I have reactivated the LGM Tourney Challenge group.
Group: Lawyers, Guns and Money
Something tells me that more than two people will pick Kentucky to win this year… As always, prize to the winner.
What happened at Gitmo wasn’t torture. Why, it was no worse than
serious BDSM/ Special Forces training / frat hazing/ what the Chicago Police Department does on a daily basis.
These allegations recall Chicago twenty-five years ago. In 1990, after multiple allegations of torture, the CPD Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation in Area 2 that identified fifty cases of torture by over thirty officers. Subsequent investigations led to the uncovering of over 100 victims, going back to 1968. Tactics included shocking, bagging [the head] and suffocating, suspension, whipping, burning, and beating. Most incidents were connected to Jon Burge and his “Asskickers.” Jon Burge brought many of the tactics he learned in Vietnam to interrogations of criminals of Chicago. Although Burge eventually lost his job, other than two associated officers, no other officers were disciplined. Many remained and were promoted. Even if the problem was a “bad apple,” it may very well have spoiled the bunch. Investigations identified over fifty officers over close to three decades. Not only that, but approximately one third of Cook County criminal court judges were attorneys or detectives involved in the torture cases. So the fact that the allegations that began to surface about nefarious practices at Homan in the mid-2000s has gone mostly unnoticed is not all that surprising. When asked about why the Chicago media hasn’t broken the story, Tracy Siska, the executive director of the Chicago Justice Project, replied that many “reporters agree with the police perspective.”
One of the lessons we can draw from the best work on nuclear weapon handling accidents, a lesson available from both the theoretical and the anecdotal accounts, is that the accidents happen due to an accumulation of unexpected errors that interact in unpredictable ways. A falling wrench tears open a pipe; changes in personnel rotations lead experienced people to ignore weapons loaded onto a plane; and so forth.
I’m not sure that “sending nuclear-armed ships into an area where they’re being fired on by Exocet missiles” counts as this kind of normal accident:
The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.
The disclosure came as the government was forced to concede – after a long-running campaign by the Guardian – that seven nuclear weapons containers were damaged during a series of wartime accidents.
But many of the details of these accidents are still being kept secret by the MoD.
The ministry also refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the war.
Here’s five things that could maybe help:
Broadly speaking, having a blue water navy means having the capacity to deploy a task force of ships across the open ocean, and to support them at great distance from their bases. Having a blue water navy means that a nation has the potential to play a big role on the international stage. Indeed, developing a blue water navy may be more complex, expensive, and useful than building a nuclear weapon.
In Mahan’s day, what countries needed to count as having a blue water navy was a series of coaling stations that they could access during war. This could mean colonies, friends, or a healthy set of financial accounts. Times have changed, but much of the basic logic of blue water deployment remains the same.
The sinking of HIJMS Musashi in October 1944 made depressingly clear what many observers had suspected since 1941, and even as early as the 1920s: sufficient numbers of committed carrier aircraft could sink a battleship, even when that battleship carried a heavy anti-aircraft armament and could maneuver at speed. But a more careful look at the story offers some insights into how we understand the relationship between military innovation and “obsolescence.”
It appears that Paul Allen has found a very large battleship:
— Paul Allen (@PaulGAllen) March 4, 2015
More about the expedition here. I suppose this means that a Gamilon attack is right around the corner…
For your reading pleasure:
Some more thoughts on India’s nascent carrier fleet over at the Diplomat:
Reports have emerged that India’s second indigenously built carrier, expected to be the third carrier to enter service in the next two decades, may utilize nuclear propulsion. This is alongside a set of other innovations that the Vishal might adopt, including EMALS catapult technology (possibly developed in association with the United States). India has taken strides on nuclear propulsion recently, with the launch of INS Arihant, its first domestically constructed nuclear submarine.
Why would India need a nuclear powered aircraft carrier?
My latest at the National Interest takes a look at killer drones:
Why kill with drones? States have a few reasons to prefer Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to do their dirty work. From a political standpoint, drones would seem to carry less risk than manned aircraft; even unsophisticated foes can sometimes bring down a jet and take its pilot captive. Freed of the need to keep a human pilot alive and awake, drones can loiter on station much longer than manned aircraft, keeping more careful watch on potential targets.
Some drones kill directly; others facilitate joint military operations. This list looks at five of the most lethal drones that nations have begun to field over the last decade.
A couple weeks ago, Miriam and Elisha attended a National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) builder’s workshop at their elementary school. For me, this offered the opportunity to drop them off for an hour and drink in peace. For them, it meant a chance to enter a school-wide competition with a lot of their friends, as well as to play with Legos. Neither Miriam nor Elisha are huge Lego builders at this point, although they enjoy playing with things that are already built. We’ve had a bit more success with Lincoln Logs, which I was surprised to discover still existed.
Each kid received a few Legos, a sheet of aluminum foil, a piece of string, and instructions to build a project related to the construction industry. Parents were excluded from the cafeteria in order to ensure that the kids worked on their own. There was a lot of variance in how long it took the kids to finish; many were more interested in playing in the gym downstairs than in building. The kids were allotted about forty-five minutes; Miriam took 35, and Elisha was one of the last in the school to conduct an exit interview with the judges.
Initially, Elisha explained to me that she had built a milk machine. This didn’t seem to have much relation to the construction industry (her sister built a mountain), and so I pretty much wrote off her chances. When we were allowed in the exhibition room, she showed me her entry, and it was hard to tell precisely what it was.
And so I was surprised when the judges announced that Elisha had won first place in her age group (K-1), and even more surprised when they announced that she had won the overall competition.
Turns out that Elisha’s had thought through her entry in more depth than I had imagined. She had initially intended to build a giraffe, but decided that it was too difficult and would take too much time. The backup, a “milk machine,” was actually a milk processing plant, with the foil representing a big pond of milk, the string a pipeline, and the blocks the various stages of processing and distribution. At the end of the picture you can see crumpled foil being sent out on trucks for delivery.
The engineers in attendance found this explanation particularly compelling. After raining a variety of gift certificates on Elisha, one of the judges tried to explain the terms “mechanical engineering” and “electrical engineering.” I don’t think that she was paying any attention, having decided that the biggest achievement of the evening was outdoing her sister.
For her part, Miriam’s initial reaction was not positive. She was irritated that she hadn’t won, and more irritated that her sister had won. But she held it together; no falling apart. This was a respectable disappointment, focused not on the judges or the structure of the competition, but on an unhappiness that she hadn’t done better. Over the next few days her attitude evolved, and her sister’s victory became a point of pride in conversation with people outside the family.