We haven't had a public breakthrough weapons technology as good as megaton nukes, since the 60's.
I don't think that is correct. The impact of precision guided munitions has already had a huge impact, and it continues to grow. The following except refers to events around Operation Desert Storm in 1992. At that time precision guided munitions were largely bombs and missiles, and a few expensive anti-tank artillery rounds. Now that capability is finding its way to more mundane artillery and mortars as well, not to mention much smaller missiles. The devices are becoming smaller, lighter, more precise, easier to use, and cheaper, so there will be a lot more of then in the future. A large strike by precision weapons could easily reverse the tide of battle in a way that nothing short of a nuclear weapon could in the past. Compared to nukes there are few drawbacks and many substantial advantages, such as not contaminating the battlefield and the fact that their use doesn't really have any of the political problem that nuclear weapons have.
We are writing a new and exciting chapter on air power--a chapter made possible in part by precision guided munitions (PGM). Air power advocates have long dreamed of a day when the weapon, platform, and willingness to use them properly would come together to make air power a decisive force. Today, those dreams are reality. One need only look back to our raids on Schweinfurt, Germany, in World War II to see how dramatically precision weapons have enhanced our capabilities over the last 50 years. Two raids of 300 B-17 bombers could not achieve with 3,000 bombs what two F-117s can do with only four. Precision weapons have truly given a new meaning to the term mass.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings. What we historically achieved with volume we now can accomplish with precision. After all, the objective has never been to see how many bombs we could drop, but to produce results.
Precision weapons may also constitute a revolution in mobility. Of the 85,000 tons of bombs used in the Gulf War, only 8,000 tons (less than 10 percent) were PGMs, yet they accounted for nearly 75 percent of the damage. If we had wanted to, we could have airlifted all of our PGMs with just five C-5s or nine C-141s a day.2 . . . more
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such positions is called an "antisemite".
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[1] and that has been its normal use since then.[2] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."[3] . . . more
It is an amusing notion though that anti-Semites can't choose to hate whom they will due to a technical obscurity that isn't anywhere near general usage.
Or the inconvenient fact that Hamas was created by Israel to undermine Fatah.
I think you'll find the truly inconvenient fact to be that your claim is wrong, a misreading of the facts. The facts are more subtle, and it is more a study in the law of unintended consequences. And please don't bother throwing this back at me from the article below since it will show you apparently either didn't read the article, comprehend the article, or both: ""Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. " That sentence from the article is more hyperbole than fact.
When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
"When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."
Israeli officials who served in Gaza disagree on how much their own actions may have contributed to the rise of Hamas. They blame the group's recent ascent on outsiders, primarily Iran. This view is shared by the Israeli government. "Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons," Mr. Olmert said last Saturday. Hamas has denied receiving military assistance from Iran.
Arieh Spitzen, the former head of the Israeli military's Department of Palestinian Affairs, says that even if Israel had tried to stop the Islamists sooner, he doubts it could have done much to curb political Islam, a movement that was spreading across the Muslim world. He says attempts to stop it are akin to trying to change the internal rhythms of nature: "It is like saying: 'I will kill all the mosquitoes.' But then you get even worse insects that will kill you...You break the balance. You kill Hamas you might get al Qaeda."
--------
And the Likud charter lays claim to the occupied territories and denies any Palestinian state. Funny how the Zionist apologists never talk about that.
I take it then that you must be truly baffled by the fact that successive Likud Prime Ministers have ceded territory to the Palestinians, including withdrawing from Gaza? How is that possible if the charter is as you say? Perhaps there are subtleties to Israeli politics unaccounted for by the claims you post? Will you be including notice of the Likud concessions of territory in future posts about the Likud charter?
The third Likud premier was Benjamin Netanyahu, elected in May 1996, . ..
In 1998, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to cede territory in the Wye River Memorandum. . . .
. . . early elections for Prime Minister were called for March 2001. Surprisingly, Netanyahu declined to be the Likud candidate for Prime Minister, meaning that the fourth Likud premier would be Ariel Sharon. Sharon, unlike past Likud leaders, had been raised in a Labour Zionist environment and had long been seen as something of a maverick. In the face of the Second Intifada, Sharon pursued a varied set of policies, many of which were controversial even within the Likud. T
And why would the Palestinians need Israel approval when Israel didn't need to ask permission to the Palestinians to exist?
Israel has existed as a nation in that region for at least 1,200 years, first as a kingdom, and now as a democracy. There was a bit of a gap between the prior kingdom and the current democracy while the Jewish population made its way back after captivity in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, and in Europe and Africa courtesy of the Romans. (Disappearing and reappearing nations aren't that unusual, ask Poland.) In a way it worked out better for them while they were spread out as it was harder to oppress and kill them all.
The whole "negotiated solution" is propaganda for Israel to keep the Palestinians stateless forever, and continue the colonization. The longer they wait, the larger their state will be.
The Palestinians would have a state now if they could accept the existence of Israel, but they prefer to live with the fantasy that they will destroy Israel.
I wouldn't get too comfy though even if you are tempted to throw the Jewish people under the bus, the Palestinians also teach their children that they must reclaim Spain after the Muslims were driven out 521 years ago.
(Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.
"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank. . . more
Today, a sizable section of the European left has been reluctant to take a clear stand when anti-Zionism spills over into anti-Semitism. Beginning in the 1990s, many on the European left began to view the growing Muslim minorities in their countries as a new proletariat and the Palestinian cause as a recruiting mechanism. The issue of Palestine was particularly seductive for the children of immigrants, marooned between identities.
Capitalism was depicted as undermining a perfect Islamic society while cultural imperialism corrupted Islam. The tactic has a distinguished revolutionary pedigree. Indeed, the cry, “Long live Soviet power, long live the Shariah,” was heard in Central Asia during the 1920s after Lenin tried to cultivate Muslim nationalists in the Soviet East once his attempt to spread revolution to Europe had failed. But the question remains: why do today’s European socialists identify with Islamists whose worldview is light-years removed from their own? . . . more
The view of the Times is too timid - anti-Semitism is becoming a disease of the left.
I do not see the PA or even Hamas advocating the launching or rockets lately.
There is a cease-fire at the moment that is barely holding. It can't last forever since one of Hamas's basic goals is to destroy Israel.
If there are such criminals, then they can be prosecuted.
Is there something you missed? You do realize that it isn't just criminal individuals that do this, or renegade members of Hamas, it is Hamas itself? They aren't going to prosecute themselves for fighting for their own goal. The only reason they might stop is they are either out of ammo or the Israelis have damaged them enough that they need a break. The closest they are going to get to prosecuting anyone is if on one of their needed breaks a rival group launches a few rockets before Hamas itself is ready to resume hostilities. Those individuals will be captured and punished, as much for being rivals of Hamas than for attacking Israel before Hamas is ready to do so itself.
The only real hope there is that Hamas continues in growing corrupt and wants uninterrupted economic activity to leach off from.
Demolishing hospitals is obviously not proportional response.
You don't get to use hospitals for rocket launch points and munitions warehouses. That is a violation of the Law of War, and Hamas engages in that sort of thing regularly.
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government?
No, that would be Hamas. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
There seems to be some defect in your understanding of genocide as the number of Palestinian Arabs has long been increasing. You also don't give credit where credit is due. The brother Arabs of the Palestinian Arabs told them to leave their homes and villages while they slaughtered the Jews in 1948. It didn't turn out that way, and now the other Arabs treat the Palestinian Arabs like scum.
The Republic of China, which is the sovereign government that used to control all of China, including mainland China, but after the Chinese civil war now only controls the island province of Taiwan.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't keep classified information on civilian projects online, do they?
The data in the system included the number of people that would be killed if any given dam failed. Effectively it is a target list.
. ..and the U.S. government is using it in its publicity campaign to pass laws giving the government (gasp!) more control over the internet.
Its a news story, not a publicity campaign. They would rather not discuss it as it is embarrassing, if you haven't caught the drift of the articles (plural - here is a better one.)
I guess it is damned if they do, damned if they don't: Our security is weak and people complain about how stupid it is to have internet vulnerabilities of the type we have, but don't change any laws or regulations that we work under since that is controlling random uninvolved internet lusers.
Among the data that was potentially stolen was the number of people that would be killed by any given dam failing. Effectively it is a target list. I'm not sure what you think is a lie. Trained eyes don't penetrate very far into concrete.
...so hiding these problems is pretty stupid in the first place.
Publicizing your vulnerabilities along with a target list isn't so bright either.
The database tells you how many people will be killed if any given dam breaks. It is effectively a target list. No doubt there is other data there as well.
In this case you would get more insight from a calculator or spreadsheet than from cynicism. The US Cyber Command budget isn't that large compared to either the Air Force budget or the DoD budget. Finding some justification to bump it up wouldn't make much difference - it isn't going to be the tail that wags the dog.
Misplaced cynicism can also mislead you by pointing you in the wrong direction, as above. If you started digging into the question of Chinese espionage against the United States, you would quickly and easily lean that it is a huge effort against wide ranging targets. Why you would think this relatively minor event is in some way inconsistent wtih the total Chinese effort, and therefore not real, is baffling. Interesting who you effectively trust.
I felt I needed to correct somebody who was "wrong on the internet".
The story I link to, at the Washington Times, just says the turbine was turned on in error, which caused the destruction and death. It doesn't say that it was cyber terrorism, only that such a thing is possible if done deliberately rather than by accident. I think you've overreacted a bit.
But, I believe your motives in defense of the Rodina are pure, so I will award you a link.
If you look at the totals in the right column, they aren't that different - the defense budget is roughly about 110% of education spending. (Assuming the numbers are correct.)
There seems to be a lot of zeros in both numbers. I'll bet I know what confused you - you only looked at the federal spending and most defense spending is federal, most education spending is local and state. But totals? Not that different.
Education $781.2 billion Defense $857.7 billion
I'll note two things. First, the defense totals are only that high since they lump in things like veterans programs into it whereas it is a separate agency that contributes nothing to current operations. It is debatable but reasonable point.
Second, it isn't clear that more money for education will necessarily produce a better outcome.
So, your thinking is that no nation spies on another nation unless it gets spied on first? You're thinking that it doesn't go on all the time? No nation attacks another unless it is attacked first? Before any of that can happen, you have to air the "dirty laundry?" Your planet sounds like a great place, can I ask where it is? I'd like to visit.
In 1992, US intelligence agencies started to become concerned about China's designs for its next-generation nuclear weapons. A series of explosions monitored by the West suggested that the People's Republic of China was working on smaller, lighter thermonuclear warheads, with an increased yield-to-weight ratio. US officials did not think Chinese science was advanced enough to produce such sophisticated weapons on its own. They suspected something else-that the PRC had stolen US nuclear secrets.
Three years later the US received apparent confirmation of such thefts from the Chinese themselves. An unsolicited Chinese individual--a "walk-in," in the argot of espionage--turned a pile of PRC documents over to the CIA. Among them was a paper stamped "secret" which contained design information on perhaps the most advanced warhead in the US arsenal, the Trident II's W88
You know, I don't recall any period of great public introspection and breast beating, or airing of "dirty laundry" before they started these actions. Do you think it is possible they play by different rules?
Yeah, because the Chinese have bases in countries all over the world...
The People's Republic of China, A.K.A. communist China, has a growing number of military bases and access to facilities around the world. The Chinese fleet has been participating in anti-piracy actions around Somalia, giving them experience in extended naval deployments. The Chinese navy is planning to build something like four aircraft carriers and is currently flying aircraft off their first one that they are bringing into operation now after learning much from the Brazilian navy. Chinese special forces have been training the military in Venezuela. The Chinese are active in Africa.
The Chinese have also been bullying many of their neighbors, laying claim to distant islands and extensive land areas. Why don't you ask the Indians what they think of China's behavior, they are forming several new airborne infantry units to help deal with the threat? Or the Japanese, who are suffering a growing number of incursions by Chinese aircraft and sea vessels? Of perhaps the Philippines, which is seeing Chinese territory grabs on their doorstep?
No, it's the Chinese who are spending themselves into oblivion on weapons of war... Oh, wait, that's us again.
US military spending has recently generally been between 4% to 5% of GDP, well below historic levels. The army and navy and rumps of what they were at the end of the Cold War. Spending on social welfare programs is several times the military budget and is continuing to grow, and will grow for decades to come. It is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, now joined by Obamacare which really starts kicking in this year, that will bankrupt the US, not the military spending.
I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about there.
We spend more on our military than the next 13 nations combined
A large part of that is personnel costs. The US has an all volunteer military that pays its members a salary competitive with the civilian sector unlike many other major nations that use conscription to fill their armies. An American corporal in the Army or Marines makes about what a Chinese general makes per month. I'm sure you can figure the impact of that out. Same thing applies to weapons purchases. Maybe you've heard that Chinese engineering staff and factory labor is cheaper than American?
On the other hand pretty much all European countries allied with the United States spend less than they should by treaty goals. As a result they had a hard time with the intervention in Libya without American assistance.
If it makes you feel better the Chinese are upping their military budget by 10.7% this year.
(but we can't afford to educate our children... bright.)
The US throws large amounts of money at education. The problem isn't with how much money, but what it is spent on, like growing numbers of administrators. There are also social factors that come into play that the education budget itself can't fix. The teachers unions don't help much either.
You don't really have this right either.
I dunno, perhaps if we moved from offense to defense, these things wouldn't be issues?
If platitudes could solve things they wouldn't be issues either.
Slashdot Mirror
We haven't had a public breakthrough weapons technology as good as megaton nukes, since the 60's.
I don't think that is correct. The impact of precision guided munitions has already had a huge impact, and it continues to grow. The following except refers to events around Operation Desert Storm in 1992. At that time precision guided munitions were largely bombs and missiles, and a few expensive anti-tank artillery rounds. Now that capability is finding its way to more mundane artillery and mortars as well, not to mention much smaller missiles. The devices are becoming smaller, lighter, more precise, easier to use, and cheaper, so there will be a lot more of then in the future. A large strike by precision weapons could easily reverse the tide of battle in a way that nothing short of a nuclear weapon could in the past. Compared to nukes there are few drawbacks and many substantial advantages, such as not contaminating the battlefield and the fact that their use doesn't really have any of the political problem that nuclear weapons have.
IMPACT OF PRECISION WEAPONS ON AIR COMBAT OPERATIONS
We are writing a new and exciting chapter on air power--a chapter made possible in part by precision guided munitions (PGM). Air power advocates have long dreamed of a day when the weapon, platform, and willingness to use them properly would come together to make air power a decisive force. Today, those dreams are reality. One need only look back to our raids on Schweinfurt, Germany, in World War II to see how dramatically precision weapons have enhanced our capabilities over the last 50 years. Two raids of 300 B-17 bombers could not achieve with 3,000 bombs what two F-117s can do with only four. Precision weapons have truly given a new meaning to the term mass.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings. What we historically achieved with volume we now can accomplish with precision. After all, the objective has never been to see how many bombs we could drop, but to produce results.
Precision weapons may also constitute a revolution in mobility. Of the 85,000 tons of bombs used in the Gulf War, only 8,000 tons (less than 10 percent) were PGMs, yet they accounted for nearly 75 percent of the damage. If we had wanted to, we could have airlifted all of our PGMs with just five C-5s or nine C-141s a day.2 . . . more
If it were anti-semitic it would be against Arabs as well.
Not in general usage, no, just Jews.
Antisemitism
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such positions is called an "antisemite".
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[1] and that has been its normal use since then.[2] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."[3] . . . more
It is an amusing notion though that anti-Semites can't choose to hate whom they will due to a technical obscurity that isn't anywhere near general usage.
Or the inconvenient fact that Hamas was created by Israel to undermine Fatah.
I think you'll find the truly inconvenient fact to be that your claim is wrong, a misreading of the facts. The facts are more subtle, and it is more a study in the law of unintended consequences. And please don't bother throwing this back at me from the article below since it will show you apparently either didn't read the article, comprehend the article, or both: ""Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. " That sentence from the article is more hyperbole than fact.
This is more informative:
How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
"When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."
Israeli officials who served in Gaza disagree on how much their own actions may have contributed to the rise of Hamas. They blame the group's recent ascent on outsiders, primarily Iran. This view is shared by the Israeli government. "Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons," Mr. Olmert said last Saturday. Hamas has denied receiving military assistance from Iran.
Arieh Spitzen, the former head of the Israeli military's Department of Palestinian Affairs, says that even if Israel had tried to stop the Islamists sooner, he doubts it could have done much to curb political Islam, a movement that was spreading across the Muslim world. He says attempts to stop it are akin to trying to change the internal rhythms of nature: "It is like saying: 'I will kill all the mosquitoes.' But then you get even worse insects that will kill you...You break the balance. You kill Hamas you might get al Qaeda."
--------
And the Likud charter lays claim to the occupied territories and denies any Palestinian state. Funny how the Zionist apologists never talk about that.
I take it then that you must be truly baffled by the fact that successive Likud Prime Ministers have ceded territory to the Palestinians, including withdrawing from Gaza? How is that possible if the charter is as you say? Perhaps there are subtleties to Israeli politics unaccounted for by the claims you post? Will you be including notice of the Likud concessions of territory in future posts about the Likud charter?
Likud
The third Likud premier was Benjamin Netanyahu, elected in May 1996, . . .
In 1998, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to cede territory in the Wye River Memorandum. . . .
. . . early elections for Prime Minister were called for March 2001. Surprisingly, Netanyahu declined to be the Likud candidate for Prime Minister, meaning that the fourth Likud premier would be Ariel Sharon. Sharon, unlike past Likud leaders, had been raised in a Labour Zionist environment and had long been seen as something of a maverick. In the face of the Second Intifada, Sharon pursued a varied set of policies, many of which were controversial even within the Likud. T
And why would the Palestinians need Israel approval when Israel didn't need to ask permission to the Palestinians to exist?
Israel has existed as a nation in that region for at least 1,200 years, first as a kingdom, and now as a democracy. There was a bit of a gap between the prior kingdom and the current democracy while the Jewish population made its way back after captivity in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, and in Europe and Africa courtesy of the Romans. (Disappearing and reappearing nations aren't that unusual, ask Poland.) In a way it worked out better for them while they were spread out as it was harder to oppress and kill them all.
Their continued existence has even been pointed to as evidence of miracles.
Now, some find it convenient that they are back in Israel -
UAE Professor Says Jews in One Place for Easy Killing
The whole "negotiated solution" is propaganda for Israel to keep the Palestinians stateless forever, and continue the colonization. The longer they wait, the larger their state will be.
The Palestinians would have a state now if they could accept the existence of Israel, but they prefer to live with the fantasy that they will destroy Israel.
The Palestinians Want Peace -- Just Not With a Jewish State
I wouldn't get too comfy though even if you are tempted to throw the Jewish people under the bus, the Palestinians also teach their children that they must reclaim Spain after the Muslims were driven out 521 years ago.
Dreaming of Al-Andalus
If they are successful in that, they will eventually try to redress that whole nasty business at the Gates of Vienna.
They will have help.
Looks like we need to add more facts for the uninformed:
Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction
(Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.
"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank. . . more
Who Are the Real Nazis?
Rule of thumb for "anti-Zionists" - Watch them - too few can stop themselves from crossing the line into either effective or outright anti-Semitism.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Today, a sizable section of the European left has been reluctant to take a clear stand when anti-Zionism spills over into anti-Semitism. Beginning in the 1990s, many on the European left began to view the growing Muslim minorities in their countries as a new proletariat and the Palestinian cause as a recruiting mechanism. The issue of Palestine was particularly seductive for the children of immigrants, marooned between identities.
Capitalism was depicted as undermining a perfect Islamic society while cultural imperialism corrupted Islam. The tactic has a distinguished revolutionary pedigree. Indeed, the cry, “Long live Soviet power, long live the Shariah,” was heard in Central Asia during the 1920s after Lenin tried to cultivate Muslim nationalists in the Soviet East once his attempt to spread revolution to Europe had failed. But the question remains: why do today’s European socialists identify with Islamists whose worldview is light-years removed from their own? . . . more
The view of the Times is too timid - anti-Semitism is becoming a disease of the left.
I do not see the PA or even Hamas advocating the launching or rockets lately.
There is a cease-fire at the moment that is barely holding. It can't last forever since one of Hamas's basic goals is to destroy Israel.
If there are such criminals, then they can be prosecuted.
Is there something you missed? You do realize that it isn't just criminal individuals that do this, or renegade members of Hamas, it is Hamas itself? They aren't going to prosecute themselves for fighting for their own goal. The only reason they might stop is they are either out of ammo or the Israelis have damaged them enough that they need a break. The closest they are going to get to prosecuting anyone is if on one of their needed breaks a rival group launches a few rockets before Hamas itself is ready to resume hostilities. Those individuals will be captured and punished, as much for being rivals of Hamas than for attacking Israel before Hamas is ready to do so itself.
The only real hope there is that Hamas continues in growing corrupt and wants uninterrupted economic activity to leach off from.
Demolishing hospitals is obviously not proportional response.
You don't get to use hospitals for rocket launch points and munitions warehouses. That is a violation of the Law of War, and Hamas engages in that sort of thing regularly.
Rule of thumb on anti-Semites - If they don't like what you've done, you've probably done the right thing.
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government?
No, that would be Hamas. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
There seems to be some defect in your understanding of genocide as the number of Palestinian Arabs has long been increasing. You also don't give credit where credit is due. The brother Arabs of the Palestinian Arabs told them to leave their homes and villages while they slaughtered the Jews in 1948. It didn't turn out that way, and now the other Arabs treat the Palestinian Arabs like scum.
Since Israel's only claim to legitimacy is the U.N.'s declaration, I suppose this means no legitimate state occupies that land?
Israel is self-certifying at this point, so that is nonsense. You do know that nations existed before the UN came along too, right?
Besides that, there have been Jews there continuously for thousands of years, and several Jewish states on that land.
If you think it is "individuals" launching rockets you have a seriously flawed understanding of the situation.
If you're outraged about the use of chemicals against "civilians," do you have any to spare?
Suicide Bombs Spread Rat Poison, Disease
Is a Palestinian Arab launching a rocket aimed at an Israeli town innocent?
And the Golan Heights will be returned to Syria based on the same.
Don't hold your breath on that one.
I just can't see a US commander going "We DIE."
Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93
Actually yes, there is.
The Republic of China, which is the sovereign government that used to control all of China, including mainland China, but after the Chinese civil war now only controls the island province of Taiwan.
"sensitive U.S. army database" is a database where users are emailed their username and password in cleartext
The term you're looking for is "Sensitive But Unclassified."
It is one of the issues mentioned in this classic: The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage
Defining ‘sensitive but unclassified' surprisingly complex
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't keep classified information on civilian projects online, do they?
The data in the system included the number of people that would be killed if any given dam failed. Effectively it is a target list.
. . .and the U.S. government is using it in its publicity campaign to pass laws giving the government (gasp!) more control over the internet.
Its a news story, not a publicity campaign. They would rather not discuss it as it is embarrassing, if you haven't caught the drift of the articles (plural - here is a better one.)
I guess it is damned if they do, damned if they don't: Our security is weak and people complain about how stupid it is to have internet vulnerabilities of the type we have, but don't change any laws or regulations that we work under since that is controlling random uninvolved internet lusers.
Interesting guess, but nope. Can you think of anything else that might involve city and state regulatory power?
The vulnerabilities of the dams are the real problem, but for some reason the government prefers to lie about that.
A better article on the incident.
Among the data that was potentially stolen was the number of people that would be killed by any given dam failing. Effectively it is a target list. I'm not sure what you think is a lie. Trained eyes don't penetrate very far into concrete.
...so hiding these problems is pretty stupid in the first place.
Publicizing your vulnerabilities along with a target list isn't so bright either.
We used to call them script kiddies. Is that term no longer cool?
Not if it is the Chinese government, no.
China military unit 'behind prolific hacking'
From the article it isn't clear exactly what information was deemed sensitive.
Here is a better article.
The database tells you how many people will be killed if any given dam breaks. It is effectively a target list. No doubt there is other data there as well.
In this case you would get more insight from a calculator or spreadsheet than from cynicism. The US Cyber Command budget isn't that large compared to either the Air Force budget or the DoD budget. Finding some justification to bump it up wouldn't make much difference - it isn't going to be the tail that wags the dog.
Misplaced cynicism can also mislead you by pointing you in the wrong direction, as above. If you started digging into the question of Chinese espionage against the United States, you would quickly and easily lean that it is a huge effort against wide ranging targets. Why you would think this relatively minor event is in some way inconsistent wtih the total Chinese effort, and therefore not real, is baffling. Interesting who you effectively trust.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring our technology,” . . .
Inside the Chinese Boom in Corporate Espionage
Chinese Army Directing Cyber Espionage Against Western Businesses
China military unit 'behind prolific hacking'
The China Problem
I felt I needed to correct somebody who was "wrong on the internet".
The story I link to, at the Washington Times, just says the turbine was turned on in error, which caused the destruction and death. It doesn't say that it was cyber terrorism, only that such a thing is possible if done deliberately rather than by accident. I think you've overreacted a bit.
But, I believe your motives in defense of the Rodina are pure, so I will award you a link.
If you look at the totals in the right column, they aren't that different - the defense budget is roughly about 110% of education spending. (Assuming the numbers are correct.)
There seems to be a lot of zeros in both numbers. I'll bet I know what confused you - you only looked at the federal spending and most defense spending is federal, most education spending is local and state. But totals? Not that different.
Education $781.2 billion
Defense $857.7 billion
I'll note two things. First, the defense totals are only that high since they lump in things like veterans programs into it whereas it is a separate agency that contributes nothing to current operations. It is debatable but reasonable point.
Second, it isn't clear that more money for education will necessarily produce a better outcome.
Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?
While you are on that page you also might as well note the totals spent on pensions and health care compared to the military budget.
So, your thinking is that no nation spies on another nation unless it gets spied on first? You're thinking that it doesn't go on all the time? No nation attacks another unless it is attacked first? Before any of that can happen, you have to air the "dirty laundry?" Your planet sounds like a great place, can I ask where it is? I'd like to visit.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring our technology,” . . .
Inside the Chinese Boom in Corporate Espionage
Chinese Army Directing Cyber Espionage Against Western Businesses
China military unit 'behind prolific hacking'
The China Problem
In 1992, US intelligence agencies started to become concerned about China's designs for its next-generation nuclear weapons. A series of explosions monitored by the West suggested that the People's Republic of China was working on smaller, lighter thermonuclear warheads, with an increased yield-to-weight ratio. US officials did not think Chinese science was advanced enough to produce such sophisticated weapons on its own. They suspected something else-that the PRC had stolen US nuclear secrets.
Three years later the US received apparent confirmation of such thefts from the Chinese themselves. An unsolicited Chinese individual--a "walk-in," in the argot of espionage--turned a pile of PRC documents over to the CIA. Among them was a paper stamped "secret" which contained design information on perhaps the most advanced warhead in the US arsenal, the Trident II's W88
You know, I don't recall any period of great public introspection and breast beating, or airing of "dirty laundry" before they started these actions. Do you think it is possible they play by different rules?
Yeah, because the Chinese have bases in countries all over the world...
The People's Republic of China, A.K.A. communist China, has a growing number of military bases and access to facilities around the world. The Chinese fleet has been participating in anti-piracy actions around Somalia, giving them experience in extended naval deployments. The Chinese navy is planning to build something like four aircraft carriers and is currently flying aircraft off their first one that they are bringing into operation now after learning much from the Brazilian navy. Chinese special forces have been training the military in Venezuela. The Chinese are active in Africa.
The Chinese have also been bullying many of their neighbors, laying claim to distant islands and extensive land areas. Why don't you ask the Indians what they think of China's behavior, they are forming several new airborne infantry units to help deal with the threat? Or the Japanese, who are suffering a growing number of incursions by Chinese aircraft and sea vessels? Of perhaps the Philippines, which is seeing Chinese territory grabs on their doorstep?
No, it's the Chinese who are spending themselves into oblivion on weapons of war... Oh, wait, that's us again.
US military spending has recently generally been between 4% to 5% of GDP, well below historic levels. The army and navy and rumps of what they were at the end of the Cold War. Spending on social welfare programs is several times the military budget and is continuing to grow, and will grow for decades to come. It is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, now joined by Obamacare which really starts kicking in this year, that will bankrupt the US, not the military spending.
I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about there.
We spend more on our military than the next 13 nations combined
A large part of that is personnel costs. The US has an all volunteer military that pays its members a salary competitive with the civilian sector unlike many other major nations that use conscription to fill their armies. An American corporal in the Army or Marines makes about what a Chinese general makes per month. I'm sure you can figure the impact of that out. Same thing applies to weapons purchases. Maybe you've heard that Chinese engineering staff and factory labor is cheaper than American?
On the other hand pretty much all European countries allied with the United States spend less than they should by treaty goals. As a result they had a hard time with the intervention in Libya without American assistance.
If it makes you feel better the Chinese are upping their military budget by 10.7% this year.
(but we can't afford to educate our children... bright.)
The US throws large amounts of money at education. The problem isn't with how much money, but what it is spent on, like growing numbers of administrators. There are also social factors that come into play that the education budget itself can't fix. The teachers unions don't help much either.
You don't really have this right either.
I dunno, perhaps if we moved from offense to defense, these things wouldn't be issues?
If platitudes could solve things they wouldn't be issues either.