| Tuesday,
Subject: Did an asteroid cause Noah's flood?
Jerry
This story is titled "Did an Asteroid Impact Cause an
Ancient Tsunami?" The impact and subsequent tsunami may have occurred on the
morning of May 10, 2807 B.C.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?pagewanted=all
Hmm. 600-foot-high waves on Madagascar. Big floods.
Hmm. I wonder what it would have done coming up the Persian Gulf? Did an
asteroid cause Noah's flood?
Ed
WOW! Oh wow!
==========
Subject: On Defeat in Viet Nam
You said it yourself: Because, of course, in 1975 the
North did it again. Not an insurgency, not a guerrilla war, not a civil war,
but a flat out invasion by more than 12 divisions...
We "won" the first battle and other actions, lost
50000 troops and it was not over.
I think it is fair to say that the American people
could not see a durable military victory and chose to leave the playing
field and wash their hands of the entire affair.
You make a great deal of our lack of commitment to the
troops left fighting in Viet Nam . I can't say if it would have made any
difference.
In any event - is there a lesson that helps with
today's problems?
If we send boatloads of money or weapons to any
faction in Iraq do you think that it will be used wisely - in a way that
furthers American interests?
Kurds? A step closer to a greater Kurdistan leading to
a destabilizing war with Turkey.
Sunnis? More evenly matched forces prolonging the
fighting and death; how does that help the U.S.?
Shiites? Why not - everything else we have do has
pretty much helped Iran interests. For that matter, we could just ship the
money/guns directly to Iran.
Mark Browne
Hmm.
I think it is fair to say that the American people
could not see a durable military victory and chose to leave the playing
field and wash their hands of the entire affair.
Is it fair to say that? And think of the
implications. In other words, there is no possibility of trusting the
pledges of the United States. The various accords ending the Viet Nam war
were not kept by the North -- what a surprise -- but the United States
should do nothing in response. Our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies
means nothing; the novelty done wore off and so long, it's been good to know
you.
Let the killing in the killing fields
begin. Let the reeducation camps begin. Those who trusted us are left to the
tender mercies of our enemies. We're coming home, and let the good times
roll.
You may be right. There may be no
possibility of a democracy keeping any pledge or commitment. Many have said
so. But think what you are saying.
My view is that one does not lightly
pledge one's word, but when that is done one is committed. I expect that is
a peculiarly old fashioned notion.
For we hold that in all disaster
Of shipwreck, storm, or sword,
A Man must stand by his Master
When once he has pledged his word.
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/
authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/warboat.html
You may be right. God help us.
===========
Subject: NATO debate
To Jerry Pournelle,
I don't think lynn keith read my opinion right, or
maybe I wasn't all that clear.
>Lynn keith wrote:
If we consider Mr Bo Andersen's opinion as typical of that of the Danes,
then the reason the small European nations want the US in NATO is to
subsidize their defense with American taxes and ensure their sovereignty
with American blood.
At no matter what defense budget, small European
nations cannot defend themselves against larger nations. Medium sized
nations can develop their own nuclear weapons, which will make them safe
(but not necessarily make the US safer). With the experience from WW1 and
WW2, it has not been in anybody's interest to have small nations being open
to military adventure from larger neighbours, as it always tends to draw in
the US and the other world powers in the end. The existence of NATO stops
military adventurism even before it can be seriously contemplated.
> What does the US get from it?
The cost to the US is small, and Denmark has at
present 900 troops in Iraq, 500 in Afghanistan, and a good number in
Ex-Yugoslavia (remember the tank battle in Bosnia in that conflict?). And
the Danish navy is patrolling the shores of Lebanon. Yes, the US could do
easily without, but I would say that the Danish contribution in blood and
treasure to the US (or common western interest in case of Afghanistan) is
larger than the current US contribution to Danish defence. Without NATO
Denmark would have to concentrate on territorial defence once more, and any
international crisis would be have to be handled by the US (or France) alone
or not at all.
Regards
Bo Andersen
My Norman ancestors came from Denmark, and
I have always had considerable affection for the land of the Danes.
Smaller nations never could defend
themselves; see the Schleswig Holstein affair. There was a time when King
Christian of Denmark thought his intervention in the Thirty Years War would
make some difference, but it took Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden to actually
accomplish some defense of the German Liberties and Protestantism. Of course
the English thought the Danish empire important enough to destroy the Danish
fleet lest it be put at the service of Napoleon; I do not believe that a US
guarantee would have been effective there, and I suspect Nelson would have
put the telescope to his blind eye in any event.
One of my objections to NATO is that the
US umbrella has made it possible for Europe to engage in disastrous
practices they might not have found so attractive if they had to provide for
their own defense. I notice the Switzerland and Sweden have managed to
survive as armed neutralities. The Danes were not spared by Germany but a US
guarantee would not have stopped the Third Reich from trying to build its
European empire. The purpose of NATO and keeping US troops in Europe is for
us to "sit on Fritz" as the French once put it; but I am not convinced that
is in our interest now that the Red Army is not poised to come through the
Fulda Gap.
As to former Yugoslavia, I don't recognize
any US interest in the Balkans, and if the Concert of Europe or whatever
European alliance thinks it important, surely they can make do with their
own troops?
I understand that it is very good for
small nations to have a big and powerful friend guarantee their borders
directly rather than having to rely on the United Nations. What I don't see
is why the United States actually profits from that alliance. I know the
Danes do, and to that extent I count NATO a plus in my personal analysis,
but as a foreign policy realist I am afraid that isn't a factor.
NATO served its purpose during the Cold
War. That purpose is long past, in my judgment.
===========
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
More Elbow Room On The Net - A pending
upgrade will provide an almost limitless number of addresses
The internet may seem infinite, but it is
running out of space. Fortunately, computer scientists have figured out
a fix, and they could get a big boost from the federal government.
The problem -- all the possible Net
addresses will be used up in five years -- can be solved by upgrading
the decades-old standards that govern how different devices communicate
with each other. The upgrade, called Internet Protocol version 6, was
developed a decade ago and mostly has been sitting on the shelf -- until
now, that is. Anxious about how China and Asia are starting to upgrade
their computer systems to take advantage of IPv6 capabilities, the
Defense Dept. and the White House are trying to jump-start IPv6 use in
the U.S. through billions of dollars in technology improvements. "This
is going to be big," says former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, a
senior adviser to private-equity firm The Carlyle Group, which recently
placed a $15 million bet on a startup working on the government's IPv6
transition. "Some significant sectors of the economy, notably the
Defense Dept., are starting to move quickly."
Or at least as quickly as a bureaucratic
behemoth can move. Even simple shifts in organizations as complex as the
Defense Dept. are difficult. Although the government plans to spend tens
of billions over the next 10 years to upgrade its computer and phone
systems, it faces competition for that funding from the Iraq war. "Some
of the operational folks are having to make some tough decisions, like
supporting today's war fighter by buying a tank...or supporting the
transition to IPv6," said one senior Defense official who asked not to
be identified.
==========
Subject: Congressional Investigations
Dr. Pournelle,
This quote from a Stratfor article today makes me want
to scream that our government isn't supposed to be this way:
"Congressional investigations are not about coming to
the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved
for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put
opponents in the wrong."
Given a society that accepts a government that
operates like this, count me as a despairing sinner.
Regards, Peter Czora
============
Subject: Legions vs Sitztruppen
Dr Pournelle
Thank you for pointing out the difference between
combat forces (Legions) and occupation troops (you called them auxiliaries;
I call them Sitztruppen). I had not thought of it before, but once I read
your short presentation, I reflected on my studies of military history. I
quickly concluded that in every case I knew of in which Legions were used as
occupation forces, their combat effectiveness eroded. The best occupations
were those that used Sitztruppen for the day-to-day patrols reinforced by
flying columns of Legions to quell serious uprisings. Off and on the Romans
and Byzantines did this well. In the last century the best at this were the
Soviets.
The US now possesses the best combat forces the world
has ever seen, but they are wasted as Sitztruppen. Mobility and firepower
are our strengths. Mired in occupation patrols that pit M16s against AK47s,
the army gives up these advantages.
Let's rent the Pakistani army to occupy Iraq. Or maybe
recruit a mercenary army from the refugees of Dafur and train them to be
half-decent soldiers. Ought to cost less than half what we are spending now.
And I would dearly love to see what would happen to those bastards in Sudan
when an American-trained mercenary army returns after a few years of
fighting in Iraq.
Respectfully h lynn keith
Armies break things and kill people in the
face of opposition. That is not the objective of occupation forces and
constabulary. Breaking things and killing people in Iraq will not stop the
civil war there.
We had an Army and Air Force in Viet Nam
which would have been able to defend South Viet Nam against the North for a
thousand years, but the Congress of the United States wouldn't let it do
that in 1975. Viet Nam didn't fall to a civil war. It fell to invasion from
the North.
The army we have in Iraq cannot win this
civil war there.
==========
Subj: Project Valour-IT == Voice-Activated Laptops for
OUR Injured Troops
Your readers might find this a particularly
appropriate way to support for our injured troops:
http://soldiersangels.org/valour/index.html
Project Valour IT - A Soldiers' Angels Program
=Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V.
Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled laptop computers to wounded Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or
amputations at home or in military hospitals. Operating laptops by speaking
into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages
from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies
still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The
experience of CPT Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who
suffered severe hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important
this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded servicemember's
recovery.=
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
