Abuse Photo Release Could Destroy Pakistan

There is a second, very important, and unnamed issue behind President Obama's decision to oppose release of more prisoner abuse photos. Consider the time factor.

There is a court order in place ordering the release of 21 photos by May 28. To avoid being forced to comply, the Dept. of Defense, must file a motion with the Supreme Court before then. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the motion, which could happen with days of the filing, the court order to release remains.

Under this likely scenario President Obama's decision represents a short term delay and will limit the release to 21 photos rather than 2000.

The primary focus of this is almost certainly the current very hot war against Taliban insurgents in Pakistan. That situation is highly unstable and includes literally millions of "soft" targets, viz. civilian and particularly displaced Pakistanis. If the civilian population of Pakistan becomes inflamed at this truly critical moment, a localized battle against a foreign insurgency could turn into a broader rebellion accompanied by significant nationwide unrest.

This is the only highly time critical US interest which could see a significant impact from the release of the photos.

Caveat: I have been unable to confirm the date of the court order, the issueing court, and the fact that there are no other cases involving these photos.

Flu "Pandemic" Overblown:

Every year the flu infect several million Americans, hospitalizes 200,000, and kills 36,000. That means that every single day (on average), 10,000 or more are infected 700 are hospitalized, and 100 die. That's every day.

To combat this, there is new combination vaccine prepared every year to cover the anticipated strains for treatment of those at highest risk. In other words, the strains change every year.
This strain is just one among many which we can anticipate this year. In comparison to the baseline infection rate and death rate, this is a tiny blip.

Why is there such a big megillah about it? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. The flu is always dangerous. It kills 100 American every day (on average). This one has killed none. It has infected less than 100 in about a week, whereas 10,000 per day (on average) are infected with the flu.

I can only presume that WHO is pushing it to cover their asses, to assert their importance, and to promote financial support. And the same for the CDC, Texas Children's Hospital, Rick Perry, who just declared a statewide emergency because there was a death in a Texas hospital.
It sure has pushed the real news into the background: torture, NYC AF 1 flyover, Iraq war, Aghan war, Pakistan, ... I sure would like to see someone ask or answer some real questions in one of these news conferences.

Don
Don Krieger, Ph.D., D.ABNM
Pittsburgh, PA
http://publicservice.evendon.com
BLOG: http://DonKrieger.blogspot.com

Water Boarded for Charity?

Keith Olbermann offers $1000/second to charity for every second Hannity can tolerate water boarding.

Keith Olbermann had Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight and asked about this. It's not up on YouTube yet. Sorry but it'll be worth your while to view it when it shows up.
O'Donnell called Hannity and everyone in the Cheney family cowards. He stated that they're convinced water boarding works because they know it would work on them, since they are soft fearful people who would do anything to avoid putting themselves in a position of significant danger. To his credit, O'Donnell included himself in the same group.

I was reminded of my spring weekend more than 40 years ago. We went to an amusement part on Saturday afternoon and everyone got very drunk. One of the amusements was a water cooler sized machine with two copper balls on the top. You put in a penny, held on to the copper balls with your two hands, and got knocked on your ass by a shock. There was a line with more than a hundred people in it all day long. Maybe there should be a "water boarding" amusement at parks. Maybe they'll have one at Disneyland soon.

Don

Mystified: Continuing Somali Piracy

Piracy is a capital offense under international and US law. I do not understand why we and the rest of the world are failing to deal with this definitively as we surely can.

First we must establish constant satellite surveillance of this area. Since it is near the equator, we can do so with a geosyncronous satellite. Although such satellites are most commonly commercial and equipped primarily to support communications, it is well with our capabilities to use one for this purpose. There may already be a commercial satellite in place with the capabilities we need.

Use the satellite surveillance to identiy the "mother ships" used to launch attacks on ships far from the coastline. The small boats used to board are far too small to operate on their own. They must be launched near the targeted vessel in reasonably good weather.

Once "mother vessels" are identified, they can be followed closely by satellite. As they approach potential victim ships, helicopter or other airplanes can be directed to the area to destroy any small boats which are launched and the mother ship itself.

A few such actions would, I assert, serve to dramatically curtail piracy in the Indian Ocean near Somalia. The cost would be far less than that required to maintain enough military warships in the area to check this illegal and dangerous activity. Keep in mind that the money involved is 100's of milions of dollars per year, certainly enough to represent a danger in the middle east
should the money be used to acquire weapons.

North Korea's Unreal ICBM Nuclear Threat

Newt Gingrich and others on the right assert we should have destroyed the North Korean rocket before or was launched or shortly thereafter. Let's be clear:

That would be an unprovoked Act of War.

The President declared the North Koreans to be "rule breakers," which may be true. But which "rule" are we talking about? Their rocket launch certainly was not an Act of War in itself. At worst, it was a provocative act which violated UN resolutions.

• Was North Korea party to those resolutions?
• Has the UN censured or otherwise declared that North Korea is in violation of one or more resolutions?

If we had attacked their rocket, either on the ground or shortly after launch, it would be we who are in the wrong. The Japanese did threaten to shoot the rocket down if it threatened Japanese territory. But where would they be had they attempted to do so and had failed?

And where would we have been had we failed? And failure is a real possibility with the Patriot anti-missile system. During the first Gulf War, reliable estimates of successful shoot-downs of Iraqi missiles were at 10%. Improvements have presumably been made to the Patriot system since then, but this missile was not a single state SCUD, but rather a 3-stage vehicle potentially capable of far greater range and speed and potentially far more difficult to intercept.

The Imaginary Threat

Newt Gingrich and others on the right raise the possibility that this rocket could potentially deliver a nuclear weapon to Hawaii or further, to the West Coast of America. They threaten us with the possibility that such a weapon could produce an ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) powerful enough to disable virtually all electrical devices over a third of America, in an instant turning back the clock of our 21st century civilization to pre-industrial.

Clearly, this is an attempt to frighten. It is an "over the top" extreme scenario, a flight of imagination, the worst possibility. What does it imply?

First, in order for that to be true, the rocket would have to carry a large nuclear device into space, for only in space does detonation of a nuclear device produce a large EMP. How large would the device have to be? The greatest estimates of the payload for the Korean rocket, the Taepodong-2, are 500 Kg, 1100 pounds.

Is that large enough? Almost certainly not. The minimum size reported for a nuclear device is 51 pounds for a so-called "suite case" bomb, capable of 1 Kton yield, enough to demolish a large building. Only the US and The Soviet Union have ever been reported to be capable of producing such a weapon. Miniaturizing an atom bomb is a formidable project. Recall that our B29's were able to carry only one atom bomb at a time. And a bomb powerful enough to produce this large scale effect would be at least 100,000 times as powerful as a suitcase bomb.

The Real Threat

The only significant threat from a North Korean ICBM at this time and for the forseeable future is not a massive nuclear weapon. There is little question about this.

They could create a payload with high level nuclear waste, which on impact would amount to a dirty bomb. That would transiently disable the activities of relatively local area until the fallout producing material was cleaned up.

The could create a payload carrying a biological or chemical weapon if they have those types of weapons in their arsenal. Again the effects of the attack would be relatively local to the area of impact.

Update: Russians Test Fire ICBM - Apr 10, 2009

Reuters reported that the Russians successfully test fired one of their RT-2PM (Nato SS-25 Sickle) mobile launch ICBM's. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5391A320090410

This vehicle is reportedly capable of carrying a singe 550 KTon warhead 6,000 miles. Its payload is in the neighborhood of 1100+ pounds : http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rt-2pm.htm

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

60 Minutes Report: Torture in Iran - If It's False, It's Hate Speech

This is a very disturbing story, both because of its content and because, in my opinion, it is presented without adequate collaborative support. It may be true; it may not be. If it's not, it's hate speech.

The impact of the story is huge. There are so many people here in America for whom this is all they need to justify virtually any action we may take towards Iran.
But where is the supportive evidence for what happened to Mr. Batebi? There is mention of the statements of an Iranian judge who admitted that there has been torture in Iranian prisons. But where is the direct support?

Please understand me. I do not really question the truth or untruth of Mr. Batebi's statements. There just isn't enough supportive evidence presented in the piece to justify it. And there are additional things which could have been done. Physicians expert in assessing the physical, psychological, and emotional effects of long term torture could have examined Mr. Batebi and then provide statements that he does display effects typical of those who have been tortured. Mr. Batebi could also have taken a lie detector test.

The problem with this kind of story is that the impact on the public is huge. It is not, in my opinion, responsible journalism to present the story without sufficient supportive material. Else we are left to rely on the support of the journalist's reputation. But if he knew more, why wouldn't he present it?

I repeat, the potential of this report to resonate with the hatred in America for those things symbolized by it and by what little we know of Iran is too great. Please take more care in the future. And I sincerely hope that this note comes to the attention of Anderson Cooper and the 60 Minutes Producer.

It's Better To Be Lucky ...

President Obama delivered a big speech this morning in Prague, The Czech Republic.
His topic was global nuclear disarmament.

A few hours before his speech, North Korea carried out their plan to launch a satellite
in violation of a UN resolution and the protestations of the US, Japan, and numerous other nations.

While the launch was a belligerent act of defiance, it would have been even more so had it been carried out after the speech. In that case it would have been directly addressed to President Obama's comments.

President Obama, in addition to being extraordinarily talented, is lucky. This is in sharp contradistinction to both John McCain and George W. Bush.

There is a question here regarding the subtlety of North Korea's action: Did they launch prior to the speech rather than after it to send a message of potential conciliation specifically to the US? During the Clinton administration, they did demonstrate their willingness to stand down in return for payments circa 1$ Billion/year.