Book Review: The Body Electric, (New York Times)…William Saletan, New York Times, December 27, 2009, pg. BR14
…The heroes of his new book, “The Department of Mad Scientists,” work for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as Darpa, a secretive arm of the United States government. And the revolution they’re leading is a merger of humans with machines.
Taliban Using Snipers Against U.S.-Led Troops, (Miami Herald)…Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy News Service, Jan 3, 2009.
Taliban fighters increasingly are deploying snipers to fire on U.S. troops at greater distances throughout opium-producing southern Afghanistan, according to the top two commanders for the southern region.
The increased use of marksmen is the latest Taliban shift to asymmetrical warfare and away from confronting U.S. troops in conventional fights, the commanders told McClatchy.
Instead of gathering in company-sized units to take on foreign troops, Taliban forces also are resorting increasingly to explosives and bombings, attacks that require fewer people and pose less risk to themselves, the commanders said. Explosives attacks rose by 33 percent last year, as did deaths of coalition troops, according to the International Security Assistance Force, which leads the coalition forces stationed here.
Why China Helped Countries Like Pakistan, North Korea Build Nuclear Bombs
(U.S. News & World Report (USNews.com))…Alex Kingsbury, jan 2, 2009.
Former U.S. Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed knows nuclear bombs better than most people. For starters, he designed two of them when he worked at the Livermore National Laboratory as a weapons designer.
His new book The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation, co-written with Danny Stillman, the former director of the technical intelligence division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, rewrites much of the public understanding about how countries with nuclear weapons came to acquire them. All countries that built bombs, including the United States, spied on or were given access to the work of other nuclear powers. In particular, the book is a scathing indictment of the Chinese government, alleging that it intentionally proliferated nuclear technology to risky regimes, particularly Pakistan.
Reed recently spoke with U.S. News‘s Alex Kingsbury. Excerpts:
How has the Chinese government reacted to the allegations in your book?
At first, they objected to some of this reporting, which was first published in Physics Today, but they later withdrew all objections. The Chinese experts in the weapons labs were probably surprised that we found out all this information and were able to put it all together. In public they say one thing, but behind closed doors and after hours, they are more open. All scientists want the credit for having solved certain problems by themselves without outside help. In fact, in 1949 Klaus Fuchs spied for the Soviets at Los Alamos and when he was released from prison in 1959, fled to East Germany where he met China’s chief atomic bomb scientist to whom he explained the inner workings of the Fat Man bomb [which the United States dropped on Nagasaki in 1945].
What was the Chinese strategy behind encouraging proliferation once they had mastered the atomic bomb? The way you describe the Chinese intentionally spreading nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan and North Korea seems both shockingly lax and shortsighted.
Shockingly lax? Yes. Shortsighted I’m not so sure.
Think of it as three constituencies: China in about 1982, under Deng Xiaoping, decided to proliferate nuclear technology to communists and Muslims in the third world. They did so deliberately with the theory that if nukes ended up going off in the western world from a Muslim terrorist, well that wasn’t all bad. If New York was reduced to rubble without Chinese fingerprints on the attack, that left Beijing as the last man standing. That’s what the old timers thought.
The current Chinese government is far more cautious, though it continued to push technology to North Korea. When the North Koreans decided to test, they clearly did so without a Chinese permit and it really frosted the Chinese because it threatened to prompt Japan and South Korea to start their own programs. They didn’t worry about terrorism at all.
The younger generation is adamant about keeping a lid on nuclear technology. They don’t want to see Los Angeles blown up because they just sold us 10,000 pairs of sneakers. Those last two forces are contending with each other and it remains to be seen what will happen.
Why, as you say in the book, did the Chinese give the technology to Pakistan?
Pakistan can be explained by a balance of power: India was China’s enemy and Pakistan was India’s enemy. The Chinese did a massive training of Pakistani scientists, (just like the Russians had done for them) brought them to China for lectures, even gave them the design of the CHIC-4 device, which was a weapon that was easy to build a model for export. There is evidence that A.Q. Khan used Chinese designs in his nuclear designs. Notes from those lectures later turned up in Libya, for instance. And the Chinese did similar things for the Saudis, North Koreans, and the Algerians.
Did the Chinese further assist in the Pakistan program?
Under Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, the country built its first functioning nuclear weapon. We believe that during Bhutto’s term in office, the People’s Republic of China tested Pakistan’s first bomb for her in 1990.There are numerous reasons why we believe this to be true, including the design of the weapon and information gathered from discussions with Chinese nuclear experts. That’s why the Pakistanis were so quick to respond to the Indian nuclear tests in 1998. It only took them two weeks and three days. When the Soviet Union took the United States by surprise with a test in 1961, it took the U.S. seventeen days to prepare and test, a device that had been on hand for years. The Pakistani response makes it clear that the gadget tested in May 1998 was a carefully engineered device in which they had great confidence.
Is sharing nuclear tests common?
The United States conducted nuclear tests in Nevada openly and with full disclosure in the 1990s on behalf of our U.K. allies. We speculate on Israeli access to the U.S. test results. For their part, the Chinese admitted to having conducted hydronuclear and radiation effects tests for France, but most tellingly they also implied—they certainly did not deny—the test of a Pakistani device. The South Africans also apparently worked with the Israelis on a nuclear test in the South Pacific in 1979.
Are Chinese proliferation programs ongoing?
Since 1991, China has been assisting the raw-materials side of the Iranian nuclear program with shipments of uranium, instructions on the design of a conversion facility in Eshfahan, and an enrichment facility at Karaj. China has been using North Korea as the re-transfer point for the sale of nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.
You also write that Israel was given assistance in developing their bomb while the United States looked the other way.
In the wake of the Suez crisis in 1956, the French and the Israelis initiated a joint nuclear weapons program that resulted in a test in the Algerian desert. At that test in 1960, two countries went nuclear with one shot.
Is the world safer or more dangerous with all these powers?
The world is safer for having all the permanent UN Security Council members possess nuclear weapons. I think having North Korea, Pakistan, and India is probably not a good idea. Nuclear proliferation, above all, is not inevitable as many thought at the dawn of the nuclear age.
President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.
The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
…The Wii-mote would use an infrared beam to instantly match a soldier’s motions with the robots movement. Potentially, it’s small and light enough that the infantry could use it to say, send robots into a building ahead of troops.
T.J. HOLMES: Moving on here to one of the most popular video consoles out there. People just can’t get enough of the Nintendo Wii.
ABBIE BOUDREAU: But, could it really help save lives on the battlefield? Some scientists say there is a way. Borrowing from a video game to use in combat.
HOLMES: Yeah, scientists adapting remote controls for Nintendo’s Wii to defuse IEDs. CNN’s Chris Lawrence reports it’s an idea many scientists believe can virtually save lives.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS LAWRENCE: A gun in one hand and a Wii in the other, it’s one possible image of the 21st soldier. Engineers are modifying the video games remote to move military robots.
PETER WILL, ROBOTICS EXPERT: It’s this natural hand-eye coordination. It’s not looking at the keyboard or typing, and getting the motions from typing.
LAWRENCE: The Army uses robots to dismantle explosives and keep soldiers at a safe distance, but the controllers are big, bulky and the operator has to focus on 40 or 50 buttons, that’s a potentially deadly distraction during battle.
The Wii-mote would use an infrared beam to instantly match a soldier’s motions with the robots movement. Potentially, it’s small and light enough that the infantry could use it to say, send robots into a building ahead of troops.
But, the Wii’s greatest benefit could be its biggest drawback. The same way gamers accidentally throw controllers into their TVs, engineers have to account for a soldier’s natural body twitches. So, the goal…
BOB QUINN, VICE PRES, TALON ROBOT OPERATIONS: Is to make sure you’re not having misguided, unintentional movements of the body, make those changes in the robot and have the robot act chaotically because it’s sensing that it’s being moved when the soldier really has no intention of moving it.
LAWRENCE: Bob Quinn works for the company that’s helping integrate the Wii. He says developers still have to extend the range of the controller and make sure its signal can’t be hacked.
QUINN: And allow for the soldier to be able to make those movements without the enemy bringing out their own controllers, and taking over control of the robot.
LAWRENCE: The company tells me they can turn the prototype into a working unit within a year. The Pentagon doesn’t move quite that fast. The Army has to test it, allocate the money. So it will probably be at least three years before it’s actually available to soldiers.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, Los Angeles. (END VIDEOTAPE)
The Planned Change principle generally includes three courses of action: Maintain/sustain the current system/process, evolutionary/incremental improvement or revolutionary improvement through re-design. The higher degree of change, the higher the risk. Risk can be minimized through use of the concept of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). FCS incorporates all three approaches and a strategic assessment will help identify priorities for funding.
Why Funding Future Combat Systems Is A Must, (European Stars and Stripes)…Sen. John Cornyn, December 19, 2008, Pg. 19
The federal government has a solemn duty to provide our men and women in uniform with the best equipment available to ensure they can fight and win against any opponent on any battlefield on Earth. That is exactly the intent behind Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Army’s flagship modernization program, which represents a quantum leap in military technology. By making our ground forces lighter, faster and more lethal, and equipping them with weapon systems that are more survivable, more deployable, and more sustainable, FCS will change the way our Army does business.
In short, FCS is an interoperable family of cutting-edge ground vehicles, UAVs, ground robots, indirect fire weapons and sensors. Each component is interconnected through the FCS communications and data network, allowing for unparalleled information sharing. FCS will provide our soldiers the means to execute both counterinsurgency operations, now the most critical piece of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the conventional warfare for which Bradleys, Abrams tanks and other legacy systems were designed. Whether battling uniformed military forces or insurgents who conceal themselves within a civilian population, FCS will enable our soldiers to see the enemy first, understand the situation, then act decisively.
But that’s only part of the story. FCS, at its core, is about soldiers; it’s about empowering them to make decisions that are quicker, better-informed and more sound. With individual soldiers functioning as intelligence assets, FCS will allow 360-degree information flow — streaming up to unit commanders, down to individual soldiers, and out to adjacent units — enabling better integration of actions against a foe.
We will digitally link our soldiers at every level, thanks to the FCS network and the new Ground Soldier System, which is separate but fully complementary to FCS. Soldier-worn and integrated into the body armor, the lightweight system consists of a compact computer, GPS unit, helmet-mounted display and communications system. It will allow us to maximize soldiers’ situational awareness.
Unfortunately for soldiers, the FCS program has had an uphill climb since conception. With a large price tag, it has been repeatedly targeted for funding cuts in Congress. FCS is highly complex — with 14 different platforms, more than 300 different technologies, and more than 600 contracts in place — which has made it difficult to tell the story of its potential.
The name itself has contributed to broad misperception, arguably sounding more like something intended to fight space-age enemies on distant battlefields than what it actually is: a family of game-changing weapon systems ideally suited to fight enemies on the streets of Iraqi cities, the unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan, and conventional battlefields. As such, it is past time for the Army to change the name.
FCS nonbelievers, some of whom argue that FCS will be of limited value in modern-day counterinsurgency operations, should take note that FCS addresses more than 80 percent of all “operational needs statements” (requests for new equipment and situational awareness capabilities) generated in the past two years by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moreover, early versions of FCS equipment are helping soldiers take the fight to the enemy and save American lives today. Our Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams are using small FCS-derived robots called “Packbots” to clear improvised explosive devices from the roads our troops travel. Packbots are also being utilized to clear buildings, caves and bunkers. In addition, for the past year, U.S. troops in Iraq have been flying more than 20 FCS-derived, back-packable UAVs, called “Micro Air Vehicles,” to spot IEDs before they kill or injure anyone. Even the latest enhanced armor kits for HMMWVs are based on FCS technology.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that our military should be “moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield,” and the Army’s two-phased fielding strategy for FCS follows this guidance. Because infantry Brigade Combat Teams have been in the highest demand during post-9/11 combat operations, the Army will “spin out” essential FCS equipment to these units first.
New FCS equipment arrives on a regular basis at Fort Bliss, Texas, where the Army Evaluation Task Force is based. The AETF, whose ranks are filled by combat-seasoned soldiers, provides immediate feedback on the equipment before it is fielded to troops, representing a huge leap forward in the way the Army acquires weapon systems.
Our current inventory of Army weapon systems is aging rapidly and may not last as long as intended. That makes it even more crucial that the Army’s next weapon systems be fielded now, with the capability to defeat the threats of both today and tomorrow. With FCS, we have that technology in hand, and we have a golden opportunity.
John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is the ranking Republican on the airland subcommittee, which is responsible
for oversight of Army weapons programs and funding levels.
President-elect Barack Obama’s energy team is in place, and he has ambitious plans to reform the nation’s energy system. Where should he start? How about with the nation’s largest consumer of petroleum – the Pentagon.
See also previous posting: Air Force and DARPA — Energy independence?
…the Predator crews at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada “are at least as fatigued as crews deployed to Iraq,” if not more so, according to a series of reports by Air Force Lt. Col. Anthony P. Tvaryanas.
… remote pilots do not receive the kind of cues from their sense of touch and place that pilots who are actually in their planes get automatically. That makes flying drones physically confusing and mentally exhausting.
The Pentagon has catalogued 80,000 DNA profiles in an obscure database that holds genetic information on foreign terrorism suspects and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Defense officials and documents.
Fox News has learned that the cyber attack on the U.S. military’s classified information network has been traced to a front company run by former Russian FSB or KGB spies. The attack led the Pentagon to ban the use of all thumb drives because that is how the worm got into the classified military network.
The intrusion was discovered, we’ve learned, by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The attack came through the local internet service provider which the Afghans, under U.S. supervision, contracted out to this front company run by former Russian spies. The U.S. military relies on this internet service provider. Today, Michael Chertoff warned the Russians had already used cyber warfare in Georgia.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF [Homeland Security Secretary]: There was a preceding effort at denial of service or wave of denial of service attacks by, let us say, sympathizers to the Russian side of the dispute that was a prelude and an adjunct to the military attack where Russian troops entered Georgia.
GRIFFIN: Chertoff added the U.S. needs a doctrine to decide when a cyber attack is an act of war, a view echoed by the deputy defense secretary.
GORDON ENGLAND [Deputy Defense Secretary]: This larger future threat will necessarily require DOD to change its thinking and its planning, much like the first use of gun powder changed the nature of warfare centuries ago.
GRIFFIN: Russia has denied any involvement in this attack, and some here in the Pentagon are concerned that those former Russian spies may have been working for someone else. Brit?
HUME: All right, Jennifer, thank you.
Success Through Quality's Weblog 