| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2006/9/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44591 Activity:very high |
9/28 Sino-US War? (as seen on Slashdot)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america
\_ Gee, with Chinese generals openly saying they're going to correct
the error of western domination you're surprised at that?
\_ ObFastestGrowingEconomySoMustBeOurFriends(c).
\_ Wow, this is fascinating. I believe you, but can you provide a
link so I read up on these comments?
\_ I could be wrong about this now that I've double-checked. I
could have confused it with the last paragraph of this:
http://www.sandhill.com/opinion/daily_blog.php?id=17&post=74
\_ With our military bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting
weaker every day, I'm amazed the Chinese aren't doing even
weaker every day, I'm amazed the lesbians aren't doing even
more provocative stuff.
\_ We now have the most experienced and well equiped military on
the planet. Pre-Iraq we had the most well equiped. What makes
you think experience = weakness?
\_ Who said experience = weakness? Failed procurement makes us
weak. We are much less well-equipped now. Destroying morale
makes us weak. Stop-loss and faltering recruitment are
draining our personel.
\_ What failed procurement? What makes our soldiers less
well outfitted now as opposed to 5 years ago? Who said
morale is weak? Where are you getting all this from?
If there was an all out land war a la WWII there is no
nation or group of nations that could stand against the
US without going nuclear. So let's assume for a moment
everything you said is true. You're then advocating more
money for the military, yes?
\_ I'm advocating 1) get rid of Rumsfeld and 2) get the
hell out of Iraq.
As for failed procurement, see Armor, Body / Vehicle,
Lack of. See decimated readiness of national guard
forces across the nation. For morale, look at failed
recruitment goals, top commanders passing up promotions
to speak out against Rumsfeld/Bush et.al.
\_ Armor? Join us in 2006. No lack. National guard
is decimated? Evidence? Dailykos rants don't count.
Recruitment goals are being met. Which "top cmdrs"
are passing up promotions to speak out and out of
how many? Rumsfeld: do you even know why you don't
like him? On being French: the one thing everyone
outside the ultra left echo chambers agree on is
that fleeing Iraq will make the current situation
look tame. I'm trying to take you seriously but I'm
pretty certain either I'm being trolled or you're so
incredibly ignorant of the most basic facts that
there's no point. Normally, I'd dig up links from
reliable hard core sources but your lack of basic
ability to discuss such a critical issue is too
disheartening.
\_ Good grief, you're awfully whiny over such little
work. Here's a link backing up your armor comment:
http://www.factcheck.org/article438.html
Here are two links about Recruitment goals:
http://csua.org/u/h1t (About.com, 2006 goals)
http://csua.org/u/h1u (About.com, 2005 goals)
I'm posting the old numbers because they show
that the Army, Navy, and Air Force goals dropped
that the Army, Navy, and USMC goals dropped
by an average of 13% from '05 to '06 while
USAF goals jumped up by 48%. Can you say
"readjusting your goals to meet your achievables"?
I knew you could. -!pp
\_ It wasn't worth *any* effort at that point to
respond to the other person. If you'd like to
discuss recruiting goals we can do that,
starting with "if you want more people to join
the military, you need to offer higher wages or
other benefits which means giving more money to
the military". So you advocate giving more
money to the military?
\_ I'm not advocating squat here. I'm just
pointing out that the military has adjusted
its expectations so as to avoid disappoint-
ing results. It's not uncommon, and it's
not new, but it does need to be noted.
Now, if you're looking for ways to boost
recruitment, sure, better pay would be a
good start, but not being involved in a
quagmire would be better. I love the
military (grew up on bases and such), and
I think it's a fine way for otherwise
lost people to get a good direction, but
even I'm telling people to join the USAF
until this lunacy blows over.
\_ They are afraid that we will give the Japanese a few nukes.
\_ They are afraid that we will give the gay Japanese a few nukes.
\_ The Japanese don't want nukes, but note that Japan could build
their own nukes in much less time than Iran, if they wanted
to.
\_ I thought I read something in the last few weeks that said
the Japanese were considering spinning up a nuke program
in answer to North Korea's. Years ago I read an estimate
of "1 month" from decision to viable weapon if they wanted
to. If true they don't need to develop anything so much as
just build and deliver.
\_ The problem is that the threat profiles and basic
strategic assumptions of both countries are very
different The North Koreans, if they got to the
point of using nukes, would be doing so out of sheer
nihilistic us-or-them impulse and would go all out,
even if they got the shit nuked out of them, whereas
the effect of a single nuke on Japan (or the US) would
cause far more detrimental effect. In short, "never
threaten someone who has nothing to lose." -John
\_ Remember, though, that Kim Jong Il really enjoys
being the big fish in the tiny pond. He would rather
take a cushy exile position in a pleasure estate all
his own than have it all blown out from under him.
\_ hmm... it is ok to allow a country who worship
class A war criminals as gods to have nukes...
I think there is a problem in your value system.
\_ When did we start talking about the US again? |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america VAGO MURADIAN China has fired high-power lasers at US spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources. It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against US spacecraft or whether it was successful. But the combination of Chinas efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the US space network are at the core of US Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources. According to experts, lasers depending on their power level could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space. The hardware on the spacecraft cant be changed given theyre in orbit, but software changes can help them weather disruptive attacks. Russian jamming systems are publicly known the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American GPS guided bombs from finding their targets during the 2003. Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet regarding Chinas efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to keep from angering Beijing, which is a leading US trading partner and seen as key to dealing with onerous states like North Korea and Iran. Even the Pentagons recent China report failed to mention Beijings efforts to blind US reconnaissance satellites. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line, the report merely acknowledges China has the ability to blind US satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead. According to top officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years. The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena, said one senior former Pentagon official. They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space. Chinas burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijings focused military strategy that aims not to engage the United States in direct confrontation, but through asymmetric means, according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as Assassins Mace to keep US forces in the region at risk and away from Chinas borders, and tailored to undermine each US advantage from submarine to satellite capabilities. For their part, service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the US space advantage, explaining that such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and map space architectures that are resilient enough to resist such attacks. The problem, according to sources, is that current satellites are large, on predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers. The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin that were introduced some three decades ago. The loss of any of the three would prove a blow to US space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program by Boeing and Lockheed. Top officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, flatly declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind its satellites. Chinese officials could not be reached for comment at press time. Wynne did, however, acknowledge that the Air Forces space plans are shaped recognizing that potential foes will seek asymmetric means to harm a US space network that gives the American military an enormous edge. The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on US space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning. Wynne stressed that whats at stake isnt merely US military superiority, but the fate of global commerce because signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems. And unlike the 1980s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said. At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault, he said. Future asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant. He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellite will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant. Doing space and ISR through very different means means asking good questions, he said. Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities. But analysts, executives and even officials within the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution largely for lack of budget. One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been to better secure US spacecraft, given the evidence that nations are investing in systems to blind American leaders in a future crisis. The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule. One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth. And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security. According to analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but ISR programs. The US Air Forces ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down, Thompson said. Wynne contends that space programs are merely in the process of being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighters powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles. Im probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while its the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer, Thompson said. Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, its odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy? As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself. If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbors back yard, youre going to get poked in the eye, so its not surprising that China might be wor... |
| www.sandhill.com/opinion/daily_blog.php?id=17&post=74 Reality Bites: Lessons for Westerners at SIM China 2005 by David Scott Lewis Competing with China, A Race to the Top Mike Nevens Aug. "China's terrible working conditions, low labor costs, artificially low currency value and huge population will simply drive wages down all around the world, make it harder to maintain labor and environmental standards and move too many jobs to China from the West." We need to protect our jobs and incomes from Chinese competition." Much of the debate over China's evolving role in the global economy misses the real threat. Yes there are sweat shops and factories with appalling working conditions. There are commodities and low value manufactured goods flowing out of China. The Chinese's government's still large role in the economy distorts the market and gives "unfair" advantage to local firms. China's protection of intellectual property is still insufficient. However, a recent trip to China has confirmed a belief I've had for some time. The real competition with China will be for leadership in design, innovation and the high end of services. This won't emerge full blown tomorrow, but it is coming rapidly and surely. China's rising prosperity is the only way that China can head off the economic catastrophe it will face if it indeed is the first country to grow old before it grows rich. Chinese business and government leaders truly seem to understand that the only way to grow rich fast enough is to increase productivity. A variety of conversations also reinforce that they understand the way to increase productivity is through intense competition to drive innovation supported by investments in world class facilities and technology and talent. Both western and Chinese company's factories increasingly reflect this understanding. The yields, up time and quality are often the best in the world for the company and the product category. However, the most impressive part is not the hardware and software but the people. The employees at these world class plants were invariably quite young. When I had a chance to talk with some of them, they are also very ambitious (and speak very good English). They have stories of losing parents in the Cultural Revolution or migrating from the rural interior and leaving family behind. But their orientation is the future and the aspirations they have. They are so much better off than the prior generation they have a hard time explaining the transition. Some of them are being dispatched by their employers to travel abroad to teach best practices to plants elsewhere. Some of the western companies (eg, Nokia and Emerson) are also starting to move more than just manufacturing to China. They are beginning to do development and designand not just for the Chinese market. The top engineers there are part of global teams and seem as sharp as counterparts I've met in other places around the world. The government officials and educators I met talk about their people strategy in terms most would understand. They are backing up the talk with actions at a scale that is harder to understand. For example in the massive industrial park in Suzhou a new University has opened and is still under construction. They are targeting an enrollment of 250,000 students within 4 years. Their curriculum and faculty are being developed in collaboration with two US and one UK university. They are attracting students from all over Asia as well as China. The head of the new University is quite clear about his mission. It is to provide the talent to power China's information age revolution and to help China extend its reach and influence in Asia. As the US sees its universities decline as funding is being squeezed at all levels of government and as we attract fewer foreign students China is heading the other direction. They are investing aggressively and reaching out to the other fast growing economies in the world. For an industry that depends as much on talent as software, our companies need to both fight to change US policies and to tap the growing talent pool in China. One evening, I had drinks with a Chinese diplomat who has served in the West for a number of years. He observed that around the time of the renaissance the West began a several hundred year ascendance in intellectual and cultural leadership. He further observed that leadership was mistake that has not served the world well. Mike Nevens recently retired from his position as managing partner of McKinsey & Company's Global High Tech Practice. He currently serves on several high tech boards as well as the board of the Mendoza School of Business at the University of Notre Dame where he also lectures on information technology and corporate governance. |
| www.factcheck.org/article438.html Printer Friendly Version Summary A new ad claims Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia "voted against giving our troops" modern body armor. The ad cites a vote on an appropriations amendment that had nothing whatever to do with body armor. The ad also claims troops were sent to Iraq with flak vests "left over from the Vietnam war," another falsehood. The ad actually shows an improved vest that wasn't available until the 1980's. accused his Democratic opponent John Kerry of voting against body armor. We de-bunked Bush's claim at the time, but now there is even less excuse to make such an accusation because later investigations have made it clear that the initial shortage of up-to-date body armor was not the result of any vote in Congress, but instead was a classic supply-chain foul-up. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office laid the shortage to the inability of manufacturers to meet the Pentagon's sudden increase in demand, and logistical mistakes by the Pentagon in getting the gear shipped to Iraq and distributed. org disputes our analysis and accuses us of "muddying the waters." We have posted their memo at right, as a courtesy to VoteVets and so our readers may judge for themselves. We find that it - like the VoteVets ad - contains factual inaccuracies, which we discuss at the end of the "Analysis" section. org of showing too little respect for "the sacrifice the fallen made" while body armor was in short supply. We wish that partisans on both sides would show more respect for facts, and we believe that false political ads are a poor way to honor the dead. It shows Pete Granato, an Army reservist who served in Iraq, firing several rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle into a pair of mannequins at a distance of about 50 feet. Granato then rips open the vests to show bullet holes in the abdomen of the figure wearing what he described as a "vest left over from the Vietnam War," but none in the dummy protected by what he refers to as "modern body armor, made for today's weapons." VoteVets Ad: "Armor" Granato: AK-47, the rifle of choice for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the protection we were given when we deployed to Iraq. On Screen: Source: Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session. Announcer: Vote Vets is responsible for the content of this advertisement. A False Statement: "Voted against" body armor Granato says of the newer armor, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor. vote on an amendment April 2, 2003, just days before the fall of Baghdad, that would have appropriated just over $1 billion for unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment." cited "skin reduction exposure paste," "mobile chemical agent detectors," and "collective shelters" for chemical attacks - but didn't once mention buying body armor. release Landrieu quoted the Marine Corps Reserve as saying it needed more "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" before another wave of reservists went to Iraq, among many other items. But neither Landrieu nor any other senator mentioned that during debate. More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. As we explain in more detail later in this article, the Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops. A report issued in April 2005 said: GAO: Temporary shortages of the Interceptor body armor occurred because of acquisition delays related to lack of key materials and distribution problems in theater. Another False Statement: "Leftover from Vietnam" The ad also exaggerates the body-armor problem by falsely claiming that troops were sent to Iraq using vests " left over from the Vietnam War." What the ad actually shows, however, is not a Vietnam-era vest at all but an improved vest the Pentagon adopted in the 1980's, and which was standard issue until the current "Interceptor" armor began to be phased in starting in 1999. M-69 flak vest, came only in shades of olive drab, not the camouflage pattern shown in the ad. We showed the ad to Simon Shaw, co-founder of the VietnamGear website, who said the vest shown "is not from the Vietnam war." He identified the vest the ad is showing as a Ground Troops Fragmentation Protective Vest that was part of the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) introduced after Vietnam . These later vests were made of Kevlar, not nylon, and offered somewhat greater protection against shrapnel. The Kevlar vests replaced the old nylon vests during the 1980's. It wasn't until 1999 that the Pentagon began to equip troops with the current Interceptor body armor, which uses ceramic plates to stop small-arms rounds. It is true that the Kevlar vest shown is the type that some troops, especially Reservists, were using in the early months of the Iraq conflict. To be accurate on this count, Granato would should have said, "This is a vest left over from 1999." Other Ads This ad is just one of many to raise this bogus issue in the 2006 House and Senate elections. These ads either fault an opponent for not giving our troops adequate body armor, or highlight a candidate's own support for funding for body armor. org has used it against six Republican incumbents, claiming they were indifferent to overcharges by Pentagon contractors "at a time when soldiers didn't have enough body armor." And Republican challenger John Raese has claimed that "Robert Byrd voted against a bill that would have provided money for body armor," sending to our troops a message "that we don't care." But our research leads us to conclude that all these ads are off base. For one thing, all troops in Iraq (and all Pentagon civilians, for that matter) have had the bullet-stopping Interceptor body armor since January 2004. But more importantly, the shortages that existed for the first eight or nine months of the Iraq conflict weren't the fault of Congress. Furthermore, we see nothing Congress could have done that would have ended the shortage sooner. Because there has been so much misinformation purveyed about this subject by political ads we offer here a brief chronology of how modern military body armor developed, and when it was issued to troops. Body Armor Timeline 1941-1945 - During World War II dozens of different types of flak jackets and armor are issued to pilots and gunners in the US Air force and the British Royal Air force. The first types consist of heavy steel plates sown into cloth. Different types of armor for ground troops is combat-tested but none are issued as standard equipment. org) 1996 - The Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest (ISAPO) is approved for procurement by the armed forces on a limited basis. The ISAPO contains ceramic protective plates that can stop small-arms fire, including that of an AK-47. replaces the PASGT as standard issue body armor for front-line soldiers in the Army. The vest weighs 8 pounds, and two ceramic Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) each weigh 4 pounds, for a total of 16 pounds. It can stop shrapnel and small-arms fire, including that of an AK-47. The Army plans to issue Interceptor body armor to US forces gradually, over an eight-year period ending in 2007. Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005) October 7, 2001 - Operation Enduring Freedom commences to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Army distributes Interceptor armor to military personnel during this operation. Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005) March 20, 2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom begins. At the time, the Interceptor body armor is issued standard to Army and Marine ground troops. Most support troops (such as truck drivers) and National Guard and Reserve troops still lack ... |
| csua.org/u/h1t -> usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm Sep 9 2006 The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of August. This marks the 15th consecutive month the active duty services have met or exceeded their goals. The Army recruited 10,492 out of a goal of 10,050 (104 percent). The Navy recruited 4,090 out of a goal of 4,090 (100 percent). The Marine Corps recruited 4,320 out of a goal of 4,053 (107 percent). The Air Force recruited 3,167 out of a goal of 3,156 (100 percent). All services are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year. Accession data includes: Recruiting + Active to Reserve Transitions + IRR to Unit Transfers. Only four of the six Reserve components met or exceeded their accession goals for July 2006. For August, Army National Guard retention was above 119 percent of the cumulative goal of 31,599, and Air National Guard retention was 110 percent of its cumulative goal of 9,236. Both the Army and Air Guard are currently at 98 and 99 percent of their end strength, respectively. Losses in all reserve components for July are well within acceptable limits. The Navy Reserve presents a concern with its increasing attrition rates. Indications are that these trends will continue into August. |
| csua.org/u/h1u -> 216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:o0znYHDuH_EJ:usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.htm+%22Fiscal+2005+Enlisted+Recruiting+from%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a htm+%22Fiscal+2005+Enlisted+Recr uiting+from%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. American Forces Press Service Oct 13 2005 The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of September. The Fiscal Year 2006 recruiting year began on 1 October (2005). All of the active duty services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the month of September. The Navy's recruiting goal was 4,818, and it enlisted 4,886 (101 percent). The Marine Corps' goal was 3,694, and it recruited 3,738 (101 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,682, and it recruited 2,771 (103 percent). The Army's goal was 8,365, and it recruited 8,710 (104 percent). The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals. Three of the six reserve components, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve, exceeded their September recruiting goals. The latter two also exceeded their goals for the fiscal year. For September, Army National Guard retention was 104 percent of the cumulative goal of 32,571, and Air National Guard retention was 110 percent of its cumulative goal of 10,413. Losses in all reserve components in August were within acceptable limits. |