Slashdot Mirror

pakistan's Chief Nuclear Scientist personally travelled, executed, and followed up on the nuclear weapons sales to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4242771.stm - and I quote
"The US has called Dr Khan the "biggest proliferator" of nuclear technology."

Country-specific proliferation by pakistan.
==============

Selling to Iran
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4228713.st m
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to North Korea
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/khan- dprk.htm

Other states that are not yet CONFIRMED include Syria, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/k han.htm

In his startling televised confession Wednesday, Abdul Qadeer Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to other governments. A.Q. Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. A.Q. Khan asked for clemency, but the Pakistani government made no public announcement about whether he is to be prosecuted. The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

Summary
=======

If you think that the chief scientist of pakistan could travel all over the world and SELL nuclear designs AND ENCASH the money AND SHIP the nuclear materials WITHOUT the permission of the government of pakistan, then the pakistanis are too stupid to be allowed to hold WMDs.

If the government of pakistan did allow the transfer of WMDs to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to hold WMDs. (remember 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and ALL were muslims).

Either way pakistan will be disarmed. Its too much of a basket case to allow them to have WMDs.

======

And as a dessert, let me finish by saying that the money for the 9/11 attack on WTC ($100,000) was transferred from Karachi (pakistan) to chief terrorist Mohammed Atta (saudi) by a certain ISI-trained Saeed Sheikh from Mohammed Khalid (kuwaiti). Saeed Sheikh was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl cos Pearl had almost proven that the pakistani intelligence (ISI) was somewhat involved in WTC. Saeed Sheikh is currently in pakistani custody, but FBI/CIA are not allowed access to him. WHY would an "ally" not provide access to such a critically important terrorist ???? Khalid was caught in pakistan too and handed over to CIA but khalid is not pakistani and hence did not know the internals of the ISI involvement.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essaysaeed .html

Of course, your beloved pakistan is a "stauch ally". yeah fuck right!

pakistan's Chief Nuclear Scientist personally travelled, executed, and followed up on the nuclear weapons sales to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4242771.stm - and I quote
"The US has called Dr Khan the "biggest proliferator" of nuclear technology."

Country-specific proliferation by pakistan.
==============

Selling to Iran
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4228713.st m
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to North Korea
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/khan- dprk.htm

Other states that are not yet CONFIRMED include Syria, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/k han.htm

In his startling televised confession Wednesday, Abdul Qadeer Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to other governments. A.Q. Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. A.Q. Khan asked for clemency, but the Pakistani government made no public announcement about whether he is to be prosecuted. The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

Summary
=======

If you think that the chief scientist of pakistan could travel all over the world and SELL nuclear designs AND ENCASH the money AND SHIP the nuclear materials WITHOUT the permission of the government of pakistan, then the pakistanis are too stupid to be allowed to hold WMDs.

If the government of pakistan did allow the transfer of WMDs to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to hold WMDs. (remember 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and ALL were muslims).

Either way pakistan will be disarmed. Its too much of a basket case to allow them to have WMDs.

======

And as a dessert, let me finish by saying that the money for the 9/11 attack on WTC ($100,000) was transferred from Karachi (pakistan) to chief terrorist Mohammed Atta (saudi) by a certain ISI-trained Saeed Sheikh from Mohammed Khalid (kuwaiti). Saeed Sheikh was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl cos Pearl had almost proven that the pakistani intelligence (ISI) was somewhat involved in WTC. Saeed Sheikh is currently in pakistani custody, but FBI/CIA are not allowed access to him. WHY would an "ally" not provide access to such a critically important terrorist ???? Khalid was caught in pakistan too and handed over to CIA but khalid is not pakistani and hence did not know the internals of the ISI involvement.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essaysaeed .html

Of course, your beloved pakistan is a "stauch ally". yeah fuck right!

pakistan's Chief Nuclear Scientist personally travelled, executed, and followed up on the nuclear weapons sales to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4242771.stm - and I quote
"The US has called Dr Khan the "biggest proliferator" of nuclear technology."

Country-specific proliferation by pakistan.
==============

Selling to Iran
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4228713.st m
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to North Korea
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/khan- dprk.htm

Other states that are not yet CONFIRMED include Syria, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/k han.htm

In his startling televised confession Wednesday, Abdul Qadeer Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to other governments. A.Q. Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. A.Q. Khan asked for clemency, but the Pakistani government made no public announcement about whether he is to be prosecuted. The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

Summary
=======

If you think that the chief scientist of pakistan could travel all over the world and SELL nuclear designs AND ENCASH the money AND SHIP the nuclear materials WITHOUT the permission of the government of pakistan, then the pakistanis are too stupid to be allowed to hold WMDs.

If the government of pakistan did allow the transfer of WMDs to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to hold WMDs. (remember 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and ALL were muslims).

Either way pakistan will be disarmed. Its too much of a basket case to allow them to have WMDs.

======

And as a dessert, let me finish by saying that the money for the 9/11 attack on WTC ($100,000) was transferred from Karachi (pakistan) to chief terrorist Mohammed Atta (saudi) by a certain ISI-trained Saeed Sheikh from Mohammed Khalid (kuwaiti). Saeed Sheikh was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl cos Pearl had almost proven that the pakistani intelligence (ISI) was somewhat involved in WTC. Saeed Sheikh is currently in pakistani custody, but FBI/CIA are not allowed access to him. WHY would an "ally" not provide access to such a critically important terrorist ???? Khalid was caught in pakistan too and handed over to CIA but khalid is not pakistani and hence did not know the internals of the ISI involvement.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essaysaeed .html

Of course, your beloved pakistan is a "stauch ally". yeah fuck right!

pakistan's Chief Nuclear Scientist personally travelled, executed, and followed up on the nuclear weapons sales to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4242771.stm - and I quote
"The US has called Dr Khan the "biggest proliferator" of nuclear technology."

Country-specific proliferation by pakistan.
==============

Selling to Iran
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4228713.st m
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan- iran.htm

Selling to North Korea
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/khan- dprk.htm

Other states that are not yet CONFIRMED include Syria, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/k han.htm

In his startling televised confession Wednesday, Abdul Qadeer Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to other governments. A.Q. Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. A.Q. Khan asked for clemency, but the Pakistani government made no public announcement about whether he is to be prosecuted. The confessed proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000, though it is suspected that proliferation activities to North Korea continued after that date. The network used to supply these activities is global in scope, stretching from Germany to Dubai and from China to South Asia, and involves numerous middlemen and suppliers.

Summary
=======

If you think that the chief scientist of pakistan could travel all over the world and SELL nuclear designs AND ENCASH the money AND SHIP the nuclear materials WITHOUT the permission of the government of pakistan, then the pakistanis are too stupid to be allowed to hold WMDs.

If the government of pakistan did allow the transfer of WMDs to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to hold WMDs. (remember 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and ALL were muslims).

Either way pakistan will be disarmed. Its too much of a basket case to allow them to have WMDs.

======

And as a dessert, let me finish by saying that the money for the 9/11 attack on WTC ($100,000) was transferred from Karachi (pakistan) to chief terrorist Mohammed Atta (saudi) by a certain ISI-trained Saeed Sheikh from Mohammed Khalid (kuwaiti). Saeed Sheikh was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl cos Pearl had almost proven that the pakistani intelligence (ISI) was somewhat involved in WTC. Saeed Sheikh is currently in pakistani custody, but FBI/CIA are not allowed access to him. WHY would an "ally" not provide access to such a critically important terrorist ???? Khalid was caught in pakistan too and handed over to CIA but khalid is not pakistani and hence did not know the internals of the ISI involvement.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essaysaeed .html

Of course, your beloved pakistan is a "stauch ally". yeah fuck right!

actually, there is evidence of exactly that.

First off, though, North Korea has been generating enriched Plutonium (and Uranium, I think) for several years in defiance of US threats of sanctions. They are known to have enough Plutonium to create several nuclear weapons.

Second, a Pakistani scientist sold secrets to building nuclear weapons to North Korea. Pakistan has nuclear capability and have demonstrated it. There are also rumors in the other direction - that Pakistan willingly allowed North Korea to test a plutonium device on its soil in 1998 when they still lacked enough plutonium to do it themselves. This makes some sense when you also realize that North Korea doesn't have the desert to perform its own nuclear testing, so if they did explode a nuke either above or underground, they'd likely pollute their water supply. Still, they may have done just that on the Korean-China border (see the Ryanggang explosion from late last year.

A quick google search dug up some references about the 1998 testing.

Korea - we want to develop nuclear power

For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here. For a timeline, see this.

And I too wish we didn't. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for now, necessary alliances. The day will come when they have to answer to their people.

Where is your plan? All you (and liberals in general) are offering is criticism without solutions or, at best, idealistic isolationism.

How's this for a plan: Don't invade and occupy nations in the middle east. This makes the problem 100 times worse. After decades of mistreating the people of this region, we're in a bad starting point in dealing with terrorism, but that is not a reason to exacerbate the problem. This is like dealing with a swarm of angry bees by sticking your head inside the bees nest.

My personal suggestion would be to stop supporting the royal families and dictators in the middle east that we rely on for oil deals. Pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Deal more evenhandedly with the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Lastly, pour money into promoting progressive causes in the middle east like women's suffrage and human rights.

Our invasion of Iraq was the logical step in combating the cause of terrorism. While it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as we thought it was originally (their nuclear and ICBM programs were not what our allies' and our own intelligence expected), the invasion of Iraq was done with the ultimate goal of providing United States security.

No, it wasn't a logical step. It was an idealistic neoconservative step that wasn't planned out beyond "They'll greet us with open arms!" Lets look at the results of this invasion. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with:
50% chance - Civil war followed by, most likely a Sharia Theocracy. Iran is sucked into the civil war because of its Shia population. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria are sucked in because of their Sunni populations.
25% chance - An elected government that can only hold power with the protection of the US military, creating extreme instability in the entire middle east. The presense of the US military threatens Iraq's neighbors, creating surging nationalism and strengthens the dictators. Also a huge recruiting tool for Jihadists.
15% chance - A military strongman like Saddam takes power after we leave and rules with an Iron Fist. Note: this happened with Britain in the 20s.
10% chance - The Sunnis accept their loss of power, the jihadists accept they don't have popular support. The US keeps 14 military bases in the country, fueling Jihadist recruiting and possibily resulting in the overthrow of the secular governments surrounding Iraq.

I'm seeing lose-lose here, what realistic scenario do you think could possibly result in increased security for the US?

I don't think the neoconservatives are an imperialist movement--no more than capitalism itself is an imperialist movement, at least. Nobody wants to establish a 51st state or a colony. I implore you to find a writing or statement from the Administration that implicates that. Our occupation of Iraq is temporary--just like we've said all along. Again, the whole plan revolves around us handing the country back to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the Middle East.

Ok, how's this? The Case for American Empire written by a leading neoconservative thinker, Max Boot, in the Weekly Standard (a leading neoconservative publication). I'll even give you a quote if you don't want to read it: "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role."

You claim that our occupation is "temporary." You'd better tell that to the contractors building 14 military bases in Iraq. If you don' want to click on that link, its an article from the Chicago Tribune titled: 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq:Long-term military presence planned.

Still think this is a "temporary" occupation?

Prove it. The only proven vote fraud is being done by Democrats (remember "Votes for Cigarettes 2000" for homeless people and tire slashing by Democrat-paid thugs in 2004 in Wisconsin?).

Let's not even talk about Catherine Harris, who outright stole the election by selectively obeying the intent of the law.

Prove it. (And its spelled "Katherine". Try to keep up.)

This is now a one party dictatorship, using the law as window dressing to get anything it wants and destroy whomever it hates.

Prove it.

accepted by the Katie Courics of the news media almost immediately.

You honestly believe that Katie "... they haven't been able to confirm reports [Saddam] was taken to Tikrit, and then Mosul, and then hopefully Syria" Couric is right wing? ROFL!!!!

Snip remainder of Michael Moore-inspired paranoia. That by the way would be the corpulent propagandist Michael Moore:

- Who sends his own daughter to private school .

- Who unsuccessfully pressured the writing staff of his 'TV Nation' not to join the Writer's Guild.

- Whose bodyguard got arrested for carrying an unlicensed firearm at JFK airport. A FIREARM? For the writer/author of "Bowling for Columbine"? No more tinfoil for you - you've obviously ODed on the stuff.

- Whose own hometown high school refuses to induct him into its Hall of Fame.

YOU grow up and stop whining. Bush won, Kerry lost. Get over it.

It was doomed from the beginning. Having been to the former USSR, lived there, studied there, I can certainly say that the view is quite different beyond the armchair and your ideas are not entirely shared on the ground.

I already said my viewpoint was an American one. As for the rest, I see no need to repeat myself. We are all doomed, doomed, yes doomed (sorry, couldn't help myself) from the beginning, and you make no point other than you don't like my opinion or the opinion of others. Okay, consider it noted and filed in the proper place: C10H14N2 believes we should wait for entropy to solve all our problems.

In Reagan's words:

"The Soviet economy was being held together by baling wire. In Poland and other Eastern-bloc countries, the economies were also a mess, and there were rumblings of nationalist fevor within the captive Soviet empire. If they didn't make some changes, it seemed clear to me that in time that Communism would collapse of its own weight, and I wondered how we as a nation could use these cracks in the Soviet system to accelerate the process of collapse."

Historically, it's obvious that Reagan saw an opportunity to bring down the Soviet Union and worked towards that end. My point was and is that Reagan toppled the house of cards. You have offered nothing except your repeated personal opinion. My attention span has been reached - you know how old folks are.

Back when I was a teen, me and my father seen something once in the night sky, in nothern Russia. It looked like a pale greenish spot that moved at a constant speed for a few seconds. Dad said it must be some big-ass (OTH?) radar that uses the excited ionosphere for a mirror.
Later I read the stories about the Russian Woodpecker and thought dad might be right.

While there never was a missile gap, there was always a big conventional forces gap. Maybe (probably?) the higher technology of the West would have overcome the numerical advantages of the Soviets - but that didn't work too well for the Nazis. Just because the Dutch tried to cling onto their empire after WWII hardly disproves that there was a Soviet threat. In fact, given the fears that Indonesia might become Communist, Dutch actions there might even have been conceived as part of the same struggle - that's just supposition on my part though.

The parent post has the wrong link. It should be:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/ army/fm/index.html

Which space agencies would they be ? They number of agencies currently able to put a human carrying flight tested launch into space is precisely two:
the United States and Russia.

China is close, but their technology is still very much in the development stage. Only the US and Russia have anything like the ability to launch an off the shelf vehicle with limited warning.

In fact, the US and the then Soviet Union agreed a common 'docking' arrangement in order to be able to provide mutual aid. Although, the SU was probably more interested in getting access to the US's superior (and more reliable) docking technolgy. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report /1989/LCE.htm

My guess is that this is the agreement you're thinking of.
-S

Why is EU paying india to do it when they could use the Arianne rockets in france and keep the money at home..

Believe it or not, it's cheaper, India is the outsourcing heaven. Seriously though, the reasons are political, EU vs. the US:

Declining to make an India-specific statement, Juster said parties buying US-made satellites would in general not be allowed to get them launched by countries such as India.

• No containment (outer shell): once the reactor itself is burst, the radioactive material is out in the open, whereas in western designs, there is still an outer shell.
• Unsafe RBMK design, which has a huge positive void coefficient, i.e. it is (mis)designed in such a way that when the cooling water in the primary circuit starts boiling, the nuclear reaction accelerates... with predictable consequences. Most western designs have a slightly negative void coefficient (boiling water leads to slowdown of reaction), which makes the design intrinsically safer.

"Protected" from who? The State Police mission is mainly traffic related. They also do things that help out sheriff departments and such from time to time. And the state Medical Examiner is part of the state police. But what does the number of troopers have to do with protecting the coast?

I am a fan, and own Farenheit 9/11. But you HAVE TO ADMIT that much of the film is sensationalist, and there are huge debates over the details. But the whole Oregon State Trooper thing was a stretch at best.

The coast is "defended" by the Navy and the Coast guard. The Oregon and Washington coasts are not without defenses.

That was in 1979... a full 4 years after Americans were completely evacuated, and SVN was overrun by NVN. The reasons for the invasion were Chinese claims of discrimination by the Vietnamese, the 1978 signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union led China to call Vietnam the Cuba of the East, and Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia being a threat. The invasion lasted four weeks, and was considered a punishment by the Chinese.

During the Vietnam conflict/war, China was instrumental in supplying the NVN with weapons and funding. My father's job in the USAF was to listen to Chinese pilots who were carrying military cargo to Vietnam... sometimes Chinese, sometimes Soviet.

If the Chinese are such great people and trustworthy business partners, then why would they steal a W88?

The Chinese are large, powerful, and Machiavellian. China has no qualms in pushing us to the brink of war if it suits their desires.

I expect my government to be extremely cautious in dealing with China. They are the most dangerous situation we face today - our Arabic problems are a sideshow by comparison.

John Pike of GlobalSecurity had an apt quote in a related Wired article:

"We could be the ones that wind up looking like Terminators, in the world's eyes."

$200k remote-control weapons are a great way of keeping American kids out of harm's way in Iraq, but once it's a video game, who is going to be sickened by the fact that they just took a life over a megalomaniac's flawed foreign policy? How are young American soldiers going to learn that destroying life for oil is wrong?

With such bots, what's to stop Uncle Sam from sending soldiers to posh hotels in Dubai, bringing them down to the basement for four-hour stints with the VR glasses on to knock off a couple more Iraqis? (Afghans? Pakistanis? Iranians?) All you'll need in the theater is a comms group and some logistics to keep the robots in fresh batteries.

Sick, wrong, and I'll have no part of it.

"Warfighter" is a term USAF has been using for several years. Since the majority of USAF personnel serve in roles that will likely never be involved in direct combat, the term is used to describe people who do actively fight and kill the enemy. It's meant to remind the support personnel that the USAF's primary job is fighting wars (and if you've ever worked with the Air Force you'll know why they need reminding).

USAF is fond of euphemisms, catchphrases, and slogans, the most infamous of course being the now-defunct Strategic Air Command's "Peace Is Our Profession" motto.

I spent twenty-three years on active duty with USAF. While we often laughed at the sometimes ridiculous language the PHBs and Public Affairs types dreamed up (my favorite - the Air Force Flight Test Center's "Warriors Supporting Warriors" motto, as if the civilian electrical/aerospace/computer engineers working on the F/A-22 Raptor or OV-22 Osprey projects were commuting to work every morning with knives in their teeth), we were never enraged and I don't know why we should have been. The Air Force is as prone (sometimes more so) to management buffoonery as any large corporation. Thinking up new words instead of using perfectly good ones like warrior is a symptom of this buffoonery.

Don't get mad. Rent a copy of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove and laugh, because laughter is the best weapon of them all.

I should also have included some relevant links to Internet based news sources bookmarked in Safari:

Slashdot of course.
CNN of course.
NYTimes for the writing and quality of reporting.
BBC for the big mainstream non American news perspective.
Kevin Sites for on the ground reporting in Iraq.
Dan Gillmor for news grassroots news.
CBS for financial info.
CNET for tech news.
Global Security for political defense news.
Google for a good news accumulator.
Cryptome because John manages to pull some pretty damned interesting articles out.
NPR of course. Don't forget to donate.
Reuters because they have the news.
Washington Post for beltway news.
Wall St. Journal for more financial news.
NPR Marketplace for more financial news.
CBS for mainstream US news.
Technocrat for real science oriented geek news, like Slashdot only with less noise.
Oh, yeah and
Macsurfer for a Macintosh community oriented news accumulator.

If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.

Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."

Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.

I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.

The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.

Original:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

Revised:

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
*As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205. [huh?!]

Original:

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

Revised:

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

Original:

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.
Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003

Revised:

Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003 [the other paragraphs disappeared - no mention of whether the number of anti-US attacks changed]

The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve

The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.

Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."

Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.

I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.

The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.

Original:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

Revised:

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
*As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205. [huh?!]

Original:

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

Revised:

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

Original:

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.
Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003

Revised:

Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003 [the other paragraphs disappeared - no mention of whether the number of anti-US attacks changed]

The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve

Supposedly the "average wound" in this war is worse than in any previous war, partly because most of it is done by explosives rather than bullets, partly because of improvements in body armor for the head and torso, and partly because improved medical technology is saving a lot of people who would have just died in any previous war.

BTW, you can see the overall casualty counts (wounds and deaths separately) at globalsecurity.org. (Notice the running-average plots at the bottom, which show the trends.)

% GDP/US$ spent on defence:

USA: 3.3%, $370.7b

China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b

Russia: 1.4%, $18b (2005)

France: 2.6%, $45b

Germany: 1.5%, $35b

North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b

Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b

Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b

Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b

Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b

Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b

Japan: 1%, $42.4b

UK: 2.4%, $42.8b

Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b

Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!

On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.

I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'

One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.

Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.

So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would ....

If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!

As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe

When President Eisenhower went to Kansas to announce the interstate highway system, he announced it as "the National Defense Highway System." In 1956 President Eisenhower signed legislation establishing the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (about 41,000 miles of roads).

Now, what your typical razorback trooper's going to say might have as much to do the size of your gun as it does with how much tarmac you've chewed up.

Interesting. Sen. Jay Rockefeller's comments were extraordinary. Why is the media now spinning this into a stealth-in-space story when the real story is a weapons-in-space story? I find it hard to believe that a stealth satellite program would be inherently dangerous to national security. A satellite that had weapons on board, however, would be a different story altogether. If true, this would be an obvious next step after BMD (ballistic missle defense).

Interesting. Sen. Jay Rockefeller's comments were extraordinary. Why is the media now spinning this into a stealth-in-space story when the real story is a weapons-in-space story? I find it hard to believe that a stealth satellite program would be inherently dangerous to national security. A satellite that had weapons on board, however, would be a different story altogether. If true, this would be an obvious next step after BMD (ballistic missle defense).

> I am part of the University of central Florida Amateur Radio Club...

Perhaps you could tell us what you know about Diego Garcia? The military have put up a BS report saying all is well due to a freak geological anomaly that protected the island and there was only a tidal surge of 6ft anyway.

But DG is on average only 4ft above sea level.....so by my calculations they were on average covered in 2ft of water (assuming the BS report bares any resemblance to the truth), which doesn't quite equate with things being "alright".

There was a bit of inconclusive chat on rec.radio.shortwave

If you can't reply to this, I'd understand :)

Me? I'll just sit and wait for the black helicopters to turn up....but somebody has to bear the bad news to the American people that their most important military asset (bar their carrier group - where was that?) in the Indian Ocean has been wiped out.

After all, they have to pay for it to be repaired (or abandoned?). Do the right thing, abandon it and give it back to the Diego Garcians rather than using it to bomb foreigners from. The story of how the Diego Garcians were treated is shameful. (Somebody else can link to that).

Other fun high-energy-density-materials include Hafnium nuclear isomers, though that's even harder to use and more expensive than uranium.

As you are probably aware, most of that equipment is military, and not that useful for a humanitarian mission. There is some overlap, but the 101st Airborne's TO&E isn't exactly the best fit.

example a Canadian training exercise in Afghanistan in April 2002. BBC, CNN

US troops in Dec 2001

Children in Dec 2003

http://globalsecurity.org/eye/images/tsunami-indon esia12-2004.mov
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-refs.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-pix2.htm

http://globalsecurity.org/eye/images/tsunami-indon esia12-2004.mov
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-refs.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-pix2.htm

http://globalsecurity.org/eye/images/tsunami-indon esia12-2004.mov
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-refs.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/eye/andaman-pix2.htm

... with the link from Global Security. There were no truly "native inhabitants". The islands were unoccupied when the British took possession of them - the so-called "native inhabitants" were shipped in from other islands in the Indian Ocean to serve as plantation labor. When they were no longer useful as plantation laborers, the Brits shipped them to Mauritius.

Also, the island didn't become a "bomber base" for almost 30 years after the plantation workers were removed - it was nothing more than a communications station until about 1979, and serious bombing didn't start to happen from there until 1990, during the first Persian Gulf war. The "natives" had been shipped out in 1961.

Here's the link again:

Sean

> I still hope that it will soon be gone. Not through some horrible disaster, because that's not a very nice thing to wish on anybody, but through continued political pressure.

The US's lease runs out in 2016, though I can't imagine that the UK would fail to renew it.

BTW, an interesting/informative article about the history and current military/pollitical arrangements at Diego Garcia can be found at globalsecurity.org.

Given its location and elevation (4' average, 22' maximum, according to the article), it's somewhat surprising that they didn't get washed away.

Small Diameter Bomb uses GPS for guidance. Also, how about the Joint Direct Attack Munition

CG-48 Yorktown was decomissioned December 3rd after twenty years in service, a long and interesting career in which a Smart Ship testbed failure in 1997 would rate as significant only on Slashdot. CG-48 Yorktown

CVN-77 George H.W. Bush, the last of the Nimitz-class carriers, now under construction, will incorporate W2K based technology developed by Microsoft Federal Systems. 'Son of Windows' to control carrier $5 billion dollar warships can take a decade and more to plan, fund and complete. So let's hear no complaints that the Navy wasn't looking at a commercial Linux solution in '97-'98, or earlier.

there are no mention of the direction of the streak or the location of the photograph taken. but suprise suprise I see B52's
regularly fly (thursdays at 0700 and 1600) a route E-NNW and visa versa which I presume is changeover crews to/from Diego Garcia (Camp Justice) leaving contrails. So it is possible that such trails exist on non comercial traffic routes. In the absence of commercial traffic at this height/direction (above 35'000 ft) If you not aware of the time/directions you may mistake it for something else.

there are no mention of the direction of the streak or the location of the photograph taken. but suprise suprise I see B52's
regularly fly (thursdays at 0700 and 1600) a route E-NNW and visa versa which I presume is changeover crews to/from Diego Garcia (Camp Justice) leaving contrails. So it is possible that such trails exist on non comercial traffic routes. In the absence of commercial traffic at this height/direction (above 35'000 ft) If you not aware of the time/directions you may mistake it for something else.

Which is why we should have a $1 billion prize for a moon base instead of spending over $4 billion a year just to get in to orbit.

Evil cyborg Bill takes off a shoe and starts banging it on the podium, "I WILL BURY YOU!"

Just to give some historical context for those who might eventually not remember.

In 1959 Cold War tensions eased a little. The new Soviet leader, Nikita Khruschchev, visited Dwight Eisenhower at his holiday home near Washington. The meeting was very friendly. But the next year, relations got worse again. An American military plane was shot down over the Soviet Union. Eisenhower admitted that such planes had been spying on the Soviets for four years. In a speech at the United Nations, Khruschchev got so angry that he took off his shoe and beat it on a table.
loc .cit.

CC.

The Yorktown is the fifth vessel to bear the name and has been in service for twenty years. She has had a lively career and an excellent reputation, in which a testbed Smart Ship failure in 1997 would rank as a demerit only on Slashdot. CG 48 Yorktown

It would seem that success in a combat environment is not beyond Windows.

In 1982, Saddam's workers began reconstructing Babylon's most imposing building, the 600-room palace of King Nebuchadnezzar II. Archaeologists were horrified. Many said that to rebuild on top of ancient artifacts does not preserve history, but disfigures it. The original bricks, which rise two or three feet from the ground, bear ancient inscriptions praising Nebuchadnezzar. Above these, Saddam Hussein's workers laid more than 60-million sand-colored bricks inscribed with the words, "In the era of Saddam Hussein, protector of Iraq, who rebuilt civilization and rebuilt Babylon." The new bricks began to crack after only ten years.

Prior to the Persian Gulf War, archaeologists working in Iraq were forced to close down excavations when Iraq's August invasion of Kuwait made the situation to dangerous to continue....

And following the war, looting of archaeological sites increased dramatically as Iraq's impoverished citizens used sometimes desperate means to make money in light of the economic sanctions placed on Iraq by the western world.

...In early February 1991, for example, Saddam parked MiG fighter jets at a Babylonian ziggurat at Ur to deter coalition forces from disabling them during the Gulf War. By Nineveh, the ancient capital of the Assyrian empire, he built air bases and weapons factories. According to archaeological scholars from the University of Chicago, an 80-foot mound containing many ruins of ancient Nineveh also housed an oil storage tank. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam used the site for anti-aircraft batteries because it was the most elevated spot in the area....

In contrast, at the height of the bombing campaign the Pentagon produced aerial photographs of the Al-Basrah mosque. They showed clearly that the Iraqis had destroyed the mosque for propaganda purposes. While coalition forces had bombed a target some 100 yards away, leaving the mosque unscathed, Iraqi engineers sliced off the dome in the hope of duping journalists that the U.S. had been responsible for the destruction.

No, the Hummer has been in service for 20-odd years and has always been a big, bulky vehicle. Nobody in the Marine Corps would ever seriously suggest replacing small, light jeeps with the Hummer for the Fast Attack Vehicle role because it cannot be transported inside a CH-53 or CH-46 helicopter or the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, which is a requirement for the FAV. They've been soliciting designs to replace the M151 jeep for years. Currently they are adopting the LKW Wolf by Daimler/Chrysler as an Interim Fast Attack Vehicle until they settle on a new design.

Explain to me how the souce code for a computer designed to operate a slow-moving, 4 or 6 wheeled vehicle used to take pictures and to sample temprature, radiation and other scientefic data could be adapted for use on an aicraft with a crusing speed of about 84 miles per hour.
Also, China already has its own UAV. "China's armed forces have operated the Chang Hong (CH-1) long-range, air- launched autonomous reconnaissance drone since the 1980s. China developed the CH-1 by reverse-engineering US Firebee reconnaissance drones recovered during the Vietnam War. An upgraded version of the system was displayed at the 2000 Zhuhai air show and is being offered for export. A PRC aviation periodical reported that the CH-1 can carry a TV, daylight still, or infrared camera." (from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china /uav.htm

We could really cut our defense budget if we used conscription and paid them $50/month too.