nerdgirl

Per article in today's NY Times U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms Totally concur with sharing technology to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons arsenal and HEU. Consider the "fear" mention below a canard. It's vaguely akin to saying that giving someone a Cypres (which they might likely reverse engineer) is going to enable them to know how you skydive and how you pack your main. VR/Marg ---- ---- ---- ---- Excerpts: "Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials. "The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations." "In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons. "While many nuclear experts in the federal government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan’s arsenal among the world’s most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s. "The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons." Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Or FDR's or JFK's democrats. Quite right. JFK (if president today) would be as nearly as hated as Bush IMO Wasn't FDR intensely disliked as well, particularly before the US entered WWII? The New Deal was criticized more vitriolically at the time than now. Wasn't JFK also a polarizing figure, e.g., questions/fears that he would "take orders" from the pope? President Kennedy had great speech writers ... as did President Reagan. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I would love to see those numbers crunched and analyzed. We’ve created whole new industries, e.g., homeland defense and biodefense, and significantly increased others post-9/11, e.g., private military security contractors. And how does one consider the impact of the subprime mortgage fiasco on the US deficit separate from impact of 9/11, OEF, & OIF? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Are women allowed to receive medical care under Sharia Law? (maybe only if the doctor is their husband... or another woman... but then again, are women allowed to be doctors under Sharia Law?) It depends. Since theological-based law (as prescribed in the Islamic penal code, sharî’a, or more precisely hudûd) is frequently predicated on interpreting and applying hundred+ year old text(s), application varies highly. Saudi Arabia has a good to well-advanced medical system with many women physicians. Iran does too. In some areas literally or effectively under Sharia law -- particularly at the local level where such punishment is applied -- such as Afghanistan, western Pakistan, northern Nigeria, the medical care is poor to completely lacking. Male doctors may be required to diagnosis & treat through a dime to quarter-sized hole in a sheet or interact only by relaying messages through the husband, father, or close male relative, if an allopathic medical practitioner is available. ---- ---- ---- ---- Skydivermom – Do you think a system that condemns raped women, accused homosexual men (7,000 lashes in one recent case) … or condemns men convicted of consuming alcohol to 80 lashes (i.e., Taliban-controlled Afghanistan … in parts of Sudan it’s ‘only’ 40 lashes for drinking alcohol) … to corporal punishment by whipping, flogging, stoning is going to have an effective oversight system? Due process, as we think of it, does not exist. This site has two pictures of public caning (it’s a crime to circulate pictures). As the link above notes – the man carrying out the punishment in the picture clearly has no book under his arm. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It is not uncommon that they don't survive. Largely depends on medical care post-punishment. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Also of potential interest: 5 minute 3-D computer-generated "tour" of alleged Israeli nuclear facilities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU Uses some of Vanunu's pictures and testimony. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There is more to the argument than any one nation-state or supra-national body as 'world police.' It's a normative issue (ethics), which admittedly are much harder to argue. If one does *not* accept cultural relativism, but instead asserts that certain behaviors are a challenge to the human species/humanity, such as torture, genocide (ethinic or racial based mass-murder), rape, enslavement, feminine genital mutilation, then there is an onus to challenge/object/act. When and how (by what means/to what degree) should the US or any other nation-state act internationally for normative reasons is complicated. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This is an active debate (not the 'social experiment' part) but on what is the role of the military in the 21st Century beyond winning wars. My favorite DoD Directive 3000.05 -- doesn't everyone have a favorite DoDD?

Fantastic quotes - thanks! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I think this may be a interesting variable to consider - has the prolonged conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan -- "the Long War" -- lessened the public barrier to call for/accepting the use of unconventional weapons? Nuclear is the only one that we have in our arsenal. (Aging CW stocks being demilitarized don't count ... nevermind the US laws prohibiting use of CW.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

breaking off from a couple posts in another thread How about a third option? (am confident that there are others

Quoteif we [US] hadn't helped Pakistan get the bomb then its current status wouldn't be so unnerving.Quote How did we help Pakistan's nuclear weapons program? As far as I am aware, the main "credit" goes to Dr. AQ Khan. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yea, when Hillary becomes the boss and all of the volunteers head for the hills. Point of clarification: you didn't mean to imply that the primary motivation or factor for service in the military is partisan politics? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There’s lots of doctrine on nuclear weapons. I think your referring to the National Strategy to Combat WMD or the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), relaeased in Jan 2002: SecDef Rumsfeld’s cover letter to Congress, who requested the NPR & excerpts leaked to the LA Times. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-14 remains tightly classified, which is thought to deal with nuclear weapons targeting: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html. The NPR put forth the “New “Triad,” which has been much discussed: “Second, we have concluded that a strategic posture that relies solely on offensive nuclear forces is inappropriate for deterring the potential adversaries we will face in the 21st century. Terrorists or rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction will likely test America's security commitments to its allies and friends. In response, we will need a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of U.S. resolve. A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military, or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security. U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including NBC weapons and the means to deliver them over long distances. Finally, U.S. strategic forces need to provide the President with a range of options to defeat any aggressor. “To meet the nation's defense goals in the 21st century, the first leg of the New Triad, the offensive strike leg, will go beyond the Cold War triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long-range nuclear-armed bombers. ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers and nuclear weapons will, of course, continue to play a vital role. However, they will be just part of the first leg of the New Triad, integrated with new non-nuclear strategic capabilities that strengthen the credibility of our offensive deterrence. “The second leg of the New Triad requires development and deployment of both active and passive defenses--a recognition that offensive capabilities alone may not deter aggression in the new security environment of the 21st century. The events of September 11, 2001 underscore this reality. Active and passive defenses will not be perfect. However, by denying or reducing the effectiveness of limited attacks, defenses can discourage attacks, provide new capabilities for managing crises, and provide insurance against the failure of traditional deterrence.” General James “Hoss” Cartwright (currently Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is leading a review of defense nuclear weapons strategy. He was an iconoclast at STRATCOM … waiting to see how/if the move from Nebraska to DC affects that.

Admittedly it's hard to disentangle from the views of the elected politicians (which after all, are intended to represent the views of their electorate) ... I'm most curious about opinions on what you think will be the response from the wider populace, particularly those outside the Beltway. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If a nuclear device (not a radiological dispersive device or ‘dirty’ bomb) was successfully detonated on US soil by a foreign terrorist group, would there be an “upswell” from the US citizenry supporting or demanding retaliation with nuclear weapons? VR/Marg p.s. I'm waiting til there are a few votes up there before I cast a vote.

In that scenario -- which is not completely unforeseen if democratic elections occurs -- do you expect control over the nuclear weapons (MPC&A) will shift from the Pakistan Army to the civilian government? In the event such a transition of government occurs, my first recommendation would be maintaining ties with the Pakistani Army, increasing the security on the current arsenal and HEU, and advocating (principally via diplomacy) for nuclear reduction somewhat akin to what happened with Kazakstan, Ukraine, and Belarus after the USSR collapsed. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thank you for the response. It's hard to comment on the story you related. Others have more expertise in the areas you describe than I. (If someone does know the specific doctrine, please post!) IEDs, however, are responsible for more than 64% of the US military fatalities in OIF. For example, from American Forces Press Service, i.e., the Pentagon's Press service: "IEDs are the leading cause of U.S. combat deaths and injuries in Iraq, the deputy [Secretary of Defense Gordon England] said." & from Army Times "IEDs are the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 3,270 troops have been killed in action in the two wars and through mid-August [2007], IEDs were responsible for nearly 2,100 of those deaths, according to the Pentagon." Additionally, analysis from Walter Reed Army Hospital found that ~60% of injured being treated after surviving an IED blast have traumatic brain injury from the concussion (blast) waves. Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. IEDs aren't new, e.g., they were known as 'off route mines' before the latest TLA. They have never been responsible for anywhere near this large a percentage of fatalities in a US armed conflict. The IED countermeasures conundrum is a wicked problem! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you quantify "alot" and provide a citation, as well as reference to the specific doctrine to which you are refering? What percentage of the current fatalities in Iraq do you think have been due to IEDs? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is it "very frustrated and power hungry women” or …. is it backlash against women who achieve a position of power and when they (actually) use that power are ridiculed? For example, when Secretary of State Rice was critical of Russian corruption, specifically with respect the Ukrainian and Moldavian petroleum crisis in January 2006, the response of a prominent Russian law-maker and leader of Russia's ‘Liberal and Democratic’ party (quoted in a interview in Pravda) was: "Condoleeza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied. On the other hand, she can hardly be satisfied because of her age. This is a complex. The true reason of Ms. Rice's attack against Russia is very simple. Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention. Releasing such stupid remarks gives her the feeling of being fulfilled." From Petroleum & natural gas to “men’s attention” … how far does one have to twist correlation and causation to get to that conclusion? Is that logical? ... would you call Sec of State Rice "ridiculous"? (Hmmm, I thought the black leather boots and long black leather coat garnered her a fair bit of male attention?) How so from your perspective? All of my significant mentors have been men who by societal norms would qualify as “strong, real” men, e.g., Army Ranger Colonel. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of the great ironies is that the Executive Agencies *really* do not like earmarks --> they don’t fit into planned programs, they take time (time =’s $) to administer, and they distract from the what they're supposed to be doing. Some earmark recipients (pure ‘guestimate’ ~40%) are interested in working with the agencies; others just want their $$$. You're right - Congressional Additions (“earmarks”) have skyrocketed over the last 6-7 years. Some programs, e.g., some DoD RDTE (research, development, testing & engineering) programs are now btw 30-40% (!), in terms of actual $, from Congressional additions. We’ve had previous situations in which the Executive Branch and Congress were controlled by the same party (either party) in which this massive increase was not observed. That may be a necessary but not sufficient alone condition. Did the Republicans invent earmarks? Of course not - just look to Senator Byrd of West Virginia. Was there some factor with the Republican-controlled at the turn of the century, which in combination with a Republican-controlled Executive Branch, was necessary but not sufficient to get this skyrocketing of earmarks? Perhaps, yes. Has this now evolved as a status quo norm that Democrats are complicit? Yes. Something else happened in the Appropriations process, where the penultimate responsibility lies. Speculatively, I would look for a change in some law (perhaps creation of a ‘loophole’) that has been exploited. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m not quite sure how to respond to that … ? One doesn’t have to self-identify as a “feminist” to believe or to support feminist ideas, like the one with which you agreed! That’s about as close to a core feminist principle (or "cause" perhaps) as can be expressed. Thought experiment: If you support (A) and it’s a core tenet of (B), does that make you a supporter of (B)? (Even if you didn’t realize it? ) I'd be willing to bet that a substantial majority of the US population supports government by "rule of law" even if most couldn't tell you exactly what that phrase meant. I’m a feminist and have many causes – the ones about which I am passionate are strong national defense, international security, and non-/counter-proliferation of CBRN weapons/terrorism. (Are those what immediately come to mind as strong feminist causes?

For those who like to combine a nerdy/geeky-technical side with watching things blow up: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3825610222960975525&hl=en "Once lethal war chemical becomes a peaceful pyrotechnic display ... " Oooh … think of the poor electrons! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the review. It sounds like regardless of where one proverbially situates oneself politically, there is something in the movie to make one think - whether it re-inforces and strengthens the world view you brought with you on the way in or slightly perturbed its to the left, right, or off the usual spectrum,