Well their real classification system is even above above top secret so.
And what happens when someone leaves a folder labeled with the "above top secret" classification of "DOUBLE HUSH HUSH - TIGHTY WHITEY SKIDMARK" on some low level clerk's desk? You get a clerk who opens up a folder that looks like a joke because he knows of no such classification, and suddenly you have a GS-5 paper pusher looking at your alien autopsy photos. There's a reason why they make the classification scheme known. It's part of how they keep the secret stuff secret. A clerk with only a SECRET clearance who sees a folder labeled "TOP SECRET-SCI/TWS" is going to immediately get on the phone and get someone to take that potentially career-ending item off his desk, and FAST.
Correct English is irrelevant because of how this is being used, so you are wrong here. The use here is not as adjectives but as nouns, names for the classifications. "Above" as an adjective describing the classifications above that classification with the name "Top Secret".
Whicheverway you look at it, there is no classification level of "ABOVE TOP SECRET", nor a classification level higher than "TOP SECRET".
There are actually 8-12 security classifications (I don't know exactly how many, and the people do won't tell you even this), but you won't find public mention of half. And, yes, that is if you look really hard too.
Wait, you c laim it's so secret there's no information available on it, yet at the same time you claim to know it exists? Are you one of those people who says "lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working"?
You are likely confusing clearance level (applies to people) with classification (applies to information). Let me try this again: there are only 3 levels of classified information. Now, access to the various individual blobs and agglomerations of information that reside on these three tiers is determined by need to know, resulting in something called compartmentalization. This access is granted on an individual basis, and generally requires a certain flavor of security clearance. The specifics of the degree of background check, citizenship requirements, etc. vary from one SCI to another, which could very easily add up to 8-12 levels. For example, working in direct proximity to the POTUS requires a clearance of YANKEE WHITE. The names and requirements of many of these security clearance levels are, in fact, classified.
Oops, I was wrong on this point, and it is an important distinction to be made.
Well... you're both right. Many SCIs and SAPs have their code names classified the same as the programs themselves, but the only the full name of the program is unclassified. For example, there might be a program called BLUE ROOSTER LATERAL, and that name would be classified, but the cover sheet and external program references would be labeled "TOP SECRET - SCI/BRL", and that name reference would not be classified.
There is no level above TOP SECRET because Wikipedia said so. Wow! Who's the frickin nut case? Don't believe everything you read, especially if anybody in the world can edit the gd page you're reading.
Your point would be valid if there weren't twenty-odd references attached to the article, plus several THOUSAND Google hits on the subject, many of them official government documents detailing how the system works. I point to the Wikipedia article because 1) it's fairly accurate in this case, and 2) it's written in simple terms even a UFO nutjob could probably understand.
How about finding UBL?...why don't they find that asshole and put a Hellfire missile up his ass?
We know where he is. He's in Pakistan, where we can't get near him. Pakistan is ruled by a creepy mix of thieves and Islamists that just barely manage to hold power. Letting the US Army into the "backwoods" to hunt down a friend of the jihadi locals would flip out enough people to essentially start a civil war, so the odds of us getting bin Laden are approximately nil.
Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want
It is a subset of TOP SECRET. You can tell by how they use the SCI caveat by writing "TOP SECRET-SCI/xxx" when they use it.
but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret
Yes, the full name of SCIs and SAPs are classified at the same level as the project itself. That doesn't make it higher than TOP SECRET.
so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.
One of the defining characteristics of a secure and workable classification system is that the system itself is completely unclassified. Having parts of the system secret would make it impossible to recognize mishandled material. If (for example) a folder full of UFO data labeled "MEGA SECRET - SUPER-LEET" that got accidentally left in the hands of someone without clearance to know such a level of classification existed, they'd have no reason to believe it was anything but a joke, and would READ IT rather than take it unopened to the closest security, which is what you WANT them to do.
Sorry, I was going to say that there is a certain precedent for clearence levels so high most people don't even know they exist. That's not to say that it's the case here, just that in general it's would be foolish to think that TOP SECRET is as high as you can go.
Jeebus, like I said, you need to read the Wikipedia link, you UFO nutcase.
First, the uses of "ULTRA" seen in the UFO conspiracy rags is as a caveat to the classification "TOP SECRET".
Second, there is no caveat of "ULTRA" in the current collection, and no, there are no "secret" caveats. There are classified SCIs and SAPs, but they are never indicated by a single word, much less a meaningful word like "ULTRA".
As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now.;)
TOP SECRET-SCI/TK clearance (TK = Talent-Keyhole) is the specific clearance for classified satellite imagery. I don't know nuthin' 'bout that.;)
...since these programs are classified "above top secret"...
Cripes, are people really this freakin' dense? Take a look in the dictionary under "top" and figure out what the word means. It means there ain't nuthin' above it!
The classification levels--- UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET--- are all there are, and simply determine what general degree of security is required. Now, individual subjects or programs will be compartmentalized, which is the more specific degree of access limitation within the general classification (referred to as Sensitive Compartmented Information - SCI and Special Access Programs - SAP). Compartmentalization tells who, where, and how much information can be revealed, and is based entirely on need to know. For example, I had a TOP SECRET clearance when I was in the Army, but I was specifically cleared for only a narrow subset (i.e. a compartment) of TOP SECRET information which pertained to my specific job, that of HUMINT Collector. Since I did not need to know about the whatever the latest hypersonic spy plane test bed is, I could not drive into Area 51 and go look at it, despite it certainly being classified TOP SECRET, and me holding a TOP SECRET clearance. The idea that there's some super-secret classification level above top secret is idiocy spouted by moron UFO conspiracy nutjobs who can't even consult Wikipedia for a simple overview of the classification system.
nfortunately my move to DirecTV, and TiVo's change of focus to Cable and OTA only, I have been forced to use the DirecTV DVRs.
That's DirecTV's doing, not Tivo's. Rupert Murdoch shut them out because he thought they could do better in house. Now that Murdoch's gone, they can admit defeat, and are actually working with Tivo to make an DTV HD Tivo, to be released next year.
Did you even read the post you replied to? Their specific implementation is patented, not the concepts in general. Notice how Comcast, DirecTV, et al have not been sued, despite having set top boxes with those features?
The saddest part of this story is the boneheaded way the Air Force fills positions...... the Air Force, and other branches of the military, tend to treat people as interchangeable, identical cogs, rather than individuals with aptitudes, skills, and backgrounds that vary widely....I talked to one of the recruiters...[he] told me I would be placed according to the needs of the Air Force, basically wherever they felt like it. They would not take any look at my background at all.
The funny thing is, I've only heard about the Air Force and the USMC doing that. The Navy gives you some degree of choice, I think, but won't let you pick EXACTLY what you want. The Army, however, will pretty much let you choose whatever job that's available so long as you meet the test requirements. I wanted to be an intelligence analyst, and that's precisely what they gave me. It was in my enlistment contract. Granted, I ended up hopping from my cold-war-centric signal intelligence analyst MOS (98C) to Human Intelligence Collection/Verbal Waterboarder (97E) when I re-upped in 2001, and subsequently ended up drag-assing around Afghanistan with a gaggle of nutcase infantrymen, Rangers, and SpecFor guys, but every step of the way was voluntary.
With two baccalaureate degrees you need to be talking to an officer recruiter--not enlisted.
Doesn't really work like that. You're probably thinking of ROTC. ROTC gets you a degree in (something), with a minor in Military Management. The only folks who get officer commissions based on their education are doctors and dentists. Just having a degree in (something) will only get you in as an enlisted man at pay grade E-3 instead of the usual E-1.
More like they are searching for relevance after scrapping their Forward Air Control
Wow, when did THAT happen? I am both surprised.... and not surprised. Adequate close air support was always a big issue for us (Army) in Afghanistan.
, much of their bomber fleet, and much of their manned fighter fleet in order to become the Expensive Raptor Force.
Cyber Command has fuck all to do with airpower, but is trendier than building and manning more A-10s and AC-130s.
Yeah, we--- including the Air Force FAC attached to our unit--- often griped about that: that it'd be really pretty neat if the Air Force decided it was going to concentrate on dropping explosives on the bad guys that were trying to kill us stupid Army guys, rather than playing with expensive RC planes and invisible bombers.
Are you kidding? The Army is forbidden by law from doing anything deemed the realm of the Air Force (armed fixed wing aircraft) despite their great need for it. No other service is specifically prohibited from doing stuff the other services do. Sounds to me like it's the Air Force who doesn't share well.
Hence the word "train". Despite what they might tell you, naval aviators are exactly the same sort of jerky short guys you find as pilots in the Air Force.
There's something I don't get about the U.S. Military. Why is there so much overlapping of functions?
Why does the Navy have its own pilots, for instance? Why can't they train Air Force pilots to work with the Navy?
Similarly, why is there going to be an Air Force Cyber Command when the Army is already working on something similar? It all seems like a huge waste of money.
Hah! I see where you're getting confused. You're assuming the military is run by rational folks with a mind for efficiency and effectiveness, when really it's run by shitheel politicians. They may wear uniforms covered in stars and gold braid, but they're as parochial and scheming as any Louisiana legislator in a polyester suit. A little history (some cut and pasted from my post the last time this came up):
The Air Force was formed in 1948 on the premise that the US Army shouldn't be in the business of strategic bombing and air superiority. Unfortunately, the agreement that split the AF off from the Army also forbade the Army to operate aircraft. As a result the Army still has trouble getting the AF to provide adequate close air support. Under consideration at the same time was a proposal to attach the Marine Corps to the Army (where it more logically belongs) and transfer naval aviation assets to Air Force control; but Navy Secretary Forrestal had spent WW2 building up the Navy into his own little self-sufficient kingdom with its own air and ground assets. It's a completely asinine duplication of effort, but he had enough pull to kill the consolidation proposal. As a result of this sort of bureaucratic feudalism, we have:
4 1/2 air forces
Air Force, Naval aviation, USMC aviation, Coast Guard aviation, and Army helicopter aviation
1 1/2 armies
the real Army, and the Navy's light infantry, the USMC
2 1/2 navies
the Navy, the Coast Guard, and all the small watercraft operated by the AF and Army to fill the gaps the Navy won't cover.
So you see, while on the surface splitting up the services seems like it should promote efficiency by allowing each service to specialize, what you end up with is services narrowing their focus to the stuff that's completely "theirs", while neglecting the "overlap" areas where other services need their support. As it turns out, the Army is inevitably the biggest loser in all of this. They are the backbone of any sizable conflict, but can't get decent close air support or timely theater airlift support from the Air Force, and are forbidden by law to provide it for themselves. Likewise they can't get theater level waterborne transport from the Navy. Meanwhile, naval aviators whine about the Air Force getting to drop all the bombs in Iraq, when the justification for having them flying over Iraq is already weak at best. Then there's the USMC lobbying to be given sole operational responsibility over Afghanistan because they want to get out of Iraq, as their tactics there have only resulted in a greater casualty rate, rather than "upstaging" the Army as is their normal goal.
It all goes back to the political hacks that fill the Pentagon. They're always looking for some way to expand their power base so they can justify a bigger bite of the defense "pie". This silly Air Force "Cyber Command" is just more of the same. The Air Force hasn't a single justification in its charter for claiming "cyberspace" as their own, but they hope to get it by virtue of being the only service with applicable combat assets in-theater when the time comes to decide whose responsibility it is. Frankly, I think the military is ill suited to the job. I reckon the NSA is the better tool for the job. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the Air Force was told "your Cyber Command is a needless duplication of assets already fielded by the NSA--- kill it"...
I hope the ethics hammered into the better class of military leaders (and I mean West Point, Annapolis, Air Force Academy graduates)
You think the ring-tappers* are the "better class of military leaders"? You've obviously never been in the military--- or are yourself a ring-tapper. They're the jackass political hacks that fill the halls of the pentagon with hare-brained ideas that fly in the face of reason**.
* so called for the annoying habit of many of them of spending too much time pointing out that they graduated from [W.Point|Annapolis|Colo Spgs], and not enough time demonstrating the leadership skills they (supposedly) learned there. Specifically refers to the practice of tapping the academy grad ring against stuff, as if by idle habit, in order to draw attention to it.
** Two classic examples: the Army Combat Uniform for the Army and the Airman Battle Uniform for the Air Force:
The Army spent millions working with the US Army Natick Labs and outside contractors like Crye Precision to develop a truly universal camouflage. One result of that was Crye MultiCam. Unfortunately, some asshat ring-tapper general decided to go with the current ACU pattern because the other patterns weren't "digital", like the Marines have.
In the case of the Airman Battle Uniform, the original pattern was to be tiger stripe with dark blue stripes! Some chair-bound rig tapper hack AF general and his yes-men at the Pentagon decided that the Air Force didn't really need effective camouflage, as airmen don't go into combat. During testing, it was pointed out to them by the airmen testing that yes, many of them do go into combat, so a useful camouflage might be better, thank you very fucking much. Fortunately, they listened to reason and modified it to a more sensible gray stripe. Sadly, they totally ignored requests to make its pockets/collar/etc similar to the much improved Army ACU, and subsequently those poor Air Force slobs are still walking around in the same crappy uniform we all wore in the 80's, only in a different color. Well, OK, the AF wore the outdated olive drab "pickle suit" the Army and USMC dumped in '82 until 1988, so I guess this is just par for the course.
My house payments tripled this month. Yeah, it's MY fault.
Wait, you're saying it's someone else's fault you signed for a variable rate mortgage instead of a fixed-rate one? Were you one of those people who planned on the market appreciating such that you could refinance to a fixed rate later and now are stuck holding the bag on a house worth less than you paid? Where I come from we call that gambling.
Part of the problem is that most anti-IP ideals (consumers gain SO MUCH from piracy!) ignore the fact that their are artists who gain so much from the financial gain of their art. By simply supporting the abolition of IP, you are throwing mud into the faces of artists everywhere and culture will suffer in the long term.
This assertion has no supporting evidence. Copyright law is less than 350 years old, and recognizable modern copyright is less than 250 years old. Please cite where and how, exactly, "culture" suffered from lack of artistry prior to this.
Slashdot Mirror
Well their real classification system is even above above top secret so.
And what happens when someone leaves a folder labeled with the "above top secret" classification of "DOUBLE HUSH HUSH - TIGHTY WHITEY SKIDMARK" on some low level clerk's desk? You get a clerk who opens up a folder that looks like a joke because he knows of no such classification, and suddenly you have a GS-5 paper pusher looking at your alien autopsy photos. There's a reason why they make the classification scheme known. It's part of how they keep the secret stuff secret. A clerk with only a SECRET clearance who sees a folder labeled "TOP SECRET-SCI/TWS" is going to immediately get on the phone and get someone to take that potentially career-ending item off his desk, and FAST.
Correct English is irrelevant because of how this is being used, so you are wrong here. The use here is not as adjectives but as nouns, names for the classifications. "Above" as an adjective describing the classifications above that classification with the name "Top Secret".
Whicheverway you look at it, there is no classification level of "ABOVE TOP SECRET", nor a classification level higher than "TOP SECRET".
There are actually 8-12 security classifications (I don't know exactly how many, and the people do won't tell you even this), but you won't find public mention of half. And, yes, that is if you look really hard too.
Wait, you c laim it's so secret there's no information available on it, yet at the same time you claim to know it exists? Are you one of those people who says "lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working"?
You are likely confusing clearance level (applies to people) with classification (applies to information). Let me try this again: there are only 3 levels of classified information. Now, access to the various individual blobs and agglomerations of information that reside on these three tiers is determined by need to know, resulting in something called compartmentalization. This access is granted on an individual basis, and generally requires a certain flavor of security clearance. The specifics of the degree of background check, citizenship requirements, etc. vary from one SCI to another, which could very easily add up to 8-12 levels. For example, working in direct proximity to the POTUS requires a clearance of YANKEE WHITE. The names and requirements of many of these security clearance levels are, in fact, classified.
Oops, I was wrong on this point, and it is an important distinction to be made.
Well... you're both right. Many SCIs and SAPs have their code names classified the same as the programs themselves, but the only the full name of the program is unclassified. For example, there might be a program called BLUE ROOSTER LATERAL, and that name would be classified, but the cover sheet and external program references would be labeled "TOP SECRET - SCI/BRL", and that name reference would not be classified.
Wow, I can tell you've been in the army.
What gave it away? The part where I said "when I was in the Army"?
There is no level above TOP SECRET because Wikipedia said so. Wow! Who's the frickin nut case? Don't believe everything you read, especially if anybody in the world can edit the gd page you're reading.
Your point would be valid if there weren't twenty-odd references attached to the article, plus several THOUSAND Google hits on the subject, many of them official government documents detailing how the system works. I point to the Wikipedia article because 1) it's fairly accurate in this case, and 2) it's written in simple terms even a UFO nutjob could probably understand.
How about finding UBL?...why don't they find that asshole and put a Hellfire missile up his ass?
We know where he is. He's in Pakistan, where we can't get near him. Pakistan is ruled by a creepy mix of thieves and Islamists that just barely manage to hold power. Letting the US Army into the "backwoods" to hunt down a friend of the jihadi locals would flip out enough people to essentially start a civil war, so the odds of us getting bin Laden are approximately nil.
Heh. Look out, because I get the feeling that DOUBLE SECRET STAT is coming...
When'd you get out? Fellow HUMINTer here.
2003, but my first stint was back in the good ol' days of the cold war, '87-'93, when we were still called "Interrogator/Linguist".
Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want
It is a subset of TOP SECRET. You can tell by how they use the SCI caveat by writing "TOP SECRET-SCI/xxx" when they use it.
but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret
Yes, the full name of SCIs and SAPs are classified at the same level as the project itself. That doesn't make it higher than TOP SECRET.
so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.
One of the defining characteristics of a secure and workable classification system is that the system itself is completely unclassified. Having parts of the system secret would make it impossible to recognize mishandled material. If (for example) a folder full of UFO data labeled "MEGA SECRET - SUPER-LEET" that got accidentally left in the hands of someone without clearance to know such a level of classification existed, they'd have no reason to believe it was anything but a joke, and would READ IT rather than take it unopened to the closest security, which is what you WANT them to do.
Really, it's very, very simple.
*cough*ULTRA*cough
Sorry, I was going to say that there is a certain precedent for clearence levels so high most people don't even know they exist. That's not to say that it's the case here, just that in general it's would be foolish to think that TOP SECRET is as high as you can go.
Jeebus, like I said, you need to read the Wikipedia link, you UFO nutcase.
First, the uses of "ULTRA" seen in the UFO conspiracy rags is as a caveat to the classification "TOP SECRET".
Second, there is no caveat of "ULTRA" in the current collection, and no, there are no "secret" caveats. There are classified SCIs and SAPs, but they are never indicated by a single word, much less a meaningful word like "ULTRA".
As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now. ;)
TOP SECRET-SCI/TK clearance (TK = Talent-Keyhole) is the specific clearance for classified satellite imagery. I don't know nuthin' 'bout that. ;)
...since these programs are classified "above top secret"...
Cripes, are people really this freakin' dense? Take a look in the dictionary under "top" and figure out what the word means. It means there ain't nuthin' above it!
The classification levels--- UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET--- are all there are, and simply determine what general degree of security is required. Now, individual subjects or programs will be compartmentalized, which is the more specific degree of access limitation within the general classification (referred to as Sensitive Compartmented Information - SCI and Special Access Programs - SAP). Compartmentalization tells who, where, and how much information can be revealed, and is based entirely on need to know. For example, I had a TOP SECRET clearance when I was in the Army, but I was specifically cleared for only a narrow subset (i.e. a compartment) of TOP SECRET information which pertained to my specific job, that of HUMINT Collector. Since I did not need to know about the whatever the latest hypersonic spy plane test bed is, I could not drive into Area 51 and go look at it, despite it certainly being classified TOP SECRET, and me holding a TOP SECRET clearance. The idea that there's some super-secret classification level above top secret is idiocy spouted by moron UFO conspiracy nutjobs who can't even consult Wikipedia for a simple overview of the classification system.
nfortunately my move to DirecTV, and TiVo's change of focus to Cable and OTA only, I have been forced to use the DirecTV DVRs.
That's DirecTV's doing, not Tivo's. Rupert Murdoch shut them out because he thought they could do better in house. Now that Murdoch's gone, they can admit defeat, and are actually working with Tivo to make an DTV HD Tivo, to be released next year.
Did you even read the post you replied to? Their specific implementation is patented, not the concepts in general. Notice how Comcast, DirecTV, et al have not been sued, despite having set top boxes with those features?
You mean F-117? Development of the F-111 was a pretty mundane non-secret program.
The saddest part of this story is the boneheaded way the Air Force fills positions... ... the Air Force, and other branches of the military, tend to treat people as interchangeable, identical cogs, rather than individuals with aptitudes, skills, and backgrounds that vary widely. ...I talked to one of the recruiters ...[he] told me I would be placed according to the needs of the Air Force, basically wherever they felt like it. They would not take any look at my background at all.
The funny thing is, I've only heard about the Air Force and the USMC doing that. The Navy gives you some degree of choice, I think, but won't let you pick EXACTLY what you want. The Army, however, will pretty much let you choose whatever job that's available so long as you meet the test requirements. I wanted to be an intelligence analyst, and that's precisely what they gave me. It was in my enlistment contract. Granted, I ended up hopping from my cold-war-centric signal intelligence analyst MOS (98C) to Human Intelligence Collection/Verbal Waterboarder (97E) when I re-upped in 2001, and subsequently ended up drag-assing around Afghanistan with a gaggle of nutcase infantrymen, Rangers, and SpecFor guys, but every step of the way was voluntary.
With two baccalaureate degrees you need to be talking to an officer recruiter--not enlisted.
Doesn't really work like that. You're probably thinking of ROTC. ROTC gets you a degree in (something), with a minor in Military Management. The only folks who get officer commissions based on their education are doctors and dentists. Just having a degree in (something) will only get you in as an enlisted man at pay grade E-3 instead of the usual E-1.
More like they are searching for relevance after scrapping their Forward Air Control
Wow, when did THAT happen? I am both surprised.... and not surprised. Adequate close air support was always a big issue for us (Army) in Afghanistan.
, much of their bomber fleet, and much of their manned fighter fleet in order to become the Expensive Raptor Force.
Cyber Command has fuck all to do with airpower, but is trendier than building and manning more A-10s and AC-130s.
Yeah, we--- including the Air Force FAC attached to our unit--- often griped about that: that it'd be really pretty neat if the Air Force decided it was going to concentrate on dropping explosives on the bad guys that were trying to kill us stupid Army guys, rather than playing with expensive RC planes and invisible bombers.
Are you kidding? The Army is forbidden by law from doing anything deemed the realm of the Air Force (armed fixed wing aircraft) despite their great need for it. No other service is specifically prohibited from doing stuff the other services do. Sounds to me like it's the Air Force who doesn't share well.
Hence the word "train". Despite what they might tell you, naval aviators are exactly the same sort of jerky short guys you find as pilots in the Air Force.
There's something I don't get about the U.S. Military. Why is there so much overlapping of functions?
Why does the Navy have its own pilots, for instance? Why can't they train Air Force pilots to work with the Navy?
Similarly, why is there going to be an Air Force Cyber Command when the Army is already working on something similar? It all seems like a huge waste of money.
Hah! I see where you're getting confused. You're assuming the military is run by rational folks with a mind for efficiency and effectiveness, when really it's run by shitheel politicians. They may wear uniforms covered in stars and gold braid, but they're as parochial and scheming as any Louisiana legislator in a polyester suit. A little history (some cut and pasted from my post the last time this came up):
The Air Force was formed in 1948 on the premise that the US Army shouldn't be in the business of strategic bombing and air superiority. Unfortunately, the agreement that split the AF off from the Army also forbade the Army to operate aircraft. As a result the Army still has trouble getting the AF to provide adequate close air support. Under consideration at the same time was a proposal to attach the Marine Corps to the Army (where it more logically belongs) and transfer naval aviation assets to Air Force control; but Navy Secretary Forrestal had spent WW2 building up the Navy into his own little self-sufficient kingdom with its own air and ground assets. It's a completely asinine duplication of effort, but he had enough pull to kill the consolidation proposal. As a result of this sort of bureaucratic feudalism, we have:
4 1/2 air forces
Air Force, Naval aviation, USMC aviation, Coast Guard aviation, and Army helicopter aviation
1 1/2 armies
the real Army, and the Navy's light infantry, the USMC
2 1/2 navies
the Navy, the Coast Guard, and all the small watercraft operated by the AF and Army to fill the gaps the Navy won't cover.
So you see, while on the surface splitting up the services seems like it should promote efficiency by allowing each service to specialize, what you end up with is services narrowing their focus to the stuff that's completely "theirs", while neglecting the "overlap" areas where other services need their support. As it turns out, the Army is inevitably the biggest loser in all of this. They are the backbone of any sizable conflict, but can't get decent close air support or timely theater airlift support from the Air Force, and are forbidden by law to provide it for themselves. Likewise they can't get theater level waterborne transport from the Navy. Meanwhile, naval aviators whine about the Air Force getting to drop all the bombs in Iraq, when the justification for having them flying over Iraq is already weak at best. Then there's the USMC lobbying to be given sole operational responsibility over Afghanistan because they want to get out of Iraq, as their tactics there have only resulted in a greater casualty rate, rather than "upstaging" the Army as is their normal goal.
It all goes back to the political hacks that fill the Pentagon. They're always looking for some way to expand their power base so they can justify a bigger bite of the defense "pie". This silly Air Force "Cyber Command" is just more of the same. The Air Force hasn't a single justification in its charter for claiming "cyberspace" as their own, but they hope to get it by virtue of being the only service with applicable combat assets in-theater when the time comes to decide whose responsibility it is. Frankly, I think the military is ill suited to the job. I reckon the NSA is the better tool for the job. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the Air Force was told "your Cyber Command is a needless duplication of assets already fielded by the NSA--- kill it"...
I hope the ethics hammered into the better class of military leaders (and I mean West Point, Annapolis, Air Force Academy graduates)
You think the ring-tappers* are the "better class of military leaders"? You've obviously never been in the military--- or are yourself a ring-tapper. They're the jackass political hacks that fill the halls of the pentagon with hare-brained ideas that fly in the face of reason**.
* so called for the annoying habit of many of them of spending too much time pointing out that they graduated from [W.Point|Annapolis|Colo Spgs], and not enough time demonstrating the leadership skills they (supposedly) learned there. Specifically refers to the practice of tapping the academy grad ring against stuff, as if by idle habit, in order to draw attention to it.
** Two classic examples: the Army Combat Uniform for the Army and the Airman Battle Uniform for the Air Force:
The Army spent millions working with the US Army Natick Labs and outside contractors like Crye Precision to develop a truly universal camouflage. One result of that was Crye MultiCam. Unfortunately, some asshat ring-tapper general decided to go with the current ACU pattern because the other patterns weren't "digital", like the Marines have.
In the case of the Airman Battle Uniform, the original pattern was to be tiger stripe with dark blue stripes! Some chair-bound rig tapper hack AF general and his yes-men at the Pentagon decided that the Air Force didn't really need effective camouflage, as airmen don't go into combat. During testing, it was pointed out to them by the airmen testing that yes, many of them do go into combat, so a useful camouflage might be better, thank you very fucking much. Fortunately, they listened to reason and modified it to a more sensible gray stripe. Sadly, they totally ignored requests to make its pockets/collar/etc similar to the much improved Army ACU, and subsequently those poor Air Force slobs are still walking around in the same crappy uniform we all wore in the 80's, only in a different color. Well, OK, the AF wore the outdated olive drab "pickle suit" the Army and USMC dumped in '82 until 1988, so I guess this is just par for the course.
My house payments tripled this month. Yeah, it's MY fault.
Wait, you're saying it's someone else's fault you signed for a variable rate mortgage instead of a fixed-rate one? Were you one of those people who planned on the market appreciating such that you could refinance to a fixed rate later and now are stuck holding the bag on a house worth less than you paid? Where I come from we call that gambling.
Part of the problem is that most anti-IP ideals (consumers gain SO MUCH from piracy!) ignore the fact that their are artists who gain so much from the financial gain of their art. By simply supporting the abolition of IP, you are throwing mud into the faces of artists everywhere and culture will suffer in the long term.
This assertion has no supporting evidence. Copyright law is less than 350 years old, and recognizable modern copyright is less than 250 years old. Please cite where and how, exactly, "culture" suffered from lack of artistry prior to this.
Well, maybe the federal government should have ... a czar for peeping toms.
Man, I'd totally volunteer for that job