| Tuesday,
Dear Jerry,
Bear in mind that TSA advises passengers not to lock
luggage, because agents will break the locks if they inspect the bags.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html
/localnews/134665125_theft30m.html
So, we can't lock up our property when we fly, and
we're pretty much SOL if (when?) our property is subsequently stolen.
Tell me again about the Blessings of Liberty; it's
such a dim memory...
Regards,
Gordon Runkle
-- "Far and away the best prize that life has
to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore
Roosevelt
I think you misunderstand. The
purpose of TSA is to condition people to think "Is this trip
necessary" and cause them to avoid travel. It is working splendidly.
Of course this mildly conflicts with the TSA as government agency existing
largely to pay people with tax money while avoiding resp0nsibility for
anything actually done, but they'll work that out. But
we were born free. And lest
someone be tempted to write to me about the need for security in these
dangerous times, if you do, please specify how searching retired generals,
old ladies in wheel chairs, and such like serves any purpose other than
reminding people that we are subjects, not citizens. If the goal is to
prevent hijackings, we know how to do that. If it is to prevent bombs put
aboard airplanes, that's harder, but what we are doing is not a very good
protection against that, and the cure is worse than the disease. A
major purpose of TSA is to make us understand that we are subjects, and
that we have no rights against these servants of the people. But
we were born free.
Letter from Istanbul
Re: "The
Turks have much to answer for"
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
I have been reading your views of the war in Chaos
Manor to keep up with your thoughts on a real situation. This is a letter
voicing my sadness, for his comments on Turkey, to a person who in my mind
is with people of Leonardo da Vinci caliber.
Turkish people have a long history of friendship
with the American people. Ottoman Empire’s support of the American
Revolution, the role of the Turkish troops in the Korean War, accepting
the risk of being the front line nuclear defense against the Soviets,
accepting the animosity of the whole Arab world by being the only
supporter of Israel in the region since 1948, 1991 Gulf War, war on drugs,
war on terrorism and total support after 9/11 are only a few examples.
These facts should not be conveniently ignored when faced with
difficulties.
In the Kunu-ri battle during the Korean conflict,
the Turkish regiment, at the expense of 104 dead and 376 wounded, saved 3
regiments (9th, 23rd and the 38th) of U.S. troops from becoming
"Janissaries" (link1). The full and unconditional support given
to the coalition during the 1991 Gulf War resulted in a 10-year fight with
the Kurdish PKK insurgents (leaving roughly 25000 dead troops and
civilians.) During this time Turkey came under repeated terrorist attacks
originating from northern Iraq and had to cope with floods of refugees in
1988 and 1991. The financial losses exceeded $150 billions including the
war costs with the PKK. This 10-year drain is one of the main reasons for
the poor economic condition that prevails in the country. In return, the
reparations offered by the then-coalition were some comical $800 million
to be retrieved from some Arab state. We can’t even tell if this money
was ever received.
For the past 5 years we have been hearing about a
strategic partnership with the U.S. Whereas, the U.S administrations for
the past 15 years have been working on the creation (Kurdistan) and
acquisition (Armenia, Georgia) of client states in the region. Both the
Armenian state and Kurdish tribal chiefs make claims on Turkish soil. You
should see some of the maps that started floating around after the Kurds
won the U.S. support. Obviously, in Turkey’s case the U.S.
administration has been re-defining "strategic partnership". The
Iraq operation aims to rearrange borders and to create new client states
whereas, back in the 30’s Turkey had declared to the world that she will
consider the establishment of an independent Kurdish state at her borders
as casus belli. Is the U.S. unaware of this, just like she has chosen not
to ratify the 1924 Lausanne Treaty that defines the southeastern borders
of Turkey? Really, where does all this double talk leave "the
strategic partnership"?
Unlike what has been publicized in the U.S., the
disagreement between the U.S. demands and the Turkish Parliament (please
note, not the government) was not financial but political. Turks have a
dim view of the fact that the Iraqi Kurds (who harbor 15 to 20 thousand
ex-PKK terrorists) would be armed with U.S. weaponry of unknown types and
quantities when legitimate security concerns persist and must be
addressed. To exercise some control over this, the Turks proposed to have
the U.S. and Turkish forces cooperate in the distribution of the armaments
to the Kurds as well as in the disarmament that should follow when the job
was done. Apparently, the U.S. administration did not want to do this and
in return the Turkish Parliament did not authorize U.S. troop movements
within and across the Turkish borders.
The financial aid discussions were related strictly
to the cost of full involvement. This would have involved moving Turkish
forces into northern Iraq, which would have helped the U.S. troops in more
ways than one. Considering the cost of mobilizing troops in the 10s of
thousands, loss of tourism, loss of trade and investments for unknown
periods, and considering the economic mess that Turkey is in, Turkish
government wanted some financial help to ease the burden. The money
discussed was either $6 billion as a war grant or $24 billion as a
long-term loan. As publicized in the U.S., the two were added together and
hooted as if Turkey was going to receive $30 billion as a give-away. At
this time Turkey is providing the coalition forces with all the support
that could be given within the NATO and bilateral agreements framework
(without any financial demands) in their effort to disarm Iraq (through
the use of its airspace, emergency facilities, evacuation of the wounded
and humanitarian assistance.)
Dear Doctor:
The discord between the U.S. administration and the
Turkish government and the resulting blunder have been caused by a series
of mistakes made (and still being made) by each side. I will not go into
the mistakes made by the Turkish government because I do not know where to
start. The mistakes that the U.S. administration made were based on the
following (among others) false assumptions:
1. that striking a deal with a then-premiership
hopeful (now premier and happens to be the chief of the majority party),
in return for political and financial support, would be enough to get the
necessary approval from the Turkish Parliament in having foreign troops
massing in and marching through the country for indefinite periods of
time. (But imagine this, please: Russia, in conflict with Mexico who has
turned rogue, and in strategic partnership with the U.S., would like to
land in Corpus Christi with 62000 troops fully armed with heavy weapons,
wants to move across Texas to El Paso where they want to set up a
permanent base, want to distribute arms to some Indian nation who has been
making territorial claims from the U.S., want to set up an independent
state for the same with Ciudad Juarez as the capital, want to start going
in and out of Mexico declaring "they may stay in the region for as
long as 20 years", and tell the U.S. that she cannot enter Mexico
because it will interfere with the Russian-Indian operations and want the
U.S. administration to get an approval for all this from the Congress.
Sounds ridiculous, yes!)
2. that coercion and bribery would be more effective
than to discuss and convince a "strategic partner" for what
needs be done. Secretary Powell never visited Ankara, but lesser
officials, in return for offering the money that they knew Turkey badly
needed, handed down orders, sent in shopping lists and made implied
threats. To make the situation worse, without waiting for the
parliamentary approval (based on the false assumption 1) the troops and
equipment were sent in on ships to the various Turkish ports, possibly,
with the aim to impose a de facto situation thought to strengthen the
Turkish governments hand with the parliament. Let us say "an offer
one cannot refuse?"
3. that exploitation of the created and acquired
client states in the region can replace the support provided by Turkey. It
looks like U.S. preferred to use these entities rather than to continue
her time-tested alliance with Turkey. In my opinion, this will be a poor
substitute at best and will prove more so in the near and far future. Pax
Ottoman prevailed in this region of the world for more than 400 years and
as late as the 20’s and nothing better replaced it, yet. There is no
good reason to believe that something will, either.
I agree with your prediction (verdict?): "The
Turks have much to answer for here." This country had to endure a 9
year (1974-1983) arms and economic embargo from the U.S., a reprimand for
having exercised her rights to save the Turkish population in Cyprus from
massacre by the Greek communists. It can be expected that the present U.S.
administration, in search for a scapegoat, will blame it all on Turkey. As
one Turkish statesman (Inönü – 2 time nightmare of Sir Winston) once
said about the U.S., "If you go to bed with an elephant, you should
expect getting bruised."
Turkey cannot satisfy all demands of the U.S
administration; neither can she do something to alleviate the effects of
the smear campaign that is being conducted by this administration and its
mouthpieces. Let us just hope that things do not go to from bad to worse
and that the administration does not have to put Turkey on their list of
rogue states to be preempted (Turkish Freedom?). Seriously, now is the
time to start picking up the pieces and see if the alliance could be
salvaged, although, it is obvious that things will never be the same
again. Yet I feel that the U.S. will need Turkey’s help (not to forget
Iran and Syria) more in the aftermath, when all is said and done and when
it becomes easier to sort the good, the bad and the ugly. So the wise now
should not contribute to the existing discord but rather help in any way
they can to resolve the differences.
I will subscribe to your statement: "I was
always skeptical about the prospect that we would be welcomed into Iraq.
Most of the Iraqi people, other than Kurds, will see us as invaders to be
resisted" and this is what’s happening already. In my opinion
"the 4th Infantry sweeping down from the North" could not have
prevented this. The main increase in casualties will be due to this
reaction which could not have been prevented by an increased show of
force. But then there were others at the Pentagon who warned the
administration to no avail (link 2.) I have added some links on the
subject (3,4,5.) Link 3, an article by Prof. Shlaim of Oxford is an
exceptional analysis.
May God help us all, Dr. Pournelle.
With my deepest respects,
Ziya Bulun
mrfbulun@superonline.com
Istanbul, Turkey
1. http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html
2. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;
jsessionid=VUO0SMEOFJYLSCRBAE0CFEY?
type=topNews&storyID=2472659
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
Story/0,2763,925667,00.html
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/
Column/0,5673,925739,00.html
5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922710,00.html
The phrase I used, "have much
to answer for," was chosen to convey prediction rather than judgment,
and implications that the impasse is not insurmountable; as you note,
there has long been friendship between our countries, and I am more than
aware of the battle at Kunu-Ri; you might add units of the Cavalry to your
list of beneficiaries of the Turkish military competence in the long
retreat. The only way Iraq
might have been taken without battles would have been with such
overwhelming force that no organized resistance developed. Whether that
was possible will never be known; whether it was possible without strong
action in the North is known for certain now. You will understand that
those who framed the original war plan will continue to believe that it
would have worked. The US
always had the option of arming the Kurds and operating with a Kurdish
army with US air and Special Operations support. We did not do that
largely in deference to Turkey: some of us well understand the severity of
the problems a large independent Kurdistan with oil fields would pose to
our NATO ally. But the only way to control the Kurds is with force, and if
we have no force in Iraqi Kurd territory we have no control. I suspect we
will all regret that. I said
long ago that we had two choices in the North: control by the Kurds, or
control by the Turks. There are no other choices, and once yo let one of
those groups win, you will not easily (or ever) get it 0ut. I long ago
said I would prefer Turkish control; indeed, I would have opted for
Turkish reconquest of most of Iraq as a means of stabilization of the
area. I trust the Turkish military to honor Mustapha Kemal's last
commands, to protect the secular constitution and otherwise stay out of
politics. That they have done so for generations now is unprecedented in
history, a reign of honor without ruling. But
much of that changed, in part due to the early opportunity to end the war
with one strike. That didn't work, things started, and in war nothing goes
as expected. And we are where we are now. Responses
below.
I have had several references to
this:
Jerry
This link provides some insight into one of the
'human shields' and what he experienced and why, just maybe, this war is a
just war.
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
It gives one a sense of why we see what we see
there.
Freedom and Right Tommie L. Williams, Jr.
I certainly do not question the evil
of this regime. If you make a list of people who need killing and regimes
that need toppling, this one is high on the list. The question is, why is
that our job? But that doesn't matter now. The Senate and People of the
United States have made their decision.
Dr. Pournelle,
I'm not going to debate the merits of the war. The
basic facts that prompted the war are in dispute and no intellectualizing
will turn those facts either anti- or pro-war. Only the lens of history
will suffice (and we all know history is written by the winners, so we can
only hope for neutrality).
No, what I am most interested in, is what happens if
the coalition forces do not find massive amounts of chemical and
biological weapons? I'm talking about more than a few envelopes of
anthrax. Without literally tons of smoking gun evidence, what happens?
What would be the political repercussions in that?
Could the U.S. afford for the question to arise? Would somebody try to
manufacture evidence if the forces come up with this century's version of
Al Capone's Vault? Given the few poopdeck rockets that have been fired,
what would constitute an acceptable level of WMDs (a phrase that will be somebody's
epitaph in the next couple of years) that would constitute a war-making
effort?
No one is hoping for a chemical/biological attack
that has an ounce of soul. Yet the absence of attacks might very well
auger the absence of the means to attack. Thus the dilemma that must cost
people who look into the future a few precious winks of sleep.
Any thoughts?
GM
Gary Mugford Idea Mechanic Bramalea ON Canada
If we don't find weapons, or if we
find them and they are not used, it shows that deterrence worked; it
also shows that being deterred is not enough, you must be SEEN to have
been deterred.
It is better to be feared than
loved; we would never have been loved anyway. The foreign policy aspects
of this war are one thing. The domestic consequences are another. Like it
or not, we are closer to being The Senate and People of Washington than a
nation of states, and I suspect there is no going back.
Subject: Requirements of empire.
Differing views:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6998
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003277
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/articles/A63484-2003Mar31.htm
Roland Dobbins
There are different forms of empire,
as we shall learn; but lese majeste will be treason within a lifetime. In
any event, the endgame approaches:
Subject: Mother of all battles?
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030401-053911-9329r
Roland Dobbins
Subject: Machinery of empire.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/articles/A63223-2003Mar31.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Iraq/Story/0,2763,927055,00.html
Roland Dobbins
I expect to see a number of such
articles. I have little confidence in the Guardian's sources. The
Washington Post is usually a bit more accurate. But all this is in the
nature of counting chickens before they are hatched. Follows
a lot of mail I am catching up on; it's a mixed bag. This is column time
so it all gets Short Shrift...
Hi Dr. Pournelle,
Not three days after having read about your
struggles with WinXP's brain dead search function I ran into my own
problem with this atrocity.
Microsoft has managed to break one of the
fundamental features of the operating system. It turns out if you try to
search for all files of a particular type that contain a string of
interest (ie, all .txt files with the string "Hello") - you will
get zero results, even if such files exist.
Forget about searching "All files and
Folders" - that's a lie. Forget about turning on "View Hidden
Files and Folders" - that's no help. Microsoft has changed the way
the Search feature works so that it will only search within files that
have a specifically registered handler. There is a work around available
at http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_bad_search.htm
But this fix has to be applied for each and every file extension you are
interested in searching in - once for .htm, once for .asp, once for .txt
and so on.
Who did the usability testing for this
"feature", and why is this thing still broken, even after a
Service Pack release for XP?
Regards,
Leander Kalpaxis
Good questions.
Subject: Economic implications of the US dollar as
the currency of the world oil market.
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
In your reply to Mr. Todd today, and Mr. Juergens
last Sunday, you point out that the USA doesn't really need Iraqi oil all
that much, but would benefit from an oil market with a more plentiful
supply and less OPEC control. The two articles in the links below take the
argument one step further: Because oil is traded in US dollars, both the
US dollar and the US economy are a lot stronger than they would be
otherwise. The dominance of the US dollar in the world markets is under
some pressure, as some OPEC countries are considering switching away from
the dollar, possibly to the euro. One OPEC member has already done this:
Iraq.
One of the articles addresses a point Mr. St. Onge
makes about the other Western nations (including Japan) not paying for
their own defense: It argues that, though the 'dollar tax' on oil, they
actually do.
Fair warning: the second article is a bit
long-winded, and uses a kind of rhetoric you probably won't like.
'Bush's Deep Reasons for War on Iraq: Oil,
Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro Question'
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html
'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth'
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
With Kind Regards,
Harm
It's not the rhetoric, but the logic
that I quarrel with. But you can always find places that are sure they
know the "real" reasons for things.
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
This was brought to my attention (regarding yet
another way stars might go "poof"). I thought that, in your
copious free time (:-)) you might enjoy reading it also:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/light_echo_030326.html
Sincerely,
N. C. Shapero
In my copious free time, indeed.
Thanks.
Subject: so called "anti-firewall" law
While I can certainly see the potential for abuse,
it seems to me that the law (at least as represented in the Register
article) would not necessarily outlaw VPNs or firewalls. The issue would
be in what constitutes a communication. To my thinking, the VPN session
itself is a "communication" as as there is not necessarily a
disguise or encryption of the source or destination there should not be a
problem. NAT-based firewalls might be a thornier problem because NAT does
disguise the originating IP of the "communication". However,
could one not argue that the "communication" exists in a
un-disguised state between the firewall and the destination. (In other
words, you could argue that it's not your PC communicating with the remote
website but your PC communicating with your firewall, and your firewall
communicating with the remote website.) Since this is a normal function of
NAT-based firewalls one would think you'd be on higher ground. Where we
are on shakier ground is with anonimizers (proxies and remailers). The
courts have upheld several times the rights of individuals to anonimity
under certain circumstances. If this law would make the devices that make
anonimity possible illegal then I see a problem.
-- David M. Girardot
"DON'T DRINK GLUE! DILUTE! DILUTE!
OK!"
From Rich Pournelle:
Subject: Interesting article on the war and the
market
Lord Rothschild was quoted in 1810 as saying:
"Buy to the sound of cannons, sell to the sound of trumpets."
And another professional investor once said:
"Buy in gloom and sell in boom."
http://finance.news.com.au/common/
story_page/0,4057,6210462%255E462,00.html
Dr. Erwin wrote, "The EU was formed to
counterbalance America." That seems a bit revisionist to me. If you
go back to the founding of the original precursor of the EU, it was
dreamed up by de Gaulle to tie Germany so tightly into the economic life
of its neighbors that it could never seriously contemplate making war on
them again. So far, it's succeeded brilliantly in that.
Geoff Styles
Dear Jerry, I have to disagree with Mr. St. Onge’s
comment on Germany being a threat. I think it’s important to avoid
lumping together everyone who opposed us on Iraq. France and Russia have a
lot to answer for, but Germany shouldn’t be put in the same category.
Viewing them as a potential adversary would be a mistake and could lead to
a disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy.
Schroeder’s moves were pure domestic politics,
tied to the current outpouring over Germany’s experience on the
receiving end of strategic bombing in WWII. This was triggered by last
year’s publication of “Der Brand”, by Joerg Friedrich. Appropriate
or not, this is a big deal over there. If either the SPD or CDU had
supported a pre-emptive war, it would have been political suicide.
Given our long history as allies, and a cultural gap
much narrower than between either of us and the French, we will get past
the current disagreement.
Thanks for your calm analysis on the war news. When
will the media figure out that retired Air Force officers may not be the
best commentators on a ground war?
Regards, Geoff Styles
On Hydrogen:
Jerry :
I looked at the cited website on hydrogen sited
yesterday. It's a _passable_ discussion, but misses some pretty important
considerations. Having worked for most of twenty years on various projects
for alternate vehicle fuels, including risk assessments of the fuels, I
think I have some qualification for comments. You're likely quite familiar
with many of these points, I'd expect.
Firstly, the issue of storage and handling of
hydrogen is a non-trivial problem. Hydrogen's a tricky fuel, and the
materials for storage and handling of hydrogen, liquid or compressed, have
to be chosen carefully. Hydrogen embrittlement resulting in cracking or
blistering is a well-known phenomenon, and while it can be addressed with
due dilgence, it would pretty much require a separate set of equipment for
transportation and storage than that currently "in the field".
Hydrogen _containment_ is also a bit more rigorous
than for, say, natural gas. The hydrogen molecule just zips through
systems that would contain more typical hydrocarbons. Fittings, gaskets,
valves - these all need to be capable of hydrogen service.
It's pretty doubtful that we could use existing
hydrocarbon pipelines to transport hydrogen in bulk. Tank truck movement
requires dedicated fleets of trucks. We have those kinds of trucks,
hydrogen "tube trucks" are in use, but the numbers would have to
increase by orders of magnitude.
The explosibility of hydrogen is a factor, although
not the sensationalistic stuff one sees, especially the infamous
Hindenberg case. Hydrogen's flammable limits are about 4% - 75% in air. By
comparison, the flammable range for natural gas is about 5 - 16% (I use
the term "about" here deliberately - no rational engineer would
trust a mixture of more than 1/4 of the LFL in terms of deflagration).
Hydrogen has a wonderful flame velocity in the range of ~3 m/s compared
with about ~0.3 m/s for natural gas. This becomes important for flame
arrestors and other suppression systems (a subject I spent my Master's
degree around, performing experiments with deflagration and detonation in
process equioment). Intrinsic flame velocity is a reasonable indicator of
explosive damage potential, BTW, and is not the same as flame speed, which
is the velocity that a mixture can reach in specific real-world
conditions. Flame speed is typically _much_ higher than flame velocity.
Which leads to...
Explosions with hydrogen in any degree of
semi-confinement have a reasonable chance of progressing from a
deflagration (roughly speaking a sub-sonic velocity explosion wave) to a
detonation (again, roughly speaking, a supersonic explosion wave - I won't
start to discuss Chapman-Jouget conditions <evil grin>), where most
hydrocarbons don't transition to a detonation (there's been a debate for
years if one can get natural gas to detonate without _very_ contrived
circumstances. I say it can, but some colleagues in the field disagree
with me...). Hydrogen/air mixtures detonate in pipework and equipment
handily, with some impressive damage.
Again, none of this is insurmountable, but it adds
some significant effort and expense to meet the challenge.
As so many point out, hydrogen leaks tend to
dissipate quickly, and the material heads for the skies faster than almost
anything else. But equally an issue is that hydrogen leaks are difficult
to find - in most process plants, ignited leaks are found at night when
the pale blue flame has some change of being seen - and annoying to
repair. Maintenance costs are correspondingly higher.
Hydrogen "gas stations" would have a
number of issues for location based on the public's fear of anything
that's not "perfectly safe". I would expect to see some pretty
stiff NIMBY approaches for this fuel to be deployed in urban or suburban
areas. For an excellent example on this, look at Ontario, Canada's
experience with LPG and CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) service stations in
the latter part of the 'eighties on. Having personally chaired the
government-industry risk assessment committee on that subject, I can say
that the opposition to alternate fuels is very real and very well formed
in some parts of the population, regardless of the objective risk. Of
course, gasoline was considered "acceptable" by many of the same
people, but that's another discussion.
The safety systems for hydrogen are all well within
the current technological capability of our nation. We use them currently
in refineries, chemical plants, and in rocket propulsion systems. They're
just not commonly used or understood as are ones for, say, natural gas.
And that's a reasonable comparison - look at the incidence of accidents
with natural gas across the nation. That safety systems, including in that
term both technological/hardware and proceedural safeguards, are available
doesn't mean they are employed well, or even more importantly, perceived
as effective. The nuclear power industry did, in my opinion, a very poor
job of handling the public perception issues over a period of decades in
this area. More to the point of the discussion here, we almost always see
the famous photograph of the Hindenberg toppling from its mooring aflame
when there is a discussion of hydrogen as a fuel.
I like the idea of hydrogen as an alternate fuel,
accepting that we have energy losses in electrolysis (and let's _not_ run
reformation systems for hydrogen - the energy wasted is simply
unacceptable, especially when one considers the value of the feedstocks
"as is"), and accepting that there are safety issues that are
currently not part of the landscape for most users. Where I do have some
question is if the expenditure to refit the hydrocarbon vehicle storage
and distribution system to include compressed or liquified hydrogen would
be cost-effective.
The use of fuel cells for hydrocarbons may have a
better cost-benefit curve, despite the production of CO2 as well as H2O.
We already have well-established liquid hydrocarbon storage and
distribution systems that could be easily adapted to this use. The trick
would be developing a new system to "trap" some major part of
the CO2 generated, alleviating the anxieties of the global warming folks.
Hydrogen fuel cells have some real potential, but there are _many_ fuels
suited for the technology.
You're right on the money about the idea that fuel
cell technology is a good area to invest in for the future. The question
for those funding the research is whether they want to play the technology
violin with only one string on the instrument. From my perspective, none
of the people with the money have the equivalent technological virtuosity
of a Paganini.
John P.
Hydrogen is very tricky.
Distribution may have to be by swapping fuel cells. But the research is
needed. We need a way to have
mobile systems that don't run on oil. Right now batteries don't work well
enough to use electricity.
Gregg Goss said: >"Officers here believe the
missile may be a new Russian variant, known as a Cornet, purchased despite
United Nations sanctions on arms sales to Iraq."
>So the US is now losing tanks to Russian
high-tech weaponry, and is afraid of meeting French or German chemicals
further down the road.
The Army Technology site has a page on the Cornet/Kornet
- http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/index.html - and in the
very first paragraph it says "The system, first shown in 1994, has
been developed by the KBP Instrument Design Making Bureau, Tula, Russia
and is in production and service with the Russian Army and has been sold
to the Syrian Army."
If it's been sold to the Syrians, it's probably been
sold to Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and so on and so forth. I don't think
it is very hard to discern that Iraq, since 1991, has probably been
acquiring all sorts of small arms and light weaponry from the Russians and
others through third-parties such as Syria. They undoubtably paid through
the nose for it. Given enough money, *I* could acquire that stuff.
The Russians have needed the hard currency, so it's
no surprise that they would be exporting as much as possible of the one
thing they manufacture well - weapons. It seems to me that we can hardly
kvetch about Russian (small) arms sales to other countries when we 1>
do the same ourselves, 2> declined to help them very much post-1991,
and 3> we have refused to even fully fund the scheme whereby we
purchased excess fissionables and warheads from them.
In the event, it is difficult to force a country to
reduce the size of its armed forces. It is impossible to totally disarm a
country short of occupation, and probably not even then. The NRA, for one,
could tell you that. What would be shocking would be if the Iraqis had
possessed no light/medium anti-tank weapons at all.
I doubt very much that the Iraqis have
'French/German chemical weapons' (as opposed to Brand X?) and if they do,
I doubt very much they will use them, for the same reasons they haven't
used them since 1988 - it wouldn't be useful. Chemical weapons are far
more useful against civilians and the unprepared than against an prepared
army. The Great War settled THAT.
As it stands, we have (reportedly) lost two Abrams
and an APC, plus a Challenger lost to friendly fire, plus a hundred dead.
Minimal losses, another words. In spite of the vaguely retarded nature of
our overall strategic plan, the war is going extremely well (in the
military sense), and I personally have every confidence in the Army and
the Marines (and always have). We would win in far worse circumstances
than this, and we will win in spite of oh, just about anybody, including
the civilian leadership, if need be.
I wish I was there myself.
People need to calm down some, that TV junk will
give you the vapours.
ash ['Isn't that what the old ladies always used to
say?']
Jerry,
So, Mr. St. Onge issues a challenge to those who
believe the substantial and credible published material denying a link
between the Iraqi Baath regime and al Queda: "read the results of my
research". Well, against my better judgement, I did follow the first
link furnished. What did I find? An article by a columnist for Vanity
Fair, a Hollywood gossip rag, that contains little but sound bites from
unnamed sources that the author has (unsuccessfully, IMO) attempted to
conglomerate into a convincing thread. On the assumption that Mr. St. Onge
is smart enough to do some sort of ranking by credibility when supplying a
list of cited sources, I see no need to waste my time on the rest, let
alone take advantage of his offer of "more". And of all the
garbage I have read from both sides concerning this war, his statement
"worse than Stalin's USSR" is the most ludicrous, no contest.
Sheesh!
Scott Miller
Dear Mr. Pournelle,
I would like to take this opportunity to reply to
Mr. St. Onge's comments.
1. Mr. St. Onge agrees with my assessment of Saddam
Hussein, but feels it didn't go "far enough." Specifically, he
says that "Worse than Stalin's USSR" is a more accurate
representation.
I mention this because it is possible that Mr. St.
Onge feels my comment is an attempt to use an old rhetorical trick where
the speaker claims to grant a point, then talks around it. The best
example I can give at this point in time is just after the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. Immediately following the attacks were posts from people who
said, in effect, "yes, the 9/11 attacks were a tragedy, it was
horrible, and nobody deserves such a thing, but..." and then
proceeded to list all the supposed reasons why the US *did* deserve such a
thing.
I consider that tactic a cheap shot, but it gets
used a lot, and if Mr. St. Onge felt I was going that route I could
understand that... so I want to clarify that I wasn't doing that. Mr.
Hussein, as far as I'm concerned, is evil, and he is not one of the
"victims" of this war.
That said, I'd like to quibble over Mr. St. Onge's
assertion that Saddam Hussein is somehow "worse" or "more
evil" than Stalin. Eventually you reach a point of diminishing
returns where despotism is involved, and measuring one against the other
has no practical value. I'd also like to suggest that Saddam's level of
evil may be elevated because he has far nastier toys to play with than
Stalin did in his day.
2. In point 2b, Mr. St. Onge suggests my assertion
that there is no tie between Hussein and Al-Queda is wrong, and provides a
number of links to support this. I looked at every link he suggested. A
few were to sites that required a subscription (news sites, like the New
York Times) and I'm irrationally leery of that so I didn't read those. One
was to an Amazon.com web page advertising a book, so it wasn't much use
for the specific discussion. Many of the links were to useful articles,
however, and after reading those articles I can see where you can make a
case for the *possibility* of a link... but based on the strength of those
articles, however, I don't see how you could make a case strong enough to
warrant an invasion. An article in the Washington Times suggests that the
information linking Saddam to Al Queda is relatively new and still being
sifted through, an article in the Philadelphia Daily News claims the
government may have had information tying Iraq and Al Queda together as
far back as the Oklahoma City bombings. An article in the New Yorker
focuses mostly on the chemical warfare Saddam inflicted on Kurds living in
Iraq, but points to a possible tie between Al Queda and Saddam's
father-in-law. It does not, however, show any official link to Iraq
itself... based on the information in the article, it could easily have
been a powerful man using his connections to run a profitable side
venture.
However, the most effective article was one taken
from the ThisisLondon website, because it points out the fallacy in
believing that a fundamental disagreement on religion would prevent Saddam
and Al Queda from cooperating. After all, the United States and Osama Bin
Laden cooperated against the Soviet Union. So I have to admit the
possibility. At present, however, I don 't see enough evidence to prove
it. I need more links.
3. In point 2a, Mr. St. Onge asks me what, exactly,
I want. He essentially asks if I want to see the United States hamstrung
by foreign powers. Actually, I don't want that at all... at the same time,
I don't want foreign powers forced into a subservient role with the United
States.
While that may sound like paranoid fears, consider
that the United States has backed out of at least four treaties, on the
grounds that our President did not want to abide by their terms. The US
has also adopted a policy of expecting its allies to do what it wants
(this policy is evident in Bush's speeches intended to be heard by foreign
powers, he uses the phrase "we expect" an awful lot.) The US has
adopted the stance that you are either with us or against us, and derides
nations (specifically Germany and France) for opposing our desires.
From my perspective, it is very reasonable for
countries, even allies, to be leery of following the lead of a country
that has no qualms about breaking treaties it signed in the last
administration, making sweeping demands, and asserting that it has a right
to preemptively invade anyone it feels may ultimately be a direct threat
(Iraq), while ignoring a country that is actively threatening its
neighbors and the US with a nuclear exchange (North Korea). Further, the
US assertion that Iraq needs to be invaded because it is run by a despot
rings hollow when North Korea is *also* run by a despot, and we have no
qualms about trying to find a diplomatic solution in that part of the
world. It is hard *not* to be cynical when presented with that
contradiction, and were I France or Germany I suspect I would be tempted
to react in much the same manner.
What I "want" from the US is a foreign
policy that is consistent and that doesn't pout when other countries, even
allies, inevitably disagree with us. In truth, what I want is considerably
more complicated than that, but I don' t have the space to get into that
in this letter.
4. Finally, Mr. St. Onge agrees that the lack of
clear and rational dissent is sad, but suggests that there is no clear and
rational dissent because my side is full of very stupid people.
Well, that's unfair. However, he does imply that the
doves shoulder the largest share of blame for this, and specifically
suggests to me:
- - -
*Sheesh* You want a debate, try listening, thinking,
and _responding_.
- - -
Unfortunately, because a debate requires an initial
comment and then a response, I was unable to listen *or* respond until Mr.
St. Onge replied to my letter. I suspect he jumped ahead of himself there,
and was predicting (perhaps through experiences in similar arguments in
other forums) how I was going to respond to his letter. However, such
criticism seems inappropriate when rebutting an opening statement. If,
after five or six rounds of a discussion, Mr. St Onge observes that I have
done nothing but repeat "war is bad" over and over again, the
chastisement will be far more warranted.
That said, this is the web, and I've encountered
much worse and in much less interesting posts.
Thanks for your time.
Respectfully,
Christopher B. Wright (wrightc@ubersoft.net)
From Eric Pobirs:
I thought it quite odd that Rob Baartwijk would
recommend an IndyMedia site to you. These loosely administered sites
funded by Bill Moyers are utterly dripping for hatred of America. This is
sort of like a church with Noam Chomsky as its Prophet. When in doubt,
blame America.
These are the sites that proudly ran the picture of
masked protestors bearing a banner reading "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS" then were filled with celebrational
posts when just such an incident occurred.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
?entry=5926_Indymedia_Supports_the_Troops
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?
entry=5952_Indymedia_Supports_the_Troops_Again
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
?entry=5965_Philly_Indymedia_Sedition
And while we're accused of butchery by the Left
we're actually running possibly the most careful restrained invasion in
all of human history: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/008453.php#008453
I am shocked. Shocked.
As I am about this:
see
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/
abstracts/2003/WillsonMordvinov.html
"... demonstrates a secular upward trend of
0.05 percent-per-decade between consecutive solar activity minima."
KB
Jerry,
Here is a link to a site that sells a rather
inexpensive PS/2 to USB adapter like the one you mentioned you were
looking for in your most reecnt Byte column.
http://www.usbstuff.com/ps2.html
Steve
Looks good.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
