Slashdot Mirror

The army already builds (contracts out the building of) their own drones.

The micro-UAVs, the ones closest to a DJI ~(4.5 lbs), cost the Army (These are the inexpensive ones) $35,000 each for a Raven RQ-11B. A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma (6 lbs, heavier battery, flies longer).

So yeah, for the price of one Raven, you could only afford to buy 25 DJI Phantom 4 Pro drones. The Raven can go farther faster, the Phantom has a better camera and can avoid obstacles on it's own and circle/follow a target on its own, so they have complementary uses, but one is obviously way cheaper than the other.

How to define unfair? If it can turn inside others to get a gun or short-range missile firing position, if it can't be readily seen on radar, if it can track and kill multiple targets at once, if it has enough power to streak away and come back quickly, that makes it unfair. That's why that breed of airplane is called "air superiority fighter." Their mission is to sweep the skies clear as fast as they can.

Other "unfair" airplanes have been the F-15, the mig 29, the Super Hornet, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few others, maybe the Eurofighter.

But, the F22 is more unfair than the above. Now, it's hard to find links to published results of dogfighting tests, but there's f-15 pilot quotes out there saying that in exercises, a flight made up of many F-15s got bounced by just 2 F-22s and within seconds all the 15s were dead. The comments from the F-15 drivers are "didnt' see them, didn't hear them."

I've heard of 2-on-18, 2-on-8, and so forth. Invariably with the same result.

Now, dogfighting (that's gunfighting) with a "dirty' F-22 puts it at a disadvantage. Enough of a disadvantage that 22s have been "killed" by Eurofighters and Mig 29s in simulated gunfights. "Clean," on the other hand, the 22 is an excellent dogfighter.

But all that talk of unfairness and capabilities assume all pilots are equal. They are not. In a gunfight, I'm betting on the meaner, wiser, more experienced pilot, regardless of what he's flying.

Here's some plane pr0n, just because I think the F-15 is the most beautiful of the modern fighters.

Information Warfare: Running For Linux January 9, 2011

For a decade now, China has been trying to get business and government users to adopt Unix (and later Linux) as their operating system. Yet most Chinese businesses, and many government departments, continue to use Microsoft operating systems. They do this because Microsoft Windows is widely pirated in China, and there's a large amount of pirated software you can use only on Windows systems. Another critical reason is that more games run on Windows machines, and that is important, even in China. Finally, the Chinese government is more resistant to complaints from Microsoft than Russia.

* * *

China has tried to get around this by subsidizing Linux training for Chinese engineers and computer technicians. The government also subsidized the development of the Kylin Unix based server software. Kylin is shareware, and anyone can download it. Kylin is also designed to be very secure, much more secure than Microsoft server software, and most other similar products. China has had more success in getting users to adopt non-Microsoft server software, but the real battleground is PCs.

No, it is the scientists, businessmen, and students doing the spying. That is how China does it. They have an espionage system that they compare to "a thousand grains of sand".

They are quite successful at it too. They have stolen everything from the most advanced US nuclear warhead design to advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile designs. They are not to be trifled with.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20080921.aspx

China wants North Korea as a buffer zone. Having a reunified Korea lead by the democratic South is not what it wants - that's why it continues to prop up the Norks, despite the latter being insane.

China doesn't want to be an enemy. It is a competitor though, so in some sense it already feels as if it is in a shadow war with the US (and the rest of the World, in fact). Here's an article discussing the huge amount of espionage that the Chinese Government is organizing:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20130328.aspx

China knows it cannot win a kinetic war against the US and its allies. It is instead planning to set up all the pieces beforehand (eg. technology, modern arms and a knowledge of US military secrets) and have a strong regional force so that the US will hesitate to intervene in any dispute. The plan of China is already to enforce its ridiculous "9-line" claim, by force if necessary.

However, China is concerned about the supply lines to keep its industry going. It is contributing to global peacekeeping like the Somalia anti-piracy operation (which also helps train the PLA Navy for eventual power projection in the Indian Ocean). If China stops trampling on the Exclusive Economic Zone of its neighbours then its rise will be a positive thing. At the moment it is running around roughshod over its neighbours, so it is increasingly viewed negatively by its neighbours (who used to be neutral or friendly). That is why Vietnam asks US *military forces* to visit (no doubt a surprise for any readers with their mind still stuck in the paradigms of the 1970's), of course the US is still in Japan and Korea. Then we have Burma/Myanmar peeved with the Chinese (and their crap quality weaponry) so turning toward the Russians; then we have the Philippines who kicked the US out asking to have the US back. The funny thing was that China was afraid of a US-lead anti-China alliance even though none existed. By stupidly throwing its weight around it has in-fact got it's neighbours annoyed and they are asking the US to guarantee their protection (thereby starting to create such an anti-China alliance). I know that the Chinese feel that it is "their time to take their rightful place in the World", and this is somewhat true, but they are so terribly clumsy about it they don't realise they are acting as their own worst enemy.

Note to Chinese readers, we like you and don't want to fight you, so please chill a little. We know you don't want to be pushed around, please realise no-one else wants China to push them around either. Compete hard, but compete fair. :)

refueling tankers don't launch from carriers

Yes they do.

My first thought from the headline was, "Why would they have a problem with Continuous Active Sonar?".

This is nothing more than political maneouvering by the ruling government.

It's been done before, and will continue to be done. Especially because a General Election is coming up. If you read that link I posted, it was reported that the Malaysian prime minister said "Whatever we do, we must put people first,". If that were truly the case, why wasn't that position taken in the first place before the law was passed?

Basically:
1. Pass draconian law
2. Wait for public outcry
3. Repeal draconian law
4. Look like a hero
5. Profit!

 
That regime that controls Malaysia for 55 years can do that, time and time again, simply because the average IQ of the Malaysians - especially that of the majority Malays - is below 75
 
If you follow the following links, you will understand how easy it is to manipulate the majority Muslim Malays -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Malaysian_institutional_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_head_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_attacks_against_places_of_worship_in_Malaysia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt5qR98-jE8

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Scorpenes-Sting-Liberation-Publishes-Expose-re-Malaysias-Bribery-Murder-Scandal-05347/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20091224.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBIgmdMNE7Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalang
 

Actually the F-22s do this to get good at the close-in fight as well as the long-range engagements the USAF prefers (their tactics are based on a long range 'skate' where they launch and extend - using the superior training and situational awareness [via datalinks and AWACS] to beat their opponents).

What is unusual is the 1 vs 1 nature of the engagements. Usually F-22s and F-15s train at 2 or 3 to 1 odds. Occasionally the USAF loses the fights and the opponents always crow about it (eg. the EF/A-18G that beat a Raptor once, the Indians that managed to win a couple of matches against F-15s at Nellis), what is ignored (since it doesn't make sensational news) is all the times the USAF wins. Now it is totally unrealistic for the USAF to win every engagement without losses (no matter what the aircraft) but the general public seems to have the wrong impression and expect the USAF to have a no-loss record (clearly ridiculous). Now the Pentagon has a vastly more realistic expectation and don't expect the 187 Raptors that were built to be nearly enough - which is why the leaked a report in 2008 to try and get more Raptors built:

• http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/war-game-argues-that-usaf-fleet-could-be-outmatched-by-316555/
• http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20081002/page3.aspx

Now that is 6 Raptors flown from Alaska to Guam and fighting near Taiwan (not mentioned in the linked article, but that was the scenario) vs around one quarter of the Chinese fighter force. While it was marketed as a "loss" (remember, the Pentagon wanted to scare the US public into sensibility and get more Raptors just in case stealth wasn't the advantage they thought).

Regarding the effacy of stealth. Even the pilots of the F-117A flying over Baghdad thought it might not work. It turned out it did. The pilots certainly realised the limitations of stealth
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gulf-war-20th-black-jet-over-baghdad/
Note that the F-117 lost over Serbia was due to the smarts of the Serbians using a combination of visual (and aural) spotters, guessing attack routes, and using very old radars working at wavebands that the stealth fighter is less optimized against. Stealth is not magic, apparently it merely reduces detection range to around 20% of normal for an aircraft of similar size (for the F-117), or 10% for the F-35 and F-22s (from the front aspect).

Stealth is not a silver bullet. It is still an edge (among other several other edges the USAF has) in modern combat.

Choose wisely. Children perceive the world in a more literal sense than adults. The daughter of a friend of mine had nightmares about not being able to put her arms down after reading a passage where Winnie the Pooh couldn't put his arms down for three days. (Or something like that.) There are plenty of stories where a small child dressed up like Superman has discovered he cannot fly after jumping off a ladder or bunk bed.
I still recommend A.A. Milne and Beatrix Potter carefully seasoned with Spiderman or other superheros but keep in mind he's probably too young for Peter Rabbit and the Panzerfaust.)
Your best bet is to take the kid to a store that specializes in comics and ask the owner about age suitable material and let the kid decide.

I think the point is that it doesn't have to. It just needs to survive long enough to launch a missile.

Missile-armed boats are relatively expensive. Iran has only about 20 of them, 10 of which date back to the 1970s. And probably a handful are out of service for repairs or maintenance at any given time.

Also, I guess if fifty of these things are attacking a ship, only a few of them have to launch their missiles or come up alongside and detonate their explosives for the tactic to be effective.

Boats like that are so fragile a .50 cal will tear them apart in a few seconds. After the USS Cole incident American warships were issued heavy machine guns that clip onto the rails and sailors were trained in their use. The only way the "pull up alongside and detonate" tactic will work is if the ROE won't allow the crew to fire until it's too late.

Also, frigates are fast - almost certainly faster than a speedboat packed with enough explosives to do actual damage. Attacking an alert (and they're surely alert at this point) crew in a ship underway is a whole different kettle of fish than attacking a ship in port.

It was probably the JSTARS or Joint STARS surveillance planes that you read about. They use Synthetic Aperture radar to observe terrain and record the screen views which they can replay to backtrack an event. http://www.379aew.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123130660 http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20060326.aspx

The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.

Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.

The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?

Oops. My mistake.

For that day, how about this instead:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nigeria/articles/20111201.aspx

Or this:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20111201.aspx

Or this:

http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-december-1-2011

That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.

The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.

Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer. ...and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?

The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.

Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.

The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.

So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?

The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.

Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.

The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?

Oops. My mistake.

For that day, how about this instead:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nigeria/articles/20111201.aspx

Or this:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20111201.aspx

Or this:

http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-december-1-2011

That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.

The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.

Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer. ...and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?

The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.

Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.

The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.

So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?

so you want to enable a mechanism that would self distruct at a push of a button. okay, so what kind of public outcry would happen if a drone malfunctions and self distructs on a miltary base possibly injuring or killing troops?

Indeed. I mean, what is on a military base except personnel? Tonnes and tonnes of explosives. That's clearly dangerous and should be banned. It's not like any other weapons have self-destruct capability.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2005/2005721212041.asp

I remembered hearing about this a while ago and this story brought it back to the front of my mind. Interesting if not surprising.

Electronics can survive literally being shot out of a canon. A little-known secret is that you have to do practically nothing to harden modern electronics against high g-forces. It's not that hard - since they're extremely lightweight with no moving parts, COTS electronics can usually survive in excess of a hundred g. If the circuit board didn't flex enough to snap, I would expect any piece of consumer electronics this small to survive a fall at terminal velocity.

I liked this

http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_20057151.asp

Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
*Hitler[AoE] has been eliminated.*
benny~tow: OMG u noob you killed yourself
Eisenhower: ROFLOLOLOL
Stalin: OMG LMAO!
Hitler[AoE]: WTF i didnt click there omg this game blows
*Hitler[AoE] has left the game*
paTTon: hahahhah
T0J0: WTF my teammates are n00bs
benny~tow: shut up noob
Roosevelt: haha wut a moron
paTTon: wtf am i gunna do now?
Eisenhower: yah me too
T0J0: why dont u attack me o thats right u dont got no ships lololol
Eisenhower: fock u
paTTon: lemme go thru ur base commie
Stalin: go to hell lol
paTTon: fock this sh1t im goin afk
Eisenhower: yah this is gay
*Roosevelt has left the game.*
Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
*tru_m4n has joined the game.*
tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy ****holy****hoyl****!
*T0J0 has been eliminated.*
*The Allied team has won the game!*

Also this

http://users.livejournal.com/kim_jong_il__/

"And Iran, Iran's so far awaaay."

I wonder how many recruits we've generated by killing innocents with our bombs and drones.

Probably fewer than you think....

But the Pakistani general leading troops in the North Waziristan has for the first time publicly acknowledged the U.S drone attacks are hitting mostly militants and al-Qaida fighters.

Major-General Ghayur Mehmood spoke to a group of Pakistani reporters on a rare trip to Miran Shah, the administrative center of North Waziristan.

The Pakistani general says that information the military has gathered from its sources suggest most of those killed in drone attacks are hardcore militants, and the number of innocent people being killed is relatively low.

The official paper distributed among reporters says that there have been 164 drone strikes in the militant-dominated region of North Waziristan since 2007, killing 964 "terrorists". There were 171 al-Qaida fighters among those killed, mostly belonging to central Asian and Arab countries. -- Pakistan Says Drone Strikes Have Been Effective

. ..

January 10, 2011: While the Islamic terrorist groups in Pakistan's tribal territories are not happy with the six year CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign, many of the local tribesmen are. Attacked by Predator and Reaper UAVs, armed with missiles, the terrorists (al Qaeda, Taliban and the Haqqani Network) have lost about 40 senior leaders in the last six years, most of them in the last three years. These losses are not only bad for morale at the top, but are seriously disrupting terrorist activities. The locals love this, because the Islamic radicals have been nothing but trouble. For one thing, the radicals come across as a bunch of self-righteous bullies, and use their weapons to intimidate, or kill, anyone who crosses them. This includes coercing families to provide daughters to be wives of bachelor terrorists. Then there is the terrorist tactic of using civilians as human shields for protection from the missile attacks. Here's where the CIA won hearts and minds, by scrupulously avoiding casualties among the innocent tribesmen. Moreover, the tribes eventually drew the line on human shields, bringing out their own guns and forcing the Islamic radicals to back off on hostages. The locals also abandoned their compounds when the terrorists came by to spend the night. If the CIA hit the compound (after noting how the owners fled), the tribesmen blamed the Islamic radicals, not the CIA, for the damage. The Islamic radicals know that the tribesmen have been cheering, not so much for the CIA, as against the radicals, but don't make an issue of it. On the surface, everyone is a good Moslem. But the local Moslems make no secret of wishing that the super-Moslems would go somewhere else. read more...Schadenfreude In Taliban Country

In point of fact on your #2, Israel HAS GIVEN China OUR TECHNOLOGY. For example, they GAVE CHINA an F-16 with live avionics on it, while selling them their Lavi fighter. There is some evidence that J-20 has come from Chinese spies and Israeli spies who gave tech to Israel which then sold it to China.

Israel has the right to exists, however, we all need to understand that Israel is NOT a friend to the west.

Although the defense spending is huge, it's still less than that for health care.

I'd far rather see a country spent more money on healthcare than on killing people. If the US Government really wants to save money, they should build less aircraft carriers - the incoming Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, will cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion each - nearly $100 billion in total for a like-for-like replacement of the eleven Nimitz and Enterprise class carriers in active service.

By comparison, the UK spends two and a half times as much on Health as it does on Defence.

From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.

Really?

Soldier Sex In Afghanistan
December 18, 2009 -
Last year, the U.S. Army in Afghanistan has removed the prohibition on sex between male and female soldiers. There are 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and about ten percent of them are female. So far this year, about fifteen percent of these female troops have had pregnancy tests, and a few percent of the female troops have gone home because they were pregnant.

Your views differ markedly from many in the military, especially those in the ground combat arms - the ones with the primary responsibility for attacking the enemy. The closer the person is to the sharp end, the less interest they have in this experiment.

60% of Marines Deployed to Combat Zone Say DADT Repeal Would Have Negative Impact
Early reports on the Pentagon's survey of the troops on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were nothing but roses for repeal supporters, but the details of the survey complicate that narrative somewhat. While only 20% of troops who have never been deployed to a combat zone say that repeal of DADT would "very negatively" or "negatively" affect their "immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission," more than 44% of combat troops say repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness:

An exception to the pattern was the response of Service members deployed to a combat zone now or in the past to the circumstance of being “in a field environment or out to sea.” Among all Service members in this group, 44.3% (and 59.4% of Marines—see Q71a in Appendix E) said performance would be “very negatively/negatively” affected in this situation. Of note, among all survey items related to the review’s major subject areas, this item had the highest percentage of Service members reporting negative perceptions about the impact of a repeal.

Update: The report also says that "67% of those in Marine combat arms units"--i.e. infantry, artillery, armor--"predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission 'in a field environment or out at sea.'"

About 11% of all combat troops surveyed said repeal would "positively" or "very positively" affect performance, while 19% said repeal would have "no effect." Another 26% of combat troops surveyed said repeal's affect wold be "equally as positively as negatively." These troops--who see both negative and positive effects of repeal--are lumped together with those who believe it will have "no effect" under the survey's "neutral" category.

The Flag & General Officers for the Military

This is a list of 1,163 distinguished retired military leaders from all branches of the service who have shown their support for the 1993 law with personal signatures requested and received by regular mail. The list (as of February 2010) includes two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several Service Chiefs, a number of combatant command, theater, and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with two Medal of Honor recipients and hundreds of retired flag and general officers who have led the men

And all they have is their opinion, because even the Department of Defense was forced to admit [slashdot.org] that the facts do not back that position.

Just random events then.......

Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

Who could imagine they could be sensitive about that sort of thing?

Funny, who would have thought that freedom of speech could actually work?

Funny, who would have thought that publishing lists of informants against terrorists would result in them being killed or intimidated? Doesn't that contradict all of our experience with the Mafia?

So your case is that it is wrong to expect no innocent pregnant women or children to be shot at checkpoints, or adults murdered during interrogation by our military?
We're not talking about mistakes made in the heat of battle

You and your team are manning a traffic control point in Baghdad. A car is speeding toward you at 40 MPH - it will be on you in 20 seconds. It is ignoring the multitude of signs in Arabic and English warning that a checkpoint is ahead, to slowdown and stop, and that deadly force is authorized to enforce the checkpoint. You flash lights - no effect. You fire a warning shot with tracers - no effect. Now, do you:

A) Hold fire because it might be that 1 in 10,000 cars with a pregnant woman on her way to the hospital. (And you've had many vehicles with pregnant women stop before.)

B) Open fire to halt the car to avoid being killed in a bomb blast, attack, or whatever.

C) Run away and hope that you get out of the blast zone from a couple of hundred pounds of explosives (fat chance).

Your answer? A? Let's see what you won for you and your team!

So, we are, in fact, talking about things that happen, very quickly, at random times, by surprise, in the heat of battle, as a result of the driver not obeying signs and signals to stop, deliberate provocation, suicide by police, a tragic accident, or a deliberate attack.
And lets not forget that Al Qaeda and company have been known to force or trick people into attacks, including children and the mentally ill, or to hide a bomb in someone's vehicle and explode it remotely without them knowing about it. You will be just as dead from 10 kilograms of explosive in the hands of the mentally ill as you will be from 10 kilograms of explosives in the hands of a university trained electrical engineer turned suicide bomber.
Mentally Disabled Female Homicide Bombers Blow Up Pet Markets in Baghdad, Killing Dozens
Iraq: girl suicide bomber may have been forced into it by husband's "female relatives"

Expecting that American troops won't murder prisoners is reasonable. When a detainee has died (murder or otherwise), it has generally been investigated and, if warranted, the guilty punished. The US has safely processed and released many tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm curious... you seem comfortable slandering American troops, do you ever condemn Al Qaeda for any of the vile attacks they deliberately commit?

I guess you've fallen behind on Taliban press releases and activities.

Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province's embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

I don't know why anyone would expect anything else given their sensibilities and tendencies toward killing the innocent. And don't forget, the hand of the Taliban is reaching beyond their borders.

This press statement makes me really worried. Considering the recent news about Congress wanting a kill switch for the Internet, an NSA announcement that it will "secure" the internet sounds like spin.

Have you ever heard the joke about how different branches of the U.S. military "secure" a building? The NSA puchline would be "rig the building for demolition, then put the Big Red Button right next to the light switch.

Between my experience with STU-IIIs and being a Dune fan ("He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing") I'm really worried that the NSA has been tasked to create an internet kill switch, and that the "security" efforts they will soon recommend will be a pretext for the kill switch's creation. The NSA is the logical government agency to implement a kill switch, and designing the new security system would give them the access they'd need. Normally I hate conspiracy theories, but this is just creepy to me.

Footnotes:
For all you coders out there, I meant "=", not "=="; in my opinion the NSA getting involved assigns the value "kill switch" to "secure".

Joke punchline origin: every piece of NSA designed hardware I've handled has a kill switch built in, and one of my biggest headaches was people asking "what does (PRESS) this do?". Quote from the STU-III handbook:

The STU-III battery backup allows power to be removed, as in a power failure or unplugging the unit to move it, without losing the encryption data. The zeroization button bypasses this backup and erases the encryption data. After zeroization, the STU-III must be rekeyed and the CIKs must be remade. The STU-III is zeroized:

In an Emergency. - If the STU-III is ever in danger of falling into hostile hands, zeroize it to prevent the adversary from obtaining a functional unit. . .

By Accident. - The accident usually follows an employee's curiosity. The employee starts playing with the buttons and zeroizes the unit. Be sure to brief your employees on the importance of not pressing or playing with the zeroization button. Refill the STU-III using a new seed key [or operational key].

"Some retard is going to try a rectal bomb,"

Not absurd, been done, and thanks to the Internet we know concealing something the size of a hand grenade (spoon taped so it doesn't snag) is quite practical:

http://www.strategypage.com/downloads/iedsrectalcavities.pdf (possibly NWS for pics of raghead who blew himself in half)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Strange a small small number?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117159/Teradata_creates_elite_club_for_petabyte_plus_data_warehouse_customers
"eBay, with 5 petabytes of data; Wal-Mart Stores, which has 2.5 petabytes; Bank of America, which is storing 1.5 petabytes; Dell, which has a 1 petabyte data warehouse; and a final bank, with a 1.4 petabyte data"
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20100322.aspx
talks of 20 petabytes for one small system?
Anyone have any insights into why/how the net would be sorted for Google over x databases over a short time?

...Wall To Wall Counseling (See FM 22-102 for more information). Seriously, this is something that you're going to have to address in numbers; either get everyone to sign a petition, or have a few of the younger guys meet the boss in the parking lot for a "Team Building One-on-One".

Japan is doing pretty well at rearming on its own - http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090904.aspx

Just make sure you select the correct home!

We won. The MSM is only interested in embarrassing Bush, so you probably won't hear about it.

And as Bush said many, many times before, we will draw down troops as soon as it is safe to do so.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20081027.aspx

However, Barry wants to put those troops in Afghanistan, so we won't be saving any money.

We are proud of the U.S. role in reducing the threat to innocent civilians of landmines left in the ground after conflicts end. Since 1993 the U.S. has provided close to $1 billion dollars for these efforts. As the conferees in Nairobi mark this progress, there is important work that remains to be done. Eliminating civilian landmine casualties requires a comprehensive approach addressing landmines of every type that remain hazardous after a conflict has ended, including the larger anti-vehicle landmines that are not covered by the Ottawa Convention.

The United States' landmine policy increases funding for humanitarian mine action substantially. It includes an unconditional commitment that U.S. military forces (despite worldwide treaty commitments and major ongoing operations) will cease the use of all persistent landmines, anti-vehicle as well as anti-personnel, by the end of 2010. The United States will also eliminate from its inventory all non-detectable mines, which pose an extraordinary risk to civilians and deminers.

The U.S. applauds the initiative and commitment of those gathering in Nairobi, and we reiterate our commitment to work with the international community to accelerate progress toward an end to the humanitarian harm caused by persistent landmines. We encourage states participating in the Review Conference to:

* Increase funding for humanitarian mine action, and harmonize their efforts with other key mine action programs worldwide.

* Examine their own policies on the continued use of persistent anti-vehicle landmines, which pose substantial dangers to innocent life yet are not covered under the Ottawa Convention.

* Agree to negotiate, at the Conference on Disarmament, a ban on the sale or export of all persistent mines, including anti-vehicle mines.

* Eliminate all non-detectable landmines, which pose a particular hazard to deminers.

So why not do it?

I have a read an explanation over at The Strategy Page. For him, it was a bluffing to win at two fronts. Iraq and everything west of it is Arab, at the east you have Iran. Arabs live in fear of the Persians. This dates back more than three thousand year.

Having his war at the beginning of the eighties with Iran gained him much respect in the Arabic world, because he stood up to them. The bluff with the WMDs was in the same category, it was to scare off the Iranians and give confidence to the Arab world that he would stop them if they would move.

Smaller transport aircraft have been downed in Iraq (three C-130s), and a civilian DHL transport was hit but not destroyed.

Pod-mounted engines helped buy some time:
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/DHL_SAM_attack1.aspx

You think I'm making this up? If "Freedom Fries" is the only thing a pundit can point to in the U.S. as being anti-French, that's pretty thin. France has a long history of being an obstacle to U.S. influence in the world - unless they benefit from it. Depending on which snapshot of time you look at, the sentiments change and the French people may not necessarily agree with the stance of their Government toward the U.S.

France has had an active anti-Americanization policy for a long time, mostly cultural. More importantly, it has meddled in countless delecate situations involving the U.S. without invite. The French Government's ego gets damaged if it isn't included in important world affairs. That's why you'll find French diplomats popping up when there's a conflict brewing with the U.S. and anyone else. They play themselves for "good cop" and cast the U.S. as "bad cop". They're heros for the little guy if they hold off the U.S. somehow, and they'll wish them luck and stand aside if it doesn't work. During the first Gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, French diplomats were circumventing embargoes against Iraq supplying them with aid and advice until the shooting started. Then there's that "Food for Oil" thing with French in the middle and the result of propping up Saddam in spite of the fact he was the biggest danger to the Middle East at the time (lets invade Saudi Arabia and split the spoils). No, there weren't any Weapons of Mass Destruction found later. France, Germany Britain and others all believed they had WMDs but France tried several times to get the inspections stopped. France would happily poke a stick the the eye of the U.S. at any opportunity - except for now when they actually are getting fearful of Iran. Does France fear the Iranians getting nuclear weapons or do they fear going down yet another notch on the International Influence Circuit? Hard to tell.

Here's some reading from an outfit that knows more than most about this. I also learned a little more from this article. Draw your own conclusions.

An interesting article on how perseverance and attention to details allowed the Serbs to down the F-117 stealth craft:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx

I am not sure what your point is, a bomb can't have wires and circuit board sticking out of it? First 2 below looks like they could easily be dangled from a shirt:

Bomb
Bomb
Bomb

This missile can be launched from undersea position 290 km away from the target:

The missile is in service with the Indian Navy. The missile is fitted on the Rajput class of destroyers. The submarine launched version of the missile is ready for testing. The missile will be either tested on a Kilo class submarine of the Indian Navy or will be tested in Russia.

(Additional link 1 and link 2.)

I would not call 200 miles a close range. A WWII torpedo was a close range weapon; a Shkval torpedo is a close range weapon. I have no idea what is the protected area around the group, but it can't be that large, and even one such missile can give a heart attack to the carrier group commander, if it misses or is shot down. If it doesn't miss then forget the heart attack, there wouldn't be enough time left for that.

Of course, the attack does not have to occur in the air - a common 30 yr old 65-76 torpedo (designed in 1976) has range of about 62 miles - if a CG can protect even that circle it is doing better than good. Officially China and Russia have those.

f you have a carrier group, you own the ocean [...] for the simple reason that you know where you are, and the enemy doesn't.

This is applicable to submarines which may be a part of CG, but the whole group is hard to fail to notice in, say, Persian Gulf. You may not even need binoculars. The attackers found USS Cole with their eyes tightly shut. And that's one of the reasons why Iran seemingly has the following:

In early 2000 it was reported that North Korea and Iran were jointly developing an advanced version of the C-802 missile. The missiles initially acquired by Iran from China were rather outdated, and Iran turned to North Korea for missile system technology. The two countries are jointly developing an upgraded version with improved accuracy.

(quoted from the linked Wikipedia article.)

And of course we should not forget about the older hardware, Iraq has some, and Iran probably also has:

It is based on Shang You (SY), meaning Upstream anti-ship missile, which in turn, was based on the Russian SS-N-2 Styx missile. The missile looks almost identical to the Shang You (SY) anti-ship missile, and has similar performance. It has a maximum range of 95 km, with a 513 kilogram payload. Silkworm missiles are 7.36 metres long, and weigh 2988 kg. They can be launched from semi-mobile (towed) launchers or from ships.

The 95 km range is more than enough to cover the whole area of interest. So the carriers are vulnerable if the incoming missiles are arriving faster, closer to the sea, or in larger quantities than the Aegis can protect against. Wikipedia lists its tracking capacity of 100+ targets (with no mentioning on how many targets can be fired upon, which may be classified, or just dependent on how many ships are available, or both.) So if an opponent initiates a land-based attack they can launch 200 missiles, or 300, all at once - and a few of them will make it through.

1) Why is there what appears to be a cockpit?

Because you'd better cover the big satellite dish below it.

2) Why is the prop on the back?

To give a clear view in front so it can see where it is going. Also it gives you space in the nose of the plane since the engine is also in the back.

3) What is with the crazy tail wings and fins on the back? They seem to go in all directions.

It's a V-tail. It's lighter and more aerodynamic than a normal tail. Also it is less visable for radar. But it's more complex to control which isn't an issue for a computer controlled plane.

4) Is that a camera in the front? Why is it not recessed for aerodynamics?

Because that would obstruct its field of vision. The camera can pan and tilt. See http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/add/20 06915126462.aspx for a nice view of it.

You should read more this web site

While I admit that it is probably a right-wing publication, I have the impression that they are fairly balanced. I think you can see it mainly in the reporting about the Arab world, there is no rhetorics in the articles.

Now about the people that he wanted to believe he had something, it was mainly the Arab world. The reason is its neighbor Iran. Iran/Persia dominated the Arab probably for almost 3 millennia. The Arabs fear and loathe the Persians, and Saddam was the only one who had stood up against them. That earned him respect in the Arab world.

"On top of that, the navy has all sorts of charts of the sea floor, many of which are probably classified to some degree or other. Subs can use "landmarks" on the sea floor to determine their position. Since highly precise navigation is usually only important in coastal waters, this works pretty well."

Not true:
USS San Francisco hit an underwater mountain.
See for yourself!

Much of Iran's nuclear weapons facilities are supposed to be underground. If they are, even the newer, conventional bunker busters could do the job effectively. I've read a number of online scenarios regarding the use of the new bunker busters. All of them attempt to calculate the effect of one bomb, and show that they can be pretty devastating. A multiple, possibly sequential, bomb attack might well be effective, and would certainly be a lot less controversial.

Note, see here: http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/200610 122107.aspx
for bunker buster video.

2003 DHL cargo plane taking off from Iraq was hit by a Surface to Air Missile (SAM). They definitely could have used this system. There is a wonderful episode of Mayday featuring this story.

Have a look at some of the damage and more information here http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/DHL_SA M_attack1.aspx

It is no joke; here are some links; you have to read between the lines a little.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123011448
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBW/is _2_5/ai_n16057511
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705expeditio n.asp

and for Navy types:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/ 20060922.aspx

One of my best friends sons is Air Force, and is doing convoy escort, guarding prisoners, and he didn't volunteer for it; he is a Radar Technician.
The FACT is is that while the combat services are claiming that there is no shortage, it is a very far thing from the truth.

• agriculture - Yamaha's been selling the RMAX for 18 years for crop-dusting. Surveying growing crops from the air for signs of insect infestations allows for early, effective and minimal application of pesticides.
• utilities - power companies run regular surveys of their lines, some by air, some from the ground but it's always expensive human beings who have to use their personal eyeballs.
• search and rescue -
• police surveillance - now done by manned helicopter and very expensively. Related but not exactly the same as the previous usage.
• post-catastrophe assessment - after a hurricane or earthquake one big problem is finding the places that need the aid the most. The life and property toll can be reduced if the rescue personnel know which roads are passable and which aren't and which areas need them the most. UAV's might also be useful as communications access points in a post-catastrophe situation.
• flying weather stations - there are a couple of UAV's who's claim to fame is their endurance. The first UAV to fly the Atlantic managed the trick in 1992. Have them buzzing around where it's difficult, dangerous, expensive for people to do gathering data not accessible by satellites.

Vitamin B17 isn't bad, but vitamin B52 packs more punch.

I also think that al-Qaida would vote G.W.Bush: Never ever have the recruiting possibilities have be better, never ever have the arguments of al-Qaida being existant better. Never ever have the means and possibilities of getting money from the Arab world being better due to high income on oil and an general feeling of being waged an undeclared war against from the U.S..

It was brilliant the way Al Qaeda tricked the US into occupying all of its nicely equipped and well supplied training bases in Afghanistan, not to mention the way it bogged the US down with all of its supplies, mountains of documents, large numbers of prisoners, and weapons. And the physical training they are getting by running away will no doubt always be useful. And I can't help but think of all the US Treasury officials who gave up weekends because they were forced to freeze the accounts of Al Qaeda members, suppliers, and sympathizers. They also cleverly got around the problem of Afghanistan's government only being recognized by 2 countries, the funny looks you might get with an Afghani passport, by tricking the US into removing the Taliban government. Of course that did create a problem with finding enough ballots for all of the Afghans to vote.

They are being fiendishly clever in Iraq as well, forcing us to use up precious bullets, killing at least 4,000 foreign fighters in the process. And just because Bin Laden claims that the war in Iraq is "greatest battle of Islam in this era" doesn't mean it has to be important to the US. After all, with the Iraqi Army almost up to full strength, and growing more proficient, day by day, you have to wonder about the hatred of the US when Muslim soldiers are killing Islamist extremist terrorist who are killing Iraqi Muslims who used to be killed by the thousands by Saddam, but not any more, so I guess its fault of the US that fewer Muslims are being killed... and voting.... I think that is supposed to be bad.

Never ever have allies of the U.S. being more alienated from the U.S., making "divide et impera" the most easiest ever. Never ever was the danger of the own population being in favor of U.S. so minimal.

Your point about US allies is well taken. If it wasn't for the 34 or so countries that have had forces in Iraq as part of the coalition, the fact that NATO is running the Afghanistan operation these days, including commanding US troops in addition to 36 other countries, or that the US is part of the Six Party talks over North Korea, or that the US is coordinating with European powers over Iran, it is hard to say when the US would ever talk to any other country.

If only the world hadn't turned against the US before 9/11.