US military heavy bomber to be unmanned

In a strategypage article on US Navy's interest in UAVs, we see this:

The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. [...]

the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the UCAS developers were coming up with an [unmanned] aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator and Global Hawk.

UAVs are clearly bringing about a shift in tactics. Computers and unmanned navigation have proceeded to the point where a UAV can take off, fly to target, attack, and return completely unassisted by humans. Furthermore, the loss of fighter pilots is greatly reduced.

UAVs can swarm air defenses as an expendable first wave of any assult.

In terms of combat air support, UAVs can hover over the batterfield, performing 24/7 recon or hitting select targets from the air. The US military uses UAVs in precisely this fashion, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

India focusing more on China?

According to this article, India's military leaders now consider China their biggest threat.

China is modernizing its military at a rapid rate, including upgrades and exercises aimed at moving Chinese forces thousands of kilometers in a short period of time. China naval activity in the Indian Ocean has been on the increase.

India's headline-grabbing adversarial relationship with Pakistan, on the other hand, appears to be on the wane. Pakistan is thought to be much less of a threat to India, a realization brought about in part by the first-ever publishing of Pakistan's military budget, which produced a number smaller than expected.

Will China be satisfied with the Himalayans as a buffer? History tells us that China is not very expansionistic, particularly compared to Russia, though it does like friendly (or puppet) buffer states.

NPT's rapid collapse

(re-posted from an FP blog comment)

The nuclear non-proliferation effort and NPT have been slowly melting for decades, and now nears total collapse. This latest North Korean nuclear test is only the latest evidence of this trend. On the other hand, Fareed Zakaria postulates that Iran may not want the bomb.

Short of invasion, what can realistically be done to avoid Iran or North Korea acquiring nuclear technology? Nothing, for both NoKo and Iran well know that a nuclear device is a major bargaining chip, a major international status symbol.

Post-Iraq, it seems like any consensus for political violence (war) is absent, if it ever existed, even in blatant presence of a nuclear weapon-capable technology.

Iran and North Korea are both militarily and politically difficult to attack. Sanction regimes, the traditional carrot-and-stick, appear ineffective. The ever-rumored Israeli attack on Iran seems unlikely to induce Iranian regime change, or reduce Iranian desire for nuclear capability.

Therefore, it seems likely that Iran and North Korea will gain enriched uranium capability, and similar technology, while avoiding war.

Given that, other nations will move rapidly to acquire nuclear capability of their own. Iran and NoKo will join Israel, India and Pakistan as political cover for many nation-states to develop or acquire nuclear technology.

I could even see the Russians moving in to exploit such a situation, by playing arms dealer to a willing world. If the USA won't sell nuclear technology to the Middle East, Russia will. Iran was merely the first customer of Russia Arms, Inc.

Much appears to hinge on Russian willingness with regards to Iran... but even a best case scenario would only slow, not stop, the march of nuclear progress.

North Korea

North Korea conducted a nuclear test. I wonder when this will be analyzed by open source intelligence officers.

Details of China's Internet censorship leaked

Wikileaks posted extremely sensitive Chinese government-mandated censorship keyword lists and policies from the leading mainland Chinese search engine, Baidu.cn. The material is revelatory.

Foreign policy and torture

Foreign Policy's blog discusses the impact of the United States' past and present policies on torture, and the "disavowal" (their words) of the Geneva Conventions.

To review, extra-national terrorists present a unique legal obstacle to the Geneva Conventions, because the Geneva Conventions are written to cover only armed combat between nation-states by uniformed soldiers. Terrorists are neither uniformed, nor (usually) tied to a sovereign.

Nonetheless, at the time this issue arose during the Bush presidency, I felt that the United States should follow the Geneva Conventions anyway, to set an example for other peoples and other nations.

Cuba policy criticism round-up

WSJ: Towards a new Cuba policy. It is a good time to acknowledge that neither the U.S. embargo nor engagement by the rest of the world have helped Cubans attain their rights. Sanctions, though ethically justified, can't work unilaterally; treating Cuba as a normal partner is immoral and counterproductive. A new unified approach is needed.

Foreign Policy: Think Again: Engaging Cuba Why dealing with the Castro regime is a fool's errand.

And our own guest blogger, Joe Garzik, provides some historical context regarding the United States' policies vis a vis Cuba.

Old enemies linger?

(reposted with permission; as submitted to New Bern, NC's Sun Journal)

To the Editor:

The Sun Journal’s lead editorial on April 8 urged ending the economic embargo against Cuba, which has been in effect since 1962, and supported restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. Why wasn’t this done years ago? It is an interesting question.

We fought a world war against Germany and Japan in the 1940s, and today they are two of our best nation-friends. We fought a ten-year war with North Vietnam, which today welcomes Americans as tourists. Why can’t we be friends with Cuba? Perhaps history will offer us clues.

In 1961, President John Kennedy invaded Cuba at its Bay of Pigs. The invasion was a failure. In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated. In 1964, our government’s Warren Commission investigated the assassination and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, “acting alone”, killed President Kennedy. However, the American public remained skeptical and suspicious of those findings.

From 1975 to 1978, a U. S. Senate committee, informally called “the Church Committee”, re-investigated the Kennedy assassination and, in 1979, issued its final report. It concluded that President Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald “probably as a result of a conspiracy”. What? Oswald probably had some help? Who else was involved?

The Church Committee’s interim report published the following: “We have found concrete evidence of at least eight plots involving the C.I.A. to assassinate Fidel Castro from 1960 to 1963.” In 1975, Fidel Castro gave U. S. Senator George McGovern “a list of 24 alleged attempts to assassinate him in which Castro claimed the C.I.A. had been involved”. Therefore, both our government and Fidel Castro agree that our C.I.A. had been trying to kill Castro. Do you think Castro sat idly by and did nothing in return? Wouldn’t he have wanted to assassinate the man trying to assassinate him?

One of the members of the Church Committee was N. C. Senator Robert Morgan. I distinctly remember seeing Senator Morgan on television saying, “Personally, I think Castro got to Kennedy before Kennedy got to Castro.” That is, Senator Morgan believed that Castro was behind the Kennedy assassination!

Much of the Church Committee’s report about the Kennedy assassination still remains classified. What secrets remain under wraps? I do not know, and you do not know; however, it has always been my suspicion that our country intends to punish Castro for the Kennedy assassination until Castro dies. Could this be the reason why our country has never resumed normal diplomatic or economic relations with Cuba? You be the judge.

Joe Garzik
New Bern

China wins economic war game

According to The Politico, The Pentagon recently sponsored an "economics war game," a first of its kind for the US military. Professors, hedge fund employees, investment bank managers and others played roles as various countries: United States, Russia, China, etc.

Apparently, China won. Their control of so many US dollars was a decisive factor.

US jet downs Iranian drone

Wired Magazine: An American fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone as it was flying over Iraq, U.S. military sources in Baghdad tell Danger Room.