Showing posts with label Weapons of Mass Destruction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weapons of Mass Destruction. Show all posts

January 8, 2020

Ballistic Missile Attack A Sham

I think that the Iranian ballistic missile attack on the American bases in Iraq was basically a sham and done in such a way, thank G-d, as to inflict minimal damage and causalities.
  • The Iranians needed to make a show that they were getting revenge on the United States to appease their radical terrorist base for the killing of arch terrorist, General Soleimani.
  • President Trump had already threatened 52 Iranian sites if they retaliated.
  • Iran choose a very limited response hitting 2 military bases in Iraq --10 missiles striking one base, 1 missile striking another, and 4 missiles (26%) that failed!
  • There were no American causalities!
The Iranians are smart not to provoke the U.S. any further.

They may just have dodged a VERY BIG hit on their military. 

The matter of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Ayatollahs remains an outstanding issue that MUST BE resolved once and for all even as we hope and pray for peace and security to prevail for the long term. ;-)

Share/Save/Bookmark

September 6, 2013

Target >>> WMD

At this time, there is a massive debate as well as much confusion going on over what to do about Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, and their brutal civil war against a mixed element of fighters (some moderates and many other dangerous fundamentalists).

On one hand, people are saying they don't want to get involved in yet another conflict (after 10 years with Iraq and Afghanistan) and this is most understandable. 

On the other hand, we are talking about extremely dangerous regimes like Iran and Syria that are pursuing, prepared to use, or have used weapons of mass destruction.

Taking out Syria's extensive chemical weapons facilities are good targets to prevent further use against their own people, their neighbors, or us, except that we have to be careful not to end up helping our arch enemy, Al Qaeda, who is fighting to establish a foothold there, in the process.

Many are saying that this attack on Syria would really be a warning or even a precursor to destroying the proliferating Iranian nuclear sites--which are even better targets due to the regime's terrorist underpinnings and genocidal ambitions.

As long as Iran and Syria are able to pursue these WMD programs, how can we really be safe?

The red line is genocide, and Iran and Syria are there--one in explicit horrific threats of nuclear holocaust and the other in dastardly deeds with chemical weapons or otherwise brutal slaughter of civilians.

This is a very complicated world situation, and we really don't know the true motivations of any player, but the stakes are so high with WMD--there is no room for error. 

(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal with attribution to James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and 1155/New Scientist Global Security)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 10, 2011

Nuclear Weapons--A Scary Infographic

As you already know, I appreciate a good infographic.
Unfortunately, I think many of the ones coming out recently are too jumbled, long and complex and read more like a "Megilla" (no disrespect intended).
I was a little surprised to find a infographic on Nuclear Weapons online, but then again it's not a "cookbook" and hopefully those are not being posted.
This one was interesting to me, not only because of the topic of weapons of mass destruction, but also because in 11 factoids, the graphics takes you through a pretty clear and simple overview of the subject matter.
No, its not getting into the physics and nuclear engineering depths of the whole thing, but at the same time, you have starting with the Manhattan Projects in the 30's, some nice history on the following:
  • Invention
  • Cost
  • Types, both fission and fusion
  • Testing
  • Use
  • Inventories, although based on recent articles on the 3,000 miles of Chines tunnels in the Wall Street Journal (25 October 2011) and Washington Post (30 November 2011), the Chinese number may be way too low--the WSJ based on Chinese media reports has it as high as 3,500!
  • Even numbers "lost and not recovered"--11!--not comforting, who would've thought?

In the graphic, it would be interesting to see a breakdown by land-, bomber-, and submarine-based, (some nice graphics available for that) but perhaps a number 12 item on the infographic would've been getting too much in the weeds.

Also, a similar graphic for chemical and biological weapons while interesting, would be scary indeed.
(Source Graphic: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 9, 2011

End Of The World, Almost

Recently, I have become addicted to a number of shows on the Discovery channel.
I know it sounds sort of boring, right?--but they actually have some fairly macho and educational shows.
From survivalist shows like Dual Survival, Man Vs. Wild, Man Woman Wild, to shows about special forces training like Surviving the Cut and even One Man Army.
I also enjoy this new show called Curiosity that "asks and answers the most fundamental questions facing the world today" such as Is There a Parallel Universe? or How Will the World End?
In "How Will The World End", Discovery explores 5-almost end of the world scenarios, as follows:
1) Arc Storm -- Similar to the flood from the bible, where it rains incessantly for a month or so, but unlike the flood that destroys the world, this one hits a specific area like California. Anticipated dead is 380,000 and injured 1,140,000. (10% chance in the next 50 years)
2) Asteroid Strike - Like a number of movies such as Deep Impact that forewarn of the dire consequences of a direct hit to our planet, a moderate collision would kill 60,000 and injure 200,000. (5% chance of occurrence over the lives of our children)
3) Mega-Earthquake - Hitting approximately 5 states in the midwest and killing 600,000 and injuring 2,000,000. (10% chance in 50 years)
4) Mile-High Tsunami - Traveling at 500 mph, wiping out the eastern seaboard and killing 4,000,000. (Probability is one in a 1000)
5) Super Volcano - Major series of volcanic eruptions in Yellowstone National Park that spews ash virtually covering the entire planet and would kill 100,000,000 people. (Scientists estimate this happens every 600,000 years)
While the last 2 end of life scenarios are quite remote, the first three taken together yield an almost 25% chance of a doomsday-like scenario over the next 50 years and this is just those scenarios--it doesn't account for a maniac detonating a nuclear packed suitcase bomb or spreading an infectious biological disease across the globe.
These foreboding predictions about what could happen can easily depress and make us feel that even trying is hopeless.
But this morning, I listened on TV to Joel Osteen, who gives a pretty darn good sermon, and he said regarding faith, "Do every day what you can and then let it go!"
While we have to do everything we can to protect our world and make it safe and sustainable, some things truly are beyond human control.
And once we've done our part and our best, we've got to step back and just have some faith, as Joel Osteen says: "Don't put a question mark where G-d puts a period"--that really resonates.
We can ask why this or that happens, but at the end of the day, what G-d decides for us is often beyond our mere human comprehension.
Easier said than done for sure, especially, when facing down situations scarier than any shown or imagined in the survival shows mentioned.
So Dave and Cody--And Seal Team Six--even you guys are outgunned when the hand of G-d says it's time for history to take a major turn of events.
But as Joel Osteen would say, I'll just put that in the "I don't understand it" file.
(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

July 13, 2008

Secure Border Initiative and Enterprise Architecture

The enterprise architecture change process starts with requirements generation and management. Requirements become business cases and business cases become decision requests for new or changes to IT projects, products, and standards that go before the enterprise architecture board (EAB) and ultimately to the IT investment review board (IRB). The decision requests get vetted against the architecture for business alignment and technical compliance by the EAB. The IRB takes the findings of the EAB and also looks at return on investment and risk management. Approved changes to the IT environment get added to the enterprise architecture.

So mission-business requirements from the program sponser/end user are the starting point for changes to the EA.

What happens though when requirements are unclear?

Obviously, if the requirements are unclear, then proposed changes to the enterprise are sort of like shooting in the dark, and the ability to develop viable technical solutions is a guessing game.

An article on Secure Border Initiative in National Defense Magazine, July 2008, demonstrated how the architecture does not add up, when the “Border Calculus” is a big question mark.

After 9/11, securing the border became a more publicized issue. With the formation of DHS, the Secure Boarder Initiative (SBI) was set up in 2005.

SBI is supposed to secure the border, okay. But secure it against what is the question. What are the requirements for securing it?

  1. Illegal immigrants—“For many Americans—especially these who don’t live near the border—illegal immigration is what prompts their calls for a beefed up border.” While some say that “the U.S. economy depends on cheap labor…others claim illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy.”
  2. Terrorism—“For the Department of Homeland Security, charged with protecting the nation, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the United States is the priority.”
  3. Drugs—“for many who live north and south of the four states that border Mexico, the real threat is narcotics.”

Each of these purposes, changes the equation. If the primary purpose you are securing the border is to protect against a genuine threat of weapons of mass destruction, then some may argue for highly secure border, one that is truly non-porous, without regard to cost. However, if the goals are more for controlling illegal immigration, perhaps a less perfect and less costly border security solution is acceptable. And if drugs are the issue, then maybe the money is better spent going after the source, rather than building fences that can be circumvented.

So understanding and building consensus on the true requirements are critical to developing a business case and a technical solution.

As it stands now, SBI is going in two directions:

  1. Physical fence—“to stop those on foot or on vehicles.” Estimates by the Congressional Research Service “say that maintaining those fences may cost up to $49 billion.” While critics say that these physical barriers “only delay an illegal crosser three to four minutes,” so is this worth it?”
  2. Virtual fence—“Sensors, cameras, improved communication systems and unmanned aerial vehicles.” According to the article, “no one seems know how much it will cost to set up and maintain these high-tech systems throughout their lifespan.”

Additionally, “plans call for doubling the number of border patrol agents.”

I guess without a clear consensus on what we’re trying to accomplish, any solution will get us there or not. Isn’t this what an enterprise architecture is supposed to help with—establishing a clear roadmap or blueprint? Of course, but it’s got to start with the requirements generation process and with the business owners.


Share/Save/Bookmark