Lightning II

I hope this means we're getting the F-35. It seems like the ideal fighter jet for a country that can only afford to have one kind. It also seems to make sense that we use the same plane as the US, UK, and other allies.

Canada has until 2012 to decide on purchasing the F-35, though they have already invested $150 million in the JSF program.

More Pain Gun

60 minutes has some humorous video of the US military "pain gun" in action. The one I posted about in 2005.

Software Mistakes Can Kill

Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Gets Zapped by International Date Line. A software bug shuts down the electronics of a couple $125 mil jet fighters.

It reminds me of the initial encounters in the new Battlestar Galactica miniseries where our latest Viper VII fighters are disabled electronically by the Cylons. The pilots were helpless as the enemy missiles closed in. It was an emotional moment in sci-fi, in fact I'm getting a little misty-eyed as I type this...

Non-lethal fun is the best kind of fun

First it was the Pain Gun, "Active Denial System", and now it's the Paralysis Inducer, "Aviation Applied-Technology Directorate".

In December, DailyTech reported on the USAF's Active Denial System (ADS) which shoots millimeter waves at human targets causing their skin to feel like it's on fire. The USAF likes to quip that the ADS has a "Goodbye effect" which causes its "victims" to instinctively run away from the source of the beam.

Now we hear that the US Army is working on a non-lethal weapon of its own to use for crowd control. The US Army has developed the Aviation Applied-Technology Directorate (AATD) which uses a 7.3 million candela strobe floodlight system to incapacitate crowds of people.

Don't get me wrong, if I could choose and had to get shot from something, I'd take a shot from the non-lethal option every time. But can you imagine if these were used together so you couldn't run away from the pain? Scary.

And I have to start using the phrase "Goodbye effect" in conversation.

And does anyone else notice the air force weapon is truck mounted and the army weapon is on a plane?

Make War Your Friend, Part II

I don't know why I did a copy & paste of part I when they put it on their site. So for the second part I'll just link:

Make War Your Friend, Part II

First, let's discuss that word. Bush calls what he's doing now a War on Terror. Which is completely idiotic. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a method, a tactic. Having a war on terror is as ridiculous as having a war on cavalry charges or frontal assaults or commando raids. Terrorism may be defined as an attack on a society's non-combatants, with the intention of weakening their support for the status quo. It's a tactic that melds the political with the military, much as guerrilla warfare does. But what's new or strange about that? Clausewitz pointed out that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other methods. Anybody can use terror, and most combatants do. We used terror extensively in WW2 with the fire bombings of places like Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, when there was no military reason for it. Terrorism was what the Phoenix Program in Vietnam was all about. Everybody accuses his enemy of terrorism. It only seems illegitimate when the terrorist isn't a recognized state.

All the newsletters are archived on their site. These articles make me wonder, "Am I a libertarian?"

Make War Your Friend, Part I

I just read an interview with Doug Casey, Chairman of Casey Research, in a newsletter I subscribe to (and highly recommend). I have to post the whole thing here, it's that good.

Q.: It’s sort of hard to know where to start. One day, the country was ticking along, the next, September 12, 2001, we were up to our neck in a global war. In the beginning, there was an international outpouring of support for the U.S. Now we are increasingly isolated. What was the name of the truck that hit us? Or, put another way, what do you think were the controlling mindset and principles of the Bush administration that led us to this point?

A.: First let’s look at who’s been pulling the strings in Washington. The Bush Administration is overwhelmingly composed of Neocons.

They’re highly ideological academics and intellectuals who started off as hard-line socialists but converted to “conservatism” because they were bright enough to see socialism is a one-way street to universal poverty. But they don’t believe in free markets for any reason other than they generate more wealth for the people in charge to allocate—pretty much the same pragmatic approach taken by the Chinese Communist Party. And they never believed in personal freedom. Political hacks are pretty similar, no matter where you find them.

The Republicans in the U.S. have always pretended to believe in free markets while they nurtured the warfare state, but they were quite sincere in their disavowal of social freedoms. The Democrats, on the other hand, have always pretended to believe in social freedoms, and sometimes mounted weak rhetorical attacks on the warfare state, but they were quite sincere in their dislike of free markets. It was logical that, as Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, and the rest of them saw the writing on the economic wall, they’d become Republicans. The Neocons, in other words, take most of the worst in both theory and practice from both parties. They’re fans of both the Welfare State and the Warfare State. They’re dangerous people.

In addition, almost all high-level Bush types are either Zionist Jews or Fundamentalist Christians, in either case reflexive and zealous supporters of the state of Israel. For myself, I have no problem with Israel going about its business; but I think the U.S. should treat it like any other of the world’s 200-odd countries.

Of course the U.S., as evidenced by the approximately $4 billion of aid it gives Israel every year, plus another $1.3 billion to bribe Egypt to be cordial toward Israel, has long treated the country as something approaching the 51st state. Bush has taken this to a new level.

Q.: How do Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda fit into this?

A.: It’s funny, people talk about Osama bin Laden all the time. But nobody ever listens to him. This is very unwise, in that the single most important thing in a conflict is to understand your opponent’s mindset. Osama has said several times that he’s conducting his jihad for three rather simple and clear reasons. First, he wants foreign troops out of Islamic countries. Second, he wants foreign powers to stop propping up dictators in Islamic countries. Third, he wants foreign powers to cease their support of Israel, which he views as the usurper of Palestinian lands. These impress me as reasonable goals. He’s never said he’s fighting the U.S. because, as Bush seems to think, he “hates our freedom.”

Of course he loathes the U.S. and what it stands for, but that’s really got nothing to do with the actual reasons for his attacks.

The attacks were vastly more successful than Osama could have imagined—but only because of the Administration’s idiotic response. Bush immediately puts the world on notice they’re either “for us or against us,” then invades two small, primitive countries, neither of which had anything to do with the attack. This is followed up with all kinds of draconian measures at home and abroad—Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, snatching people on suspicion, the PATRIOT act, disregard for habeas corpus. Then, at least initially, the American people jumped on the jingoist bandwagon with their self-proclaimed war president and make a big deal of things like Freedom Fries. A hundred heavy-handed and pointless measures added up to convince people around the world that the U.S. had whooped itself into an out-of-control bully, undeserving of sympathy.

The U.S. likes to blame all terrorism on Osama and al-Qaeda. That’s because it makes the problem seem containable; it makes it seem as though there’s just one little group of bad guys the U.S. can track down and eliminate. That was once close to the truth. But now it’s just posturing. Today there are scores of Islamic groups all over the world, with similar worldviews and agendas. Of course they are all mutually sympathetic and try to support one another, but they’re completely independent. The way the U.S. has handled the problem is directly responsible for the metastasis.

Q.: You seem to think that Afghanistan wasn’t complicit in the 9/11 attacks. But there is a strong connection between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and even bin Laden himself said he was behind 9/11. So wasn’t some sort of punitive action called for?

A.: The first thing is to decide whether the events of 9/11 were an act of war by another state, or simply an act of criminality by independent actors. Clearly it was the latter. There’s no evidence whatsoever that the government of Afghanistan, run at the time by the Taliban, had anything at all to do with it. Is there a connection between the Taliban and Osama? Yes, of course. Osama was something of a national icon for helping to drive out the Soviet invaders in the ‘80s, which is why he was living there. But people forget that none of the 20 conspirators was an Afghan, and 15 of them, not to mention Osama himself, were Saudis. There was as much reason to attack Saudi Arabia as Afghanistan.

So we have an independent act of criminality with only an incidental tie to Afghans. And these are, incidentally, the same Afghans we armed and supported in their fight to evict the Soviets in 1980. At least the Soviets were invited in by the ruling government, as we were in Vietnam. Somehow we seem to think Afghans like our soldiers running around killing people and destroying property more than they liked the Russians doing the same thing. They don’t. The difference in political goals and the ideological distinctions between the U.S. and Russia are completely lost on these backward, religious, tribal people. So you can plan on the Afghan War growing ever larger and nastier.

Q.: Getting back to what should have been done…

A.: What should have been done if 20 IRA soldiers, or 20 Quebecois separatists, or 20 Colombian Mafiosi had done the same thing? It’s a crime, albeit a very large, spectacular and unusual one, but you treat it like a crime. The U.S. military is not suited for police work.

Few Americans realize that the Constitution provides for the issuance of “letters of marque,” that authorize private bounty hunters to bring pirates to justice. Outfits modeled on Pinkerton’s of the 19th century or Executive Outcomes of the 20th would be far more effective in dealing with al-Qaeda and vastly cheaper than a regular army. That, and less likely to invite retaliation against the U.S. itself. But who reads the Constitution anymore?

One interesting thing about al-Qaeda and its clones is that I think they’re indicative of the way the world is going to evolve. The nation-state, which is only an historical aberration in the big scheme of things, and a terrible idea, is on its way out. It’s going to be replaced by transnational groups of people who coalesce based on what’s important to them—religion, race, hobbies, philosophy, any of a million things that draw people together. Loyalties won’t be to a bunch of people who happen to share some government ID document, but to self-selected, and much stronger, groups. There’s a lot more I could say about this.

Q.: I think I know your answer this to one already, but why do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq? You’ve said that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would have been like bombing China for Pearl Harbor. So, why did we do it?

A.: Einstein said that, after hydrogen, stupidity was the most common thing in the universe. And I think that really is the best explanation. But Bush gave two reasons for the invasion. One, that Iraq was “linked” to al-Qaeda. Two, that Saddam was developing so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. At the time I said that both excuses were pitifully transparent, even ridiculous, lies.

As to the first point, Saddam’s Baath regime was highly secular; the Baathists and the Islamic fundamentalists viewed each other as mortal enemies. True, they both had reason to distrust and dislike America in general, and the Bush regime in particular. But Saddam was precisely the type of Arab leader Osama wants to get rid off. The assertion they were “linked” is laughable.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue is more interesting. Anybody at all with some money, technical skill and motivation can develop biological and chemical weapons. Atomic weapons are more complex and expensive, but hardly rocket science in today’s world; the methods for making them are well known. My God, even North Korea, one of the most backward countries in the world, has done it. These things used to be lumped together as ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons because they were unconventional. But only atomic weapons are actually capable of mass destruction. The WMD moniker was coined recently by the U.S. as a propaganda gimmick, to create an atmosphere of hysteria conducive to the war. It’s a stupid designation, but the press seems to like it. A classical artillery barrage, or a B-52 strike, is really much more of a WMD than chemical or biological weapons.

By the way, last November, there was a video released showing Saddam and his generals before the Iraq war, discussing the possible use of slingshots, Molotov cocktails and crossbows to fight back against the U.S. In the video, Saddam got quite excited about the idea of providing every Iraqi with a slingshot. So much for the scary WMDs.

In any event, was the fear of Saddam getting ABC weapons a reason to invade Iraq? Well, it wasn’t enough of a reason to invade Israel, India or Pakistan when they got them. The fact is that there are a couple dozen countries that could have a nuclear arsenal within a year if they wanted it. The nuclear weapons genie has long been out of the bottle.

And you don’t have to build them to own them. I’ll be quite surprised if some Russian general doesn’t sell some to a party with the right amount of cash. Or maybe some Russian sergeants, since they’re the ones who actually handle them. But the big danger here is Pakistan. The Islamic world views Musharraf as a stooge of the Americans. After he’s assassinated, the odds of which are very high, there’s no telling what will happen to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq has morphed from the Osama links and WMD’s to an altruistic desire to bring “democracy” to the Middle East. Like almost everything else the man says, it makes no sense. In the first place, democracy is just a means of installing rulers; it doesn’t in any way guarantee protection for free minds or free markets. In fact, in today’s idiom, it’s nothing but mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie. What I personally want is individual liberty, which is possible only with an extremely limited government, whose sole purpose is to protect one’s life and property from aggression. I recognize I’m in a small minority, even among Americans, who today view government as a cornucopia of all they desire and see democracy and majority rule as their opportunity to scoop out as much as they want.

But Americans, even though they’re pretty far from being libertarians, come a lot closer than the average devout Muslim, for whom the Koran is the direct and incontrovertible word of Allah. It’s not just the prohibition on drinking, gambling and earning interest and the other puritanical features that make the faith unacceptable to me. Not just the obligatory zakat, which, feeling as I do about charity (see IS 6/2006), doesn’t fit. Not just the ritualistic prayer five times a day or the pilgrimage to Mecca. It’s that Islam is more than a religion; it’s a way of life that submerges politics, philosophy, economics, everything. It’s not a religion that allows for much individual liberty; the word itself means “submission.”

Q.: So here we are, three years later, and the situation is a real mess, as you and others accurately warned would happen even before the first shots were fired. Humor us by describing how you think the current mess in the Iraq and then in the Middle East will unfold from here.

A.: One thing is now clear to all but the dimmest observers: the U.S. has lost this war, and the longer it goes on, the worse it will get. The outcome was obvious from the start, because it’s not possible for an army from the other side of the planet to win a guerrilla war. At least not in a politically correct way. You could engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing, the way the Romans, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane did, but, at least in today’s world, that would be counterproductive in any number of ways, entirely apart from moral considerations. Simply killing guerrillas serves no purpose; to the contrary, the more you kill, the more you get. And, as the statistics show, for every fighter you kill, you kill several non-combatants. And there you’re really sowing dragon’s teeth, especially in a society that has high chronic unemployment among young, unmarried males—which are extraordinarily dangerous and volatile creatures.

My guess is that the next U.S. president will try to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But it’s going to be harder then, because the U.S. will be in full retreat, taking many more casualties than today. The Brits and other members of the phony “coalition of the willing” have already bailed. From a strictly tactical point of view, it’s going to be much tougher than leaving Vietnam. The only portion of the Iraqi army that won’t have stripped off their uniforms and turned into the biggest jogging team in Asia will be the ones who are working with the insurgents. But, unfortunately, that’s the best-case scenario.

The worst case, and a not unlikely one, is there is another incident like 9/11, possibly much more serious, especially while Bush is in office. At that point, mass hysteria may take over, and the government will lock the country down like one of its many new federal prisons. If the Iranians are implicated, it may be the excuse Bush is looking for to launch an air strike against them. Now you’re looking at WW3.

A surprising number of Neocon types are saying that WW3 has already started. They’re not just saying that to make an astute observation; they’re saying that because they want the U.S. to actually broaden the war. The enemy is Islam.

China: Superpower

Why China's Missile Test Is Troubling. A good Time article about how the Chinese recently destroyed a satellite. This is important because the US military relies on its satellites.

The U.S. dependence on its technological edge is considerable: Green explains that in recent joint exercises held with the Indian Air Force, less technologically advanced Russian Sukhoi jets defeated American F-15s when the latter were deprived of support from satellite and AWACs systems.

But where China is really emerging as a superpower isn't their military, "It's the economy, stupid". I'll let this humorous video explain:

Olbermann on Military Commissions Act

Olbermann says it better than I can. More about the Bush signs Military Commissions Act:

Bush signs Military Commissions Act

The New York Times:

...a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy.

The U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed into law today by President Bush. Here's the best part:

e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The U.S. can now continue to detain and torture without those pesky lawyers getting in the way. U.S. Senator Russell Feingold sums it up:

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law. That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution.

MILCOTS proves itself

Three Edmonton soldiers injured in Afghanistan

Last year I mentioned how happy I was, as a former soldier, that Canada was getting new jeeps. Well recently 3 soldiers from Edmonton and a Journalist in one of those new Mercedes armoured SUVs survived a roadside bomb. I hate to see any of our guys hurt, but it's just great they're alive.

So the US military has a pain gun?

MSNBC: Scientists worry about Pentagon'’s new ray gun

The magazine said a vehicle-mounted version of the weapon named Sheriff was scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006, and that U.S. Marines and police were both working on portable versions.

Yikes. Still, I guess even a bad sunburn is better than a mild gunshot wound...

G-Unit

The Canadian army is finally replacing the old Iltis jeep. We're getting about 1200 Merceds-Benz G Wagons and 1060 Chevy Silverados. 180 of the G's will be armoured. The G's will be called the "LUVW" and the Chevy's the "MILCOTS". Bye bye little Iltis. Ahh the memories, I learned how to drive standard on an Iltis in the army...

Los Alamos Lab

My favorite science prof worked there years ago and it sounds like an interesting place. Too bad about the security problems though...

The Los Alamos national laboratory reports that they are missing two computer discs with sensitive weapons information. How embarrassing is that? Now we can't even find our own weapons of mass destruction. - Jay Leno

New Helicopters

Our government has finally chosen a naval helicopter to replace our ancient Sea Kings. Starting in 4 years we'll be getting one H-92 Superhawk a month for a total of 28. The H-92 Superhawk is the military variant of the Sikorsky S-92 and we're going to call ours "the Cyclone".

The competition was between the Sikorsky H-92, EH Industries EH-101, and the Eurocopter NH-90. The NH-90 was eliminated earlier in the competition so it was really down to the EH and the Sikorsky. The press has covered this story (Toronto Star, Reuters, CBC, more...). I'm happy, this is way overdue and the H-92 looks like it'll be a great helicopter. I say looks like because it's so new no one has the H-92 yet.

Brand new design
The unproven H-92 concerns some people, but keep in mind the it's based on the Blackhawk/Seahawk, a helicopter used for years by dozens of countries. The US military has over 5 million flight hours with the Blackhawk family of helicopters. The H-92 is being considered by the US for their military and to transport the president. Sikorsky has been making military helicopters since the world's fist in 1942 (and the Sea King shortly after :)

Number of engines
The EH-101 has 3 engines, the H-92 has 2. Does that make the EH-101 better? I found an article comparing the EH-101 and H-92 as the 2 main candidates for the US President's new helicopters. 2 interesting quotes about the third engine:

Commercial operators have so far shunned helicopters with a "flying spare" engine that adds to acquisition and operating costs. The Navy prices a T700 (military CT7) turboshaft at more than $600,000, and Sikorsky engineers figure every pound of supporting aerostructure is worth around $1,000 in acquisition price. Fuel consumed and maintenance required by an additional engine adds to life cycle costs. Both RAF and Royal Navy pilots shut down their third engine altogether in cruising flight to save fuel.

CH-53E experience convinced Sikorsky engineers a third engine is a costly necessity for only the heaviest helicopters. The cost can be significant. A CT7 turboshaft weighs about 570 lb., and supporting structure and systems hike the cumulative weight penalty for an extra engine to about 1,500 lb. To that burden is added the weight of fuel carried for the flying "spare." Sikorsky engineers calculate a third engine ultimately takes the place of two passengers carried more than the same mission radius. Their system safety analysis notes that just having a third engine increases the statistical possibility of an engine failure, and a comparison of height-velocity curves reveals no significant performance advantage between the two- and three-engined presidential contenders.

Contract history

• 1992: Conservative government orders 50 EH-101's for $5.8b (~$116m each)
• 1993: Liberal government cancels the contract and pays $500m penalty
• 1998: Liberal government orders 15 search & rescue EH-101's for $790m (~$53m each)
• 2004: Liberal government orders 28 H-92s for $3.2b (~$114m each)

My "each" price is just total contract cost divided by the number

My final thoughts Would it have been a bit embarrassing for the government to choose the EH-101 now after they canceled the contract for it earlier? Yes. Are we now getting a bad helicopter? No. Lee Myrhaugen, a retired air force colonel and former Sea King pilot, summarized it nicely when he called the H-92 "an exceptional, state-of-the-art aircraft".

Weapons of mass destruction

During the cold war the US deployed over 1000 Minutemen missiles. (the big "destroy any city anywhere" type of human innovation). To prevent unauthorized launch they were protected with an 8 digit password. Now the scary part, the US command didn't want that "limitation" to delay possible authorized launch so they set all the passwords to "00000000". And everyone involved knew that.

Scary, and true. (Link to article)

Related to that, here are 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War. My "favorite": The time US bombers were starting down the runway after a sabotage alarm was triggered. They were only stopped by someone driving out and catching them before they could take off. The reason for the alarm turned out to be a bear (number 6 on that page).

What if that jeep had been a few seconds too slow? Scary. Anyone else a Kubrick fan?