Slashdot Mirror

But what actually happened is that there's been no general war along this border for an unusually long 35 years, and it now seems the Pakistanis and Indians are realizing they will just have to uneasily get along, as the Soviets and Americans did during the Cold War, since each now has the capacity to obliterate the other.

Pakistan has been supporting terrorism in Kashmir for the past 17 years. They used weapons supplied by the US and China to arm terrorists. Indians generally don't care about Pakistan, but the Pakistani government needs Kashmir as part of Pakistan to justify its own existence.

As for the general war, the proxy war fought with terrorists and the Kargil invasion negate that theory. It just didn't escalate to all out war.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/index. asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/k argil-99.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/387702 .stm
http://terrorism.freeservers.com/kargil.html

From: Kim Christensen (kichrist) [mailto:kichrist@cisco.com%5D
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: CISCO - CCO Passwords

Dear Cisco Partner,

I'd like to bring your attention to an issue thatmay cause minor inconvenience for customers and partners.

You may experience issues with yourlogin to www.cisco.com

You will be required to reset your password, please send an email to cco-locksmith@cisco.com from the same email address that is associated with your CCO userid. Within a few minutes you should receive a new working password back to that same email address.

Please note that when you send an email to cco-locksmith@cisco.com - the only requirement is that the email is sent from the same email address associated with your userid to receive the return email with the new password. Once this is received you should be able to reset your password to one of your own choosing.

It ispossible that you are not impacted by this issue but I wanted to ensure you are aware of this in the event you have a problem logging into CCO today.

Your Cisco Channel Team

And Mike Lynn already settled with Cisco, but I suppose it's par for the course to get in one more jab.

Also, the "major flaws" could only be referring to two things:

- flaws that have already been long fixed (six months before Black Hat), that Lynn, in his opinion, didn't believe Cisco identified as "critical enough" to its customers, but nonetheless, as I already said, are fixed; or

- general IOS flaws that will only materialize for architectural reasons in the next major iteration of Cisco's routers that Lynn felt it was important enough to have a frank discussion about, but are not yet shipping.

In other words, Cisco's technical response was such that the vulnerabilities in shipping products are already fixed, and the vulnerability Lynn claims is a real killer allegedly exists in products that aren't even shipping yet and won't be for some time; it flies in the face of logic to believe that Cisco would ignore such vulnerabilities in yet-to-ship products, once identified. Yes, Cisco didn't believe it at first, but it sent engineering staff, and were proven wrong. One can only assume the engineer Cisco sent for the very purpose of confirming this general issue in turn confirmed to Cisco that the problem was indeed real.

Furthermore, it's likely that Lynn broke no law (save possible civil violations of contract and/or trade secret provisions), so any FBI investigation, if not over already, is moot. Ironically, several members of the government, including possibly Air Force OSI and/or NSA congratulated Lynn after his talk at Black Hat, even giving him a challenge coin for his work. Don't worry: Lynn's work isn't lost on those who value security, but don't presume that there is a huge conspiracy just because someone was willing to quit his job to reveal the secrets of a sometime-competitor. A little more of the Cisco/ISS background in this issue - including what I would consider fairly questionably motivated references by ISS about this flaw being Cisco's "Witty" - is provided in the earlier Wired interview.

Since the tiles thermally expand or contract very little compared to the orbiter structure, it is necessary to leave gaps of 25 to 65 mils between them to prevent tile-to-tile contact. Nomex felt material insulation is required in the bottom of the gap between tiles. It is referred to as a filler bar.

The nanoose bay torpedo range you talk of is jointly run by the Canadian armed forces and the US Navy. The area was owned by the BC gov until the Feds expropriated it a few years ago. It has geographical features that make it an ideal range, something our allies lacked. More info: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/na noose.htm

Japan? We never left. Same goes for Germany. We'll probably still have bases in Iraq in when 2065 rolls around, based on that performance.

How long will it take for Foster-Miller to implement the software from whatever team wins this thing into their Talon system...?

Don't know how good this source is, but:

Here is something from Global Security about the origin of the tech.

Supposedly the tech is not just a copy of Russian stuff, and the Chinese are talking about what they are doing because they want to make money off of space services. You have to talk about it to sell it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/

It's all in the exceedingly numerous reports from the last decade and a half. Sorry, there no single article or url that says "Lookee, Iraq had WMD that are now unaccounted for! Whee!" The fact of the matter is that the entire international community, including the intelligence capabilities of the US, the UK, most of the nations of Europe, Russia, and the UN itself agreed that Iraq had NOT provided proof that all of the weapons that it was known to be in possession of were destroyed, and indeed, that Iraq was never in full cooperation with UN inspectors. That the US did not *find* any said weapons after the invasion - a time at which we finally had the necessary control and capability to properly search - does not mean they never existed, or that they perhaps hadn't left the country long ago (e.g., to Syria), and also doesn't change the fact that Iraq was never in compliance, and never accounted for the weapons that were determined to be missing. This missing WMD amounted to over one thousand tons. Not a barrel or two here and there. Hundreds of tons of things like Sarin. Not just "possible WMD" or "WMD constituents" or "traces"...but real, WMD that Iraq was known to physically possess, but now cannot account for. If anything justifies the WMD argument, it's that not that we did not find any WMD, but WMD we know Iraq had is just fucking *gone*. Now who's got it? No better argument I can think of to have acted sooner...

You're also forgetting that the 700,000-some tons of non-WMD banned weapons (long range missiles, aircraft, etc.) that WERE found after the US invasion are merely symbolic of Iraq's defiance of the previous decade's worth of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions - resolutions that were FINALLY being enforced, unfortunately, without the rest of the Security Council members for whom the resolutions were apparently utterly meaningless.

Also, remember the recent WMD reports that you and others like to prance around with all the time concluded that no WMD were *found* in Iraq, and that further searching would not be productive. None of them conclude that no weapons *remain*, and indeed, none can say where the unaccounted-for weapons are.

Alright. Theres a fiction here at work that people just like to ignore to bash Bush.

The fiction is that the Democratic Administration would have been "nicer" to Iraq than the Republicans. Thats a fantasy.

Clinton-Blair were every much as militarily active against Iraq as Bush-Blair. The military planning for OIF were devised in the late 1990s as Operation Desert Badger. Basicly if a US/UK or UN aircraft was shot down over Iraq the US/UK were going to invade Iraq.

"...discussions on Iraq preceding that, and subsequent to that, had been basically on Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch and I think I mentioned to you that we had a plan for a downed aircraft called Desert Badger. And that I was uncomfortable with the fact that our planes were being shot at and we weren't able to do much about it under the constraints that existed.

I was also uncomfortable with Desert Badger, and I thought the President ought to have additional options, so I told him that I was going to see if we could pre-package some additional options, and we ended up pre-packaging a Desert Badger Plus and a Desert Badger Plus Plus. So that he knew about it, and that in the event a plane went down, I could call him and recommend one of those three."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/new s/2004/04/mil-040419-dod02.htm

Don't forget DESERT FOX
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_ fox.htm

The US/UK/Saudis/Kuwaitis were waiting for an excuse to go into Iraq. Right or wrong this happened in 2002-2003 and the Invasion was one.

This was going to happen no matter who was in the White House. Bush '41, Clinton, Bush '43, Gore, Kerry, it doesn't matter, US/UK policy was for removal of Saddam, to think otherwise is fiction.

Alright. Theres a fiction here at work that people just like to ignore to bash Bush.

The fiction is that the Democratic Administration would have been "nicer" to Iraq than the Republicans. Thats a fantasy.

Clinton-Blair were every much as militarily active against Iraq as Bush-Blair. The military planning for OIF were devised in the late 1990s as Operation Desert Badger. Basicly if a US/UK or UN aircraft was shot down over Iraq the US/UK were going to invade Iraq.

"...discussions on Iraq preceding that, and subsequent to that, had been basically on Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch and I think I mentioned to you that we had a plan for a downed aircraft called Desert Badger. And that I was uncomfortable with the fact that our planes were being shot at and we weren't able to do much about it under the constraints that existed.

I was also uncomfortable with Desert Badger, and I thought the President ought to have additional options, so I told him that I was going to see if we could pre-package some additional options, and we ended up pre-packaging a Desert Badger Plus and a Desert Badger Plus Plus. So that he knew about it, and that in the event a plane went down, I could call him and recommend one of those three."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/new s/2004/04/mil-040419-dod02.htm

Don't forget DESERT FOX
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_ fox.htm

The US/UK/Saudis/Kuwaitis were waiting for an excuse to go into Iraq. Right or wrong this happened in 2002-2003 and the Invasion was one.

This was going to happen no matter who was in the White House. Bush '41, Clinton, Bush '43, Gore, Kerry, it doesn't matter, US/UK policy was for removal of Saddam, to think otherwise is fiction.

the biggest recipients of Oil Vouchers (which are, well, you know, VOUCHERS, not actual oil, or actual money) were US citizen and corporations.

Of course - the whole point of the oil-for-food system was to actually promote the continuing sale of Iraqi oil so that the proceeds to feed the Iraqi people, despite their glorious leader's bad habit of attacking neighboring countries or local ethnic minorities. Much of that business was done through US companies, just like it was done through companies all over the world (oil is used everywhere, don't you know). The issue is the personal receipt of those vouchers by people who used them in various forms of influence peddling. At least a couple of unscrupulous American oil traders used them for personal profit. I was referring to the receipt of them by officials (say, in France) who either themselves, or through their close associates, were able to loudly proclaim their commitment to using French security council veto power to block any UN sanction of force to remove Saddam. The Russians (another huge recipient, and shady dealer in the vouchers) pretty much said the same thing, only in even more absolute terms). Hell, both countries made regular press releases to that effect. It's one thing for people in the oil business, who trade oil every day, to buy oil vouchers from Iraq. It's quite another to receive them as "gifts" in the same period of time that you're saying Saddam should be left alone in his brutality.

"shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day" care to back that with a link? Can't find one? Yeah, thought so.

"Every day" as in "every day that they could re-assemble the anti-aircraft hardware that UK and US pilots continually destroyed when/wherever they could find it." Usually they found it by tracing the targeting radar signals and fire they were taking from it. On a first page of Google results, here is an example of a typical month or two of Iraqi AA facilities illuminating and/or shooting (once in range, if allowed by the pilots) at patroling aircraft. Or here, where a Washington Post correspondent mentions the hundreds of engagements that started to ramp up after 1998 when Saddam had started to rebuild is AA facilities (with, of course, oil-for-food money). Or here, where CNN mentions Iraq firing SA-2 missiles into Kuwaiti airspace trying to knock down observation planes over the southern no-fly zone. Or here, where pilots mention the hundreds of such encounters that started to increase after 1998. Or, articles like this
Soooo, which ethnic groups did saddam target during the "Oil for Food" program

I was referring more to the general subjugation of the Shia majority to the Sunni minority. Goes without saying that the Kurds got the shaft starting way back in the 1970s. Under the northern no-fly zone, though, which also precluded the movement of any Iraqi military hardware in that area, the Kurds actually built up substantially better lives (through trade with their northern neighbors) and were in a much better position to thrive when Saddam was completely taken out of the picture. Under the protection of the no-fly enforcement, the Kurds evolved an independent political entity that defined a de facto state including ministries, a parliament, central banking/currency, and a functional bureaucracy. Knowing they weren't getting attacked by Saddam any longer, they didn't bother waiting for his inevitable demise. The investment in that Kurdish infrastructure only came because of trust in the ongoing protection from the no-fly operations.

Regardless of what everyone on slashdot seems to think, rocket engineers know more about rocket engineering than you.

>It only flew once, unmanned. A feat Shuttle can't do, by the way, as it can't land unmanned.
You're confusing unmanned with automated flight. The shuttle certainly contains autoland capabilty, what sense would there in automating everyting *but* the landing, and does the Buran have similar automation (links please)?

As for the USSR's "smart financial call", During the early 1990's, a man rated Buran spacecraft was being prepared for flight, but in 1993 the program was officially terminated. Since your post is wildly inaccurate on all other accounts, I remind you the USSR fell in December 26, 1991.

It's not that far off:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/gro und/fcs-arv.htm

The only explanation for our behavior - or lack thereof - is that they do have nukes and that's why we won't be invading Iran.

That's just not true. Bush probably *wants* to attack Iran, but Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran. We need a *huge* army to attack them, and we need to neutralize the WMDs first, whatever they have (which we don't know).

If we were sure they didn't have nukes, we would probably start bombing them. But we aren't at all sure that they do. From globalsecurity.org:

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack. Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

The best explanation for our behaviour is that we don't want Iran having nuclear weapons and destablizing the region, but we know that even with a draft the U.S. doesn't have the manpower to attack Iran. For crying out loud, we don't even really have "inferred intel" (whatever the hell that is) - we simply have no intelligence operations in Iran to speak of...

The Battle of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest of the Pacific, killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and invasion of the Japanese homeland was projected to be at least 10 times worse.

While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate, it prevented the need for an invasion that would have killed tens of thousands on both sides. In addition, a "public" target was choosen to illustrate to the Japanese people what would happen if their leaders failed to surrender.

Bombing an out-of-way military target would not have had the same effect, and could potentially be denied by the government.

What we "wanted" was to end the war, and to minimzie the number of our people that would have to die in the process. If such could be accomplished, AND a message sent to others at the same time discouraging further aggression, then all the better.

How about a link to the map in question: Earth At Night.

And to those who question brightness as a valid measure of economic and social advancement, take a look at South vs North Korea. The difference is shocking.

(More info about this type of data is available from NASA, NOAA).

The French not only participated in Concorde, but have been making supersonic fighter jets for a long time. It appears France is only country who can still build supersonic jets with 100% ingenious technology.

I think that instead of 'ingenious' you mean 'indigenous'. France isn't the only country by a long shot though. Heard of the US, Russia, China, England, Italy, Brazil, or yes, Japan?

A famous incidence was when the Japanese were planning a new fighter/attack plane. Those in the uniform wanted to go ingenious design (they always want to go domestic even when the equipment is prohibitively expensive), but because of the pressure from the States, it became a joint project between Japan and the US based on F-16 design. The result Mitsubishi F-2 is mediocre at best.

The F-2 is actually an awesome aircraft, improved from the F-16 for over water operations. Its enormous cost in comparison to an F-16 should also note Japans desire to have an independent aerospace industry, with the US's approval. If the US really didn't want Japan to have an aerospace industry, I'd have to question the necessary technology transfers for this aircraft to be built. Besides that though, have you ever heard of the Mitsubish F-1 fighter, built domestically in Japan?

I think the larger issue for Japan has been their pacifist constitution, and the idea that if they became an exporter of military technology, it might stoke fears elsewhere in the region. As to capability, I believe Japan could probably do this project on their own w/o outside help if they wanted to take on the cost and risk themselves.

In fact, every one of the various functional specifications has been used.

Here is a site answering both of your items.

>I really can't believe that truly ensitive systems wouldn't just be air-gapped from the world.

Which will work fine until the CIA director takes a laptop full of classified information home and logs in to AOL. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/ 2000/10/irp-001012-deutsch.htm

Yes, the phrasing in the story is nonsensical.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/nsn/nsn-050411.h tm

Search the site for 'ricin', it's interesting.....

I may have mentioned this in a previous article about the Newton, but it was used to coordinate battlefield information during a Marine Corps war fighting experiment called Hunter-Warrior, which was part of a program called Operation Sea Dragon.

The Hunter Warrior Experiment showed how lightly-armed units can dominate large coastal regions, not by landing on the beaches, but by leaping over them in V-22s, spreading out and operating deep inside enemy territory. They used hand-held Apple Newton computers to send out hard-to-detect digital bursts to call in long-range, precision firepower from ships, choppers, fighters and other military assets.

This experiment tested the tactical concept of squads acting as independent elements on the dispersed battlefield. To do this, a communications system allowed the squads to talk to their headquarters elements at distances of 100 miles. This type of radio did not exist, so we took existing palm-top computers, tied them into a digital radio and built a communication infrastructure of towers in the desert. The result was a communication system that was a "surrogate" and allowed us to see if squads could act as independent units on the dispersed battlefield.

The Dalai LLama
...short-timer transferred to a headquarters unit a few months before the actual operation...

The data you're looking for is allready available on line. Have a look here and here for example

Here's the address that you can send your ISP info to: president@whitehouse.gov

That article merely scratches the surface, showing the hearty Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake video. The truth is that the US was beefing up Iraq, while officially denying it - which backfired when they invaded Kuwait. And beefing up Iran, while officially denying it, after they beat the US out of their country with our hostages. Some say it was a good covert policy, to set two belligerent threats to the US against each other. But it backfired then and now, with both built-up countries threatening our security, more every time Rumsfeld's crew gets to "help".

As for "bias", do you have an actual contradiction of the facts? Which "unbiased" source do you get your facts from? When you say "CBS", I expect you're referring to their simulated memos story last year, the facts of which were corroborated by the secretary who wrote the actual memos? And with "Newsweek", is that the story last week of Guantanamo prisoner abuse by Koran desecration, which is further corroborated by Pentagon reports going back to at latest 2002? Or are you referring to all the stories those outlets published, including the NY Times, promoting the Bush/Rumsfeld stories of Iraqi WMD, sending us to war in Iraq? All based on the uncorroborated "intelligence" of then-anonymous sources, revealed to be alternately the liar called "Screwball", or Chalabi, the Iranian agent?

There is a whole range of enrichment methods; see here for an overview. Note the article on EMIS and use by the Iraqis. Furthermore, the chemical exchange processes sound like something competent chemical engineers could implement. And I suspect that with improvements in materials, computers, and chemical engineering, such processes become cheaper and easier to implement.

I think we'll just have to face the fact that nuclear weapons will become accessible to many more nations over the coming decades.

They left out the address of AQ Khan, who runs a mailorder nukes biz in Pakistan. Just put an account# from Libya, Iran or North Korea, or maybe Saudi Arabia on your order, and you can get all the tutorial you need. You'll still have to get the fuel from somewhere, but there's plenty of Russian, Kazakh or even good ol' Italian mafia dealers. Try the Carlyle Group - they might be your one-stop-shop, including the negotiations that signal your initiation into the nuclear club.

and, just like US and Russian landmines that are designed to injure children rather than kill them, this would have disruptive effects out of proportion to the numbers and economic activity of those affected.

Oh, please. Quote for me the models of US landmines that are designed to injure children. I suspect you've been drinking the anti-landmine kool-aid. Almost every mine in the US inventory (and EVERY mine used outside the Korean peninsula) is self-destructing or self-neutralizing, which minimizes injury to non-combatants.

More detail here.

Sean

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/new s/2003/08/sec-030816-30e58190.htm

There was some food spoilage, but for the most part everything was okay. No rioting, limited looting. Hardly a warzone.

Hello? That's the NIF!

Why yes it is.

You've managed to go in full circle away from "the military wants this too" back to "the NIF is doing these experiments"!

To understand your confusion I was looking back at a post of yours in this thread in which you doubted that powerful lasers were to be used for nuclear stockpile stewardship:

Why would you go through all the trouble of testing the dueterium/lithium samples in a reactor when they could just as easily do a purity test?

and:

Maybe you have more info that would help, but I just can't fathom why anyone would attempt to test a fusion bomb in this manner.

Now, from the third paragraph of the article I linked:

By achieving ignition, NIF will allow weapons scientists to perform several kinds of experiments for the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable.

If you read the article, you will see that NIF has indeed been sold primarily as a method to test the effects of aging on nuclear weapons.

But the idea is not to stick any part of an actual warhead in the middle of a room and blast it with lasers. It is to get better models for D-T fusion works.

We know the half-life of tritium pretty darn well, but we don't necessarily know how the yield of a warhead is affected by the gradually increasing ratio of deuterium to tritium.

As for the military.. some people may consider this a technical point, but the US military has not been in charge of the testing or development of nuclear weapons since 1946. This is a responsibility of the Department of Energy (a civilian agency), not the Department of Defense. The DOD helps out with tests and so on, but it is almost never in charge of any nuclear weapons work.

So it is trivially true that the military does not plan to test hydrogen bombs themselves. But they are very interested in it nevertheless. Similarly, the microlaser program which you linked to belongs to Sandia Labs, not the military. Sandia is a DOE facility, and therefore is a civilian operation.

HTH...

Lasers are not vary energy efferent, are easy to defend (up to a point) and are not well suited for combat situations.

Quite a bit of my argument is that they are *not* as easy to defend against as it may seem. If you pump that much energy into a target, something is going to give. And as I pointed out in a previous post, the very mirrors that make these lasers work are just beyond the brink of destruction. There's no defense for an aircraft skin other than a cooling system capable of boiling off megajoules of energy. In all other cases, inperfections, dust, and grime will lead to a complete vaporization of the reflective surface. :-)

Needle gun / High velocity rail guns are well suited for short-range use as long as they have a good power supply to work from.

This is true.

Now when the navy wanted to build a catapult system to launch aircraft used a seam system, as it's extremely reliable and efferent.

You mean "steam" catapult? The next generation of aircraft carriers are slated to use electromagnetic catapults. Linky

The point I am trying to make is Needle guns are more efferent and reliable than lasers. Yes the rails only last so long but they're easily replaced. Where a large laser with a minor problem is going to be hell to fix.

Sadly, this is subjective for the moment. The military is working on laser weapons, but we don't know the details of their reliability. The situation is similar with rail guns where it's predicted that reliable devices can be designed with sufficient R&D. So far, no needlegun has had a proven track record of reliability. The rails almost always melt at very bad times. We'll call this point a toss up. :-)

Yea they don't sound as sci-fi but they seem to be a much better solution for ships.

Both solutions are currently sci-fi-ish. The only one we *know* is happening is the Navy's extended range munition rail guns. :-)

PS: It was my understanding that we even have working rail gun systems that are waiting for the next generation of aircraft carriers which will have more spare energy for these types of systems.

That's more or less true. Raytheon is currently firing the Navy's rail guns in tests to ensure the weapon system is ready. After the DD(X) class Destroyer (really, a cruiser) is deployed, it will be retrofitted with these weapons. (Stupid cost saving measure.) The CVN(X) class carrier is being designed with the same concept of supporting energy hardpoints, but will have the advantage of using nuclear power instead of gas turbines.

Old Linky to Rail Gun tests

They are not supposed to be huge deck guns but rather closer to the size of a large washer drier unit / small car with a connection to an ammo supply.

The images have them looking something like a gun barrel jutting out at an 80 degree angle. If you follow some of the links I posted previously, you should find a few pictures. They may also replace one of the deck guns.
Article w/Pictures of current DD(X) :-)

Riigghht. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for doing such a thing, I'm saying that the reasons stated make no sense. i.e. There's information missing somewhere here that would put the puzzle together. And you know what? I looked it up myself.

From this page, they are not using lasers for fusion tests as the anon poster suggested. Instead, they're using microlasers to do Spryton trigger tests. So no, nuclear scientists are not really, really stupid. Someone just has their facts out of whack (which happens).

If anyone *does* have a link to the military doing fusion testing with lasers, then by all means. Post a link!

If, and I Stress IF, you are right about space weapons having no real advantage you are correct that building them first because someone else might is BS. If you are wrong that makes us second to the party once we realize it was a misjudgement and gives a window of advantage to whoever was right.

In regards to judging the ultimate strategic importance of space? I question many things regarding our armed forces. I do not question their intelligence in identifying that which is of strategic importance. We did not get to be the single most powerfull military force by accident you know. So if the airforce eggheads think the next great form of force application is from space based weapons I say they might just deserve a little benifit of the doubt.

As for a fricken laser??? Well last I checked they were making some serious strides towards creating an airborn laser deffense system mounted in a 747.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/1 999/n19990811_991496.htm
http://avstop.com/news/747.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldie rtech_ABL,,00.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

Oddly enough, alot of the problems facing that system would be easier to deploy on a space platform. For example, being able to utilize a nuclear power source could remove the reliance on large amounts of chemicals to react for the power needed.

Lasers aside, they are also asking to deploy systems to drop rocks (essentially). And the efficacy of that isn't excactly in doubt. Nuclear Level explosions without the ascociated fall out. Rods from God indeed.

True enough the US developed the Pegasus. Launched from an F-15 doing an Icarus impersenation. Its only test was successfull but was against a dumb sattelite with no manouvering capacity. The warhead was a pure kenetic load with limited ability to alter its course once set. The idea was that if we ever needed to deploy them we would expend enough to cause active sattelites to expend their fuel in efforts to avoid the launches highly limiting their usefulness, actual impacts were a bonus. The window of intercept was extremely narrow and it would have been highly impractical if a sattleite had a less limited means of manouevering... or refuleing capacity. Both highly likely attributes of any militarized space platform.

The russians developed sattelites that essentially did the same thing. They would launch them as innocuous commecial loads or something but their true purpose was to intercept targets in orbit to disable them.

Like anything else of that nature its a move and counter move situation. Generally speaking deffense is easier than attack and I doubt that will fail to hold true for space.

...plus I hear there is a nice secluded little getaway resort on the far side of the island!

until it really happens.

Would the proposed tax cut rescindment have actually paid for the funding in question?

The shortages had little to do with cutbacks - Genral Abizaid himself admitted there no good reason "why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." - and everything to do with poor planning. The DOD just didn't order them, and when they finally did, they selected a single vendor with no experience with mass production. Soldiers families were able to buy the stuff and ship it to Iraq, and the other members of the coalition, upon realizing that they too were facing shortages, ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan and saw delivery in 12 days (Link here. There was also a TV news report (don't remember where or when exactly, but I'm still looking) where the president of one company that manufactures the stuff said they had plenty of capacity to make more armor, but were never asked.

The Iraqi vote was a good thing, but it is a long way from an opened armed embrace of America, or even American ideals. The truth will only be know once/if the U.S. ever leaves the Iraqis to define their own future. I don't need memory to tell me that (and mine works fine, BTW), just eyes.

Free websites for the most part

Here are the sites in my News pull down
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.slashdot.org/
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/
http://www.arabnews.com/
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
http://news.google.com/
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
feed://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_world_ed it ion/front_page/rss.xml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

I also hit CNN.com, some of the other British papers on the web, occasionally the local news TV station's websites.

My focus is on the Middle East, so I hit alot of Israeli papers. I go to about 1 blog everyother day, other than Fark.

Support ethnic cleansing in Palestine and help censor the American press!
If you are at an American University or further education college we are currently recruiting active censorship drones to spy on fellow students, lecturers and guest speakers on behalf of the Israeli government.

We can actively stifle democratic thought and criticism of Israeli fascist oppression.
-But only with your help!

Free housing.
In six short weeks we can show you how to build a rogue state by demolishing existing homes in Palestine and building new houses on top!

We are currently looking for experienced bulldozer drivers with a large western bank balance to emigrate to the expansionist state of Israel and call it home.

Simply choose a plot of land and start building! Its easy peesy!!

If your chosen plot is currently occupied by a Palestinian family, dont worry
-simply build over them!

Its as easy peesy as eeny meeny miney mo!


We can protect your future residential developments on occupied land with fully experienced snipers in full body armour and appropriately armed Apache helicopters kindly donated by the American public.

If you are an American citizen with a view to emigrating to warmer climes and a view of the Mediterranean, you may also be eligible for a fraction of the 3,000,000,000 (yes thats 3 Billion!) dollars donated every year by American tax payers to help support our broken-ass state.
Due to our endless appetite for weapons of mass destruction our economy is unsustainable and we require your contribution and support. WMDs don't come cheap you know. It costs a fortune to terrorise a whole region.
Our military personnel can barely afford to maintain our arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons, spy satellites and attack submarines.

Give a man a gun and he can kill a Palestinian child. Give him a helicopter and he can kill them all.

Part-time vacancies available
We are currently in construction of the world record breaking apartheid wall surrounding the largest ethic ghetto since Krakow.
The Israeli military is hiring expatriates preferably with a military background to monitor the prisoners and maintain watchtowers and sniper nests. If you are blinded by a covetousness of other peoples land, but yet have a keen eye with a sniper scope you would be the ideal candidate for our border watchtower guard division.

We need your help. Sponsor an Israeli colonizer.
Do it today.

P.s.
if anybody criticises you, just point a finger an call them anti-Semite.
It worked for the Liberty.

Well, it might work... assuming the current government motto of "outsource everything" comes into play. Take for example, Private Military Companies. If the army wants to sidestep Geneva conventions and public oversight by outsourcing the ugly parts to corporations, then someone should be able to patent something important to effectively toss a sabot into the machinery.

Left as an exercise to reader: After declaring your patent and filing suit to prevent infringement, try to stay alive long enough to see the trial to closure.

oh, and check this out: Russia won't sell that high a resolution either.

Edwards Airforce Base is in California..
The image the grand-parent linked to is in Nevada..

maps.google.com of the real EAB

-metric

Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?

Well, no, but that wouldn't be necessary. I'm sure the robots would use some form of Identification Friend or Foe [IFF] method. I'm not saying those arne't foolproof but that doesn't really require any type of automatic target recognition (ATR) or image recognition software.

Note, I'm not saying that IFF makes these robots a great idea. I'm just pointing out that the idea isn't completely idiotic.

GMD

Oh, and here is the casualty counterhere

I couldn't have said it better. Wolfowitz and his fellow cowards should rot in hell. W/R/T to the Post, I don't know how 'liberal' they are anymore. For instance, the other day we have this hatchet job http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A575 5-2005Mar27.html/ Which is basically a propaganda piece direct off the presses from Wolfowitz and his old buddies at the Whitehouse. Most notably, Diehl accuses Chavez of 'destroying' the economy of Venezuela. According to Economist, the Venezuelean economy grew at about 18% this year. Diehl also reports the terrifying news that Venezuela is buying 100,000 AK47;s and 25 or so fo the dreaded Brazilian made Super Tocanos http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazi l/emb312.htm/ According to the CIA world fact bookhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g eos/ve.html/ Venezuela spends about $1B/year on defense, or about 1/3 the amoun that neighborign Columbia gets in military aid from the US, or about 1/450th of the annual US defense budget. The US, unlike Venezuela, also has along history of invading and supporting terrorist movements in Latin America, So exactly which country is the destabilizing force?

Finally, to Diehl's main point, he is afraid that reporters will go to jail for deliberatly spreading false information. Having read Diehl's column, I'm not sure that is such a bad idea anymore.

You might want to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), unanimously adopted by UNSEC in November 2002 - including France - just three months before US/UK-led action.

It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.

There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.

Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.

You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the

First of all, pasting something completely relevant and cogent to this topic was perfectly appropriate. And I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's apparently you who doesn't.

And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.

So now it fails to be a binding resolution after a period of time? The conditions and specifics of the resolution were still at issue just as much 12 years later: the situation had never been resolved.

You further ignore resolution 1441 (a href=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm>html), which was adopted by the whole of the Security Council on 8 November 2002.

It says, in part,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions [...]

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions [...]

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, [...]

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991) [...]

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, [...]

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [...]

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

You should really read the whole thing. It's rather straightforward.

And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress.

This is rich. Progress? NEVER were the inspectors, before 1998, or after 2002, allowed the unfettered access to any and all facilities, sites, and records that were required by the resolutions.

NEVER.

The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that inspectors never, once, had unrestricted access as required. Not finding WMD under ANY conditions other than specified and required by the resolutions is meaningless. To this day, there are HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD known to have been in Iraq's possession that are unaccounted for. It was Iraq's responsibility to either account for them in terms of their location or documented destruction, or to minimally provide unrestricted access to inspectors.

Iraq did neither for over a decade.

I'm astounded by your refusal to admit these facts to yourself, whether or not you agreed with the US action or policy in this area.

You are ignorant.

Iraq does not have a presidential system of government; they have no directly elected president. That's not how the transitional government works. Instead, like many countries, they have a parliamentary system.

The Iraqi national assembly is composed of 275 representatives elected with proportional representation. Those 275 representatives were elected in January, and were inaugurated this week. The assembly will elect a person called the President of State through a two-thirds majority vote, along with two deputies who will work like our Vice Presidents work. These three people will comprise a Presidency Council that makes up the executive branch of the Iraqi interim government. The Presidency Council has veto power over the national assembly, but the national assembly can override a Presidency Council veto with a supermajority vote.

The Presidency Council will nominate a prime minister and a cabinet, and these individuals will be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the national assembly.

This stuff is all set into law by the transitional constitution, the "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period," which was ratified last March by the Iraqi Governing Council and which went into effect last June when the occupation ended. It sounds like you might like to read it.

We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.

Just because the word "war" isn't used in the official congressional authorization, doesn't mean that Congress hasn't approved a state of war. Congress is free to use its power to make a state of war, declared or not, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution in whatever way it sees fit, including conceding the ability to make war to the President under circumstances prescribed by specific laws passed by the same Congress that has this constitutional power.

May I bring to your attention HJR 114, that specifically authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.

Now, assuming you trust the Marriam-Webster definition for "war", in sense (1), HJR 114 certainly declares "a state ... of open and declared armed hostile conflict" between the United States and Iraq, and in sense (2) we are certainly in "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" as a result of the actions authorized by HJR 114 being taken.

Just because HJR 114 doesn't say "We Declare a State of War with Iraq" doesn't mean that the United States is not in a state of war with Iraq. It just hasn't been formalized into those words (which activate a sequence of other laws that are entirely unnecessary for our purposes in this conflict.) While HJR 114 does not declare war, and is rather specific on reporting and such as related to the War Powers Act, its overall effect isn't much different from this, except that "the full resources" of the United States and its people are not formally committed.

An interesting take on the "formal" declaration of war and its use (and possible obsolescence) can be found here. More reading material on the subject of war and who can declar it can be found here.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."

You're right, because as another astute Slashdot reader pointed out, there is a strong argument that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs under the Geneva convention. On the other hand, there are *actual* POWs being held in Iraq that do meet the definition.

Perhaps more than a little bit dated.

Yorktown was decommisioned in December 2004. The Yorktown was on active service in the Persian Gulf as late as the summer of '04. CG 48 Yorktown

The Ronald Reagon, ninth (and last) of the Nimitz class carriers uses W2K based smart ship components developed by Microsoft Federal Systems.

... that torture isn't even effective. It's pretty generally recognized that you can't depend on information you get out of torturing someone, as they'll say anything to get you to stop.

So even if you put aside all the moral reasons why torture is a bad policy, there's no reason to do it.

Sean

The past 40 years has seen more and more money diverted to the school system and less to military and other programs.