Slashdot Mirror

Major Icebreakers of the World http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/docs/20130718%20Major%20Icebreaker%20Chart.pdf

I think our US Navy has been practicing for just this kind of warfare for several years because I've seen the boats they use as "enemies" - they sometimes stay at the marina where I live. The "enemy" boats are likely a step above what Iran would be able to field in large numbers; they are 25-35' LOA rigid inflatable craft powered by twin or triple 200+hp outboards, or glass-hulled fast sportfishers like Fountain or Donzi. The kind of boat where the crew is strapped in with 5-point harnesses because they *need* to be when a boat that size runs in excess of 50kts on open water. I would hope that crews trained against these extremely fast 'aggressors' would find it fairly easy to take out targets using slower, older, less capable craft. HITRON may well have a role in such a conflict scenario as well.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/PigeonSARProject.asp

Class D Felonies:

Maximum prison term: Less than 10 years but 5 or more years.
Maximum Fine: $ 250,000
Maximum Supervised Release Term: 3 years.
Special Assessment on Conviction: $ 100

Federal A: Life or Death
Federal E: More than 1 year but less than 5 years.

Classes of offenses under United States federal law

Since 1790, the Coast Guard has served as America's principal "law of the sea" agency. Originally established by Alexander Hamilton as the Revenue Marine, the Coast Guard began with the mission of enforcing import tariffs. Since then its maritime-security responsibilities have expanded exponentially...to include the enforcement of all federal laws at sea--from stopping terrorists and pirates to enforcing vessel-safety regulations and fisheries conservation laws to interdicting drug and migrant smugglers. Missions - Maritime Security

Bull.

The USCG uses C-130Hs http://www.alea.org/photogallery/gallery.asp?rid=165&gid=209 which are turboprop-powered. That's a jet engine attached to a gearbox which runs the propellors.

They also use HH-60H and HH-65 helicopters, also jet engine powered. http://www.uscg.mil/d17/airstasitka/Mission.asp

Mod parent down for inaccuracy, mayhaps?

Coasties all know that the way to get a sweet station assignment like Station Lake Tahoe is to spend a year in attu. I wonder what the new pipeline will be.

The Coast Guard's roots lie in the Revenue Cutter Service, which was founded on August 4, 1790 as part of the Department of the Treasury.

The magic words are "probable cause". Much can be accomplished in the name of probable cause, including civil asset freezing / forfeiture. You might need a warrant, but if all you need is probable cause, it's probably not that hard.

I believe the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 raised the burden of proof to "preponderance of the evidence", which is a positive. But I believe they can still freeze for 60 days, pending a court telling them that they can't. They're just required to tell you about it. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have time to read the whole thing right now.

However, the law seems to still be all over the place, as the drug laws and organized crime laws frequently have their own provisions for asset freezing/forfeiture. Beyond that, when you throw in terms like "agent of a foreign nation", it seems like the whole book is thrown out the window (see Reagan/Libya, lots/Iran). Throw in "presidential powers during wartime" and you start reading a whole new book.

Oh, and the Treasury dept. freezes and seizes assets all the time. It's just usually foreign assets, or through the IRS (which I don't believe are warrants, just procedural). Think of all the charities you've possibly heard of the last few years who's assets were frozen due to "suspected terrorist ties". Of course, those were based on an Executive Order as well. I have yet to read a decision by a court that the funds must be unfrozen (not that it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it).

Note that the CNN article ends with "The grounds for blocking Global Relief's funds would be disclosed in court, the spokesperson said." That suggests to me that they didn't need to explain it before (i.e. get a warrant).

Oh, and the Coast Guard really was a part of the Treasury (most of the time) until 1967. It's on their web page. I didn't know that either.

He went out in a 40-foot C&C 121 yacht. That's a very nice boat, with a epoxy resin laminate hull, carbon fiber reinforcement and masts, Kevlar sails, and a 38HP engine. There hasn't been any weather lately bad enough to give a boat like that any serious trouble. If it ran aground it would probably survive the experience.

But between San Francisco and the Farralon Islands is a major shipping lane. One with fog. Container ships and oil tankers come through there. Sizable fishing boats have been run down and sunk without anyone on a large ship even noticing. There's a USGS Vessel Traffic Service station and established traffic lanes for large ships, but small boats aren't required to check in with traffic control.

These baloons will be a threat to air traffic. Most air traffic is at "a few thousand feet." You know, things like Angelflight and general aviation and arial firefighting and search and rescue.

He said "We found out the FLIR system would not survive temperatures below -5". There is a vast chasm between saying "this FLIR is not rated for -5" and saying "the FLIR would not survive temperatures below -5". I'm not sure on FLIR sensitivity to cold weather, but he is implying it would then break.

Oh another point, all tactical systems that handle classified material and are not in special facilities, e.g. a SCIF, need to be protected against TEMPEST / COMSEC & all that jazz. This is common knowledge for anyone with a SIGINT background in the mil/intel arena.

Obviously a cutter is built for shallow water work. That means near to shores not way out in the Atlantic Ocean. Big Antenna on the shore, camo'd in the trees, picks up classified comms - not unrealistic.

There is no such thing as paranoia when it comes to protecting classified material.

Initially, I was considered as written by an amateur, but then I noticed that part about you being a Marine. Figures!

- enough batteries for ~50 miles.
- a small (100cc) biodiesel engine running at a fixed and preset RPM connected to a small generator. The engine would be set to run at the peak of it's power curve.
- a small ~10L fuel tank.
- an AC charging circuit

This would allow the driver to run on electric most of the day and charge on the road when needed. One could also use a gasoline engine instead of biodiesel and still see big fuel operating savings since some wall recharging would take place. It would also greatly decrease the number of batteries needed.

This is a really old idea. I saw something like this (on a much larger scale) on an USCG cutter (WLB-389) that was built in 1943. Two diesels -> two generators -> one electric motor. Worked great and it could double as a light ship.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

...how would anybody know if martial law was declared in secret?

You're kidding,... right?

Declaring Martial Law in secret is about as useful as declaring yourself Emperor of France in secret. It is only useful if people know about it and obey your wishes. That isn't happening any time soon. Besides, the question of the Military controling the civilian population in the United States is settled law from the Civil War and the Posse Comitatus Act.

You're letting your imagination run away with you.

"Border Guard" is actually the duty of the "National Guard" Oh wait they're in Iraq. Coasties have been changed from one of the most loved and respected services in the world to a despised, and ineffective law enforcement force (poorly funded and consequently poorly trained http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/DS_After_Actio n_Report.html).

When the National Guard is federalized (taking orders from the federal government rather than the state) it is subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factca rds/PosseComitatus.html

This restricts them from performing law enforcement duties. The Governor asked for a delay so they would be available to support the local police if needed.

USAF C-23 Sherpa
USCG HH-65A Dolphin (Dauphin)
Sony
Panasonic Toughbook
Software for the F-35 Strike Fighter (p.17)
Fox NBC Rec Vehicle

Not huge projects, but not inconsequential, either.

Email and the postal services do not have that type of interoperability.

And yes, I am aware that most maritime accidents are related to human error and not to the navigation aids themselves.

This is an issue dear to my heart. As an avid lighthouse photographer (http://www.pbase.com/ldkronos/lighthouses)
I really hate to see these things being abandoned. I think their different styles and architectures are quite interesting. However, some of them are beginning to disappear. Non profit organizations have formed to try to preserve and restore the bigger and more popular ones, but then there are those that have just been left for their own, several of which have collapsed or been torn down and replaced with simple (boring, IMHO) light beacons (for example, this lighthouse:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES /sanduskypierhead.JPG
has been replaced by this:
http://www.us-lighthouses.com/displaypage.php?Ligh tID=138
)

Who decides on immigration policy, the US? The UN?

I don't have the answers to your questions, but I will guarantee you that no matter who controls immigration to Mars, you're going to get Cubans that somehow manage to make the voyage in a converted 1959 Buick

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opl/AMIO/images/Cuban /59Buick.jpg

"Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997; now it's about 5 percent,"

Believe it or not, most people don't include porn in their regular searching habits, some people really *do* use the web for work stuff. My crappy link site is one example - people actually go there to learn about the subject matter.

Porn this, porn that, every new technology is first pioneered by porn...

Bullshit.

We non-computer techhies are turned on by nipples, trycocks and laying pipe. And we know where these secret places are.

What? You mean everyone doesn't get hits from ARPA?

http://www.dragva.com/awstats/awstats.pl?output=al ldomains

I'd think everyone would have a few hits from them, maybe not? Then again a decent chunk of the traffic is from the local miltary bases, mainly Langley Air Force Base. Go tax dollars!

Some other notables:
* http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/
* http://www.nmci.navy.mil/
* http://www.uar.navy.mil/
* http://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/
* http://www.uscg.mil/

Hope /. doesn't have Eschelon connected o_O

This isn't a model. This is a kid's dollhouse.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Am I the only person here who finds this incredibly objectionable? Internet traffic is/should not be subject to any law except the laws governing the sending/receiving points for it. Under their reasoning, they can apply their own laws to almost the entire Internet, since so much of the Internet is routed through the US's pipes.

Why not? The Internet was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Defense, and is--today--governed (ultimately) by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce has effectively outsourced management of the Internet to ICANN--but have no illusions: the U.S. government paid for it, and they have no (and should have no) qualms about taking advantage of that.

Does that make you uncomfortable?
If you're not a U.S. citizen, it might be a bit chilling to think that U.S. officials might be peering at your email. Well, hey--they're routinely photographing your house with satellites, too. You can start wearing tin foil hats and worrying about Little Black Helicopters--or perhaps you might reflect on the fact that the U.S. government, and particularly the U.S. Department of Defense, has spent billions of dollars on technology that they let you use, for free. The Internet is one example, but there are others: the LORAN network (Long Range Aid to Navigation), GPS, the U.S. Naval Observatory time servers, and the International Ice Patrol (keeping track of icebergs in the North Atlantic) are just some that spring to mind.

The U.S. military isn't a fount of altruism--they have uses for GPS and the Internet too. But the fact that the U.S. taxpayer foots the bill for lots of stuff that the rest of the world gets for free might, might, suggest that we're not the incarnation of evil that some people overseas ([cough], [cough], France) would suggest.

There was no "official" cooperation between the military and the Coast Guard on this, but when you get orders on the secure circuit to "think about getting to these coordinates in exactly 12 hours" which result in the Coastie on watch saying "Oh hey -- there's a boat... let's board him!" can you deny that there is unofficial cooperation going on?

No, I can't deny that cooperation is going on, because it is, and it's perfectly legal. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from conducting law enforcement operations itself, but it specifically permits the military to SUPPORT law enforcement agencies to conduct LEO, especially drug related ones. See the link for more info.

By the way, I was in the Navy as well, and participated in many, many of these operations. The fact that the Navy was actively cooperating with the Coast Guard was widely known and unclassified.

Sean

"armed military across the country would protect americans rights and keep the country safe from the jihad."

Someone actually modded this insightful? You've got to be joking. Many of the founding fathers saw a standing military, in and of itself, as a major threat to liberty. Standing armies have historically been used to oppress the population in both times of war and peace. This nation, in an attempt to protect the people from a corrupt regime using the military as a weapon against the people, enacted the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It restricts the military from engaging in any law enforcement, except where provided for by act of Congress or the US Constitution. This followed the Supreme Court decision of Ex Parte Milligan(1866), which stated that Martial rule (military law) cannot exist or be enforced within the borders of the United States except where it is necessitated by a situation (such as rebellion) in which the courts cease to function, and thus, civilian authority no longer exists. The Supreme Court, like just about everyone else who's ever taken 10 seconds to look at a history book, recognized military forces policing civilians as a grave and dire threat to the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

The threat posed by the military to the liberties of the American people has been recognized since this country was formed. To say that we should now reverse more than 200 years of historically-based common fucking sense is absolutely insane.

What part of this did someone find "insightful"?

Wow... I'd almost support suspending the Posse Comitatus Act for that one particular action.

Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles.

No, you don't send soldiers to a public demonstration in NYC.
You send the police, and maybe the National Guard in really, really extreme cases.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the US military from performing general police functions within the borders of the US.
There are some things they can do, but mostly just assistance and transport.

Yeah I'm sure that would be a conern to the shipping. But it is manageable. Already North Atlanta Sea ice is monitored very actively in order to keep icebergs from hitting ships and oil rigs.

I believe the US Coast gaurd's International Ice Patrol takes care of most of the monitoring relevent to shipping.

Maybe one under the Golden Gate someday??

Wouldn't happen. The Gate is a Regulated Navigation Area with extremely tight traffic lanes. If you obstructed one (even during servicing of anything underwater) you'd bring some bad mojo down on you. VTS get's grumpy when they have to reroute traffic.

Seems strange that they want to prevent the people who know how to stop snipers from helping. As long as the assistance is purely technical, I have no problem with it. Now if the military was setting up roadblocks and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter.

There's a reason why they are preventing these military personnel from helping, and a good one too: the Posse Comitatus act. Basically, it prevents military personnel from doing most civilian law enforcement tasks except when authorized by Congress. Congress would essentially have to declare martial law in order for these people to be able to help out, and as scary as it may be, the current situation there does not warrant martial law.

An artist's rendition of what the new helmet looks like.

(Picture is copyright (c) 2002 Eric Grantham)

That didn't work out, of course, and a lot of changes happened to make ocean travel safer. The "obvious" one -- more lifeboats -- is actually pretty unimportant. What is important? Safety training for ship's crew, disaster drills for passengers, the International Ice Patrol, and the requirement that emergency radio frequecies be always monitored. Complicated, boring, you'll never see it in a movie -- but these measures have saved thousands of lives. I'm sceptical that "more lifeboats" or "oh gee, it was sinkable!" saved even one.

I see the same oversimplification in encryption. Mathematicians who claim their algorithms are "unbreakable" are not in denial. They're simply thinking too narrowly. There actually are encryption algorithms that can't be broken (at least by any known attack). But "unbreakable" is only true in a certain context. You have to assume that keys are generated in exactly the right manner. That brings you into the real world, away from the pristine certainties of mathematics.

So in an absolute sense, there's no Unsinkable and no Unbreakable. But dealing with these facts is more complicated than people like to bother with.

1. in open, navigable waters; and
2. stuck on a reef

Are you for real? The U.S. Coast Guard define aground as "touching or fast to the bottom." The Valdez was hard aground on a reef. It could not be dislodged. You don't have to hit land to be aground. Any lack of sufficient depth qualifies.

Curious to learn more about icebergs, I found this nifty FAQ. Figured I'd share.

Err..reducing Selective Availability (SA) from GPS/NavStar's Standard Positioning Service (SPS), which is what us non-military types get, does not remove encryption from the system. The Military uses the Precise Positioning Service (PPS), which requires special crypto-enabled receivers and which has its own specs WRT accuracy, reliability, etc.

We-un's don't get to play with that.

Suggest taking a look at the USCG GPS home page (http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/gps/default.htm), or the GPS signal spec (http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/pubs/gps/sigspec/defau lt.htm) for more information (than you want!) Specifically, the annexes contain specs for reliability and accuracy.

Removal of SA simply removed the Control Segment errors deliberately introduced by the GPS NavStart control station in Colorado Springs, bringing the accuracy down to ~22m horizontally. Some yo-yo in Colorado Springs can still, either accidently or on purpose, inject a control segment error of any size in the system: that is by design.

Also, don't forget that GPS accuracy varies directly with latitude -- important for airplanes travelling over the pole or close to it on the way to Europe.

Err..reducing Selective Availability (SA) from GPS/NavStar's Standard Positioning Service (SPS), which is what us non-military types get, does not remove encryption from the system. The Military uses the Precise Positioning Service (PPS), which requires special crypto-enabled receivers and which has its own specs WRT accuracy, reliability, etc.

We-un's don't get to play with that.

Suggest taking a look at the USCG GPS home page (http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/gps/default.htm), or the GPS signal spec (http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/pubs/gps/sigspec/defau lt.htm) for more information (than you want!) Specifically, the annexes contain specs for reliability and accuracy.

Removal of SA simply removed the Control Segment errors deliberately introduced by the GPS NavStart control station in Colorado Springs, bringing the accuracy down to ~22m horizontally. Some yo-yo in Colorado Springs can still, either accidently or on purpose, inject a control segment error of any size in the system: that is by design.

Also, don't forget that GPS accuracy varies directly with latitude -- important for airplanes travelling over the pole or close to it on the way to Europe.

What you describe is call Differential GPS (or DGPS), but it's only useful over (I'd guestimate) a few tens of square miles.

You're wrong. It's available over a large percentage of the US. The Coast Guard has set up plenty of DGPS transceivers along navigable waterways, for use by boats. Looking at the maps at the Coast Guard's website, it looks like the range of each is around 70 miles, about 15,000 square miles each (with overlap between them).

It only works when the two receivers can receive roughly the same GPS satellites.

Meaning that it's useful as long as the two are within 30 or 40 degrees of each other, well beyond the range of the weak radio signal. At any time, there are typically at least 7 satellites above the horizon, and can be as many as 12. If I'm 60 miles away from the transceiver, we'll probably both see all of the same satellites. Even if we don't, if we can each see 4 satellites in common (definitely the case within 70 miles) then we're able to use the dgps signal.

So it's useless in the middle of the ocean, for example, or over (I'd guess) most of the world.

Congrats, your third and final statement is correct. However, it is possible to put dgps equipment in place around harbors and other places of interest for not too much money, and some private companies even do this. You can look here for information from a company that does just that, and then leases equipment that can use their signals.

-Michael

(Sorry if this is a repost, this didn't post the first time)

This is awesome news. I use gps nearly every weekend, and it's always bothered me a little knowing that it was off a little bit.

Anyways, for more info here are a couple of links to gps sites:
GPS Info Website is an awesome starting point. Tons of links and info.
GPS and NMEA- A good FAQ site on gps in general and also hooking a unit up to other equipment (hand computer, autopilot, etc.).
US Coast Guard Nav Center has some good updates and status of gps.
Garmin- A well known gps maker, their site also has some good general info on gps (not just their units).

Anyways, have fun out there!
Jason

ok a quick primer... The civilian channel(unencrypted) of GPS is accurate to about 30m if SA is turned off. From the very beginning of the NAVSTAR(GPS) progam the USCG saw the benefits of the program and wanted to be able to use it in a maritime setting but the DOD was adamant about being able to spoof if if nessessary so the DOT and USCG developed a way to defeat the spoofing in a localized setting (just around the coastal and inland water ways of the US) by converting their old LORAN stations (an antiquated HF doppler navigation system that was be phased out because of GPS anyway) and use them as an error correction stations. Because the precise location of these stations were known what the DOT and USCG did was simple put a reciever in the stations and then compared that to the recieved signal from GPS and then transmitted the correcting code via the communications gear already installed in the stations. The catch? it only works inside the territorial waters of the US and you have to have a special reciever to get both signals. and OH BTW DGPS is even more accurate than GPS even with the SA turned off.to see the USCG powerpoint brief on this click here (be forwarned it's large)

Or 20 years behind schedule. Ronald Reagan (2 presidents before Clinton for all you 13 year olds) asked congree to turn off SA when he was president. The DoD "claimed" at the time that they would have to orbit new satellites to do so. Bush (not that one) did the same. This doc from 1996 outlines the plan for the president to evaluate SA each year and turn it off by 2006. Bear in mind, however, that GPS is currently funded through 2006.

This is awesome news. I use gps nearly every weekend, and it's always bothered me (just a little) knowing that it wasn't as accurate as it could be.

Here are some good links to gps info:
US Coast Guard Nav Center Great status info and general policy stuff.
GPS Info Website The best central source of info on gps that I've found so far. Tons of links and content.
GPS and NMEA Site Another good source of info, including hooking up a gps to other equipment (hand computers, autopilots, etc).
Garmin A well know maker of gps units, their site also has some decent info in general on gps.

Anyways, have fun out there.
Jason

Subject says it. The GPS EOW rollover happens midnight UTC, tomorrow - not tonight. More info here.