Slashdot Mirror

Prove it.

Given the number of times they've been caught lying in the past — including very recent past — the burden of proof is on Iran — and its apologists. The same apologists, who have no problems protesting Iran's innocence, while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...

Oh, and TFA itself is proof — the argument, that Iran are doing it "for energy" is defeated by the simple Math presented here.

It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...

But realize that the propaganda machine is using the WMD line to trance you into gearing up for war, just like they did for Iraq.

So, your argument for Iran's innocence is our attack on Iraq? I fail to see a connection... The above-enumerated lies are totally independent of whether or not I am unduly influenced by some ominous propagandists — whom you would not even cite.

Have you considered the possibility, that it just might be you, who are a propaganda-victim? A "deal" with Iran (and Cuba) is the only good legacy Obama can have: despite all the Statist interventions (like the "Cash for Clunkers" flop) the economy is contracting, the Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia should've been Georgia-related and tightened instead of abolished in 2010, Obamacare is increasingly unpopular.

Bringing "peace for our time" with the mullahs would be — he foolishly thinks — something he could point a finger at. The way Clinton can point to his — equally foolish deal with North Korea. This is why they push for the "deal" — the same inept morons, who tried to befriend Putin with a plastic button...

There's a good bit of bartering that happens with these "sales".

The DSCA proposal of sale from June 2013

Another article from June 2013 regarding the sale, with an important quote.

"France requests these capabilities to provide for the defense of its deployed troops, regional security and interoperability with the U.S,"

Here is more on what was purchased.

So.. We sold them to France, so they can operate them. The intention is that they will cooperate with the US. So if we want "surveillance" of a target, and France has one that's closer, we can use their intel. There's nothing unusual about that. It's similar to ICBM early warning systems that were "sold" during the cold war. Sure, they were being operated in another country, but we still used the intel from them.

You must have missed the /. post about China's growing submarine fleet, like this one, or the news of their nuclear submarine programs on the Guardian and others, like this one. Or the news that they launched a new class of nuclear ballistic missile subs here, here, here, here, and here.

So, there is no threat to the East Coast, because China is so good about not selling things for profit to other nations, like Iran, Syria, Libya....

We will soon reach a point where not having such predictive capabilities will doom any launched vehicle to a debris collision. Its interesting to think that such a program provides so much space superiority over other nations.

It's also interesting to think that blasting several rockets into orbit, then exploding them to create more debris is a rung reachable by even the lowliest of space faring nations.

Tracking and collecting space junk could become very important if even one such nation decides: "If I can't have it, no one can!"
IIRC, China tested their capability to create space debris by destroying a satellite.

Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second

Northrop Grumman's Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser system disagrees with your assessment... just ask the mortar shells it shot down. They've been able to shoot down large and small caliber artillery rockets, artillery shells and mortars.

Last I heard someone decided it was too expensive given the current technology and cut funding. NG was working on a less expensive version dubbed Skyguard, which may be able to protect traffic at commerical airfields from shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. (Haven't seen any videos of that system yet).

There's also the YAL-1A, same concept but mounted on a turrent in the nose of a 747.

All these systems use chemical lasers, and while we can fit them into "a few semi-trucks" (or a 747) right now, they're far from being hand-held. In any event, we're past the "Can we shoot down X with a laser" argument and are currently figuring out how to make it smaller and more cost effective. It takes intermediate research programs such as these if we ever want our ships, tanks, or soldiers making pewpewpew noises when they pull the trigger.

The bullet's not flying even close to straight except when observed over short distances - it's flying in a parabolic arc vertically, and then you have wind effects and whatnot to consider on top of that.

That's why I said "nearly straight". Yes, everything is flying over a parabola, including bullets, but their parabolas are very close to straight line. For example, M40's effective range is 1000m. With muzzle velocity of 777m/s, it would take the bullet about 2 seconds to reach that range. Within two seconds, it will "fall" only about 20 meters (g*t^2/2). 20 over 1000 is 1/50th...

That said, the main application for these would, probably, be civilian (providing security) and thus much shorter ranges — there are few places in urban locales, where a sniper can be 1000 meters away from the VIP and still have a line-of-sight...

if your sensors are acoustic in nature

I'm pretty sure, the plan is to use radars — much like the anti-missile and anti-shell systems are doing. I don't think, detecting the bullet will be the hardest part here. Reacting to it is tricky. The missile-shields bet on either powerful lasers or "kinetic" pieces to destroy the projectile. Quickly moving the target instead is the novel idea here, perhaps, worthy of a patent, indeed.

As the article mentions, if there is a malfunction of the B2 Spirit's computer system (either in sensors or the system itself) the pilots must eject or be killed. There was a video, not available any more, explaining that the computer is the reason why the airplane doesn't spin out of control and crash. If it goes offline it takes just a few seconds before you're toast. This apparently happened once or twice during early development while they worked out the kinks in the software (sorry, can't find any current proof of this). The only B2 that has crashed (that we know of) crashed due to bad sensor input to the computer (if that is really the truth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit#Incidents_and_accidents

When you've got a billion dollars flying around at very high speeds, with some nuclear weapons on-board, and a couple of highly-trained pilots... you need to be 100% sure the system doesn't go off-line resulting in a near instant vehicle loss. It is also well known that spacecraft and aircraft use technologies that are actually very advanced, but might appear on the surface as old. The amount of materials research that goes in to these things costs in the multitudes of billions. It is very important the H-bombs drop where they are supposed to, and when. It is very scary, and the only way to test all the moving parts together is to start a nuclear war. As the SysAdmins say: "Not if, but when."

Here are some more details (may be a bit redundant):
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Preliminary_Design_Review_Of_New_B_2_Bomber_Computer_Architecture_Completed_999.html

The future is lasers and rail guns, not bullets. Remember the DOD talking about solar power? Think that it was just about trying to be nice to the planet? Nope. It will be used to give power to a number of devices. It could be sats that we called spy sats, but are waiting nicely to do other work. Or it could go to a destroyer and provide it with loads more power to power rail guns or lasers. But energy, rail guns, and lasers WILL be used heavily in the new military.

If shutting down access to blogs isn't enough to create resentment, the Air Force is "developing data mining technology meant to root out disaffected insiders based on their e-mail activity--or lack thereof." With "Probabilistic Latent Semantic Indexing" a graph is constructed of social network interactions from an organization's e-mail traffic "If a worker suddenly stops socializing online, abruptly shifts alliances within the organization, or starts developing an unhealthy interest in "sensitive topics," the system detects it and alerts investigators."

http://www.lynuxworks.com/solutions/milaero/in-action/ddx.php

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Concurrents_Redhawk_Linux_Selected_For_THAAD_Missile_Defense_Program.html

The military is already embracing real-time linux distros. . .

Killing human beings is already a video game. The USAF 423nd Wing is comprised of 6 MQ-9 "Reaper" drones and 60 MQ-1 "Predators". The Predators can carry a couple of "Hellfire" missiles, and the Reapers can carry almost 4000 pounds of munitions.

The 432nd is currently flying sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the UAVs are mostly controlled from Nevada via satellite. "Pilots" sit in air-conditioned buildings and work shifts like air-traffic controllers. If you can find video of these things killing "targets", they're frighteningly effective. These aren't toys, they're already being used in combat with very real consequences.

For added perspective, a Chinese sub surfaced within firing range of USS KiItty Hawk:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chinese_Submarine_ Stalks_US_Carrier_999.html

If you like Russia then you like space war
If you hate Russia then you hate space war

George Bush Junior is furious because his Antimissile Balistic Missiles don't work. Bad bussiness for George Bush Junior!

I like much Russia!

I'm benchmarking the speed & reliability of the missiles, Russia is better than USofA.

The USofA's missiles don't work well, they work bad and hang 2 by each 3.

If you like Russia then you like space war
If you hate Russia then you hate space war

George Bush Junior is furious because his Antimissile Balistic Missiles don't work. Bad bussiness for George Bush Junior!

I like much Russia!

I'm benchmarking the speed & reliability of the missiles, Russia is better than USofA.

The USofA's missiles don't work well, they work bad and hang 2 by each 3.

If you like Russia then you like space war
If you hate Russia then you hate space war

George Bush Junior is furious because his Antimissile Balistic Missiles don't work. Bad bussiness for George Bush Junior!

I like much Russia!

I'm benchmarking the speed & reliability of the missiles, Russia is better than USofA.

The USofA's missiles don't work well, they work bad and hang 2 by each 3.

In October 2003, Indian Air Chief S. Krishnaswamy stated that India had started development of an operations command station for an eventual space platform for nuclear weapons.[10] However, he retracted the statement within days, under pressure from India's civilian leaders.[11] India: Military Programs

According to a senior U.S. Air Force official, Brazil is one of a group of countries "seriously involved in using space assets for military purposes."[1] Indeed, when Brazil became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1995, it was allowed to keep its space launch program, despite the potential for military applications.[2] Brazil: Military Programs

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has drafted a bill to allow Japan's into space. The calls for the military to venture into space within the parameters of self-defense rights. That would be a drastic change from the current civilian-based limitations that Japan has placed on space ventures. Japanese Military Going Into Space

Nothing that can't be done by a bush airplane, and these things cost as much if not more than a used single engine or kit plane.

I've seen the conceptual UAV project that the new hires at Dahlgren, Virginia worked on http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Successful_Test_Fl ights_Of_New_Armed_UAV.html

This technology needs a lot of maturation before any combat application including terror: it is very noisy, unstable at speed on the ground, and requires a lot of ground support personnel. Holds exciting promise to a well equipped military for something like convey escort, but it's too high tech for backwater armies.

how did this story get missed by the rights/freedom conscious crowd here at /.
  Google Imposes Worldwide Ban On China Critical Website

http://www.spacewar.com/Google_Bans_Australian_Bas ed_Military_Space_News_Website.html

there must have been enough of a stink raised, not from the slashdot crowd, because google relisted it

The IAEA has managed to miss every single covert nuclear weapons program.

I submit the following:
Mohamed ElBaradei, in an AFP interview after receiving his Nobel Prize, listed some of IAEA's successes:
"We managed to eliminate the Iraqi nuclear weapons program ... between 1991 and 1997."

"We are in fact the ones who detected the North Korean (nuclear) program as early as 1992" and "we have now come to the complete elimination of Libya's weapons program."

Its some scarry stuff! eh?

Dude you are going to drag all the mass of a CEV all the way to Mars and back just so they can use it to reenter the Earth's atmosphere. I dont suppose it occured to you, with all this modularity and docking stuff that if thats all you are using it for you could dock a CEV with the Mars return craft when it gets back to earth orbit and save the mass on the round trip to Mars for something useful on mars?

Anyone using these CEV tin cans for anything beyond getting to LEO or maybe as a command module replacement for going to the Moon is crazy.

In other news, Lockheed and Boeing announced their plans to form a partnership for expendable launch vehicles. With the end of Titan and with this consortium owning Delta and Atlas this signals an end to competition for expendable launch vehicles for NASA and the DOD. They pitch it as elimination of duplication of effort, pooling all the talent on one team, and necessary economicly in a starved expendible launch market in the U.S. especially one facing major competition from Russia and ESA in the commerical sector. It also conveniently deprives the DOD and NASA of competitive bidding for this class of launchers so this new consortium can probably charge as much as they can get away with for a launch, since they will be defacto sole source. Commercial satellites can of course still shop around with the Russians, ESA, China etc but that isn't usually an option for the DOD in partciular.

> This statement is idiotic. North Korea had
> nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now
> they're afraid because... they developed nukes.

United States Congress has this year sponsored "Freedom Fighters" in the following countries, with the following sums:

Russia $150,000,000
Iran $150,000,000
Egypt $25,000,000
Syria $5,000,000
Venezuela $20,000,000
Cuba $40,000,000
North Korea $20,000,000
Myanmar $12,000,000

These include terrorist groups like MEK

It should prove that MANY COUNTRIES have a LOT
to fear from U.S., even if they've never developed
nukes.

It also seems that US going wimpy on North Korea,
and bullish on Iran, just proves that nukes are worth it in their deterrent value.

You don't hear Rumsfeld being uncertain about Iranian nukes, whereas you can read him doubt
that North Korean nukes even exist. The funny thing is, that Iran claims to have none, and North is claiming to have several. Read it here.

Let me help further that point.

Spreading the Word (w/photos)

Col. Gary Brandl: Satan lives in Fallujah

In preparation for the attack, Christian Heavy Metal.

As for other interesting Iraq news for today:

US forces demolish a hospital and target another for releasing casualty figures; 70 journalists are embedded for the invasion; mot of the troops doing the invasion have no major combat experience; and a Georgia man commits suicide at Ground Zero to protest Bush and the war in Iraq.

I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?

I'll grant you that by itself, re-appointing people to draft boards is no big deal. However, it is the height of foolishness to take this administration's word that everything is rosy - particularly given their track record with WMD and the economy. We're in a situation now where the US is delaying ground action in Fallujah until after the US election, for domestic political reasons.

Are you familiar with a "special skills draft"? I think it's even shown up on Slashdot. Take a look at the slightly contorted statements Bush is making - he's not ruling out a special skills draft, or even mandatory national service (military service optional).

Did you know that the chairman of the RNC threatened legal action against Rock the Vote for trying to use a threat of a draft to motivate college students? Do you feel comfortable with political parties deciding what is or isn't acceptible speech?

Of course, the mainstream media wasn't bothered by the chairman of a party that controls all branches of government threatening legal action for stating an Unfact. I think that proves my point, which was that you can't be educated paying attention to the mainstream media.

I honestly don't know if those American plans still fly in the Iranian Air Force or not...

I didn't either, but this article would tend to indicate that they are indeed still flying.

After a bit of googling, I found some more material that, whilst not a subjective analysis, may indicate that some may still be combat effective. I presume the Iranian military wouldn't like to advertise the fact they are still operational, as I'm sure if hostilities commence between the US and Iran, those aircraft will be high-priority targets.

I'm sure however, that the U.S. Military knows EXACTLY how many are still flying and where they are.

But, unlike Iraq, they were not in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 of the charter that spanned 12 years. There is still a lot of diplomacy that is being tried before we reach that point.

Yeah I remember all those times that Saddam brutually captured an American vessel in international waters while kidnapping civilians from neighboring countries, building missiles that can reach the US and telling the World that he was enriching uranium. Gosh Iraq is clearly the threat here. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside every time we pull troops out of Korea and send them to Iraq because Iraq is clearly the greater threat.

IDid it ever occur to you that North Korea is ten times the threat to the United States that Saddam ever was and oh-by-the-way perhaps if we had sent the 100,000+ troops in Iraq into Afghanistan instead perhaps we would have caught the guy who slaughtered 3,000 American civilians on 9/11? But why would we want to focus on resource-poor Afghanistan when we can invade an oil-rich country that was a negligible threat to our interests (let alone our people at home)?

Despite aggressive attacks by Israel on suspected Qassam manufacture workshops, they still have a supply of the rockets and launch them even now from the Gaza Strip. I won't claim to do a rigorous study of this, but here's my thoughts.

Hamas more or less is the effective Palestinian-side government of the Gaza Strip. They were able to manufacture some number of these rockets under the noses of the Israeli army, which is backed with a great intelligence service. So here's some observations. First, Hamas is a "terrorist group" with unusually serious resources and manpower. Second, Hamas chose to make and launch their own rockets rather than solely use military surplus. Perhaps they can't smuggle in much of the weaponry they want, or they're hoarding what they have.

Their workshops are vulnerable to Israeli raids and have been hit occasionally over the past few years (including recently due to the above attack). I thought earlier this year that perhaps the manufacture of these weapons had stopped (due to losses suffered from previous Israeli raids), but apparently that's not so. The requirements to manufacture these weapons seem very simple, namely a machine shop, explosives for the payload, and the fuel mixture above.

The current Qassams aren't particularly effective. The missiles are very inaccurate and unguided. Their range and payload are quite limited. But Hamas does have a ranged weapon which appears to have some value in psychological warfare. Future generations of Qassam rockets may be more effective.

The point here is that a group with sufficent resources should be able to manufacture a number of crude missiles without major investments, fancy technology, or purchases of equipment and chemicals that would draw law enforcement attention. Those missiles probably wouldn't be effective. However, in a similar fashion to missiles designed to damage ships, one could with a lot of experimentation devise a missile designed for penetrating and damaging hardened buildings.

So I can see legitimate scary scenarios for rockets killing people in terrorist attacks. But I don't see how current restrictions will keep this sort of development from occuring. Valuable information and experience will be withheld from lawful citizens while the villians will still break the law. It's another case where we impose restrictions on all citizens because someone could hypothetically do something dangerous.

EU bureaucrats removed the proposed Spanish ITER site from the running because Spain supported the war in Irak.

Now, I'm not saying that the war in Irak was a good (or bad) idea.

But when the EU allowed politics rather than science to influence the content of its ITER proposal, this gave the Bush administration an excuse to do the same thing. Plus, due to the influence of these politics, the EU bureaucrats may have cut Europe's bid at the knees anyway by choosing the less optimal site.

And if politics is to enter into this thing, it's not surprising that Japan is favored, since they were fairly neutral in the Irak matter. But make no mistake: it was the ministry of EU that brought this upon themselves and upon Europe in general.

(Note: this is not a criticism of France as it is! The bureaucrats of the EU are totally separate from the people of France and their government.)

Bush has already asked Japan for 660 million dollars. Doesn't waste any time, does he? Not to mention that that money will probably get passed to US companies...