free-fall gravity bombs and SRBM/IRBMs based off the Jericho series of missiles. The AGM-142 series "Popeye" missile is also thought to be nuclear capable, that is what the new submarine based cruise missile is based on.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/mis sile.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/iaf-equipment.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doc trine.htm

Actually Israel's nuclear delivery systems are traditionally thought to be free-fall gravity bombs and SRBM/IRBMs based off the Jericho series of missiles. The AGM-142 series "Popeye" missile is also thought to be nuclear capable, that is what the new submarine based cruise missile is based on.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/mis sile.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/iaf-equipment.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doc trine.htm

Phalanx CIWS

Just set it to Automatic and duck.

I have heard for a number of years about the idea that American (or other foreign, for that matter) companies will be able to open new markets and profits by selling their products (whether they be tangible goods or IP) or services in the People's Republic of China because they represent an "almost untapped market of new customers." But does this really hold true, especially for IT companies?

In the seventeen years I have worked in the IT industry (mostly at companies which sold software, but also for a hardware vendor) I have seen varying degrees of interest in selling products in China. For example, in the late 1980s through early 1990s, I worked at McAfee Associates, which even then had a fairly global presence due to marketing the product as shareware. We had never had any sales in China and, as a matter of fact, would regularly receive copies of our own anti-virus software from which our copyright and contact information had been removed and replaced with messages saying it was from the Ministry of Public Security and to contact them if a virus was found. Of course, changing the messages in the software also set off its own anti-tamper checks for signs of damage/infection by a computer virus, so we received plenty of copies of our own software where the warning message had been edited as well and were infected by computer viruses. Still, it is very hard to sell a product in a country whose government itself is hacking and pirating the same software you are trying to sell. When Bill Larson took over the company from John McAfee he expressed a strong desire to sell products in China, but when I left in the mid-1990s there was still no sales coming in from over there, other than the occasional ex-pat who registered a copy of the software.

Strangely enough, the only company I've worked for which has had some success in China is a telecommunications manufacturer, who makes equipment like VoIP PBXs, phones and so forth. They have had a few wins over there and even have a small sales office in Beijing. I was always surprised they never had problems like Cisco did with Huawei. But that's just one company and sales from other countries in the region (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) outstripped those. I haven't worked there since last year, but I doubt things have changed much.

So, where are the foreign IT companies which are making money in China? Cisco may have had some success there in the past, but Huawei and their "Cisco-like" products look like they are to overshadow them, and services like Alibaba, Baidu and QQ in China are already servicing the markets that Western ecommerce, search and community/messaging have had only limited success in reaching.

I'm really curious where you are getting your numbers. The best source of data I can find is that worldwide military exependiture (non-US) is $500 billion. Considering that part of that $500 billion must be spent on paying, feeding, and housing one's military, I don't see how the US could possibly be exporting $700 billion in weapons, even if we were the only weapons manufacturer on earth.

Additionally, since the 1992 Mine Export Moratorium was signed into law, it has been illegal to export mines from the US. None are being exported currently.

If you dig around enough you will find that prior to the 1992 export moratorium in the US, Italy, China, and the Soviet Union were the largest producers and exporters of land mines in the world.

Though this is NO excuse for the unfortunate and horrible loss of life on KAL 007... But... the reason why at the time this wasn't such a "stupid" mistake on the Russians part is because the US Military and the majority of the world's airliners at the time shared the same overall airplane platform. The most notable aircraft of its time that was utilized by both Civil Aviation and the US Military alike was the Boeing 707. It has been the basic airplane platform for some of the most recognizable and most frequently used military reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft for the past 30-40 years!

For more information on Civilian/Military crossover aircraft including helicopters visit here.....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/civ-mil.htm

Now... mix together in an extremely volatile situation between two countries... a large serving of new/experimental military equipment that may or may not work as designed... a side of "looking for any propaganda tool to use agents the enemy" ... and garnish with a whole lot of spying by almost any means imaginable using any and every tactic possible... and you have one of the worst mistakes ever made... and unfortunately also one of the worst cases of civilian causalities by military means during a "time of peace." ("Time of Peace" - term being used only to note that there was no official declaration of war for the events that we refer to as the cold war)

That being said, many global agencies and modern technology have greatly improved upon and changed the way radar identifies aircraft and how those aircraft are officially ID'd as being civilian or military... IE if a country just decided to shoot down an airliner they would have the wrath of the rest of the world falling upon them. And the US military as far as I know would never use a civilian airliner for such a mission. Where would they jump from???? The military version of the same plane would allow for a jump (whether as Batman or using a more traditional HAHO or HALO tactic). If someone opened up the door of a civilian model of the same aircraft not designed or reinforced for the stress of depressurization at high altitude, it would undoubtedly fall apart.

I just though I should clear up that bit of history, basic military tactics, and military technology being a military brat who spent a short time in Alaska while a parental unit was off doing other stuff for the USAF that to this day remains classified. And no... don't ask... because I don't know what they did officially. That's what they mean by classified... I was never told any details... and don't care to find out until everyone else does.