Iran not having trouble finding friends abroad. A lot of cash will do that for you, but they will not be friends with a lot of clout.
The Marines cleaning up Afghanistan.
Oil shock.
Bad news, the largest Iraqi Sunni bloc did not get what it wanted, and has put on hold rejoining the government.
Nukes come to South Carolina.
Think you have it bad? Check out those prices the Europeans are paying for gasoline! And now they are protesting, I do not blame them. But maybe algae gas will save the day?
Nice article on Insurgencies. From.
The new Majlis speaker, also the former nuclear negotiator who was fired for wanting to compromise, maybe not compromise but at least be less defiant and talk more.
I find it harder and harder to accept anything the Administration says anymore, especially about terrorism. So things are going better now? I know they are in Iraq and they have been in Saudi Arabia for a while. And the recent Zawahiri Q&A's do point to somewhat of a reduction in support for the group. But 'big gains'? We were just hearing about how AQ has rebuilt their strongholds in Pakistan? Where's the magic?
You see this a lot, a disaster strikes and a government cannot respond. What fills the gap? The main rival to the government. Although in Burma the Junta has all the guns and elections are a farce, but the 'good will' will be much harder to get back.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Saudi Oil and America Addiction
First, the Saudis are putting more production on hold for 'future' generations.
Gas and oil hit record prices.
Our illustrious President begs the Saudis for more oil. They curtly refuse.
The US sees the largest decline in driving since 1942.
The Saudis suddenly reevaluate, and are now starting to pump more oil.
Granted, this may fall outside their proposed moratorium on oil production, but it is at least a violation of OPEC caps and a repudiation of the refusal of Bush's begging.
Maybe if our elected officials realize that the way to get lower prices is not by authorizing people to sue OPEC or begging countries to pump more oil, but to actually take steps to conserve and reduce their consumption to drive down prices and get OPEC and other countries to act the way we want them to.
Gas and oil hit record prices.
Our illustrious President begs the Saudis for more oil. They curtly refuse.
The US sees the largest decline in driving since 1942.
The Saudis suddenly reevaluate, and are now starting to pump more oil.
Granted, this may fall outside their proposed moratorium on oil production, but it is at least a violation of OPEC caps and a repudiation of the refusal of Bush's begging.
Maybe if our elected officials realize that the way to get lower prices is not by authorizing people to sue OPEC or begging countries to pump more oil, but to actually take steps to conserve and reduce their consumption to drive down prices and get OPEC and other countries to act the way we want them to.
OPEC not a poisitve for consumers?
Angry truckers in the US and EU can attest to that.
Now members of OPEC are pulling out?
Makes perfect sense, OPEC is not about lowering prices, it's about maintaining them. When a country crosses that threshold to being a net importer it means that they are exposed to the full brunt of OPEC's force.
Countries like Venezuela, Iran and most of the Gulf states heavily subsidize their domestic oil consumption. So high oil prices benefit them more, they can handle high subsidies which keep people happy and also giving their economy an unnatural boost.
But once a country crossed that line... It wont be pretty.
Unfortunately this signals a bigger problem. OPEC countries are starting to fall off the production edge into consumerism.
Now members of OPEC are pulling out?
Makes perfect sense, OPEC is not about lowering prices, it's about maintaining them. When a country crosses that threshold to being a net importer it means that they are exposed to the full brunt of OPEC's force.
Countries like Venezuela, Iran and most of the Gulf states heavily subsidize their domestic oil consumption. So high oil prices benefit them more, they can handle high subsidies which keep people happy and also giving their economy an unnatural boost.
But once a country crossed that line... It wont be pretty.
Unfortunately this signals a bigger problem. OPEC countries are starting to fall off the production edge into consumerism.
Syrian-Israeli Peace?
This is not going to help!
In fact, I'd say it would end all potential talks.
The big upside would be cutting Syria off from Iranian influence. Oops.
In fact, I'd say it would end all potential talks.
The big upside would be cutting Syria off from Iranian influence. Oops.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Regenerative Therapy
This is incredible.
Last I heard the Pentagon was 'interested' in pursuing the technology. I didn't realize that meant they were actually using it.
And I had no idea the tech was to the point where they've grown a bladder and put it in someone and it worked! Although the more interesting is the dog uterus.
Still, it's incredible.
Last I heard the Pentagon was 'interested' in pursuing the technology. I didn't realize that meant they were actually using it.
And I had no idea the tech was to the point where they've grown a bladder and put it in someone and it worked! Although the more interesting is the dog uterus.
Still, it's incredible.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Fishermen of Organized Crime?
That's right. Apparently the fish market in China is driving OC in other parts of the world for fish.
As more and more in the West becomes illegal and not just frowned upon, and as other markets (whether they be black in the West or Legitimate in other places) there will be more potentially lucrative areas for these groups to expand into.
The illegal channels used to transfer drugs have been used to transfer people, so they should be able to transfer fish just as easily!
I'd be interested in the profit margins on illegal fish shipments. The penalties for drug trafficking have to be substantially higher then for fish trafficking. And that would have to play a role in OC decision making, the groups are rational actors after all. There has to be some correlation because they are switching to it now!
As more and more in the West becomes illegal and not just frowned upon, and as other markets (whether they be black in the West or Legitimate in other places) there will be more potentially lucrative areas for these groups to expand into.
The illegal channels used to transfer drugs have been used to transfer people, so they should be able to transfer fish just as easily!
I'd be interested in the profit margins on illegal fish shipments. The penalties for drug trafficking have to be substantially higher then for fish trafficking. And that would have to play a role in OC decision making, the groups are rational actors after all. There has to be some correlation because they are switching to it now!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Energy Deregulation
It's a nice concept. Break up energy companies (supply and generation) and allow for greater flux in prices and offerings to allow for more entrants into the market.
It's been going on in the US for quite a while now. Now the EU is facing problems with it too.
I do not accept that it is the best for the market. Conceptually if the government is responsible for roads, water and sewage, why should it not also be responsible, in part, for energy production? Is that not just as important?
In any industry where the upfront capital costs are so mammoth it seems that competition will be limited to those who can afford to build the power plants, which are necessarily small. Either through conglomeration of smaller entities, or the sole stakes generated by several larger entities. If we were to move towards are more decentralized system, with solar, hydrogen and small natural gas fired turbines the system might work better. Simply because it would be closer to starting an actual business. An investment of a couple hundred thousand dollars is much more manageable then several million or billion dollars. As long as we rely on mammoth, billion and multi-million dollar power plants, it seems there will never be a true market to deregulate too. A true deregulation may result in an actual monopoly developing, which would leave us pretty much with a 'unregulated' regulated market.
How feasible is this scenario: Let government take over power operations. Let private sector determine fuel costs and power demand. While the Government, based upon power demands installs new capacity. Government then taxes individuals (either as a whole or only those creating the increase in power capacity) as needed for part of the construction costs of the plant. Electricity payments would be funneled back into plants for maintenance and staff.
Thoughts?
It's been going on in the US for quite a while now. Now the EU is facing problems with it too.
I do not accept that it is the best for the market. Conceptually if the government is responsible for roads, water and sewage, why should it not also be responsible, in part, for energy production? Is that not just as important?
In any industry where the upfront capital costs are so mammoth it seems that competition will be limited to those who can afford to build the power plants, which are necessarily small. Either through conglomeration of smaller entities, or the sole stakes generated by several larger entities. If we were to move towards are more decentralized system, with solar, hydrogen and small natural gas fired turbines the system might work better. Simply because it would be closer to starting an actual business. An investment of a couple hundred thousand dollars is much more manageable then several million or billion dollars. As long as we rely on mammoth, billion and multi-million dollar power plants, it seems there will never be a true market to deregulate too. A true deregulation may result in an actual monopoly developing, which would leave us pretty much with a 'unregulated' regulated market.
How feasible is this scenario: Let government take over power operations. Let private sector determine fuel costs and power demand. While the Government, based upon power demands installs new capacity. Government then taxes individuals (either as a whole or only those creating the increase in power capacity) as needed for part of the construction costs of the plant. Electricity payments would be funneled back into plants for maintenance and staff.
Thoughts?
Post-Election Iranian Politics
A nice piece from the US Institute of Peace.
More interesting then the results and names of future political figures was this line:
"A housing bubble in Tehran has led to soaring apartment costs, in part because Iranians do not feel confident to invest in anything aside from real estate."
Are sanctions pushing investment into 'safer' purely Iranian sectors? Even the energy industry is not safe. How many of these sectors have seen a boost since the sanctions have gone into effect, are they all causing problems?
More interesting then the results and names of future political figures was this line:
"A housing bubble in Tehran has led to soaring apartment costs, in part because Iranians do not feel confident to invest in anything aside from real estate."
Are sanctions pushing investment into 'safer' purely Iranian sectors? Even the energy industry is not safe. How many of these sectors have seen a boost since the sanctions have gone into effect, are they all causing problems?
Sistani against the US?
If so, that would be very very bad.
Ever since the invasion Sistani has been a positive force in Iraq and carries a lot of weight.
If he does come down against the US' presence, then we better start packing up. Which would be a good thing, it's about time. And we are heading that way, General Petraeus is expecting further troops cuts after the 'pause' period.
Ever since the invasion Sistani has been a positive force in Iraq and carries a lot of weight.
If he does come down against the US' presence, then we better start packing up. Which would be a good thing, it's about time. And we are heading that way, General Petraeus is expecting further troops cuts after the 'pause' period.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Economy 2.0?
I find it interesting how the virtual world of World of Warcraft is starting to affect the real world.
I'm not talking about entire real world organizations built around 'farming' gold and items which are then sold for a profit in the 'real economy'.
Or the fact that WoW has over 10 million subscribers paying real money to a real company (Blizzard).
I'm talking about this and this. Real world manifestations that cost real money of something that is completely virtual!
Will more virtual networks start spawning more real world value?
I guess there's nothing more subjective then 'value'. (Be sure to read the accompanying news.)
I'm not talking about entire real world organizations built around 'farming' gold and items which are then sold for a profit in the 'real economy'.
Or the fact that WoW has over 10 million subscribers paying real money to a real company (Blizzard).
I'm talking about this and this. Real world manifestations that cost real money of something that is completely virtual!
Will more virtual networks start spawning more real world value?
I guess there's nothing more subjective then 'value'. (Be sure to read the accompanying news.)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Maybe I'm giving Congress a bad rap
I guess there is nothing holding the government back from allowing law suits.
I just wonder about enforcement. Sure, a individual can sue, but where will the damages come from? Usually the government pays out of frozen assets (i.e. when someone sues the PLO or Iran for terrorism damages as opposed to Lybia) when the government is no cooperative. Where will damages come from OPEC? Venezuela is going to agree to pay damages to Americans?
And the sheer fact that it will not help problems at all.
UPDATE:
This piece raises some good points.
I just wonder about enforcement. Sure, a individual can sue, but where will the damages come from? Usually the government pays out of frozen assets (i.e. when someone sues the PLO or Iran for terrorism damages as opposed to Lybia) when the government is no cooperative. Where will damages come from OPEC? Venezuela is going to agree to pay damages to Americans?
And the sheer fact that it will not help problems at all.
UPDATE:
This piece raises some good points.
News from the land of the two rivers
Interesting news out of Sadr City for the last few days. ISF welcomed in Sadr City. Good news for the potential upside of the COIN effort. It happened quick. Maybe the Basra debacle is in the past. The truce between JAM and Iraqi government is holding. If true, excellent news.
Good news in Mosul. I wouldn't say expected, but with AQM decidedly out of favor, not surprising.
UPDATE:
News out of Basra. It's peaceful, as long as the ISF is there.
Excellent view on the Sahwa movements.
Good news in Mosul. I wouldn't say expected, but with AQM decidedly out of favor, not surprising.
UPDATE:
News out of Basra. It's peaceful, as long as the ISF is there.
Excellent view on the Sahwa movements.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The internal inconsistencies of Iran
Friday, May 16, 2008
Sort of stabilizing?
Interesting development in Mosul. Money and amnesty for turning in guns? It sounds like an operation you would hear about in a US urban area then one you'd hear about in a war zone. Props for getting creative and not just blowing stuff up.
With the Sahwa, this Mosul operation, the Basra operation, operations in Sadr city (and while not a clear victory for any party involved, at least it was not a Hizbollah style realization of who really has the power), the Sunni blocs coming back into the government, the Iraqi government operating openly against Jaish al-Mahdi interests...
Dare I say it... Iraq might be starting to come around a little bit.
Still miles to go though.
With the Sahwa, this Mosul operation, the Basra operation, operations in Sadr city (and while not a clear victory for any party involved, at least it was not a Hizbollah style realization of who really has the power), the Sunni blocs coming back into the government, the Iraqi government operating openly against Jaish al-Mahdi interests...
Dare I say it... Iraq might be starting to come around a little bit.
Still miles to go though.
California In re Marriage
What's this? An actual post about LAW! Imagine that.
As many of you know, the California supreme court this week ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional (vis a vis the state constitution).
I think this finds great precedent in precedent at the Federal level too.
1. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a fundamental right under substantive due process (applied to the states through the 14th amendment)
.
2. Justice Steven's dissent in Bowers v Hardwick, as cited, and adopted, in the majority of Lawrence v Texas states that: "Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice".
3. A restriction on a fundamental right can only be upheld after passing strict scrutiny. The burden on the state is to prove there is a compelling interest/reason to regulate and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to fit the compelling interest.
Because Loving established marriage as a fundamental right, and morality alone cannot be the basis for a compelling interest (the California court essentially did not find even a reasonable reason for the discrimination), it follows that a state cannot infringe the right to marry of individuals within it's territory.
However, as the California court points out, homosexuals have not historically been a protected class on any level. I do not think this is terribly relevant, because marriage is a fundamental right, so the protection stems from that, not the individuals classifications as homosexuals. The California court also points out that the couples may not have a right to have their relationships actually called 'marriages'. So a lot could still be negatively done by tweaking the definitions of marriage, but still at it's core I think that California got it right.
Were a case like this to reach the Supreme Court, I think that, aside from Scalia and Thomas' (and probably Alito and Robert's) desire to ask "does our constitution protect homosexuals seeking to marry", the statute in question could be rulled unconstitutional.
-Side note: the only reason there is a conservative - liberal split on substantive due process is the way the right in question is framed. i.e. Scalia in Lawerence "does the constitution contain a fundamental right to engage in sodomy"; the majority in the same case "does the constitution contain a fundamental right of privacy in the bedroom for consenting adults". For me the 9th amendment signals the latter, broader, interpretation should be controlling. If the concept is kept broad, you are not asking judges to use their own subjectivity to decide if sodomy is a protected right, but simply asking them to decide if privacy in the bedroom is one, and surely if I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in my home then privacy in the bedroom is a right too. So I suppose this makes me a 'living constitutional-ist'.
As many of you know, the California supreme court this week ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional (vis a vis the state constitution).
I think this finds great precedent in precedent at the Federal level too.
1. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a fundamental right under substantive due process (applied to the states through the 14th amendment)
.
2. Justice Steven's dissent in Bowers v Hardwick, as cited, and adopted, in the majority of Lawrence v Texas states that: "Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice".
3. A restriction on a fundamental right can only be upheld after passing strict scrutiny. The burden on the state is to prove there is a compelling interest/reason to regulate and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to fit the compelling interest.
Because Loving established marriage as a fundamental right, and morality alone cannot be the basis for a compelling interest (the California court essentially did not find even a reasonable reason for the discrimination), it follows that a state cannot infringe the right to marry of individuals within it's territory.
However, as the California court points out, homosexuals have not historically been a protected class on any level. I do not think this is terribly relevant, because marriage is a fundamental right, so the protection stems from that, not the individuals classifications as homosexuals. The California court also points out that the couples may not have a right to have their relationships actually called 'marriages'. So a lot could still be negatively done by tweaking the definitions of marriage, but still at it's core I think that California got it right.
Were a case like this to reach the Supreme Court, I think that, aside from Scalia and Thomas' (and probably Alito and Robert's) desire to ask "does our constitution protect homosexuals seeking to marry", the statute in question could be rulled unconstitutional.
-Side note: the only reason there is a conservative - liberal split on substantive due process is the way the right in question is framed. i.e. Scalia in Lawerence "does the constitution contain a fundamental right to engage in sodomy"; the majority in the same case "does the constitution contain a fundamental right of privacy in the bedroom for consenting adults". For me the 9th amendment signals the latter, broader, interpretation should be controlling. If the concept is kept broad, you are not asking judges to use their own subjectivity to decide if sodomy is a protected right, but simply asking them to decide if privacy in the bedroom is one, and surely if I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in my home then privacy in the bedroom is a right too. So I suppose this makes me a 'living constitutional-ist'.
More from Iraq on draining the swamp
Iraq being the country. The general swamp area being the insurgency. The swamp water being motivation for the insurgency.
An NPR story further detailing US efforts to provide job training to Iraqi's who are released from prison.
I know I've commented before on this, but it really is an awesome idea. Targeting those that are, by the fact they are in prison, the most vulnerable in the population to joining the insurgency. Providing them with some tangible benefit that isn't putting them in the category of Concerned Local Citizen, giving them a gun and paying them.
This could be the other side of a dilemma I have pointed out before. Security is needed for economic development. But economic is needed for security. The insurgency seems to be more about economics then ideology, placing it firmly into the 'opportunity' camp of civil conflict. This means security for oil and gasoline facilities must be tightened and development projects must be accelerated. Now that death squads are not running around and murdering everyone not their sect (for whatever reason, the surge or ethnic cleansing, take your pick) the real reasons behind the insurgency can be tackled. Obviously ethnic cleansing was a terrible thing that will have ramifications much further into the future. But that's another issue for another time.
So the Sahwa movements being a subsidized job corps/security apparatus provide one solution, and the individuals being released from prison act as another reinforcing the first. If the ex-prisoners (no fancy name for them) create businesses that then can employ Sahwa members it will somewhat solve, or at least decrease, the problem of not having anything to do except sit around with an AK-47 and man check points if they do not get absorbed into the ISF.
An NPR story further detailing US efforts to provide job training to Iraqi's who are released from prison.
I know I've commented before on this, but it really is an awesome idea. Targeting those that are, by the fact they are in prison, the most vulnerable in the population to joining the insurgency. Providing them with some tangible benefit that isn't putting them in the category of Concerned Local Citizen, giving them a gun and paying them.
This could be the other side of a dilemma I have pointed out before. Security is needed for economic development. But economic is needed for security. The insurgency seems to be more about economics then ideology, placing it firmly into the 'opportunity' camp of civil conflict. This means security for oil and gasoline facilities must be tightened and development projects must be accelerated. Now that death squads are not running around and murdering everyone not their sect (for whatever reason, the surge or ethnic cleansing, take your pick) the real reasons behind the insurgency can be tackled. Obviously ethnic cleansing was a terrible thing that will have ramifications much further into the future. But that's another issue for another time.
So the Sahwa movements being a subsidized job corps/security apparatus provide one solution, and the individuals being released from prison act as another reinforcing the first. If the ex-prisoners (no fancy name for them) create businesses that then can employ Sahwa members it will somewhat solve, or at least decrease, the problem of not having anything to do except sit around with an AK-47 and man check points if they do not get absorbed into the ISF.
You knew this was going to happen.
Obama and McCain, now that they are faced with a general election are moderating their views on Iraq!
McCain wants most of the troops out by the end of his first term (2013), Obama has not been willing to say he will take all the troops out by the end of his first term (also 2013).
McCain wants most of the troops out by the end of his first term (2013), Obama has not been willing to say he will take all the troops out by the end of his first term (also 2013).
Hizbollah was defeated?
Asharq al-awsat thinks so. Although it appears to be more of a theoretical loss. Which, sure, makes sense on some level. But that still does not change the fact that Hizbollah is basically in the drivers seat. There may have been sectarian warfare initiated by Hizbollah, but what can the other factions do about it? Hizbollah had their way with the rest of Lebanon.
What they are doing is rolling back the changes they initiated that provoked Hizbollah. Granted Hizbollah has said it will not leave the field. But this is no way related the the 'lack of legitimacy' or 'sectarian violence' that Hizbollah unleashed. Hizbollah has proven they are the top dog in the system. And now, with the withdrawal of anti-Hizbollah measures, that is going to be recognized in all future proceedings.
Do you actually think whatever concrete decisions or new political order comes out of the mediation and government talks will not reflect Hizbollah's new position?
Hizbollah's got the guns, internal political support and external beneficiaries. They showed that in the rounds of fighting. Unfortunately I do not think Hizbollah will be good for Lebanon. But the reality on the ground has to be reflected in the political establishment that is created. Lebanon is unstable because the old consociational is broken. The system needs to reflect who has the power. When small groups are put in charge of states where they have to cling to the state apparatus for power, bad things happen.
When a strong political group is in control that has independent support there is no guarantee of no violence, look at Iraq with the Shia back in control the Sunni did not like it and created the insurgency, but at least the real power (and often the actual population distribution) having more control it will be more about people becoming 'used' the the new government system rather then having the majority of the population ready to rebel whenever something does not go their way.
Having the largest group in power should also make them more willing to compromise. Since they have nominal leadership, or even partial majority control, over what the state does, so they can assure their interests are maintained. And assuming the interests of the group in power are, on some level, reconcilable with the other groups in the system there should be room to operate.
One positive development has been the Hizbollah has not simply taken over the country. It looks like they, at least for the time being, are willing to try and work within the system. Look at it this way, would a government that was dominated by Hizbollah ever have passed the legislation that caused Hizbollah to resort to violence? No. Now, that does not mean the government wouldn't have angered other groups. But if they are not a major power in the country, they really have no recourse.
UPDATE:
Hizbollah emerging ahead. Hizbollah igniting an Iraq style sectarian war.
UPDATE:
What did I tell you.
Good commentary on the deal here.
What they are doing is rolling back the changes they initiated that provoked Hizbollah. Granted Hizbollah has said it will not leave the field. But this is no way related the the 'lack of legitimacy' or 'sectarian violence' that Hizbollah unleashed. Hizbollah has proven they are the top dog in the system. And now, with the withdrawal of anti-Hizbollah measures, that is going to be recognized in all future proceedings.
Do you actually think whatever concrete decisions or new political order comes out of the mediation and government talks will not reflect Hizbollah's new position?
Hizbollah's got the guns, internal political support and external beneficiaries. They showed that in the rounds of fighting. Unfortunately I do not think Hizbollah will be good for Lebanon. But the reality on the ground has to be reflected in the political establishment that is created. Lebanon is unstable because the old consociational is broken. The system needs to reflect who has the power. When small groups are put in charge of states where they have to cling to the state apparatus for power, bad things happen.
When a strong political group is in control that has independent support there is no guarantee of no violence, look at Iraq with the Shia back in control the Sunni did not like it and created the insurgency, but at least the real power (and often the actual population distribution) having more control it will be more about people becoming 'used' the the new government system rather then having the majority of the population ready to rebel whenever something does not go their way.
Having the largest group in power should also make them more willing to compromise. Since they have nominal leadership, or even partial majority control, over what the state does, so they can assure their interests are maintained. And assuming the interests of the group in power are, on some level, reconcilable with the other groups in the system there should be room to operate.
One positive development has been the Hizbollah has not simply taken over the country. It looks like they, at least for the time being, are willing to try and work within the system. Look at it this way, would a government that was dominated by Hizbollah ever have passed the legislation that caused Hizbollah to resort to violence? No. Now, that does not mean the government wouldn't have angered other groups. But if they are not a major power in the country, they really have no recourse.
UPDATE:
Hizbollah emerging ahead. Hizbollah igniting an Iraq style sectarian war.
UPDATE:
What did I tell you.
Good commentary on the deal here.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Defenses against Cyber-War
It's nice to see NATO getting serious about threats from Cyberspace.
More importantly the US is starting to get on board. The Air Force just opened (built/planned/created) their Cyber-command. Now the Army is getting on board actually war gaming cyber attacks.
The web is the one place where a direct attack on the US has a possibility of succeeding. Talk about the great equalizer! So maybe a zombie computer army of our own is called for.
More importantly the US is starting to get on board. The Air Force just opened (built/planned/created) their Cyber-command. Now the Army is getting on board actually war gaming cyber attacks.
The web is the one place where a direct attack on the US has a possibility of succeeding. Talk about the great equalizer! So maybe a zombie computer army of our own is called for.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Poverty and Terrorism
Poverty by no means causes terrorism. It does however make a society more vulnerable to disruption through civil conflict. For one it can cause grievances which could then lead into terrorism. Or it could create a fertile are for terrorist (or militia) recruiters.
Sometimes civil war and terrorism are economic choices. If a person stands to make more money by joining up with a militia or terrorist group, they are more likely too. It may have nothing to do with ideology or grievance.
Sometimes civil war and terrorism are economic choices. If a person stands to make more money by joining up with a militia or terrorist group, they are more likely too. It may have nothing to do with ideology or grievance.
China: Nationalism v International Support
Much of China has been in an uproar over perceived slights due to the protests along the Olympic Torch's path. There has been a large out pouring of anti-Western (specifically French) sentiment.
How will this mesh with the International communities support and aid for the earthquake victims? Will it tamp down the anger? It most likely will. More interestingly what kind of affect will this have on the populace's perception of criticism of China in the future?
How will this mesh with the International communities support and aid for the earthquake victims? Will it tamp down the anger? It most likely will. More interestingly what kind of affect will this have on the populace's perception of criticism of China in the future?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
PR and Islamist Militants
There has been some discussion floating about in the aether about how Hizbollah at least will spin it's new found power. For a long time it referred to itself as a 'resistance' movement, now it looks more like an 'occupier'. Especially with the group moving into areas that it has historically not enjoyed a popular base of any kind! Fighting Druze in the east, fighting Sunni's on the outskirts of Tripoli. Hizbollah has come a long way from a South Lebanese 'resistance' movement.
It does look more and more like a coup. Although it appears to be one not against the government, as the army is largely staying out of conflicts, but between the various militias (the few sentences detailing how the Left is the only force without one) around the country. It's Hizbollah v. Them, not the elected government. Which I'd imagine it is seeking to control once it established itself as the strongest force in the country.
Now we've got commentary saying Hamas is going to have to change it's rhetoric too. I find this to be preposterous.
First of all, Hizbollah is roaming free making it's own destiny in Lebanon, while Palestinians in Gaza are subject to frequent Israeli raids (the legitimacy need not be delved into here). There is still a external 'big bad' to resist on a regular basis! Hamas may have defacto control over Gaza, but Israel is still providing a target to resist.
Secondly, Gaza is in a much more precarious position. Economically crippled and walled off from both Egypt and Israel unable to sustain itself. Lebanon as a whole is in a completely different situation.
Hamas may be in a position where it is 'causing' Israel to act, but the actions it is causing only reinforce it as a resistance force.
See Also: Arabic Media Shack on Lebanon.
UPDATE:
LATimes piece on Sunni Militias.
It does look more and more like a coup. Although it appears to be one not against the government, as the army is largely staying out of conflicts, but between the various militias (the few sentences detailing how the Left is the only force without one) around the country. It's Hizbollah v. Them, not the elected government. Which I'd imagine it is seeking to control once it established itself as the strongest force in the country.
Now we've got commentary saying Hamas is going to have to change it's rhetoric too. I find this to be preposterous.
First of all, Hizbollah is roaming free making it's own destiny in Lebanon, while Palestinians in Gaza are subject to frequent Israeli raids (the legitimacy need not be delved into here). There is still a external 'big bad' to resist on a regular basis! Hamas may have defacto control over Gaza, but Israel is still providing a target to resist.
Secondly, Gaza is in a much more precarious position. Economically crippled and walled off from both Egypt and Israel unable to sustain itself. Lebanon as a whole is in a completely different situation.
Hamas may be in a position where it is 'causing' Israel to act, but the actions it is causing only reinforce it as a resistance force.
See Also: Arabic Media Shack on Lebanon.
UPDATE:
LATimes piece on Sunni Militias.
Have they translated the Terminator movies into Arabic?
Apparently they have...
UPDATE:
More killer Roombas to Iraq. (How fitting is it that the company that makes those cute little Roomba vacuum cleaners also makes killer robots? The Onion knows.)
Roomba, now with 'Metal Storm'! Guaranteed to keep pets, dust and crowds off your floor.
IRAQI MUJAHIDEEN CLAIM TO HAVE DECODED U.S. MILITARY ROBOTSRelated Danger Room posts. Here and here.
The Iraqi mujahideen are claiming that resistance engineering units have successfully “decoded” U.S. military robots designed for urban combat and turned them against U.S. soldiers. After redirecting the robots against U.S. forces, the American military was forced to withdraw the robots from service, according to the statement (Quds Press Agency, May 7). With the much vaunted robots never having seen combat service, however, it appears that the Iraqi resistance is attempting to capitalize upon unsubstantiated rumors that the robots had turned their M249 light machine guns on their U.S. operators.
Designed for “high-risk combat missions” in urban settings, the twin-tread Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) were deployed in Iraq last June and cost $250,000 each—not including development costs—though the manufacturer states that the cost per unit could be halved in orders of 100 or more units.
The SWORD (Special Weapons Observation Remote Reconnaissance Direct Action System) robots are manufactured by Massachusetts-based Foster-Miller (owned by British Qinetiq) and were tested at the New Jersey Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC). SWORD is basically a modified version of Foster-Miller’s Talon bomb-disposal UGV, 2,000 of which have been delivered to the U.S. military. Robots have long been used for bomb disposal and reconnaissance, but combat-capable robots are an innovation that is being strongly pursued in Israel and the United States.
Only three of the combat robots have been deployed in Iraq. While the Army has authorized the purchase of as many as 80 of the systems, funding is currently not available (National Defense, September 2007). Most of the projected systems are committed for use by the six U.S. “Stryker Brigades,” rapid intervention forces using 8-wheeled Stryker Light Armored Vehicles. Special Operations Command has also taken an interest in further development of the SWORD robots.
The Iraqi mujahideen are unlikely to have actually been able to “decode” and reprogram the SWORD robots. Each system is equipped with deadly anti-tampering devices and there are no reports of Iraqi fighters capturing or even encountering any of the three active systems, each of which is now safely secured.
The controversy over SWORD deployment began when Kevin Fahey, the Army’s program executive officer for ground forces, stated at a RoboBusiness conference that the unit had been pulled from service before use in a combat situation as “the gun started moving when it was not intended to move” (Popular Mechanics, April 9). Fahey later clarified that SWORD was still deployed in Iraq, while a spokesman for Foster-Miller described reports of the gun moving without commands as “an urban legend” (Wired News, April 15). Apparently, only three incidents of movement without command were recorded, all minor incidents that were corrected during the testing phase. Despite the improbable claim by the Iraqi resistance, the army and the manufacturers have still not provided a full explanation of why the robots are not in use. According to Robert Quinn, an executive at Foster-Miller: “If you have a mobile weapons platform that can’t be mobile, and it becomes nothing more than a fixed position, they why not just put it on a tripod?” (National Defense, May 2008)
-Jamestown Terrorism Focus Volume V, Issue 19, May 13, 2008
UPDATE:
More killer Roombas to Iraq. (How fitting is it that the company that makes those cute little Roomba vacuum cleaners also makes killer robots? The Onion knows.)
Roomba, now with 'Metal Storm'! Guaranteed to keep pets, dust and crowds off your floor.
Post Conflict Demobilization
How many of the folks that graduate from UN programs like this in post-conflict countries return to fighting if it breaks out? How easily do they slip back into fighting in still unstable areas?
More importantly, how many go on to be leaders in their communities when it comes to reconciliation and development?
This is one of the places the UN actually does a good job, along with peace keeping. It would cost the US twice as much as the UN to maintain any given peacekeeping mission around the world. It's a very good investment.
I've got a few PDF's in the pipeline on this topic, if I ever get to them!
More importantly, how many go on to be leaders in their communities when it comes to reconciliation and development?
This is one of the places the UN actually does a good job, along with peace keeping. It would cost the US twice as much as the UN to maintain any given peacekeeping mission around the world. It's a very good investment.
I've got a few PDF's in the pipeline on this topic, if I ever get to them!
Antineutrinos?
I had no idea that such a thing existed. And consequently I had no idea that they could be used to monitor nuclear reactions and give the proper specs how much plutonium a reactor will produce.
Talk about a next-generation proliferation control!
Talk about a next-generation proliferation control!
Monday, May 12, 2008
40 countires interested in Nukes
WaPost on the spread of nuclear technology.
I do not really see the spread of nuclear power as a bad thing. I am more concerned about the spread of enrichment technologies. As the article notes it can spread bombs and it just puts more infrastructure on the market for something to go wrong (accidental or deliberate). And it will drive up the prices of an already very expensive technology.
In markets where the state dominates that wont be a problem, but in capitalistic markets it will be more of a concern. As government have to step in to help make offers worthwhile for banks to make an investment. But if prices are so high, then there should be a corresponding spread and rise of companies who will be building expensive elements. But it will take time for that to come on line.
On top of that, there will be tighter personnel shortages. If the US is having trouble... But, it would bring a lot of jobs and a lot of development to very many regions
However, when it comes down to it, any spread of technology will be such an investment and such a benefit that it will economically prudent to protect and properly invest in the technologies.
Although Yemen getting a nuke plant does scare me a little bit...
As for the Iranian situation focused on too much in the article... I see a bigger threat coming from Saudi Arabia and Egypt then any other countries for developing the bomb (or rather as it's been noted elsewhere, Saudi money and Egypt). But the whole region has been steadily advancing there anyway. I see it as more forward looking and towards meeting essential needs:
1. Desalinization of water for consumption.
2. Frees up more oil and gas for sale to further raise revenues.
3. Consistent power generation that is insulated from fuel costs.
4. Creates a new high tech sector in the economy.
These states definitely have to money to make all of the above work. As as the WaPost piece notes, all of this is pursued with in the UN framework, requesting UN assistance. What more can the international community ask for? With UN help comes UN monitoring. Even with monitoring it is possible to slip past. But think about it, is a country like Yemen (I hate to beat up on poor dysfunctional Yemen) going to be able to pull it off? Maybe the Gulf Sheikdoms, they've got the money to at least attempt it. I do not think they would be interested in a nuclear arsenal anyway, even with a nuclear Iran across the Persian Gulf.
UPDATE:
Mitsubishi is thinking about expanding their nuclear reactor vessel production facilities.
I do not really see the spread of nuclear power as a bad thing. I am more concerned about the spread of enrichment technologies. As the article notes it can spread bombs and it just puts more infrastructure on the market for something to go wrong (accidental or deliberate). And it will drive up the prices of an already very expensive technology.
In markets where the state dominates that wont be a problem, but in capitalistic markets it will be more of a concern. As government have to step in to help make offers worthwhile for banks to make an investment. But if prices are so high, then there should be a corresponding spread and rise of companies who will be building expensive elements. But it will take time for that to come on line.
On top of that, there will be tighter personnel shortages. If the US is having trouble... But, it would bring a lot of jobs and a lot of development to very many regions
However, when it comes down to it, any spread of technology will be such an investment and such a benefit that it will economically prudent to protect and properly invest in the technologies.
Although Yemen getting a nuke plant does scare me a little bit...
As for the Iranian situation focused on too much in the article... I see a bigger threat coming from Saudi Arabia and Egypt then any other countries for developing the bomb (or rather as it's been noted elsewhere, Saudi money and Egypt). But the whole region has been steadily advancing there anyway. I see it as more forward looking and towards meeting essential needs:
1. Desalinization of water for consumption.
2. Frees up more oil and gas for sale to further raise revenues.
3. Consistent power generation that is insulated from fuel costs.
4. Creates a new high tech sector in the economy.
These states definitely have to money to make all of the above work. As as the WaPost piece notes, all of this is pursued with in the UN framework, requesting UN assistance. What more can the international community ask for? With UN help comes UN monitoring. Even with monitoring it is possible to slip past. But think about it, is a country like Yemen (I hate to beat up on poor dysfunctional Yemen) going to be able to pull it off? Maybe the Gulf Sheikdoms, they've got the money to at least attempt it. I do not think they would be interested in a nuclear arsenal anyway, even with a nuclear Iran across the Persian Gulf.
UPDATE:
Mitsubishi is thinking about expanding their nuclear reactor vessel production facilities.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Humanitarian Interventions
With the ruling junta in Burma seizing aid and blocking much of what could be used to help the death toll could be over 100,000 from the cyclone, which also happened to slam right into the Burmese rice bowl region, a question has arisen. What to do?
This is obviously turning into an epic humanitarian nightmare, and there is absolutely no way for the Burmese people to help themselves (either through aid or overthrowing the junta). Where does that leave the rest of the International Community?
Do we respect sovereignty even though it will mean thousands more dead? Or do we violate the sovereignty of a reluctant state to help those who are suffering?
There appear to be a lot of calls for the latter. Well not calls necessarily, but individuals floating the idea.
Naturally there has been resistance.
As far as my two cents. I think the only way it could be successfully pulled off is through the UN. Well, not 'pulled off', but the intervention could be structured to limit it's precedent in international affairs. That would be the sure fire way, however I do not see even a 'unauthorized' intervention by a large group of concerned powers setting a precedent as Opinio Juris sees. Any action in this case would necessarily be multi-lateral in some sense, whether through the UN or a group of powers. This would limit it's applicability outside of multi-lateral circumstances. OJ fears something like Russia invading Abkhazia.
If the invasion of Iraq has not spurred more 'interventions' based on political reasons, if the intervention in Kosovo has not spurred more interventions. I do not think a case as clear cut as Burma will spark anything.
But this brings up another question, what will the international community do with the broken states they intervene in? Both Sudan and Burma fall into this category. Burma in grossly underdeveloped, and with the Cyclone nearly crippled. Sudan is rife with ethnic conflicts that will not be solved by simply 'stopping the killing'. Each state poses a different set of potential hazards to any intervening force.
Could the international community? Would they?
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as warnings to anyone considering this. Even if it is for the right reasons.
See Zenpundit for a comment on what Burma means for 'multi-polarity' (the second comment). On a similar note an article from Foreign Affairs about 'non-polarity'. I agree with Zen, but I do not agree with Haass on some of this points, but still it is an interesting read.
UPDATE:
Democracy Arsenal on the 'Responsibility to Protect'.
More importantly, should R2P be a requirement for sovereignty that is un-infringe-able?
UPDATE:
More on R2P from the Guardian.
UPDATE:
LATimes on the UN confronting this issue.
UN rebuttal of Robert Kaplan's 'invade with a coalition of the willing' Op-Ed. Raises points similar and expanding on the ones that I have above.
This is obviously turning into an epic humanitarian nightmare, and there is absolutely no way for the Burmese people to help themselves (either through aid or overthrowing the junta). Where does that leave the rest of the International Community?
Do we respect sovereignty even though it will mean thousands more dead? Or do we violate the sovereignty of a reluctant state to help those who are suffering?
There appear to be a lot of calls for the latter. Well not calls necessarily, but individuals floating the idea.
Naturally there has been resistance.
As far as my two cents. I think the only way it could be successfully pulled off is through the UN. Well, not 'pulled off', but the intervention could be structured to limit it's precedent in international affairs. That would be the sure fire way, however I do not see even a 'unauthorized' intervention by a large group of concerned powers setting a precedent as Opinio Juris sees. Any action in this case would necessarily be multi-lateral in some sense, whether through the UN or a group of powers. This would limit it's applicability outside of multi-lateral circumstances. OJ fears something like Russia invading Abkhazia.
If the invasion of Iraq has not spurred more 'interventions' based on political reasons, if the intervention in Kosovo has not spurred more interventions. I do not think a case as clear cut as Burma will spark anything.
But this brings up another question, what will the international community do with the broken states they intervene in? Both Sudan and Burma fall into this category. Burma in grossly underdeveloped, and with the Cyclone nearly crippled. Sudan is rife with ethnic conflicts that will not be solved by simply 'stopping the killing'. Each state poses a different set of potential hazards to any intervening force.
Could the international community? Would they?
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as warnings to anyone considering this. Even if it is for the right reasons.
See Zenpundit for a comment on what Burma means for 'multi-polarity' (the second comment). On a similar note an article from Foreign Affairs about 'non-polarity'. I agree with Zen, but I do not agree with Haass on some of this points, but still it is an interesting read.
UPDATE:
Democracy Arsenal on the 'Responsibility to Protect'.
More importantly, should R2P be a requirement for sovereignty that is un-infringe-able?
UPDATE:
More on R2P from the Guardian.
UPDATE:
LATimes on the UN confronting this issue.
UN rebuttal of Robert Kaplan's 'invade with a coalition of the willing' Op-Ed. Raises points similar and expanding on the ones that I have above.
I missed the boat on Sadr City
Just like I missed the boat on Basra.
I have not posted anything on it because there is already great commentary I agree with out there. Here is Dr. iRak at Abu Muqawama on the ceasefire, and on the limits of COIN in the slum.
Here is The Long War Journal also on the ceasefire.
Not much I can add to this.
I have not posted anything on it because there is already great commentary I agree with out there. Here is Dr. iRak at Abu Muqawama on the ceasefire, and on the limits of COIN in the slum.
Here is The Long War Journal also on the ceasefire.
Not much I can add to this.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Iran is not as placid as you'd think
Good piece on some of the internal and economic struggles Iran is currently going through.
Some (scratch that) A Lot of Terrorism Links
-As interesting as it is to look at the individuals who have thrown off Al Qaeda and failed suicide bombers, I do not think it is that instructive. Leaving will be for any number of personal reason. While it can be instructive of potential weak points where a government could step in and co-opt a member of the group, and those that drop out can be instructive as to the inner workings of the organization, there wont be much more then that.
-Disgusting... But at the same time ingenious... Hook 'em while they're young so they dont know any better. You can turn anyone into a monster or killing machine.
-I suppose the point is we are using terrorist org's own policies and fears to deter them? i.e. Increased security so attacks are less effective, which the groups take to mean is a failure.
-The 'Cult of the Suicide bomber'! Follows the argument I made in a previous post. That AQM is inherently limited by the desire for martyrdom by those flocking to them in Iraq.
-Olivier Roy, simply because he's the best.
-True, but this indifference, with the proper PR campaign, will be the most effective way to force a disconnect. I have to pick up Sageman's new book, he talks about (at least in his Foreign Policy Mag article) about the need to force a disconnect between the terrorist and their dreams/visions of glorious heroism. There's more then enough out there, it just has to be focused and widely broadcast. We can't let them write their own narrative. More on the subject.
- I do not buy it. Terrorism has a decidedly political end. That is what separates it from simple crime and plain violence. Terrorism requires a calling card left behind to show 'hey, it was me, if you do not want this to happen again then stop doing X,Y,Z'. Without the calling card, even it if was meant to force a policy change, it wont! Because no one will know what the change is, and no one will be able to associate one attack with another. Now, in the context of 4GW between states. This could be very effective. As a precursor to some kind of conventional attack, or territory grab. As far as terrorism goes, the ideas in this article would have to be structured quite differently to make any kind of impact at all on the attacked nation.
-Surest way to drain the swamp is to go after the $$$. We need help though. And really by cutting off legitimate avenues of money transfer (one of the key aspects of AQ franchises) this will increase reliance on informal and illicit avenues. Informal Islamic banking revolves around simple promises to repay. So money is transfered from the franchiser to a guy in Pakistan to one guy in England and then to the franchisee, without actual money ever changing hands except in the last transaction. No interest either! This leaves no readily discernible trail. Eventually it probably will, but nothing direct enough to connect the dots. Illicit means leave a much larger trail, and many avenues are already watched and guarded by expansive systems.
-A highlight of the oddities in Islamist ideology.
-Here is a list of those groups designated as terrorists by the US.
-Disgusting... But at the same time ingenious... Hook 'em while they're young so they dont know any better. You can turn anyone into a monster or killing machine.
-I suppose the point is we are using terrorist org's own policies and fears to deter them? i.e. Increased security so attacks are less effective, which the groups take to mean is a failure.
-The 'Cult of the Suicide bomber'! Follows the argument I made in a previous post. That AQM is inherently limited by the desire for martyrdom by those flocking to them in Iraq.
-Olivier Roy, simply because he's the best.
-True, but this indifference, with the proper PR campaign, will be the most effective way to force a disconnect. I have to pick up Sageman's new book, he talks about (at least in his Foreign Policy Mag article) about the need to force a disconnect between the terrorist and their dreams/visions of glorious heroism. There's more then enough out there, it just has to be focused and widely broadcast. We can't let them write their own narrative. More on the subject.
- I do not buy it. Terrorism has a decidedly political end. That is what separates it from simple crime and plain violence. Terrorism requires a calling card left behind to show 'hey, it was me, if you do not want this to happen again then stop doing X,Y,Z'. Without the calling card, even it if was meant to force a policy change, it wont! Because no one will know what the change is, and no one will be able to associate one attack with another. Now, in the context of 4GW between states. This could be very effective. As a precursor to some kind of conventional attack, or territory grab. As far as terrorism goes, the ideas in this article would have to be structured quite differently to make any kind of impact at all on the attacked nation.
-Surest way to drain the swamp is to go after the $$$. We need help though. And really by cutting off legitimate avenues of money transfer (one of the key aspects of AQ franchises) this will increase reliance on informal and illicit avenues. Informal Islamic banking revolves around simple promises to repay. So money is transfered from the franchiser to a guy in Pakistan to one guy in England and then to the franchisee, without actual money ever changing hands except in the last transaction. No interest either! This leaves no readily discernible trail. Eventually it probably will, but nothing direct enough to connect the dots. Illicit means leave a much larger trail, and many avenues are already watched and guarded by expansive systems.
-A highlight of the oddities in Islamist ideology.
-Here is a list of those groups designated as terrorists by the US.
The Leaky Bucket
I understand our treaty obligations to Israel, how we are supposed to keep them ahead of their neighbors military tech wise, but they do not have a spotless record when it comes to keeping our technology out of, say, the hands of the Chinese. So now we're selling them more powerful radars?
While at the same time refusing to sell Japan and Australia F-22's? Australia desperately needs replacement fighters and has the money to buy them. And Japan has been an excellent ally for over 60 years. The F-22 is a huge leap forward in fighter jet technology, I get that, but not selling them in the context of some of our strongest alliances? Does not make much sense to me.
While at the same time refusing to sell Japan and Australia F-22's? Australia desperately needs replacement fighters and has the money to buy them. And Japan has been an excellent ally for over 60 years. The F-22 is a huge leap forward in fighter jet technology, I get that, but not selling them in the context of some of our strongest alliances? Does not make much sense to me.
Completely and Totally Disgusting
Willing to let people die and suffer just so they can bolster their own pitiful image.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Technology Soldiers On
Scientists can now make 'designer' isotopes in a lab. Not only is this fantastic for research purposes, but it is a huge step on the way towards the ultimate in sci fi technology, a full size nano-assembler. that can build macro level objects.
If we can build on isotope on demand, what is to stop the same process from being used to put two isotopes together to form a molecule. Then to combine more molecules to for, say a diamond, or a lump of coal, or a nail. Then from there with the advances being made with small scale nano-assembler, the two technologies seem poised to merge at some point down the road where they could bring about the biggest change EVER.
Okay, I'm obviously exaggerating a little bit. And the technologies are a long way from being commercialized, but the fact that they are no longer science fiction is amazing to me.
One of my thought processes that I have never gotten around to coming to a conclusion on is what the impact of science fiction on technology is. Is the human mind such that we can follow logically to the natural conclusion of a line of technology? I remember reading about nano-assemblers when I was a teenager, heck the greatest RTS EVER, Total Annihilation, was based on nano-assemblers and that was a decade ago.
So does Sci-Fi represent the mind following the technology through to it's conclusion? Or does Sci-Fi some how prime the human mind for creativity. We see what we would like the future to be, and then set about making it such? Does the human mind a priori know the universe? Or do we in a way create it by following through on what our visions of the future are. Maybe all of this theory was around in the 90's and I just did not notice. But then explain to me Jules Verene, the Nautilus was a NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINE (well it could have been). That was 1870.
If we can build on isotope on demand, what is to stop the same process from being used to put two isotopes together to form a molecule. Then to combine more molecules to for, say a diamond, or a lump of coal, or a nail. Then from there with the advances being made with small scale nano-assembler, the two technologies seem poised to merge at some point down the road where they could bring about the biggest change EVER.
Okay, I'm obviously exaggerating a little bit. And the technologies are a long way from being commercialized, but the fact that they are no longer science fiction is amazing to me.
One of my thought processes that I have never gotten around to coming to a conclusion on is what the impact of science fiction on technology is. Is the human mind such that we can follow logically to the natural conclusion of a line of technology? I remember reading about nano-assemblers when I was a teenager, heck the greatest RTS EVER, Total Annihilation, was based on nano-assemblers and that was a decade ago.
So does Sci-Fi represent the mind following the technology through to it's conclusion? Or does Sci-Fi some how prime the human mind for creativity. We see what we would like the future to be, and then set about making it such? Does the human mind a priori know the universe? Or do we in a way create it by following through on what our visions of the future are. Maybe all of this theory was around in the 90's and I just did not notice. But then explain to me Jules Verene, the Nautilus was a NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINE (well it could have been). That was 1870.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Chavez a Force for Regional Stability?
Well, maybe. At least on his own terms. I really have no idea where Bolivia falls on the scale of who he likes. So it could just be him sticking up for an ally.
Interesting though that Boilivian is the richest province. That's how the break up of Yugoslavia started. Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia were the richest provinces, and the first to go.
Interesting though that Boilivian is the richest province. That's how the break up of Yugoslavia started. Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia were the richest provinces, and the first to go.
Lebanon: Back to Hell?
Sure looks like it.
What affect will this have on the Geopolitics of the region?
Israel will probably will side with Lebanon's government since they are confronting Hezbollah. Syria? Not to sure, they'll most likely be on Hezbollah's side. I think. They're big supporters in general, but what about Syria's other contacts in the country? The Palestinians, they'll be caught in the middle as usual. But Hamas should be relatively quiet, well somewhat, if Hezbollah is tied down.
What about Syrian-Israeli peace? I have not heard any thing else from their discussion, but would a Lebanese civil war necessarily preclude the arrival at a peace deal?
I obviously do not know enough, or have the info, to answer any of these questions. But I will find it.
What affect will this have on the Geopolitics of the region?
Israel will probably will side with Lebanon's government since they are confronting Hezbollah. Syria? Not to sure, they'll most likely be on Hezbollah's side. I think. They're big supporters in general, but what about Syria's other contacts in the country? The Palestinians, they'll be caught in the middle as usual. But Hamas should be relatively quiet, well somewhat, if Hezbollah is tied down.
What about Syrian-Israeli peace? I have not heard any thing else from their discussion, but would a Lebanese civil war necessarily preclude the arrival at a peace deal?
I obviously do not know enough, or have the info, to answer any of these questions. But I will find it.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Zawahiri Q&A
The whole concept really is fascinating.
Al Qaeda does not have a manifesto floating around there to explain their ideas. Sure there are pronouncements by Bin Laden and Zawahiri, and his book Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet. But these dont really portray a fully fleshed out ideology.
These Q&A's help significantly. Not only with how Al Qaeda justifies their ideology, but how it's being pushed back against (or how Al Qaeda thinks it is vulnerable).
Al Qaeda does not have a manifesto floating around there to explain their ideas. Sure there are pronouncements by Bin Laden and Zawahiri, and his book Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet. But these dont really portray a fully fleshed out ideology.
These Q&A's help significantly. Not only with how Al Qaeda justifies their ideology, but how it's being pushed back against (or how Al Qaeda thinks it is vulnerable).
The Expanding Global Nuclear Market
All across the board we are seeing the nuclear haves either embracing each other, or embracing the nuclear have nots. In the latter category, think France (mainly with north African and Middle Eastern states). In the former think French companies seeking to buy British nuke plants and others thinking of setting up a Uranium Enrichment plant in the US. The widely publicized, and now stalled, US-India nuclear deal also falls into this category.
Now we have a US-Russia nuclear deal. (News Story Here). Which is quite interesting really, and not just for the geopolitical implications. As Nuclear Notes points out above, it's more about markets really. The American market for Russian Uranium. Hopefully the NRC will be able to certify the new Russian designs for the US market in a decent amount of time. US access to Russian uranium has been going on for a while, but mostly in the form of blended down Russian nuclear weapon warheads.
A more important sign of growth is that the Japanese corporation that produces reactor vessels has a 3 year waiting list.
As I posted about a few days ago, mining requests in the US have dramatically increased. Kazakhstan, the country with the top supply of uranium is also ramping up production.
The market is hot hot hot!
Side Notes:
-What kind of impact is the nuclear boom having on 'rogue scientists'. That has been one of the largest concerns post Cold War about nuclear proliferation, unemployed scientists going to work for the bad guys. Shouldn't they be in high demand now as numerous countries across the world (most recently Vietnam) are moving towards nukes.
-A similar question arises for nuclear material. But I think this is minimized by market forces. Sure there is going to be more of it flying and moving around the globe. But the very act of moving means it is being observed and has both a buyer and seller involved. It is now economically sound for countries to find and contain nuclear weapons material. Where as 10 years ago, it was simply a drain on resources.
-How quickly is the NSG and the US' GNEP program expanding? It looks like the US is taking the initiatives to create frameworks that can be adopted and joined by those willing to participate. They lose some freedom because the groups have rules, but those states that participate gain access to huge markets, technology, resources and expertise.
UPDATE:
Here is some more on the topic.
An article on the nuclear ambition of the Middle East.
Now we have a US-Russia nuclear deal. (News Story Here). Which is quite interesting really, and not just for the geopolitical implications. As Nuclear Notes points out above, it's more about markets really. The American market for Russian Uranium. Hopefully the NRC will be able to certify the new Russian designs for the US market in a decent amount of time. US access to Russian uranium has been going on for a while, but mostly in the form of blended down Russian nuclear weapon warheads.
A more important sign of growth is that the Japanese corporation that produces reactor vessels has a 3 year waiting list.
As I posted about a few days ago, mining requests in the US have dramatically increased. Kazakhstan, the country with the top supply of uranium is also ramping up production.
The market is hot hot hot!
Side Notes:
-What kind of impact is the nuclear boom having on 'rogue scientists'. That has been one of the largest concerns post Cold War about nuclear proliferation, unemployed scientists going to work for the bad guys. Shouldn't they be in high demand now as numerous countries across the world (most recently Vietnam) are moving towards nukes.
-A similar question arises for nuclear material. But I think this is minimized by market forces. Sure there is going to be more of it flying and moving around the globe. But the very act of moving means it is being observed and has both a buyer and seller involved. It is now economically sound for countries to find and contain nuclear weapons material. Where as 10 years ago, it was simply a drain on resources.
-How quickly is the NSG and the US' GNEP program expanding? It looks like the US is taking the initiatives to create frameworks that can be adopted and joined by those willing to participate. They lose some freedom because the groups have rules, but those states that participate gain access to huge markets, technology, resources and expertise.
UPDATE:
Here is some more on the topic.
An article on the nuclear ambition of the Middle East.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The Wussification of Europe
Not all of Europe mind you. The British and the Danish are stand outs in not being wusses (and under Sarkozy France is starting to show some more muscle: talking about rejoining NATO's command structure and sending more troops to Afghanistan). I am glad the US is making up the short fall for troops in Afghanistan. But come on... This is ridiculious that the US and the non-wusses have to keep pumping more personnel and money into Afghanistan in an effort that at it's inception was EMBRACED by NATO!!!! How can our European allies expect the US to use them to engage multilaterally with them in confronting threats if they can not even get on board for a conflict they WILLINGLY became a party to! Ludicrous. NATO is becoming a two tiered system. It needs to keep expanding to maintain enough forces to remain relevant.
In other wussification news: this. Is nothing heinous enough in European eyes to justify life without parole as a punishment? Once this takes a hold will the EU begin to criticize everyone other country that still sees fit to condemn certain acts by life in prison much like the EU condemns countries that still embrace the death penalty? EU prisons must be geared more towards then rehab then, because that's the only reason I could possibly see for removing life without parole as an option. Life with extensive therapy and occupational training and educational opportunities with parole an option if the inmate shows enough progress. But the article seems to suggest that even allowing a parole board to review an inmate, because they might not grant them parole, is cruel and unusual! Europe is a crazy place!
UPDATE:
Dorf on sentencing differences between the US and EU.
In other wussification news: this. Is nothing heinous enough in European eyes to justify life without parole as a punishment? Once this takes a hold will the EU begin to criticize everyone other country that still sees fit to condemn certain acts by life in prison much like the EU condemns countries that still embrace the death penalty? EU prisons must be geared more towards then rehab then, because that's the only reason I could possibly see for removing life without parole as an option. Life with extensive therapy and occupational training and educational opportunities with parole an option if the inmate shows enough progress. But the article seems to suggest that even allowing a parole board to review an inmate, because they might not grant them parole, is cruel and unusual! Europe is a crazy place!
UPDATE:
Dorf on sentencing differences between the US and EU.
More Uranium Mines
I did not hear/read anything about an explosion of mining requests when uranium prices were around $136.00 per pound back in July of 2007. It has been almost a year since the spike, the market must be more accurately signaling that Nukes are here to stay.
Which is a good thing.
Although I will admit, that uranium mining does produce green house gases, while generating power from it does not. So that is a legitimate concern. As are the general environmental concerns that go along with any kind of mining operation.
Which is a good thing.
Although I will admit, that uranium mining does produce green house gases, while generating power from it does not. So that is a legitimate concern. As are the general environmental concerns that go along with any kind of mining operation.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Competiton for Islamic Education?
These Turkish schools have to be churning out kids that are better off economically then their Deobandi and Wahabi counterparts.
As long as those students are able to do better, which given the academic focus and more importantly the acceptance and moderation (which will allow them to emigrate and find jobs in some cases) they are likely to do, eventually (baring some major backlash from the extremist mosques) they will have more appeal.
Hopefully anyway. But anytime you can give people more options to consider the better choices they will make.
As long as those students are able to do better, which given the academic focus and more importantly the acceptance and moderation (which will allow them to emigrate and find jobs in some cases) they are likely to do, eventually (baring some major backlash from the extremist mosques) they will have more appeal.
Hopefully anyway. But anytime you can give people more options to consider the better choices they will make.
A Right to Autonomy?
In the IR sense.
I do not think there is. Autonomy is something that has to be negotiated between the province and the central government. The State as a whole should have a determination of whether or not carve up the political scene of its own territory. There should be no guarantee from international law or other countries to support regions becoming autonomous. That would violate the sovereignty right that appears to be the norm in international relations.
Of course this could be balanced by concerns over regional destabilization or possible civil war as a preventative measure. Then other countries or international organizations could step in to assist in the resolution of the conflict. The only other way a outside force should become involved is if the central government asks.
I guess the big question is how to maintain the all important legitimacy of whatever solution comes about.
Added Thoughts:
Autonomy can not be a right. Were it to be a right, then the central government would be put under incredible strain by it's various provinces. It would be forced with a choice, conform to what the province wants, or let it go. It becomes even more of a problem when there are more then one provinces making a demand on the central government. There are bound to be conflicts of interest and at the very least budgetary limitations.
The right to autonomy could possibly mean the end of the nation-state as we know it. Autonomy is the first step to independence. If a region seeking autonomy can not get what they want from the central government, they are more likely to secede and establish their own government. If the central government can not accommodate a region, it will choose secession. It will not sit patiently by waiting for the central government to come around.
Maybe I am not making the distinction between autonomy and secession wide enough.
I do not think there is. Autonomy is something that has to be negotiated between the province and the central government. The State as a whole should have a determination of whether or not carve up the political scene of its own territory. There should be no guarantee from international law or other countries to support regions becoming autonomous. That would violate the sovereignty right that appears to be the norm in international relations.
Of course this could be balanced by concerns over regional destabilization or possible civil war as a preventative measure. Then other countries or international organizations could step in to assist in the resolution of the conflict. The only other way a outside force should become involved is if the central government asks.
I guess the big question is how to maintain the all important legitimacy of whatever solution comes about.
Added Thoughts:
Autonomy can not be a right. Were it to be a right, then the central government would be put under incredible strain by it's various provinces. It would be forced with a choice, conform to what the province wants, or let it go. It becomes even more of a problem when there are more then one provinces making a demand on the central government. There are bound to be conflicts of interest and at the very least budgetary limitations.
The right to autonomy could possibly mean the end of the nation-state as we know it. Autonomy is the first step to independence. If a region seeking autonomy can not get what they want from the central government, they are more likely to secede and establish their own government. If the central government can not accommodate a region, it will choose secession. It will not sit patiently by waiting for the central government to come around.
Maybe I am not making the distinction between autonomy and secession wide enough.
Friday, May 2, 2008
China distancing from Tehran?
I guess they can't get much more from Iran, what with sanctions and the limited and decaying nature of Iranian oil and gas fields (they are chronically underdeveloped and getting older).
Is this a sign of Beijing becoming more responsible as a global power? Or just them reading the writing on the wall?
I suppose as long as China has access to African markets, which are more varied and more prone to be influenced by Beijing and not be targeted by the West, there is no reason for them to be wedded to Tehran as much.
Is this a sign of Beijing becoming more responsible as a global power? Or just them reading the writing on the wall?
I suppose as long as China has access to African markets, which are more varied and more prone to be influenced by Beijing and not be targeted by the West, there is no reason for them to be wedded to Tehran as much.
Bush and the Food Crisis
He wants to meet the reported aid shortfall for next year to keep the aid level the same.
Bush must be really worried about his legacy. Although, under the radar, his administration has been rather invested in aid projects. See the Millennium Challenge.
Bush must be really worried about his legacy. Although, under the radar, his administration has been rather invested in aid projects. See the Millennium Challenge.
How much energy to replace 1 reactor?
Before or After?
This could either be the best argument for Gitmo or the worst.
As for the best: Would hostilities be over for the purpose of keeping the detainees as 'enemy combatants' then length of time they deem the war to be going on?
Much like 'insane' people in the Criminal Justice system.
So the focus would have to be on some kind of Saudi or Iraqi type rehabilitation system.
As for the worst: well, that's self explanatory. Gitmo is just a terrorist factory!
Which one is it? Hell if I know.
UPDATE:
Volokh Conspiracy agrees, well in a more cynical and round about way.
As for the best: Would hostilities be over for the purpose of keeping the detainees as 'enemy combatants' then length of time they deem the war to be going on?
Much like 'insane' people in the Criminal Justice system.
So the focus would have to be on some kind of Saudi or Iraqi type rehabilitation system.
As for the worst: well, that's self explanatory. Gitmo is just a terrorist factory!
Which one is it? Hell if I know.
UPDATE:
Volokh Conspiracy agrees, well in a more cynical and round about way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
