"the shining knight "
I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community. Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions. He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed. The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. The produced music video edited out anything that might throw doubt on their interpretation of the situation. It edited the communications between the helicopter pilots and their head quarters when they explained the situation and asked for approval to engage. And it also left out that there were ground troops in the middle of fighting a few blocks behind them. The helicopter was there to support of the ground troops. A "true" fighter of justice would have released all of the information unedited upfront without trying to profit from limiting access or offering up any opinions they might have concerning the data released. A "true" fighter would have assumed a neutral role in the release of data so the opinions of others would not prejudiced one way or another. Real information does not need an editorial line included with the release of the data. It did not require any unique Wiki leaks services to release the information online. That information would have went viral shortly after the first uploads to any file sharing or torrent service. Plus it's obvious he could care less if some of the released data put citizens and professional agents engaged in counter terrorism efforts in danger. The release of the Afghanistan after action reports also provided information that could be used to pattern the military actions and re-actions in formulating their tactical plans. Compare it to a football team using videos of their upcoming opponent to pinpoint any weaknesses or patterns that could be exploited when they meet. Of course the major difference is that no one is using AK-47's and RPGS to kill their opponents.
He is shown himself to be a very egocentric person who revels in the spotlight and attention he has received. Personally I never really gave a shit about the release of this information. I think there were certain things they should not have released but it happened so people will just have to deal with any fallout and continue on. After all the information released was not classified at the top secret levels which is where the really secret information lives.
Not to mention we have been using nuclear reactors on subs and carriers for quite a few years and these vehicles were built for exclusively for the battlefield.
They use tools the were developed by someone else and they also target unpatched software. One of their SQL injection attacks relied on published vulnerabilities detected and patched over 9 months ago at the time of their attack. Hopefully their attacks will result in better system administration processes.
I await the day when alternative energy sources eliminates the necessity of dealing with the oil supplying countries. As oil demand drops the middle eastern countries will be too busy trying to convert sand into food with little time or money left over to cause international mischief. Maybe we can send them some still suits as a gesture of good will. Other countries who also depend almost solely on oil exports for revenue would be screwed. Venezuela tops that particular list. The US is already down to importing only 49% of it's oil and the majority of that imported oil is not from the middle east. If necessary the US has the ability to increase it's domestic energy supplies by increasing offshore drilling, shale extraction, and re-activating the wells that were shut down when it became cheaper to import oil then produce domestically.
If Iran attacked a carrier that would be one of the stupidest military decisions since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler invaded the USSR. I imagine the US would use that opportunity to destroy more than just the assets involved in the attack. One thing that has bothered me about this whole Hormuz strait gamesmanship is that there has been no mention of the environmental damage if Iran followed up their threats to sink even one tanker. Attacking a tanker could almost be classified as a bio-weapon attack which would subject Iran to very harsh penalties. The Iranian people are not being represented well by their leadership throughout this whole episode. Even with the weekly Death to America rallies the Iranian public is the least anti-us country in the region. I am old enough to remember the 1979 revolution and hostage stand off and we actually had 2 Iranian families move on my street after they fled from Iran. There were about 10 Iranian students in my HS graduating class that had also been successful in fleeing Iran and they all seemed like normal people to me and I did not detect any animosity directed towards the US for the predicament they had found themselves in.
As a developer I rely on the compiler to catch any important spelling mistakes.
Re:Brainwashed peasants, like Chomsky said
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: 1
No, there is just the growing number of US citizens who are fed up with all the constant BS hurled a them from foreign countries. The generalizations of US citizens and the outright insults supported by these generalizations create are taking a toll on the countries willingness to deal with those who complain about everything but never offer any solutions of their own. European "soft power" has not accomplished anything worthwhile for the past 100+ years except for the crowning achievements of WW1 and WW2. They have been negotiating with Iran for 12 years regarding Iran's nuclear issues which has only allowed Iran more time to reach their stated goals. Their diplomacy and military efforts in the Balkans was also another display of their weaknesses and required US assistance to clean up the mess that they were responsible for creating in the first place. So my point is why would the US waste time and money dealing with countries that offer nothing in return? Trade ties would remain important and maintained but I can't think of any other reason to bother with them. The coming presidential election has already shown that both main parties and the Libertarian based parties support reducing the US foot print across the world. The non-interventionists are becoming stronger by the day and even the most idiotic politicians are questioning the rate of return in US involvement in foreign countries outside of trade. The internal economy and other domestic issues are in the public spotlight. Obama would raise his chance of being elected if he came out tomorrow and said the US was packing up and leaving Afghanistan within a month. The general public really doesn't care what would happen after the US left. The world should not expect any real US involvement in things like the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the chaos currently going on in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. I think it would be better to sit back and watch the mayhem and deal with whoever emerges from the chaos. After all that has been Europe's and China's approach to foreign policy so why should the US not do the same and just sit back and watch from a safe distance?
Nice plan but how do you propose to implement any of it? Are you counting on universal acceptance without protests? Are you willing to use violence to achieve these changes? Are you willing to risk anarchy to accomplish changes?
And as far as foreign military bases are concerned all the host countries can ask the US to leave anytime they want. It's their decision. The US has always complied with a host countries request to leave. I wish all the bases were closed. The US is more than capable of projecting it's power globally if necessary. Of course all host countries will have to actually defend themselves without any assistance from the US. The host countries will have to deal with the loss of jobs in the base locations but that is their problem. And quite frankly I am not sure there is a single country the US should provide hands on military support to. They can buy all the weapons they need from the US but they will be responsible for actually using them. If some country makes an appeal for US military assistance it should expect a bill with at least half due upfront before they get the help they are requesting.
You are dedicated to your generalizations and anecdotal based arguments but what would you actually DO to replace the existing system? If you are going to complain you should at least be able to explain in detail how you would change things. All of the Occupy and Arab Spring cheerleaders never thought about what would happen if they succeeded on crashing a system. It would also have been prudent for the Occupy movement to be a little more detailed about what they were protesting against. They may have needed bigger signs to explain their goals but all they have done is protest for the right to protest. History is full of examples of people clamoring for change and then being unable to come up with viable courses of actions after they win the street battle. I'm pretty sure the Liberal/Progressive student groups who participated in the Iranian 1979 revolution did not envision ending up with a theocracy based government whose first act was to kill anyone who disagreed with them. They were so focused on taking hostages and complaining about the US that they allowed the Islamist groups time to organize and implement their plans. Theocratic based governments may be detestable in the extreme but that doesn't mean the people running the scam are stupid. The Islamist were a minority before the revolution started but the ineptitude of others gave them the time to take control of the system. The US removed the Iraqi and Afghanistan leadership to give them a chance to implement change and both of those countries wasted their chance. Iraq started a civil war the day the US left and the same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan.
Those in Egypt and other middle eastern countries are also starting to realize that they should have been a little more prepared just in case they won their glorious revolutions. As it stands now most of those countries are in the process of destroying themselves from the inside. Maybe they will be able to re-build but I don't really give a shit what they do. Thankfully the majority of the US public and both major political parties are against US involvement outside of making press statements and attending UN meetings.
The current and known Drone models are vulnerable to AA systems and manned fighters.However, the latest versions are improving thier stealth capabilities to reduce these weaknesses. The US may already have advanced drone stealth capabilities that they have managed to keep classified. Your comment claiming vulnerability to hacks and jamming require proof without conjecture, theory, and hearsay. Can you produce any evidence that any US drone has succumbed to these typse of attacks without using Iranian statements? Most drone losses have resulted from operator error and internal component failures just like any other type of aircraft. The drone Iran claims to possess does not even have any technology that is not already known to foreign military agencies in China,Russia, or any other country with the production means and satellite resources.
The biggest question is why the US allowed them to recover the drone before it was collected by the Iranians. The US knew where it went down and could have destroyed it using missile strikes. If they wanted to recover it in tact a spec op could have retrieved it since it went down near the Iranian border. Personally I think it was allowed to be captured to demonstrate they are under surveillance and are not capable of creating any efficient and reliable counter measures. The assassinations of key scientists and the even the person in charge of their advanced missile development program has also added even more paranoia. Stuxnet also demonstrated that even their most sensitive programs could be at risk.
Does that include the takeoffs? Just the speed is enough to raise the G-force level a pilot is subjected to handling even when they use after burners or super cruise in a purely straight line flight path. The F-22 airframe for example is capable of performing maneuver's a human pilot has no chance of surviving. There are even cutoffs that prevent the pilot from even attempting such maneuver's. As it stands the US or anyone else for that matter have hit a wall in the performance of manned jet fighters until someone comes up with an inertial damping system.
"If you're talking about Northrop Grumman's X-47 UCAV, it is only developmental and has not yet flown off a carrier... But yes, drones having refueling capability, buddy refueling even more so, are going to set a new standard on mission duration."
You are wrong when claiming it has not been used off a carrier. The reliability of drone carrier launches and captures has proven better then a piloted aircraft. Unfortunately, you will need to apply for a higher security clearance to obtain the evidence but there is some video evidence on the Internet if you look in the right places.
Every advanced aircraft in the US arsenal is in a developmental state of varying degrees. The F-15 has been in development since 1970. People think they really know the actually status of US military technology development but they really don't. Secrecy has been compromised in some areas either by accident or even deliberately but there are also some systems that are actually secret.
You cannot compare drone operators to an actual pilot. Drone operators experience no G-forces and there is great difference between sitting in a cockpit for an extended amount of time compared to a sitting in a cushioned lounge basically playing a video game. Even a jet flying in a straight line subjects a human pilot to constant G-forces. Drone operators also work in shifts. A manned jet can't change pilots in the middle of the flight operation. Drone operations are also conducted with multiple personnel present at all times to monitor the on-going operation. The B-2 has a pilot, copilot, and flight engineer and the copilot can give the pilot some down time. Most F-15 variants and all F-22's are single pilot platforms. Although there are certain types of manned jets like an A-6 that do have 2 personnel aboard the primary responsibility for flying the plane is relegated to a single pilot. The other co-pilot is usually operates the radar, communication, navigation, and weapon systems. And the co-pilot is exposed to the same G-force fatigue as the pilot.
The latest carrier based drones have airborne refueling capabilities just like the manned jets. But manned jets have to contend with pilot fatigue. One of the latest tests off a carrier was a 55 hour non-stop single drone mission. There is not a pilot in the world capable of handling missions of that length. Even the existing manned B-2 bombers that launch missions from the mid-west to targets in the middle east are pushing the limits a pilot can handle.
"because a select group of wealthy and powerful will not get more wealthy and more powerful"
There is an abundance of wealth to be made in a project like this. The same type of money weapon system development generates today. The problem is whether the government can actually commit the resources needed for a project like this in the political climate. The US citizens are already demanding reducing and out right cancelling any foreign aid and the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians are are ready to support this demand. After all humanitarian aid does not create a lot of wealth and the US weapons system manufactures can still make plenty of money selling their products to foreign countries.
Personally I think NASA should concentrate on building a permanent base on the moon first so they can test the machinery and processes required to make a habitat man could survive in. Once all the kinks get ironed out they can then do the Mars project.
"the USA is one of the worst countries in the world for the ability to access mainstream media with non standard political viewpoints"
First off how many countries have you actually visited to test your hypothesis.
Do you think US citizens do not have access to the Internet?
The US was already starting to recover from the depression before the war started. The war did accelerate the process since most of the countries involved in the war were nothing but piles of rubble both during and after the war.
International opinions are nothing but background noise when it comes to any country actually making decisions that directly effect them. With the "world opinion" so fractured today how could anyone agree on any course of action that doesn't end up pissing off all those who disagree?
"Also Afghanistan? Let's not forget who created that mess to begin with; the US."
Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK are the ones who first created the mess in Afghanistan in the late 70's. The US role was less than any of those other countries and most of the US money went to supporting the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan.
In todays world the US should have never committed any ground forces in Afghanistan in the first place. They should have limited their involvement to spec ops and drone warfare when necessary. The US should have also not gone into Iraq. There is not a single objective in either of those countries worth even one American life.
The US problem is not that they fire first it's that it doesn't fire enough when the war actually starts. All the nation building bullshit is not a military function. The military role is to kill and destroy the enemy as fast as they can using the tools they have available. If you are going to commit the military they should be allowed to finish their job without a bunch of diplomats breathing down their neck. It's often said the US military lost in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is non-sense. The military was tasked at taking out the Iraqi and Taliban leadership to give the citizens of those countries the opportunity to build something better and they accomplished that goal in a relatively short amount of time. Iraq and Afghanistan have wasted their opportunity. In Iraq a civil war started breaking out the day after the US military left. The same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan. And there is no way in hell the US is ever going to re-commit military resources to those countries after they leave. The best we can hope for is that the warring factions in that region will be too busy killing each other and wont have time to engage in any international mischief. The only thing the various middle eastern countries ever agree on is that the US is the source of all their troubles. With the US gone they can get back to killing one another without any interruptions.
If Germany was to start adopting the same aggressiveness today against it's neighboring countries the Europeans would do the same thing they did the first time around which is nothing but engage in meaningless diplomatic talks and abandon any of their allies in an effort to appease the German aggressiveness. The US could have stayed out of the European theater in WW2 because there were no US interests particularly endangered. The Germans couldn't successfully cross the Chanel to attack Britain let alone cross the Atlantic with a large enough invasion force to attack the US. By the time they could have did so the US had it's nuclear deterence to prevent any such invasion. When Japan made one of the stupidest military decisions in history in attacking the US the US made the European theater their first priority when they officially declared war. The Americans gained nothing out of WW2 in Europe. Instead the US just ended up providing the European countries with military and economic aid for 40+ years. It's still hard to except that the US would sacrifice so many lives fighting for Europe when it is obvious the Europe would not do the same thing for the US if necessary. The civilian navy merchantmen and ships lost just trying to supply England with everything from food to aircraft is never appreciated. Keeping the USSR in check has never been appreciated. The only country that steps up to help the US today is England because they still remember how close they remember how close they came from losing their country by relying on soft power and diplomacy. They are the only country the US can usually count on for support when necessary. The rest of Europe just stands around naval gazing and complaining. NATO is a useless institution where the majority of members are so far behind US military technology they can not even interface with US battlefield systems. The only thing thing they are good at is holding the US coats and staying out of the way of the US military. The Europeans could not handle the Balkan wars without US assistance. Most of the European countries could not even deploy their troops and equipment to Afghanistan without US help. NATO couldn't take out the Libyan air defense systems in a timely fashion and had to get the US to do it for them. I am glad the US is downsizing the military and hopefully they start the process by removing all troops and equipment from Europe and let them handle their own problems for a change. And as a bonus they should also punt the expense of the missile defense system in Europe. The US is in no danger of missiles from anyone in the the middle eastern countries so why spend US money on the project?
"American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners>
I think there is still a lot grey areas when it comes to dealing with non-resident foreigners.
Guantanamo has always been a half ass and reckless way of handing a problem that doesn't really fit into any existing US judicial system. Those captured on foreign territory engaged in hostilities against the US has caused the problem. The US judicial system is not a real good option. Any terrorist detained in the US do have the right to the same US judicial system and protections that all citizens have. It's those detained in foreign countries that is presenting the problem. Technically they are prisoners of war and the normal process in wartime is to re-patriot them to their home countries after hostilities have ended. This type of system does not really apply either because the hostilities have not ended and I doubt the hostilities will end anytime soon. In addition the International Geneva Conventions allows for the summary execution of those captured during war that bear no insignia or other identification that proves they are agents of the state governments involved in the war. I believe this item was targeted at spy's and grew out of WW2 and the cold war eras. The US has tried to release a majority of the prisoners but no country is willing to accept them. The US has even used bribes to encourage a country to accept the prisoner without much luck. I don't know why the US just doesn't strap parachutes on those being released and air drop them back where they first captured and be done with.
Well you can express your freedom of speech using the word of mouth, pamphlets, regular mail, bullhorns, or carrier pigeons. An Internet connection is not a right. You would have to include having a computer a right as well.
According to the human right BS argument there was no freedom of speech before the Internet was invented. The Freedom of Speech in the US has clearly defined exceptions and those exceptions are constantly challenged in the court system when new situations arise. Most people complaining about their loss of free speech just refuse to accept that they are responsible for the consequences of what they say.
It is not religion or fights over energy resources that will be the main cause of the next world war it is the Internet and the ability to spread BS as "facts" that have no basis in reality. It is getting harder by the day to find factual information on the Internet. True facts do not have a point of view. Facts are not defined as left, center, or right. It is the analysis of facts using a specific a point of view or belief system which obscure the original facts and the truth gets lost in the shouting
I am not saying the Internet should be controlled or monitored in any way. The horse has already left the proverbial barn and there is no turning back now so we will just have to deal with the consequences of our great information age.
Not warmongering just not overloaded with a lot of people deluding themselves about the way meaningful changes have always been implemented throughout human history. Today people tend to judge our society based on our technological advancements not on any advancements of basic human nature. We just have bigger clubs to whack each other the head with today. It is the failures of Diplomacy that has create wars and then used to clean up after the war with varying degrees of success until the next war thier bubbling around starts. The Versailles Treaty after WW1 is a perfect example. A more recent example was the politicians stopping the first Iraq war before the military finished the job. That diplomatic nonsense deserves the vast majority of blame for 9/11 (it required extended foreign military presence in an Arab country), the 2nd Iraq war,and helped divert assests deployed in Afghanistan which might have might have lead to a much shorter conflict. "Diplomacy " on the international level is worthless without the ability to enforce the terms agreed to during the diplomatic talks.
There is no harm in making sure the military is ready before the next conflagration breaks out. And sooner or later that conflagration is coming.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the major world powers has so far saved us from another globe spanning war similar to WW2. The countries looking to obtain nuclear weapons today are just weakening the MAD doctrine. The US and other world powers don't really give a shit about Iran building nuclear weapons they are worried about Iran providing these weapons to one of their proxy non-state military organizations. And if this was to happen the source of the nuclear weapon could most certainly be tracked back to the manufacturer but it would take some time and by then the worlds leading political morons would get involved arguing that a reprisal strike is unwarranted. In other words it creates doubt that the provider would suffer total destruction. Iran knows that if they directly used a nuclear weapon their country would be turned into a shiny glass filled crater. Any damage Iran would inflict would be relatively limited. A few cities at most. If they went after Isreal they would still face Israels second strike capability. If the US or Russia ever started lobbing nukes at each other the entire world would most likely be ruined if not outright destroyed.
My position is that they both formed a solid starting point on which to build a country on. It's never been a perfect system but name one that is. I am still astounded that the so called founding fathers of the constitution were able to create the constitution in the first place. A constitution that was engineered by the white wealthy landowners with very little participation of the regular people. Can you imagine any of today's US politicians ever producing a document like the Constitution? The current crop of politicians can hardly agree on the day of the week.
"Of course China has obsoleted the American satellite fleet" Just one more example of your idiocy and total lack of facts to support your claims.
"heavy lift launchers are extremely expensive"
When has cost ever been a factor to the US military, especially when any threat presents itself?
Your ideas are very dangerous. By not honestly analyzing US military capabilities you make war seem plausible. The US could have left Iraq and Afghanistan barren of life if they wanted to without using any nuclear weapons or ground troops. The only thing holding them back is political compromising coupled with a healthy amount of political bullshit. In Iraq the fight in Basra could have been settled in a day or less with a few B-2 bombing raids and a couple of cruise missile strikes. Instead they used tanks, targeted artillery, and ground troops because everyone would have went ape shit over civilian casualties. The Allied victory in WW2 was achieved by killing and destroying anything in their way. There was no difference between non-combatants and combatant's. England actually let entire cities be destroyed just to hide the fact they knew in advance an attack was going to happen because they did not want to let Germany know the enigma system had been compromised. Every military strike based on decoding the enigma code required creating a secondary and plausible source of intel to hide the real source before the operation would be launched. They even sacrificed some of their own naval vessels to maintain the secret. In essence they put winning as their main focus. One of the greatest weaknesses of the US military today is that political decisions are ranked higher than actually destroying whoever they are fighting at the time. China has a strong military but they cannot project that power outside of the South Asia region. One other thing they lack like most of the countries in the world is real life combat experience instead of risk free military war games.
You have no idea what an "oppressive regime" is unless you have actually lived in one. The Patriot Act is the big bad boogeyman people use to support their far flung generalizations against the US for partisan reasons. The US citizens have not lost a single right guaranteed by the constitution or Bill of Rights and the right to be anonymous is not mentioned in any of these founding documents. There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. The ham fisted Patriot Act was a sloppy and rushed attempt to convince the general US public that the government was doing something to prevent further attacks after 9/11. And the public was demanding this action from the government. The world tends to hold the US to a much higher standard then any other country in the world in an effort to support a party line that does nothing but criticize US actions in any possible way. The US, like other countries, has it's problems but they are not as extreme as the people who denigrate anything associated with the US. The candidates in the upcoming elections support US reductions in both military and foreign aid and that is the most beneficial position the politicians have come up with for years. The US is already slowly withdrawing from the deliberations that concern the Palestinians and Israelis, they did not lead the charge in Libya and the US involvement only became necessary because none of the NATO countries were able to take down the air defense system. they have no intention of providing any help to the people in Iraq who started fighting one another the very first day the US left, they have offered only the generic diplomatic statements concerning Syria and Egypt, and their response to Iran's recent threats has been limited to the announcement that the US will not allow Iran to stop commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. When the US leaves Afghanistan and the natives start killing one another the US will not offer them any help either, they had their chance just like the Iraqis to implement positive changes and wasted it. The US is finally realizing there are no benefits when dealing with foreign countries on topics outside of commerce.
"China has totally obsoleted your country's space assets
Do you live in a different universe? Your proclamation shows both the level of your stupidity and ignorance all rolled up in one compact package.
I have been to China multiple times and found their population very friendly and have not encountered any hostility towards the US. I have worked with Chinese engineers for over 20 years and have not encountered any animosity towards the US. There is no reason for China and the US to start a war. And even if there was a war China cannot project thier military power outside of the south Asian region unless they use their ICBM capabilities which they will not do because of the retaliation they would certainly face.
And please do a little research on the X-37 program and technologies and contrast the turn around times and other capabilities versus the old space shuttle.
The US is the number one seller of military weapons in the world. However they don't sell the really good stuff like the F-22. And I would not be surprised in the least that the US technology sold had back doors built in that would prevent any of those assests to be used against the US. As an example look at the French missiles that Argentina deployed against the British. Margaret Thatcher ended up getting the necessary missile codes from France needed to make those missiles ineffective after the first few strikes. US military sales contracts also make sure that buyers remain dependent on the US for replacement parts and upgrades. And finally China has not obsoleted any of the US military technology. It's funny that back in the 80's and early 90's their dispute with Taiwan would have required a million man swim just to get soldiers on the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
"the shining knight " I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community. Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions. He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed. The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. The produced music video edited out anything that might throw doubt on their interpretation of the situation. It edited the communications between the helicopter pilots and their head quarters when they explained the situation and asked for approval to engage. And it also left out that there were ground troops in the middle of fighting a few blocks behind them. The helicopter was there to support of the ground troops. A "true" fighter of justice would have released all of the information unedited upfront without trying to profit from limiting access or offering up any opinions they might have concerning the data released. A "true" fighter would have assumed a neutral role in the release of data so the opinions of others would not prejudiced one way or another. Real information does not need an editorial line included with the release of the data. It did not require any unique Wiki leaks services to release the information online. That information would have went viral shortly after the first uploads to any file sharing or torrent service. Plus it's obvious he could care less if some of the released data put citizens and professional agents engaged in counter terrorism efforts in danger. The release of the Afghanistan after action reports also provided information that could be used to pattern the military actions and re-actions in formulating their tactical plans. Compare it to a football team using videos of their upcoming opponent to pinpoint any weaknesses or patterns that could be exploited when they meet. Of course the major difference is that no one is using AK-47's and RPGS to kill their opponents. He is shown himself to be a very egocentric person who revels in the spotlight and attention he has received. Personally I never really gave a shit about the release of this information. I think there were certain things they should not have released but it happened so people will just have to deal with any fallout and continue on. After all the information released was not classified at the top secret levels which is where the really secret information lives.
Not to mention we have been using nuclear reactors on subs and carriers for quite a few years and these vehicles were built for exclusively for the battlefield.
You can implement P/Invoke and Emit using native assemblies referenced from the C# managed code using DLLImport.
They use tools the were developed by someone else and they also target unpatched software. One of their SQL injection attacks relied on published vulnerabilities detected and patched over 9 months ago at the time of their attack. Hopefully their attacks will result in better system administration processes.
I await the day when alternative energy sources eliminates the necessity of dealing with the oil supplying countries. As oil demand drops the middle eastern countries will be too busy trying to convert sand into food with little time or money left over to cause international mischief. Maybe we can send them some still suits as a gesture of good will. Other countries who also depend almost solely on oil exports for revenue would be screwed. Venezuela tops that particular list. The US is already down to importing only 49% of it's oil and the majority of that imported oil is not from the middle east. If necessary the US has the ability to increase it's domestic energy supplies by increasing offshore drilling, shale extraction, and re-activating the wells that were shut down when it became cheaper to import oil then produce domestically.
If Iran attacked a carrier that would be one of the stupidest military decisions since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler invaded the USSR. I imagine the US would use that opportunity to destroy more than just the assets involved in the attack. One thing that has bothered me about this whole Hormuz strait gamesmanship is that there has been no mention of the environmental damage if Iran followed up their threats to sink even one tanker. Attacking a tanker could almost be classified as a bio-weapon attack which would subject Iran to very harsh penalties. The Iranian people are not being represented well by their leadership throughout this whole episode. Even with the weekly Death to America rallies the Iranian public is the least anti-us country in the region. I am old enough to remember the 1979 revolution and hostage stand off and we actually had 2 Iranian families move on my street after they fled from Iran. There were about 10 Iranian students in my HS graduating class that had also been successful in fleeing Iran and they all seemed like normal people to me and I did not detect any animosity directed towards the US for the predicament they had found themselves in.
As a developer I rely on the compiler to catch any important spelling mistakes.
No, there is just the growing number of US citizens who are fed up with all the constant BS hurled a them from foreign countries. The generalizations of US citizens and the outright insults supported by these generalizations create are taking a toll on the countries willingness to deal with those who complain about everything but never offer any solutions of their own. European "soft power" has not accomplished anything worthwhile for the past 100+ years except for the crowning achievements of WW1 and WW2. They have been negotiating with Iran for 12 years regarding Iran's nuclear issues which has only allowed Iran more time to reach their stated goals. Their diplomacy and military efforts in the Balkans was also another display of their weaknesses and required US assistance to clean up the mess that they were responsible for creating in the first place. So my point is why would the US waste time and money dealing with countries that offer nothing in return? Trade ties would remain important and maintained but I can't think of any other reason to bother with them. The coming presidential election has already shown that both main parties and the Libertarian based parties support reducing the US foot print across the world. The non-interventionists are becoming stronger by the day and even the most idiotic politicians are questioning the rate of return in US involvement in foreign countries outside of trade. The internal economy and other domestic issues are in the public spotlight. Obama would raise his chance of being elected if he came out tomorrow and said the US was packing up and leaving Afghanistan within a month. The general public really doesn't care what would happen after the US left. The world should not expect any real US involvement in things like the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the chaos currently going on in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. I think it would be better to sit back and watch the mayhem and deal with whoever emerges from the chaos. After all that has been Europe's and China's approach to foreign policy so why should the US not do the same and just sit back and watch from a safe distance?
Nice plan but how do you propose to implement any of it? Are you counting on universal acceptance without protests? Are you willing to use violence to achieve these changes? Are you willing to risk anarchy to accomplish changes?
And as far as foreign military bases are concerned all the host countries can ask the US to leave anytime they want. It's their decision. The US has always complied with a host countries request to leave. I wish all the bases were closed. The US is more than capable of projecting it's power globally if necessary. Of course all host countries will have to actually defend themselves without any assistance from the US. The host countries will have to deal with the loss of jobs in the base locations but that is their problem. And quite frankly I am not sure there is a single country the US should provide hands on military support to. They can buy all the weapons they need from the US but they will be responsible for actually using them. If some country makes an appeal for US military assistance it should expect a bill with at least half due upfront before they get the help they are requesting.
You are dedicated to your generalizations and anecdotal based arguments but what would you actually DO to replace the existing system? If you are going to complain you should at least be able to explain in detail how you would change things. All of the Occupy and Arab Spring cheerleaders never thought about what would happen if they succeeded on crashing a system. It would also have been prudent for the Occupy movement to be a little more detailed about what they were protesting against. They may have needed bigger signs to explain their goals but all they have done is protest for the right to protest. History is full of examples of people clamoring for change and then being unable to come up with viable courses of actions after they win the street battle. I'm pretty sure the Liberal/Progressive student groups who participated in the Iranian 1979 revolution did not envision ending up with a theocracy based government whose first act was to kill anyone who disagreed with them. They were so focused on taking hostages and complaining about the US that they allowed the Islamist groups time to organize and implement their plans. Theocratic based governments may be detestable in the extreme but that doesn't mean the people running the scam are stupid. The Islamist were a minority before the revolution started but the ineptitude of others gave them the time to take control of the system. The US removed the Iraqi and Afghanistan leadership to give them a chance to implement change and both of those countries wasted their chance. Iraq started a civil war the day the US left and the same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan.
Those in Egypt and other middle eastern countries are also starting to realize that they should have been a little more prepared just in case they won their glorious revolutions. As it stands now most of those countries are in the process of destroying themselves from the inside. Maybe they will be able to re-build but I don't really give a shit what they do. Thankfully the majority of the US public and both major political parties are against US involvement outside of making press statements and attending UN meetings.
The current and known Drone models are vulnerable to AA systems and manned fighters.However, the latest versions are improving thier stealth capabilities to reduce these weaknesses. The US may already have advanced drone stealth capabilities that they have managed to keep classified. Your comment claiming vulnerability to hacks and jamming require proof without conjecture, theory, and hearsay. Can you produce any evidence that any US drone has succumbed to these typse of attacks without using Iranian statements? Most drone losses have resulted from operator error and internal component failures just like any other type of aircraft. The drone Iran claims to possess does not even have any technology that is not already known to foreign military agencies in China,Russia, or any other country with the production means and satellite resources.
The biggest question is why the US allowed them to recover the drone before it was collected by the Iranians. The US knew where it went down and could have destroyed it using missile strikes. If they wanted to recover it in tact a spec op could have retrieved it since it went down near the Iranian border. Personally I think it was allowed to be captured to demonstrate they are under surveillance and are not capable of creating any efficient and reliable counter measures. The assassinations of key scientists and the even the person in charge of their advanced missile development program has also added even more paranoia. Stuxnet also demonstrated that even their most sensitive programs could be at risk.
Does that include the takeoffs? Just the speed is enough to raise the G-force level a pilot is subjected to handling even when they use after burners or super cruise in a purely straight line flight path. The F-22 airframe for example is capable of performing maneuver's a human pilot has no chance of surviving. There are even cutoffs that prevent the pilot from even attempting such maneuver's. As it stands the US or anyone else for that matter have hit a wall in the performance of manned jet fighters until someone comes up with an inertial damping system.
"If you're talking about Northrop Grumman's X-47 UCAV, it is only developmental and has not yet flown off a carrier... But yes, drones having refueling capability, buddy refueling even more so, are going to set a new standard on mission duration."
You are wrong when claiming it has not been used off a carrier. The reliability of drone carrier launches and captures has proven better then a piloted aircraft. Unfortunately, you will need to apply for a higher security clearance to obtain the evidence but there is some video evidence on the Internet if you look in the right places.
Every advanced aircraft in the US arsenal is in a developmental state of varying degrees. The F-15 has been in development since 1970. People think they really know the actually status of US military technology development but they really don't. Secrecy has been compromised in some areas either by accident or even deliberately but there are also some systems that are actually secret.
You cannot compare drone operators to an actual pilot. Drone operators experience no G-forces and there is great difference between sitting in a cockpit for an extended amount of time compared to a sitting in a cushioned lounge basically playing a video game. Even a jet flying in a straight line subjects a human pilot to constant G-forces. Drone operators also work in shifts. A manned jet can't change pilots in the middle of the flight operation. Drone operations are also conducted with multiple personnel present at all times to monitor the on-going operation. The B-2 has a pilot, copilot, and flight engineer and the copilot can give the pilot some down time. Most F-15 variants and all F-22's are single pilot platforms. Although there are certain types of manned jets like an A-6 that do have 2 personnel aboard the primary responsibility for flying the plane is relegated to a single pilot. The other co-pilot is usually operates the radar, communication, navigation, and weapon systems. And the co-pilot is exposed to the same G-force fatigue as the pilot.
The latest carrier based drones have airborne refueling capabilities just like the manned jets. But manned jets have to contend with pilot fatigue. One of the latest tests off a carrier was a 55 hour non-stop single drone mission. There is not a pilot in the world capable of handling missions of that length. Even the existing manned B-2 bombers that launch missions from the mid-west to targets in the middle east are pushing the limits a pilot can handle.
"because a select group of wealthy and powerful will not get more wealthy and more powerful" There is an abundance of wealth to be made in a project like this. The same type of money weapon system development generates today. The problem is whether the government can actually commit the resources needed for a project like this in the political climate.
The US citizens are already demanding reducing and out right cancelling any foreign aid and the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians are are ready to support this demand. After all humanitarian aid does not create a lot of wealth and the US weapons system manufactures can still make plenty of money selling their products to foreign countries.
Personally I think NASA should concentrate on building a permanent base on the moon first so they can test the machinery and processes required to make a habitat man could survive in. Once all the kinks get ironed out they can then do the Mars project.
"the USA is one of the worst countries in the world for the ability to access mainstream media with non standard political viewpoints"
First off how many countries have you actually visited to test your hypothesis. Do you think US citizens do not have access to the Internet?
The US was already starting to recover from the depression before the war started. The war did accelerate the process since most of the countries involved in the war were nothing but piles of rubble both during and after the war.
International opinions are nothing but background noise when it comes to any country actually making decisions that directly effect them. With the "world opinion" so fractured today how could anyone agree on any course of action that doesn't end up pissing off all those who disagree?
"Also Afghanistan? Let's not forget who created that mess to begin with; the US." Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK are the ones who first created the mess in Afghanistan in the late 70's. The US role was less than any of those other countries and most of the US money went to supporting the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan.
In todays world the US should have never committed any ground forces in Afghanistan in the first place. They should have limited their involvement to spec ops and drone warfare when necessary. The US should have also not gone into Iraq. There is not a single objective in either of those countries worth even one American life.
The US problem is not that they fire first it's that it doesn't fire enough when the war actually starts. All the nation building bullshit is not a military function. The military role is to kill and destroy the enemy as fast as they can using the tools they have available. If you are going to commit the military they should be allowed to finish their job without a bunch of diplomats breathing down their neck. It's often said the US military lost in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is non-sense. The military was tasked at taking out the Iraqi and Taliban leadership to give the citizens of those countries the opportunity to build something better and they accomplished that goal in a relatively short amount of time. Iraq and Afghanistan have wasted their opportunity. In Iraq a civil war started breaking out the day after the US military left. The same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan. And there is no way in hell the US is ever going to re-commit military resources to those countries after they leave. The best we can hope for is that the warring factions in that region will be too busy killing each other and wont have time to engage in any international mischief. The only thing the various middle eastern countries ever agree on is that the US is the source of all their troubles. With the US gone they can get back to killing one another without any interruptions.
If Germany was to start adopting the same aggressiveness today against it's neighboring countries the Europeans would do the same thing they did the first time around which is nothing but engage in meaningless diplomatic talks and abandon any of their allies in an effort to appease the German aggressiveness. The US could have stayed out of the European theater in WW2 because there were no US interests particularly endangered. The Germans couldn't successfully cross the Chanel to attack Britain let alone cross the Atlantic with a large enough invasion force to attack the US. By the time they could have did so the US had it's nuclear deterence to prevent any such invasion. When Japan made one of the stupidest military decisions in history in attacking the US the US made the European theater their first priority when they officially declared war. The Americans gained nothing out of WW2 in Europe. Instead the US just ended up providing the European countries with military and economic aid for 40+ years. It's still hard to except that the US would sacrifice so many lives fighting for Europe when it is obvious the Europe would not do the same thing for the US if necessary. The civilian navy merchantmen and ships lost just trying to supply England with everything from food to aircraft is never appreciated. Keeping the USSR in check has never been appreciated. The only country that steps up to help the US today is England because they still remember how close they remember how close they came from losing their country by relying on soft power and diplomacy. They are the only country the US can usually count on for support when necessary. The rest of Europe just stands around naval gazing and complaining. NATO is a useless institution where the majority of members are so far behind US military technology they can not even interface with US battlefield systems. The only thing thing they are good at is holding the US coats and staying out of the way of the US military. The Europeans could not handle the Balkan wars without US assistance. Most of the European countries could not even deploy their troops and equipment to Afghanistan without US help. NATO couldn't take out the Libyan air defense systems in a timely fashion and had to get the US to do it for them. I am glad the US is downsizing the military and hopefully they start the process by removing all troops and equipment from Europe and let them handle their own problems for a change. And as a bonus they should also punt the expense of the missile defense system in Europe. The US is in no danger of missiles from anyone in the the middle eastern countries so why spend US money on the project?
"American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners>
I think there is still a lot grey areas when it comes to dealing with non-resident foreigners.
Guantanamo has always been a half ass and reckless way of handing a problem that doesn't really fit into any existing US judicial system. Those captured on foreign territory engaged in hostilities against the US has caused the problem. The US judicial system is not a real good option. Any terrorist detained in the US do have the right to the same US judicial system and protections that all citizens have. It's those detained in foreign countries that is presenting the problem. Technically they are prisoners of war and the normal process in wartime is to re-patriot them to their home countries after hostilities have ended. This type of system does not really apply either because the hostilities have not ended and I doubt the hostilities will end anytime soon. In addition the International Geneva Conventions allows for the summary execution of those captured during war that bear no insignia or other identification that proves they are agents of the state governments involved in the war. I believe this item was targeted at spy's and grew out of WW2 and the cold war eras. The US has tried to release a majority of the prisoners but no country is willing to accept them. The US has even used bribes to encourage a country to accept the prisoner without much luck. I don't know why the US just doesn't strap parachutes on those being released and air drop them back where they first captured and be done with.
Well you can express your freedom of speech using the word of mouth, pamphlets, regular mail, bullhorns, or carrier pigeons. An Internet connection is not a right. You would have to include having a computer a right as well.
According to the human right BS argument there was no freedom of speech before the Internet was invented. The Freedom of Speech in the US has clearly defined exceptions and those exceptions are constantly challenged in the court system when new situations arise. Most people complaining about their loss of free speech just refuse to accept that they are responsible for the consequences of what they say.
It is not religion or fights over energy resources that will be the main cause of the next world war it is the Internet and the ability to spread BS as "facts" that have no basis in reality. It is getting harder by the day to find factual information on the Internet. True facts do not have a point of view. Facts are not defined as left, center, or right. It is the analysis of facts using a specific a point of view or belief system which obscure the original facts and the truth gets lost in the shouting
I am not saying the Internet should be controlled or monitored in any way. The horse has already left the proverbial barn and there is no turning back now so we will just have to deal with the consequences of our great information age.
Not warmongering just not overloaded with a lot of people deluding themselves about the way meaningful changes have always been implemented throughout human history. Today people tend to judge our society based on our technological advancements not on any advancements of basic human nature. We just have bigger clubs to whack each other the head with today. It is the failures of Diplomacy that has create wars and then used to clean up after the war with varying degrees of success until the next war thier bubbling around starts. The Versailles Treaty after WW1 is a perfect example. A more recent example was the politicians stopping the first Iraq war before the military finished the job. That diplomatic nonsense deserves the vast majority of blame for 9/11 (it required extended foreign military presence in an Arab country), the 2nd Iraq war ,and helped divert assests deployed in Afghanistan which might have might have lead to a much shorter conflict. "Diplomacy " on the international level is worthless without the ability to enforce the terms agreed to during the diplomatic talks.
There is no harm in making sure the military is ready before the next conflagration breaks out. And sooner or later that conflagration is coming.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the major world powers has so far saved us from another globe spanning war similar to WW2. The countries looking to obtain nuclear weapons today are just weakening the MAD doctrine. The US and other world powers don't really give a shit about Iran building nuclear weapons they are worried about Iran providing these weapons to one of their proxy non-state military organizations. And if this was to happen the source of the nuclear weapon could most certainly be tracked back to the manufacturer but it would take some time and by then the worlds leading political morons would get involved arguing that a reprisal strike is unwarranted. In other words it creates doubt that the provider would suffer total destruction. Iran knows that if they directly used a nuclear weapon their country would be turned into a shiny glass filled crater. Any damage Iran would inflict would be relatively limited. A few cities at most. If they went after Isreal they would still face Israels second strike capability. If the US or Russia ever started lobbing nukes at each other the entire world would most likely be ruined if not outright destroyed.
My position is that they both formed a solid starting point on which to build a country on. It's never been a perfect system but name one that is. I am still astounded that the so called founding fathers of the constitution were able to create the constitution in the first place. A constitution that was engineered by the white wealthy landowners with very little participation of the regular people. Can you imagine any of today's US politicians ever producing a document like the Constitution? The current crop of politicians can hardly agree on the day of the week.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of all other rights.
"Of course China has obsoleted the American satellite fleet"
Just one more example of your idiocy and total lack of facts to support your claims.
"heavy lift launchers are extremely expensive" When has cost ever been a factor to the US military, especially when any threat presents itself?
Your ideas are very dangerous. By not honestly analyzing US military capabilities you make war seem plausible. The US could have left Iraq and Afghanistan barren of life if they wanted to without using any nuclear weapons or ground troops. The only thing holding them back is political compromising coupled with a healthy amount of political bullshit. In Iraq the fight in Basra could have been settled in a day or less with a few B-2 bombing raids and a couple of cruise missile strikes. Instead they used tanks, targeted artillery, and ground troops because everyone would have went ape shit over civilian casualties. The Allied victory in WW2 was achieved by killing and destroying anything in their way. There was no difference between non-combatants and combatant's. England actually let entire cities be destroyed just to hide the fact they knew in advance an attack was going to happen because they did not want to let Germany know the enigma system had been compromised. Every military strike based on decoding the enigma code required creating a secondary and plausible source of intel to hide the real source before the operation would be launched. They even sacrificed some of their own naval vessels to maintain the secret. In essence they put winning as their main focus. One of the greatest weaknesses of the US military today is that political decisions are ranked higher than actually destroying whoever they are fighting at the time. China has a strong military but they cannot project that power outside of the South Asia region. One other thing they lack like most of the countries in the world is real life combat experience instead of risk free military war games.
You have no idea what an "oppressive regime" is unless you have actually lived in one. The Patriot Act is the big bad boogeyman people use to support their far flung generalizations against the US for partisan reasons. The US citizens have not lost a single right guaranteed by the constitution or Bill of Rights and the right to be anonymous is not mentioned in any of these founding documents. There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. The ham fisted Patriot Act was a sloppy and rushed attempt to convince the general US public that the government was doing something to prevent further attacks after 9/11. And the public was demanding this action from the government. The world tends to hold the US to a much higher standard then any other country in the world in an effort to support a party line that does nothing but criticize US actions in any possible way. The US, like other countries, has it's problems but they are not as extreme as the people who denigrate anything associated with the US. The candidates in the upcoming elections support US reductions in both military and foreign aid and that is the most beneficial position the politicians have come up with for years. The US is already slowly withdrawing from the deliberations that concern the Palestinians and Israelis, they did not lead the charge in Libya and the US involvement only became necessary because none of the NATO countries were able to take down the air defense system. they have no intention of providing any help to the people in Iraq who started fighting one another the very first day the US left, they have offered only the generic diplomatic statements concerning Syria and Egypt, and their response to Iran's recent threats has been limited to the announcement that the US will not allow Iran to stop commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. When the US leaves Afghanistan and the natives start killing one another the US will not offer them any help either, they had their chance just like the Iraqis to implement positive changes and wasted it. The US is finally realizing there are no benefits when dealing with foreign countries on topics outside of commerce.
"China has totally obsoleted your country's space assets
Do you live in a different universe? Your proclamation shows both the level of your stupidity and ignorance all rolled up in one compact package.
I have been to China multiple times and found their population very friendly and have not encountered any hostility towards the US. I have worked with Chinese engineers for over 20 years and have not encountered any animosity towards the US. There is no reason for China and the US to start a war. And even if there was a war China cannot project thier military power outside of the south Asian region unless they use their ICBM capabilities which they will not do because of the retaliation they would certainly face.
And please do a little research on the X-37 program and technologies and contrast the turn around times and other capabilities versus the old space shuttle.
The US is the number one seller of military weapons in the world. However they don't sell the really good stuff like the F-22. And I would not be surprised in the least that the US technology sold had back doors built in that would prevent any of those assests to be used against the US. As an example look at the French missiles that Argentina deployed against the British. Margaret Thatcher ended up getting the necessary missile codes from France needed to make those missiles ineffective after the first few strikes. US military sales contracts also make sure that buyers remain dependent on the US for replacement parts and upgrades. And finally China has not obsoleted any of the US military technology. It's funny that back in the 80's and early 90's their dispute with Taiwan would have required a million man swim just to get soldiers on the ground.