Slashdot Mirror

Erm, it's a little different when you look at hte contrast of N. Korea vs. S Korea. Here, the same people on different sides of a line, and koreas got a booming economy that really shows. If you look closely, have a lot more light than South Korea.

So, If someone is jamming the control frequency you just tell the real live human sky cops who have authority to use lethal force to wake up and go drive the perimeter road looking for someone jumping the fence. Plus if they are using even the 1980's SINCGARS radio technology the signal will be hard to jam and the jamming will be easy to triangulate back to a source. They are more likely to be using one of the newer frequency agile radio technologies that are even more resistant to jamming. They probably have provision for connecting a landline data link to robots that are 'standing watch' and only move through a limited area mitigating the man in the middle attack vulnerability. The robots that climb on walls and ceilings look like they are intended for use to scout an interior area for intruders. They may be semi-autonomous and only transmit back the base station if they spot something. Given the state of machine object recognition there will have to be an operator evaluating the senor data from this type of stuff for a long time to come.

Reducing collateral damage is becoming more and more important as military planners realize that the war is not over once you capture the territory.
You want to win over a people's hearts and minds by changing the regime but not levelling their cities a la carpet bombing Dresden in WWII. Killing citizens does not shorten a war and the London Blitz and Berlin showed that enemy soldiers will fight harder if they know their families are being killed too.

There are lots of different types of bombs that try to reduce collateral damage. The most infamous was the Neutron bomb that limited a nuclear bomb's blast and heat damage to a few hundred yards but killed people through the use of radiation.
The electric power distribution munition(ph), can knock out a whole power grid. This bomb scatters spools of carbon strands over a target. In Vietnam the US developed Hyper baric Fuel Air bombs that used a high pressure wave to kill people in tunnels or create helicopter landing pads in the jungle. The latest improved version is the thermo baric bomb that uses extremely high temperatures to create a blast wave and also suck the oxygen out of enclosed spaces.

War is not glorious but it is necessary from time to time and if you can defeat the enemy without killing non-combatants, I am all for it.

I know you probably don't know this, but there are other drugs besides Marijuana. One drug in particular, Heroin, is a large source of funding for terrorism: read it and weep.

Orbital Space Plane @ orbital.com
Orbital Space Plane @ globalsecurity.org

From this article:
"It follows the President where ever he goes and is never more that a few steps from his side. It is carried by a military officer who must undergo the nation's most rigorous security background check - the "Yankee White". It contains a secure SATCOM radio and handset, the nuclear launch codes known as the "Gold Codes" and the President's Decision Book - the nuclear playbook that the President would rely on if he would ever have to decide to use nuclear weapons. Its real name is unknown but it is popularly known as "the football". " (Bold added by me).

Notice the bold words. The carrier of the nuclear football was an officer who went through the most rigerous of the security background checks.

The next quote is from Dereliction of Duty by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.) who was one of the people who carried the Nuclear Football for Bill Clinton (and he says in his book he considers Mr. Clinton to be a security risk to the country):
Four days later, on January 21, I was the first person on President Clinton's schedule. At seven in the morning, I was going to give the president his annual nuclear update briefing and his new set of nuclear "go codes." (p.55)
As you can see the President of the US carries around with him the nuclear go codes which are kept in his pocket. This is what Mr. Clinton lost. Now form page 56, in the actual meeting:

I handed him the new card--the biscuit, we called it--with the new codes, which would be effective immediately. ... He didn't offer me his old set of codes, however, and I figured now was not a good time to press the issue.

This is where it became evident that something was wrong! Clinton should have handed over the biscuit! Also on page 56, "The biggest security risk was the president himself". A few days later, he writes:

My expectation was that the president would finally return his oldset to us. Instead, President Clinton looked up sheepishly and confessed, "I don't have mine on me. I'll track it down, guys, and get it back to you."
We [Patterson and another military aide] were dumbfounded--the president losing his nuclear codes. He is required to have the codes on him at all times. President Clinton normally kept the world's most sensitive document ruber-banded to his credit cards in his pants pocket. ... This time, though, the codes were apparently lost. ... The president finally threw up his hands and said casually, "I just can't find it...dont know where it is."

This proves that not only is it possible for Clinton to have lost the codes, but he actually did! That is irresponcible! It is unknown when he lost them, and that means there is a period of time when the location of our go codes were unknown and a big security risk. This means that if some terrorist got their hands on the codes, then all hell could have broken out! It sounds like a movie but this happened!
Also, at one point, Bill Clinton even was seperated from the Nuclear Football for thirty to forty minutes. That is something that should not happen!!!
Bill Clinton is responcible for 9/11 because he didn't do his job and go after Osama Bin Laden when he started to attack us around the world and as a direct result his is responcible for all the big brother legislation being intorduced in Congress now. If he had actually done his job 9/11 wouldn't have happened, and we probbably wouldn't see the big brother legislation we are seeing now because the mindset of the Government wouldn't be so paranoid. Bill Clinton was one of, if not the number one, worst president of all times
I suggest that you, and others, read this account of someone who carried the Nuclear Football for Mr. Clinton. There is some informative things in there--including stuff on Hillary Clinton (like where the mis

When you absolutely, positively, have to kill every motherfscking RFID tag in the store, accept no substitutes...
The Electromagnetic Bomb
The Electromagnetic Bomb
The Electromagnetic Bomb
High-Power Microwave Bomb

France has its own carrier fleet and Germany, for historic reasons, doesn't.

FYI there is a list of european naval power here.

And I haven't even mentioned how futile it is to think that you can eliminate terrorism through force - bombing people to hell and back doesn't win you friends, only more enemies.

Quite true.

The Reagan is the last Nimitz class carrier. The next-gen carrier is called the CVN-21. More info on it can be found here . This includes pictures and specs. for all to ooohh and ahhh at (if it does not get slashdotted).

You better fire more then ten. Granted, this is more of a battle group defense than an carrier defense, but the point is that the Ticonderoga class was designed specifically to meet that type of threat.

Well I like your outlook, but that is almost 1/2 a billion (not trillion). You may be forgiven for this error, as computers most likely do your math for you. On the other hand, considering the US has $376B budgeted for military spending in 2003, this is less than 1/2 of one percent of the budget.

On the other hand, with the cost of a smart bomb of about $20K, this comes to something like 23.55K smart bombs that the govt isn't spending. The US dropped over 30000 smart-bombs in the first 12 days of this recent war, meaning the purchase of MS computers may cause about 11 days of relative peace...

... or it may cause a more aggressive nuclear plan because the smart bombs are not around...

This has the added fun of the acceleration mashing you into the rear wall

Actually, no.

The inertia of catapulting a heavy object like a satellite into orbit keeps the payload from suffering too much G forces at launch, as it gradually accelerates.

If you doubt this, then you need to read up on Dr. Gerry Bull's work. And interesting first read is here for conventional cannons, and here about his space mission.

His canons, the biggest of the sort, were meant as a mean to launch satellites into orbit. The great length of the canon, mounted on shock absorbing mounts like most canons today, means the projectile could reach orbit with a gentle-enough push so that even electronic equipment could be fired into space, directly at controlled orbits.

Having lost funding from the Canadian gvmt, Bull turned to the states which, after a few promising test shots, decided to pursue other means shooting at things. Bull very much wanted to finish his project and be the first to sent something in space at 1/10000th the cost of traditional rockets. So he turned to Irak for funding, and he sold them a few of those canons, including a huge one that was aimes at Israel, as it was found during the Gulf war (1991/2) and quickly dismantled.

Israel, though the USA, had bought a couple of Bull's canons, and was none too pleased to learn that friendly neighbour Irak has a bigger one. To this day, it's still a closely guarded secret, but it's been said in documentaries that those who gun shot Bull in his Brussel appt., were actually Israeli Mossad agents.

The sad thing about the fork in this story leading to crap like this is that people politicize scientific endeavors to get floor time. Nuclear happens to be an unfortunate keyword.

I for one do not want to sit in the dark ages and think that if NASA determines it best to use fission reactors to best perform deep space studies, so be it. Fanatics will fantasize about a cabal of technophiles, Illuminati and energy moguls and the x-files guys all hanging out in a dastardly plan to bring about Armageddon because you know, all these rich powerful people really want say, a nuclear war so they can live out their days in a bunker on a destroyed earth because that's the very definition of FUN! It's like people in a vocal minority to maraud around looking to bring Bush or the liberal establishment or [name your group to blame everything on here ]into every discussion.

All countries "are". They are not good. They are not evil. They are all unilateralist whenever they can afford to be. If you want others to believe in your morality, grab an orange robe and become a Buddhist monk. Otherwise, you're a money grubber just like the rest of us.

Those who bet on apocalypse the end of days, bet against a bright future basically always lose. It's not wise to sell short on the progressive countries of the world. Luddites who hearken back to the good ole days are essentially insane.

Now as far as nuclear devices with regards to the US - the US has been in possession of nuclear weapons the longest and has been able to refrain from using them the longest (Time since Nagasaki, as in, longest period of years since they were last used in war) despite the apparent efficacy of nuclear attack in bringing WW2 to a close.. They are staggeringly expensive and have little military value (until recently, the below ground penetrating missile/bomb design and nuclear torpedoes are also effective, both of these are tactical applications) they are essentially a threat over population centers. The US would not use strategic weapons unless they are used upon the US. Strategic weapons are essentially possessed only by France, Britain, Russia, China, US (and a lesser extent, India, Pakistan). They are effectively deterrence in that populations centers will be totally destroyed if the US is attacked. I don't foresee the preemptive use of strategic weapons nor is there any evidence of that in US nuclear posturing doctrine, which is publicly available:
FAS NPR , and Globalsecurity NPR, and DefenseLINK NPR.

The new preemptive nuclear strike parts of the doctrine basically wants to make a case for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against well fortified targets. Given that a swift conventional campaign in Iraq was so politically painful for the US, I seriously doubt that the US will ever use tactical nukes, much less preemptively. I think the document says it best: It's a nuclear posturing document. Anyone can break their own doctrine or even a SALT treaty anytime they want (See DPRK for an example of violating agreements). You think "dismantled" warheads aren't ready to go at Pentax? The modification of the nuclear posturing to say we will consider the use of preemptive nuclear strike in response to threats from Nuclear/Chemical/Biological attack or threat is simply this: Terrorist of the world and Countries of the world: Think long and hard about turning a blind eye or abetting subversive organizations that place US citizens under a potential deadly threat.

Strategic Weapons and the Cuban Missile Crisis: On October 25, 1962, Castro begged in a letter to Khruschev to preemptively strike the US. Khruschev was essentially shocked that Castro didn't get it. The posturing wasn't designed to start a strategic nuclear war, which Khruschev made clear in a letter to Castro on October 27, 1962,

Good management and policy by the FCC would allow in the near future many solutions.

However, donâ(TM)t expect â¦, do expect anti-competitive freq-hogging by telcos to keep control of local market.

In the near future, it should be possible to provide 100% wireless voice, data, TV, ⦠multiple carriers/providers over the most populated areas. Allowing the customers to swap (totally, 100%) providers/services for QoS or cost reasons. I look forward to getting rid of the wires in the house and the local-bell. The USA Government and businesses are not in the lead on these technology sectors.

PLEASE, check out these technology concepts: http://www.airship.com

REVOLUTIONARY AEROSPACE SOLUTIONS FOR TRANSPORT AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

There are other companies around the world (Europe) moving in this direction.

Take a look at http://www.cargolifter.com/2002/repository/splash_ e.html

Take a look at http://www.aiaa.org/images/about/01_TC_Highlights/ aiaa-lta.pdf

Take a look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haa.h tm

OldHawk777

Reality is a self-induced hallucination.

I personally have a great deal of respect for the folks at the NSA. I am also quite aware of their abilities, and let me say this if you are going to hand teh keys to your system to any one organization you might as well hand them over to the NSA becasuse they already have them.

Seriously I work in the security field, and have worked closely with all kinds of govt. operatives from local, state national and even foreign groups in my various and sundry dealings. Nobody and I mean NOBODY has the smarts/ ability / computational facilities as the NSA. The only other group I hold in such extreme regard is Mosad

And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet ...

Anti-radiation missiles are actually pretty expensive, and if they could make them sensitive enough to home in on such low levels of EM-radiation then they would already be using them as anti-tank weapons.

Even when transmiting military radio communications gear is already very stealthy. It uses packets sent on varying frequencies, so there is no constant signal to lock on to.

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left co

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized

Exactly. A large percentage of the traffic on the tactical internet takes place via tcp/ip on encrypted, frequency hopping fm packet radios. And commo is always ready to push out new comsec in case of any compromise. This keeps them pretty secure. Trying to use any of it outside line-of-sight is a bitch, though.

Exactly. A large percentage of the traffic on the tactical internet takes place via tcp/ip on encrypted, frequency hopping fm packet radios. And commo is always ready to push out new comsec in case of any compromise. This keeps them pretty secure. Trying to use any of it outside line-of-sight is a bitch, though.

Gosh, Dun Malg's right. I mean Powers was flying a U2, and we don't fly *those* any more. And we haven't had a propeller driven spy plane shot down in over two years now!

And their planes, missiles and computers haven't gotten any better.

WW2 Civilian Deaths ~30 million

Korean War Civilian Deaths ~2 million

Vietnam Civilian Deaths (both sides) less than 400,000

Gulf War I 13,000.

Yugoslavia~500

Afganistan ~3000

~2500

Clearly the number of civilian deaths is dramatically "improving". What most people don't seem to realize is that the philosophy of warefare has fundamentally changed over the course of the century. During WW2 civilians were not avoided as they were seen as an integral part of the war effort, and because there was no way to avoid them if you wanted to (due to inaccurate weapons). In modern day, we have the later, and disagree with the former. Of course, if you are one who believes that the US intentionally kills civilians, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise.

I mean the Sherman tank is only powered by a 400 horesepower engine and it is 32 tons!

Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines?
If only we could do this in our inner city public schools.

First, that's arc, or more correctly, trajectory.

Second, here is the non-vaporware tool that allows large groups of American minorities to protect multinational corporation's profits, err, I mean American's fundamentaly liberties: the XM29.

It'll be on Adnan Khasoggi's wishlist for the year 2008, when the Spiders Invade a la "Starship Troopers!"

Lasers And Their Potential For Tactical Military Use

These weapons have been long under research and development. Interestingly, this paper seems critical of the gasdynamic laser. The paper is nontechnical and relatively brief.

"Spray systems mounted on the Mi-8 HIP helicopters were also used against troop concentrations"". (the Mi-8 is a Soviet design)

"Iraqi Su-22 FITTERs and MiG-23 FLOGGERs conducted most air-launched chemical attacks". (likewise, so are the Su-22 and MiG-23)

The US was real buddy-buddy with the other signers of the Baghdad Pact, so I doubt the US was all that hot to have the monarchy overthrown by either communists or Ba'athists.

Poisonous chemicals and deadly viruses are not weapons in their own right. They have many legitimate commercial, agricultural and research uses. Whether or not it was [a good idea/moral] to let Iraq buy dual-use precursor materials is open for debate, but the fact remains (and no one claims otherwise) that Saddam manufactured all his biochem weapons domestically.

"Spray systems mounted on the Mi-8 HIP helicopters were also used against troop concentrations"". (the Mi-8 is a Soviet design)

"Iraqi Su-22 FITTERs and MiG-23 FLOGGERs conducted most air-launched chemical attacks". (likewise, so are the Su-22 and MiG-23)

The US was real buddy-buddy with the other signers of the Baghdad Pact, so I doubt the US was all that hot to have the monarchy overthrown by either communists or Ba'athists.

Poisonous chemicals and deadly viruses are not weapons in their own right. They have many legitimate commercial, agricultural and research uses. Whether or not it was [a good idea/moral] to let Iraq buy dual-use precursor materials is open for debate, but the fact remains (and no one claims otherwise) that Saddam manufactured all his biochem weapons domestically.

sorry to get on my soapbox, and I know I've already said this here, but I want to know if anybody else has noticed this.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with its coalition of the willing and the world hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with it's coalition of the willing and the UN hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Right, I doubt that we would've bombed Qatar. Our military forward headquarters is in Qatar during this war.

Rather than just a "strike under way" story, why not something about the tech that's being used this time around? That would be "News for Nerds."

OK how about this. Check out one of the newest weapons in the US arsenal, the e-Bomb or the high power microwave bomb. Takes out electronics like how they used in the Matrix. Would be ideal for eliminating Iraqi command and control capabilities, without killing too many people.

Da Bomb

2 points: 1) Here'a a good link to info on the Al-Samoud missile system. (Which Iraq has never concealed.) 2) I heard that Iraq is planning to use small engine planes to deploy chemical weapons because they have no missile systems capable of deployment. Is this a rumor or true? Any ideas?

BTW in the last Gulf War more American soldiers died in training and motor vehicle accidents than actual combat

My dad was in the military for 21 years and I spent roughly 16 years following him around the world. I really respect the men in uniform... so much so that unprovoked war is sad.

I was in Germany during the Gulf War... luckily my dad wasn't called up. He was near the end of his career and he was in communications, so not as much call for him. Anyway, I went to an DoDDS (Department of Denfense Dependent School system), Wuerzburg American High School to be exact...

Anyway. The Gulf War starts (at midnight our time). We lived in military housing that was just off the main Wuerzburg kaserne (or base)... no fencing, nothing. Wake up in the morning and it was like we were being invaded. Humvees (with machine guns) everywhere and people pulling barbed wire around the perimeter of our housing area (which included the high school that I went too). Full chain-link and regular patrols began began the next day.

So... it was wierd. Then you get to school. the kids whose parents had already shipped down are freaking out (mom or dad is now in real danger of getting hurt). In the weeks that follow, some other kid loses it as his mom or dad is called down to Iraq.

What did I take from that? Well, Bush Sr. wasn't sending his kids, the fathers and mothers of his grandchildren, to war. Neither were many (if any) of Congress. Instead they were sending people like my dad. The mothers and fathers of my classmates and friends. While "we" were victorious, I can only think that the casualties from our side included families that had no decision in the matter. Luckily, I didn't know any of them. I hope the same occurs with this "war." At least the invasion of Kuwait gave some pretext of Justice... the "He started it" argument.

The other thing (besides the war) that all those distraught kids knew about is just what 56ker mentioned. Massive troop movements always mean casualities whether a shot is fired or not. After all, their families had participated in at least one REFORGER exercise (when it was still in its heyday). Even though it was just an "exercise" people (people just like their moms and dads) died from these sorts of accidents in every single one. So, just the act of being "called up" meant that there was a risk of death or serious injury.

It has been the policy of the Interagency GPS Board that Selective Availability would never be turned back on, mainly because there are so many civilian users the rely on the more accurate signal since it was turned off. It would be a huge public relations blunder for the government if it did.

But before SA was turned off, the Air Force had to develop a capability called "Selective Deniability" that would allow it to alter the accuracy of GPS signals over designated theater of operations. I seriously doubt that SA will be re-enabled systemwide.

Someone on a listserv I belog to send the URL of this PDF dated 13 March, 2003 that adddresses some of those questions. The URL is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/2003/iraq-and-gps_faq.pdf.

GlobalSecurity.org has posted an interesting FAQ on the war and GPS. It's located here . It was written by Richard B. Langley from the Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering at the University of New Brunswick. It's a good read and answers a lot of questions about GPS and general and possible routes the military can use.

--Nyght--

GlobalSecurity.org has posted an interesting FAQ on the war and GPS. It's located here . It was written by Richard B. Langley from the Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering at the University of New Brunswick. It's a good read and answers a lot of questions about GPS and general and possible routes the military can use.

--Nyght--

Don't stop at cars. Both Hyundai and Daewoo make warships. At one stage they had an e-commerce site where you could put APCs in your shopping basket.

(Watching the wheels of military technology turn is like watching grass grow)

A couple of recent rapid developments serve to disprove that particular bit of common wisdom. The military, when pressed, kicks ass like no other organization in existence.

The 707 airliner was developed about 1954 (I think). 707's are still used in the passenger carrying business a bit and are more common now in ferrying freight.

IIRC the 707 also forms the foundation for the C-135 series.

The F-4 fighter plane was developed around the same time and that thing is used in the world's militaries, including our own.

I'd also point to some of the MiGs (particularly the 17 and 21) as examples of really popular, hardy planes.. Experiencing new lives as toys of the rich ;)

Let us try not comparing to anyone for a moment. From the perspective of decades out into the future, do you really think people will be talking about the new improved Swiffer Mop and the 2003 season of Survivor? The US has lost interest in anything that is not related to a higher GDP, more money in the old IRA and a decent BLT with extra mayo.

Europe can claim a few achievments, but they pale in comparison to the US.

Killing your own and your allies troops? Yes, the US is much better than the Europeans at that.

People who use mustard gas on their own countrymen are not to be defended, however much you dislike their enemy's policies.

And what of the country who sells it to them? What is their moral position?

The results of that war should have been pretty conclusive proof that it's not about oil - we wouldn't even let him sell it afterwards.

It's not about oil, I never said it was. It's about taking US taxpayer dollars and laundering them via shares in munitions companies and landing the residue in the accounts of a who's who of the rich and powerful in America.

Use your freakin' head.

I do. I use it to look behind the scenes, never taking what the media feeds me and thinking about the real motive behind things. Take the current situation. Saddam Hussein is the leader of a country. He is a heinous human being and the leadership of the US has repeatedly told the public through the media that the US needs to do something about that. That something is war.

Why not simply send in a 3 man assassination squad and get it done? Not enough media, no profits for United Defense and no innocents die. Do you think this would ever happen? What world are you living in?

You're trying to tell us all that George Bush is more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

Who has the potential to order the deaths of more human beings over the next 6 months? That's the only point I'm trying to make.

Actually, NK, SK and the US have been shooting at each other for quite a while already. This has been going on ever since the cease fire agreement.

" I don't agree that it was nothing of consequence. He was able to enter, without breaking in, a facility considered secret. He deomnstrated that the level of security that was claimed didn't exist, and that it may well be possible for someone so minded to wreak havoc at the facility."

" Gaining unauthorized access to a Top Secret nuclear weapons facility is not "of any real consequence"? Perhaps he should have tried to remove some material from that shack he was in, that would make you happy, that would be something of consequence?"

" Anyone can get in, and the ARMED SECURITY don't even have weapons in their holster!"

Here is a page describing LANL, and includes a map. Notice the scale of the map and how huge an area LANL covers. Notice that TA-33 is one of the most remote facilities.

And here is a pdf in two parts (part one and part two) that describes every tech area, and includes maps. The description and map of TA-33 is in part one.

Looking at the detail of the area of TA-33 near Highway 4 (because there's a whole bunch of TA-33 away from the highway!), I see dozens of buildings. Clearly, the writer couldn't have approached either of the two buildings that are designated as being in the "hazard category" because they are well within the perimeter of TA-33 and along the main roadway that serves the cluster of buildings at that northern portion of TA-33. He tries to make it sound as if the whole of TA-33--a huge area covering a range of terrain--is or should be guarded with high-level perimeter security and that, once he crossed the perimeter into TA-33, he was "in". But this is just silly. Buildings within technical areas have their own security, and the most senstitive buildings have the most intense security. He walked up to a "silver building" that was near the roadway. Big deal! That means nothing.

You and all the other people here who don't know anything about LANL are being misled by this writer who is preying upon your preconceived ideas about what such an installation is like. LANL is not like what most people imagine. There are lower and higher level security areas. There are areas that are essentially completely insecure. It covers a huge amount of territory, in some cases seemingly intermingled with the town.

I have nothing but contempt for this writer because he took a stupid risk for a trivial payoff. If he believed that the labs were insecure in this way, then he should have researched what the most sensitive buildings were, and attempted to enter them. As it is, his account reads like someone who was driving around, saw that the fence ended, and decided to snoop in the name of journalism. Then, afterwards, he contacted some "sources" and used their claim that TA-33 involved "black-op" stuff to make it seem like the one little portion of it he tresspassed upon was itself important.

He doesn't provide a map, doesn't provide a description of TA-33, doesn't tell you how much area TA-33 covers, doesn't tell you how many different buildings there are. He provides no context from which the ignorant reader can evaluate his claims of discovering a serious security lapse. He does, however, through insinuation and omission, strongly imply that he's done something extraordinary. But he hasn't.

Breaking the law in this manner should be punished regardless. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to applaud his efforts and courage if he was actually doing something worthwhile and noble. Instead, he's grandstanding and being stupid about it, to boot. He deserves to be thrown in jail just for being such a pathetic example of a journalist.

Is this purple beam part of a missile defense system?

NASA orbiter struck by "electrical phenomena" - San Francisco Chronicle - "The pictures, taken with a Nikon-880 digital camera on a tripod, reveal what appear to be bright electrical phenomena flashing around the track of the shuttle's passage, but the photographer, who asked not to be identified, will not make them public immediately." - February, 2003

Orbiter hit by "purple lightning" - San Francisco Chronicle - "Investigators are combing records from a network of ultra-sensitive instruments that might have detected a faint thunderclap in the upper atmosphere at the same time a photograph taken by a San Francisco astronomer appears to show a purplish bolt of lightning striking the shuttle." - February, 2003

NASA admits photographs of "bolt of something" exist - NASA - "DITTEMORE: I have seen the photo. We have sent the photo off to be examined, to verify its validity. We have not completed that activity yet. We have invited some atmospheric scientists to come to the Johnson Space Center to help us understand is there any phenomena that they know of that might exist in the upper atmosphere." - February, 2003

Starfire uses a telescope for "sending and receiving laser beams" - CRN - industry newsweekly - "For the Starfire Optical Range (SOR), a division of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, near here, measuring the effect of that air turbulence is critical to a project that uses a telescope for sending and receiving laser beams." - January, 2003

Directed Energy Directorate's "plasma projectiles" - Global Security - "Garcia said the directed-energy unit, which also is working on laser weapons, space-based optics and plasma projectiles some have likened to firing a bolt of lightning, has about 600 employees with an annual budget of about $120 million." - February, 2003

The curiously mislabeled document on NASA's web site. Check the title if you load this document.

2. There was a wide-spread assumption that the kamikaze attacks toward the end of the war in the Pacific Theater were a foretaste of a wholly militarized civilian population contesting any US attempt to occupy Japan. Looking back on it today, it seems absurd, but it has to be remembered that in the 1940s many folks thought that "Orientals" had a different "mentality" than "Westerners," and that the Japanese were likely to in effect commit suicide in fighting an occupation rather than simply suffer defeat and get on with life. Remember that Japanese Americans were kept in concentration camps during the war: the idea that all people have certain common values simply didn't have the kind of hold on the imagination that it does today.

Although the kamizaze attacks and the Battle of Iwo Jima were disturbing to the Americans, it was really the Battle of Okinawa that was considered a test for the invasion of mainland Japan.

More people were killed in this one battle than were killed by both atomic bombs. Many thousands of Okinawan civilians committed suicide due to the propaganda about what the Americans would do to them. (Ethnically, Okinawan != Japanese)

"Who was the first to use concentration camps? Yes, again it was the British in Africa. How's that for a mighty empire?"

That was a century ago, one country that calls itself civilized is still using them.

The main contractor on the entire International Space Station project, Boeing already has built up $1 billion in overruns in other phases of the program on top of its original $8 billion contract with NASA, Williams said.

...

From Huntington Beach, Calif., on Monday, Boeing spokesman Alan Buis acknowledged that the propulsion module project has faced overruns but declined to provide a figure.

...

He added, however, that NASA recently reduced these requirements and Boeing will give NASA a new estimate by June 29 based on the lessened requirements.

Within the aerospace industry, cost overruns of 10 percent on projects are not considered uncommon. But Boeing's overrun on the module is at least 37 percent and at a point where NASA is re-evaluating the contract.

The 20 percent increase is attributable to a range of factors, said NASA's Gretchen McClain, a deputy associate administrator responsible for station planning. Those include (...) a major cost overrun by the Boeing Co., NASA's prime contractor.

One question the task force will need to answer, Pike said, is whether NASA turned over too much control to the prime contractor, Boeing. The overruns have been blamed on unrealistic budgeting by both Boeing and NASA.

This is going to be me, rambling. I'll be accused of being a liberal, tree-hugging, deficit-loving bitch, but it needs to be said.

Bush has, from day one, been all about, or so he says, cutting budgets. Everything but Defense, he says, is spending far too much. Education. Health and Human Services. AIDS research (his "broad" plan announced in the State of the Union address was a joke). NASA.

Time and time again, he has harped on cutting NASA's budget. He has forced the agency to abandon most all other programs, except extending the life of the shuttles.

Democrats and others have pleaded for Bush to reconsider. He hasn't.

One year ago, CNN discussed Bush's plans to dramatically reduce NASA's budget, INCLUDING safety spending, in favour of learning more about nuclear technology in space.

This PDF from the House Democrats makes Bush's cuts clear, in terms of NASA and science in general.

Worse yet, a year and a half ago, people were warning that these cuts were leading to an inevitable disaster in the shuttle program. A freaking year and a half ago.

And through all of this, the best Bush can say is "May God continue to bless America."

Oh, and Saddam is an evil, evil man.

Growl.

jrbd

"Is space worth the risk?"

No, it's not. More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk. (Unmanned missions are risk-free by comparison)

Just look at the kinds of leading edge science this crew died to perform:
http://www.wff.nasa.gov/~sspp/sem/about.html

Manned space flight (both shuttle trips, and the International Space Station) are today worth neither the risk nor the money. I like what John Pike said about the ISS: "The value of the science that can be done on the Space Station is trivial compared to the cost of the Space Station. Piloted spaceflight is about politics."

Let's look specifically at the ISS, which is the destination for most of the recent shuttle flights. Keeping humans supplied in space takes many extra trips up and down: all the air, water, food, living space, and exercise equipement takes up valuable cubic meters. And all of the provisions for safety and gentle re-entry further reduce the fuel efficiency of the rockets.

The ISS program, and the supply flights to build & support it, will have a total price tag of at around $100,000,000,000.

Scientific-notation kinds of fundage ($1e11)!! You'd have to be a NASA researcher just to count it all.

Virtually all of the science and maintenannce done on Shuttles and the ISS could be accomplished by semi-autonomous robots. Sure, today maybe our robotics and AI technology isn't good enough to substitute for some of the tricky things where a dynamic, flexible human is needed. Well, try investing a fraction of the $1e11 budget into researching those systems, and then tell me how well they work!

Developing better robots to operate space equipment won't only make extra-planetary research safer and cheaper- it'll also produce technological advances that will benefit civilians around the world!

(Rocket-boosters are only needed by astronauts and admirals. But reliable robot manipulators could be useful to anyone)

I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.

I hope the public wises up that manned space flight is an expensive and dangerous form of esteem-boosting entertainment.