perfidy

The Columbia report is justly critical of NASA. Here are some interesting quotes from the report.

"The measure of NASA's success became how much costs were reduced and how efficiently the schedule was met. But the space shuttle is not now, nor has it ever been, an operational vehicle. We cannot explore space on a fixed-cost basis."

NASA's most remarkable achievement is not the moon mission, or the construction of the space station. It is the transformation of something as remarkable and romantic as exploration in space into something as boring as a discovery channel documentary on public transportation. The shuttle was never a space truck. It was not that mature a technology. In aviation terms, it was more like the Wright Flyer. Only when we have actually built, tested and flown regularly many types of advanced reusable launch vehicles will we be in a position to operate in space as we do in the air. The shuttle never was and still isn't more than an awkwardly designed experimental vehicle.

"The organizational causes of this accident are rooted in the space shuttle program's history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of agreed national vision for human space flight."

I talked a lot about mission and goals in my last shuttle post. But we should know better than to expect operational efficiency from a government program. (Not that it's impossible... just rare.)

"Perhaps most striking is the fact that management . . . displayed no interest in understanding a problem and its implications.

Sheesh.

"It is tempting to conclude that replacing them will solve NASA's problems... However, solving NASA's problems are not quite so easily achieved. People's actions are influenced by the organizations in which they work, shaping their choices in directions that even they may not realize."

Which is why we should kill NASA. The scapegoat is not the managers, but the system. It's like the old joke about the Federal Reserve - if Jesus and the Twelve Apostles were appointed to the Board of the Fed - and not allowed to change the rules - it would still be an abomination.

"We believe another vehicle, whether to complement or replace the shuttle, is very, very high priority. We criticize the U.S. for finding ourselves in the position we are in now where we don't even have a design on the drawing board."

Thanks to indecisive lawmakers and unpredictable funding. And NASA leaders who don't seem to appreciate the need for something to replace the shuttle - which has never been as cheap to fly as promised, let alone as cheap as they claim it is now. Too much ego is invested in the shuttle, "the most sophisticated and complex artifact ever designed by man." Would you fly an airliner that had been described that way?

On these longer term recommendations, the report sounds a sobering note: "Based on NASA's history of ignoring external recommendations, or making improvements that atrophy with time, the Board has no confidence that the Space Shuttle can be safely operated for more than a few years based solely on renewed post-accident vigilance."

And even if the board's recommendations are adopted, we will likely have another catastrophic failure if we continue to use the shuttle for another ten years. Accidents will be more, not less likely as the shuttles age.

Apparently, Canadians must present a grim mien to the world in their passprot photos from now on. Smiling is now verboten. But that does not mean that Canadians have license to scowl, frown, grimmace or glower at that camera. That is forbidden as well. Passport applicants must have a neutral expression when they get their mugs photographed. Of course, we live in a world where everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. And that seems to be more true in Canada.

In any sufficiently large group of people, one person will be the spare. To determine who the spare is, imagine that the group is in this situation

You are being chased by brain eating zombies. They are gaining on you. You have a shotgun with one shell.

The spare is the person you shoot in the leg so that the zombies stop to eat, allowing you to escape. Once consensus is reached that you are the spare, there is no appeal. If by chance your group is chased by zombies, and you sacrifice your spare, a new spare must be chosen.

Now, you can watch a simulation of this process here. 
 

Despite the condemnation of the institutional culture at NASA, the commission nevertheless said that the shuttle could be kept in operation for ten or more years. While I wouldn't rule out the possibility altogether, this seems a bit on the optimistic side.

The commission recommended a series of changes necessary for the shuttle to resume flights in the near term. Many of these changes involve serious changes in how the agency operates. NASA will, as the commission predicts, resist these changes. It is in the nature of bureaucracy to resist changes.

I think we need to kill NASA. We do not need a space agency. We need a space program. Once these two things were the same - during the Apollo days, but not now. A space program, to my mind, is a plan that results in achievements in space. We do not have anything remotely resembling that now.

Look at the spread of activities that NASA is engaged in now. There is much research conducted at the various NASA research centers. We have the shuttle. We have the ISS. We have a number of deep space probes. But does this add up to anything? Not that I can see.

It has been more than thirty years since the last time we walked on the moon. We have a space station that is much less useful for basic research than originally promised. At the moment, we have no capability to put a man in orbit. Our two new disposable launch vehicles are lineal descendants of ICBMs designed in the fifties. Every program that might have led to a new manned launch vehicle has been cancelled. There has been talk of Mars missions, but no timetable has been established, no vehicles built. We are not doing anything in space. Unless research on how bean sprouts grow in zero-g counts as something.

So we need a space program. But we don't need a rebirth of the Cold War space program. We need a program that establishes goals, and incentives for achieving them, and then gets the hell out of the way.

The first step, and a statement of seriousness, should be the destruction of NASA. NASA, for all its past glory, is the single greatest obstacle to real space development. The NIMBY syndrome is alive and well at NASA, and NASA has actively opposed private space development on several occasions.

But we shouldn't just fire everyone. The NASA research centers should be renamed National Laboratories, like Livermore or Brookhaven. They should continue at their current funding. Hell, give 'em more money. But they should be out of the reach of NASA administrators. NASA programs currently run by the centers would become their sole responsibility.

The space launch functions of NASA would be dissolved. The shuttles would be sold outright to private industry. Licenses for manufacture of shuttle components would be offered as well, so that cargo versions of the STS could be built and launched. Anytime that any civilian government agency wished to launch a satellite, they would be required to use a private launch company. The ISS would be privatised as much as possible given the constraints of obligations to the other nations involved in the project.

The deep space exploration functions of NASA should be formed into a new, scaled down agency. Its mandate would be exploration of space beyond the Moon's orbit. It would have two goals: 1) put a team of American astronauts on Mars, and 2) to send long duration orbiters and landers to every body in the solar system. (This agency would also operate currently existing observatory satellites like COBE and Hubble, and could launch more if it so desired.) Written into the charter of this agency should be a requirement that all Earth to orbit transport be contracted to private launch companies.

For the second goal, the new agency should be granted sufficient funding to design, build, launch and operate deep space probes, and to operate a network of ground stations and mission control centers to run the missions. This funding should stay constant, and separate from funding for the manned programs, so that these missions would not be affected by fluctuations in spending for Mars or other missions.

For the Mars mission, the mini-NASA would be allowed to retain an astronaut corps and training facilities. A plan would be developed for developing the capabilities necessary for long term space missions. For each requirement, NASA should publish general specifications, and accept bids from private industry. NASA should not be doing all the research. Any solution that meets the specifications should be acceptable, regardless of whether it was designed by NASA. The manned spaceflight division have only one goal - Mars. They should not be concerned with how they get themselves or their equipment into orbit.

Once NASA is off the scene, the way would be open for private development of space transportation technologies. There are several things that the government could do to speed the process, and help the private sector develop new space vehicles.

First and most important would be to change the laws to reduce or eliminate the current obstacles to space development. New laws could require the FAA to streamline the certification process for space vehicles, and so on. Lack of bureaucratic obstructionism and a clear commitment to space development would encourage both designers and investors.

The second would be to offer to the first company that successfully tests a working Single Stage to Orbit launch vehicle that fulfills a basic set of requirements (cargo capacity, passengers, reliability, etc.) a contract to buy ten vehicles. (The military could find some use for them, I'm sure.) Once there is a guaranteed market for space vehicles, conventional finance is far more likely to support investment in space technology. In the early days of aviation, airmail contracts had a similar positive effect on airplane development.

And third, aerospace research conducted at the former NASA research centers should be made available to the public, so that they can use it to develop innovative new launch platforms. NASA's predecessor, NACA, did something similar back in the 30s. Aviation companies could go to investors and point at NACA research and say, "See, it's possible!" This smoothed the way to planes like the DC3 and the era of large scale air transport.

If our new space agency were freed from the requirement to operate its own launch system, more resources would be available for the real goal. NASA does not need to run the shipping companies that deliver materials, or the car manufacturers that allow its employees to drive to work. These functions can be better left to private industry.

If we have many solutions, our space transportation system will be far more robust - if there is a problem with Mack trucks, the entire shipping industry does not grind to a sudden halt. If private space companies are assured of a market, they will build launchers - and likely they will become more specialized, and more efficient than the one size fits all (poorly) space shuttle. Cost per pound to orbit will drop which will allow the space agency to get more Mars mission for its taxpayer dollar.

We don't need a soviet style, top down, every problem has the same solution space program. Let us take advantage of the inventiveness of our free market system. Let a hundred systems bloom.

Here is Bodhi, looking pensive on the back porch:

[wik] The Future Ministry has replaced the broken image link with a picture of the same dog, with a different expression.

Johno, as for the AK-47 (and its successors, the AK-74 and AKM) it is a wonderful weapon, designed by a genius, Kalishnikov. But the vast majority of Russian products are no where near the AK in reliability or effectiveness. The thing with the Russians is, most of their military equipment is by American standards overengineered. Guns, tanks, planes are designed with the limitations of Russian industry and Russian conscript soldiers in mind.

In some instances, as with their assault rifles, a great engineer can come up with a design that performs very well, and yet is rugged and easy to manufacture. In most other circumstances, the result is shoddy design, limited capabilities and high maintenance. The problem is even worse in the civilian sector. The other example you mentioned, soviet rockets, were designed in the fifties and sixties by another genius, Korolev. The Russians are still using the Soyuz capsule created when Korolev was the Chief Designer for the Soviet space program. Their rocket technology still uses the technology developed under his watch, and slowly refined since then.

In other areas, Soviet technology is notably poor. When we got our hands on the MIG-25, which had been rumored to be an amazing fighter, American engineers were shocked by the crudity of the design. Heavy steel construction, vacuum tube electronics, and so on. Sure, it was fast. But that was about it. Any contemporary American fighter could fly circles around it. Because they didn't have the capability to make fighters out of carbon fiber composites, beryllium alloys, and so forth, they made it out of steel. Areas where computer aided design and other techniques would allow American designers to cut weight and make the design more efficient are clumsy and overengineered.

This ruggedness has advantages, but it is not everything. Better trained American mechanics can keep their more complicated fighters, helicopters and tech wizardry in the fight - and when they are in the fight, that design advantage is overpowering, as we have seen. Russian tanks can not compare to the M1, not even remotely. M1's can engage a Russkiy tank a thousand yards outside the Russian tank's range, while driving 40mph over rough ground, hit it on the first shot, and the round will go all the way through the Russian tank. A T-80 might (might) have lower maintenance requirements. But it doesn't matter if one American tank can kill ten for every one we lose.

In very specific, limited areas of technology the Russians could outclass us. Sometimes, because a genius was behind the drawing board. Other times, as with the MIG-15 in Korea, it was because the idiot labor government of Britain gave the Soviets their most advanced jet engine design. But that excellence came at a high cost - it took the Russians a lot more effort, money and time to achieve those levels of competence than it would for your average American defense contractor.

It all comes down to the system. Russians are of course no denser than we are. They have notable gifts in mathematics and other disciplines. They have as many geniuses as we do. But - the American system allows efficient teamwork, cross fertilization between different disciplines, and much greater creativity. An average American design team can approximate genius anywhere else in the world, due to our skill at organizing things. When you actually have a genius in charge of a team, you get things like the SR-71, or the Saturn rocket.

Free development in all types of technology - commercial and military - allows development to speed up in every single technology. The computer technology created in the US allowed vast improvements in aeronautical design, in targeting, control systems, stealth, etc. The result is the $200mil F-22. But that fighter is the best. These kind of interacting developments are what make us so frightfully lethal. And it's our system that allows it to happen.

Not that the result is always perfect. People have complained about the M-16 ever since it was introduced. It's twitchy, has a lightweight round, jams easily, and it doesn't look lethal or ominous. Yet we've used it for almost forty years because it's good enough. (We're right around the corner from a new standard issue weapon. The OICW will have all kinds of goodies.)

But on the average, the vastly higher overall American technology base allows us to create weapons that benefit from the capabilities of American industry, and can assume the high education and skill levels of American soldiers.

The World Trib is reporting that US Intelligence believes that the Iraqi WMD are located not in Iraq, but in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Some have suspected this before - along with suspicions that top level Iraqi gov't officials had also fled to Syria. The Bekaa Valley is in some senses the best place for the WMD to go - a lawless region home to Hizbollah, Syrian forces, and Iranian agents.

If this report is true, it makes for problems. If we have a fix on where they are, and high confidence that the reports are true, do we go get them? This could provoke further conflict with Syria, and get us enmeshed in the rat's nest of Palestinian terror groups. While there is little doubt that American forces could defeat any of these groups, the action would put further pressure on already overstretched American forces, and the diplomatic blowback of another unilateral (without the approval of France) action would be annoying at best.

Assuming that the report is true, and that we went after the WMD, certain elements would cry even louder about Bush=Hitler and all that, even if we took the smoking gun out of Iraqi intelligence forces' hands.

This could be interesting.

Just took the Dante's Inferno test, and apparently I am banished to the 2nd level of hell. I thought for sure I would end up in the third, but I guess you really never do know.

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!

Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Take the Dante's Divine Comedy Inferno Test

Interestingly, the score for the test don't match up with Dante's conception of the relative severity of the different categories of sin. I can see how a modern test designer would de-emphasize the damnative power of heretical thinking - but treachery, surely, is still serious. It would be interesting to see a test that more closely matches Dante's vision. Could even be useful... 
 

CNN is reporting that Gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon has dropped out of the California race. Though support for the recall has diminished somewhat, this will certainly increase Arnold's chances of taking the race. It will also increase the chances that racist Cruz Bustamante will not win. Cruz was caught saying the "N" word (nigger) at a political gathering not too far back, and has connections with MEChA, the racist Mexican group.

According to spacedaily.com, the Chinese could become the third nation with a manned space program as early as October 10th of this year. The Shenzhou-5 could carry two, but more likely one Chinkonaut into orbit. The mission could be as long as a week, which would be far longer than the first orbital missions of the USSR and America, each of which lasted only hours.

Maybe, maybe, this will light a fire under someone's ass. 
 

By way of Winds of Change comes this fascinating First Things article by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik.

My defense of the TC was part of my view that there is a larger animus against Christianity. Which is why I mentioned the Catholic issue with the federal judicial appointments. The left likes to think that those with religious beliefs, sincerely held, are the far right wing. They are not, not by far.

In the comments to a prior post, Bridgit said this case involved one "southern white protestant" view. That is disingenuous, because how many black southern protestants, or Korean DC area protestants, or Martian Jews for that matter would agree with the views expressed by the TC? Again, this is (a very mild version of) the contempt that is generally cast on Christianity. Christianity is not the quaint and curious folk ways of backwoods crackers.

The Judicial appointments debate involved a Roman Catholic view under the microscope, but I think that the motivations were similar. The left would not merely like to exclude religion from the public arena, they have it in for Christianity and pretty much everything traditional. Everytime some 99.44% Christian community somewhere in the midwest puts up a nativity scene, someone, of a certain political group, sues the city. Kwanzaa decorations and the whole panarama of other faith's symbols do not get the same attention.

Now, I am a conservative. Not in the European sense, which is reactionary and monarchist, etc. I love and look forward to technological change. I feel that reform is possible, and given sufficient forethought, desirable. The beliefs that I feel are worthy of conserving are the revolutionary ideals of the founding generation, as amended by the Union's position in the civil war. But there are other things worthy of conserving. We should not throw out religion because a small fraction of our population is anticlerical, and feels that Christianity is the opiate of the masses, ie, the stupid.

The founding fathers felt that religion was essential for the survival of the republic. They were right about so many things that I am wary of saying, "Oh they were just kidding about that one." Whitaker Chambers (and for that matter Solzhenitsyn) felt that religion was in opposition to modernity. They felt that Communism (which I think we can all agree was very, very bad) was not something different from the liberal west, but rather the purification of it, the assumptions of modernity taken to their logical extremes. Chambers feared that the liberal west would lose to the powerful faith of Communism, or that it would lose its soul in the process of winning.

We should not be so quick to exclude religion from the public arena. Tolerance does not require that we banish all representations of the majority faith of this nation. It should not require the cultural cover of a picture of Confucius to have a picture of Moses. The founders feared the tyranny of the majority, and guarded against it. But Toqueville was right to fear the tyranny of the minority. And that is what I see growing in this country. 

Somehow, I imagined that our cybernetic future wouldn't begin with powered armor for the elderly.

Skipping through the blogosphere, I see that I am nearly alone in defending the ten commandments in Alabama. Which I find odd, given that I am not particularly religious. It just seems to me that Christianity is given little respect from the left, and from the chattering classes. Whenever the faith dares poke its head above ground, it is roundly condemned for the Inquisition, the crusades, being pro-life, out of step with the modern world, or having members who are intolerant superstitious rubes.

Robert Prather's blog is undergoing a rebranding effort. What was once the Mind of Man is now Unpunished Insults. While he should have gone for a Simpson's quote rather than another boring Jefferson quote, the material there is as good as ever. Joe Bob says, "Check it out!"

Over in the comments for this post, there's been some additional discussion of the whole Ten Commandments controversy.

My beloved comrade in blogging seems to feel strongly that the Judge is a fool, and furthermore a damned fool for insisting that the Commandments be displayed in his courthouse in defiance of a higher court order. I agree. He does undermine the rule of law by defying the ruling of the higher court. It could be grounds for impeachment.

But all of this is beside the point. The issue is that people are offended that the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of law. That this is happening in Alabama merely gives people an extra frisson of joy, because they can safely conflate religion with backwardness. It's Alabama, right? All of the stubborness we see in this judge, and the contempt of the press is window dressing for the central image - the screaming of the offended.

Why are they offended? It cannot be because of the actual text of the Decalogue: 

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Okay, we'll let that one slide. But the "graven image" bit in the protestant translation could be a useful admonishment.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Taken generally, foul language isn't nice.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. As long as I get Saturday off, too.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother. No problem here.
5. Thou shalt not kill. No problem here.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. No problem here.
7. Thou shalt not steal. No problem here.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Again, no problem here, though it is curious that it doesn't prohibit lying in a more general sense.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Fair enough, and good advice.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. And likewise here.

These are sensible precepts for living. No one, be they Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic or Martian could honestly complain that these rules are offensive.

They are offensive because they are Christian. We are encouraged to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, despite much evidence that it is not. We are to tolerate all faiths, all creeds. Except one. Curiously this is the one faith that the majority of Americans embrace. Does the presence in a courthouse of the Ten Commandments amount to a tacit promotion of Christian doctrine as the fount of jurisprudence? Yes. Because they are. We live under a Christian law. This is unsurprising.

What should we do, adopt Bushido or Sharia? Why is this an issue? Those commandments are the center of our law. Do we make murder legal because killing is forbidden in the Commandments?

The Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion. It does not forbid the government, or officials of our government from having religious beliefs or expressing them. It does not prevent us from acknowledging that the root of our law is Judeo Christian. The founders believed that religious faith was not merely compatible with liberty and the health of the republic, they thought it essential. We should not be so quick to banish it from our sight because the usual suspects are offended by it, as they are offended by so many other things that are good.

By way of the The Spoons Experience, this enchanting fantasy story.

TROGDOR!

Gov. Davis is accusing the Republican Party of a "Right-Wing Power Grab." Technically, he is correct. The Republicans do want to take the governorship away from Davis. However, in any larger sense, he is wrong. Representative Issa, who sponsored the recall drive, was making use of existing California law to effect a change in the occupant of the Governor's seat. This is not a power grab in the sense that we normally mean it - like when General, later President Musharraf made a power grab in Pakistan.

In general, I do not approve of recalls. I think changing the result of an election before the next scheduled election is corrosive to republican virtues. By that I mean the virtues that sustain our republic, and the rule of law. Recalls are democratic. But undiluted democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Recalls reinforce the idea of the permanent campaign, reinforce the politics of grievance and revenge, and are generally just a bad idea. Politicians should be removed from office for two reasons only - criminal misconduct and by being voted out of office in a regular election. Ok, and if they die in office.

That being said, Gray Davis is a fecal fez, and I'll be happy to see the end of him. He is now considering apologizing for the damage he has done to our largest state, months after everyone else in the world realized that he had completely screwed the pooch. If the Republicans win the gubernatorial election that is in my view a good thing, and could help ensure other things I think are good - like continued Republican dominance in the federal government.

And the spectacle! Pornographers, celebrities big and small, punk rockers, the Terminator, Bill "I can lose to the most hated man in CA" Simon, Ariana by god Huffington. This will be the most entertaining election in years. People are already mocking the recall election. But many are mocking it for the wrong reasons. When I hear ridicule of the broad spread of candidates, I think, this is what it should be like. Every one should be involved. Politics should not be reserved to the ranks of cloned, hairsprayed, button down minds of the professional political class. This republic is for us, we should be involved in it at the highest and lowest levels. This kind of freedom is what makes us what we are, good and bad.

But far, far more good than bad. And if Arnold scares the Europeans now, wait til we amend the constitution to allow him to run for President. I would give anything to see them crap their pants when he sits down across the negotiating table.

There has been much discussion over what is the immediate future of the war on terror. There is general consensus on what nations are "on the list" - Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea. Which should be next leads to significant divergence of opinion. Some have argued that we should go for the biggest threat, regardless of the difficulties - or even that we should take on the strongest target first. Others argue that we should pick off the weakest and work our way up.

So far in the War on Terror, we have chosen two targets. In many respects, both were low hanging fruit. In fact, looked at one way, every nation on our list is low hanging fruit with the possible exception of North Korea. In the comments to this excellent Trent Telenko post, Iblis likens the War on Terror to the Island hopping strategy in WWII, and then draws the wrong conclusions from his analogy. 

He is wrong in suggesting that we should go immediately for the most difficult target. We did not go straight for Japan in WWII. That was the whole point of the Island hopping campaign. Just as in pool, each shot should leave you in a better position for your next shot. Afghanistan was our first shot, and helped us by putting an immediate hurt on Al Qaida, and reducing the chances of further attacks on US soil in the near term. Aside from the fact that Iraq was a sure win militarily, there are more important reasons why Iraq was next on the list.

I argued here a while back that the primary reasons that Iraq was chosen was because a) it was easiest and b) its central location would allow us to put pressure on so many other nations on our list. It would allow us to pursue an interior lines strategy, even though it is thousands of miles from home. (Also, the diplomatic situation made Iraq an easy target, due to the numerous and flagrant violations of UN resolutions.) While we can use that position to execute a flypaper strategy, that is merely a situational tactic; useful but not moving us dramatically forward.

When we think about our next target, North Korea is wrong for several reasons. First, how do we get the South Koreans to sign on for an invasion of the North? What possible benefit is there for them? The risks far outweigh the potential gains. The damage to their people, their economy and infrastructure could be very large, even in a quick allied victory. Second, (this follows from the first) without the support of the South, invading North Korea would be painful for us, considering the degree to which our military is overstretched. Third, our position in Iraq and Afghanistan gives us no leverage or advantage in North Korea. Fourth, there is the risk that they already have nuclear weapons. And fifth, considering how messed up the North is, if we can arrange a total embargo of food and fuel, it could collapse all by itself in the very near future. As I mentioned here, if the regime collapses, it could very well implode quietly, which would allow the South Koreans and us to move in and pick up the pieces.

There are three remaining targets on the list - Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. As Trent Telenko mentioned in an post on Winds of Change, the game against Saudi Arabia may have already begun. However, I don't think we will move openly too soon, if only because of Saudi Arabia's special place in the Islamic world. Other cautions include the fact that while we have been building up our strategic reserves of petroleum, and increasing the production in Iraq, neither of these processes have moved far enough to give us enough security from the Saudis gaming the international oil markets; and we don't have a direct casus beli.

Further, I don't think our next moves will involve direct military action, at least not on a large scale. It should be obvious by now that we are overstretched militarily, and committing to another invasion and occupation (at least before the North Korean situation is resolved) could be foolhardy. Or else we need to call up the National Guard in a big way.

Of the next two targets, Iran is clearly a larger threat to us, even if Syria might equal them in general terror sponsorship. Syria seems to have toned down its activities somewhat since the Iraq invasion, and does not seem to be actively trying to get nukes. Syria is the lesser threat, and while it would be easy in abstract terms to take it out, we simply don't have the available troops, especially for occupation duty.

Iran offers the most possibilities by far. There is an active resistance/revolutionary movement, which we could encourage, supply and support. With some help from us, we could possibly give the Mullahcracy the nudge it needs to go over the cliff into the dustbin of history. The regime seems nervous and unstable, and perhaps some clever psyops and "hearts and minds" type activities could reap great benefits. Targeted strikes on nuclear and other WMD facilities by Air and Special Forces could help contain the WMD threat during the chaos of the collapse. Similar strikes on regime targets could significantly aid the democracy movement in coming to power with less bloodshed. It seems to me that we can gain the most with the least effort by focusing our efforts on Iran.

The end of the Iranian government would make our occupation of Iraq easier, and would of course be of immeasurable benefit for the Iranians. A democratic Iran would create a broad swath of contiguous territory that is all Muslim, and all democratic. This would be a remarkable achievement, and one we should bend all our efforts toward.

[Side notes:] There are situations where I can foresee combat against Syria or North Korea. Both involve stupendous blunders on the part of their respective dictators. If either of these nations decide to tangle with us, they will have their heads on pikes before its over. The cost to us will be significant, but I don't think the outcome is in doubt.

Syria first: if Syria were to be caught with their flies open and their faces hanging out shipping weapons to regime loyalists, or hiding Saddam, or attacking American targets in Iraq, we could see the Fourth ID move westward. We would have the same problems occupying Syria as Iraq, though on a slightly smaller scale, as Syria is a smaller nation. Plus side, less ethnic divisions, end of large-scale support for terror in Israel and Lebanon, another nation freed from brutal dictatorship. Downside, another hundred or so American dead in the fighting, and likely another hundred or so in the occupation. And, a few billion dollars. We'd also have to find troops to replace those moving out of Iraq, and that would likely mean calling up National Guard troops. I think this is a low probability scenario – I think Bashar Assad is clever enough not to stick his willie into the meatgrinder.

North Korea: while I said earlier that there is a very good chance we could induce the collapse of the communist government by cutting off aid - an embargo, there is the chance that the stark raving lunatic nutbags in Pyongyang could say, "Fuck it, we're toast, let's see how many we can take with us!" In this case, we have many advantages that we would not have if we took the offensive. One, we're on the defensive. Moltke the elder back in Prussia commented on the advantages of the strategic offense, tactical defense. Put the North Korean nutters in a tight spot, and if they attack, they have to attack us where we're strong. We and the South Koreans have had decades to prepare for a North Korean invasion. While they could inflict severe damage to the city and residents of Seoul, I seriously doubt that any North Korean tank gets more than twenty miles from the DMZ. Meanwhile, American Air Force, Marine and Naval Aviation make their lives hell. Marines and Special Forces can maneuver behind enemy lines. Amphibious landings. Paradrops. Total mayhem. The complete destruction of the North Korean army. There are over a million men in the NK army. They are equipped with fifties era technology. The South Koreans are almost as well equipped as we are. This is not a serious contest.

This is a hoot. The movie industry is bothered by the fact that advancing technology allows consumers to learn of the crappiness of movies before paying ten bucks to see them. Listen to this Miramax drone:

"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."

I cannot express how much I feel their pain. Because I don't. Feel their pain that is. They are blaming texting for putting the word out on their movies. Well, that's kind of backwards, isn't it? If you made a decent product, the very same technology would work in your favor. This kind of contempt is as infuriating as it is commonplace.

Maybe it will finally sink in that an informed public is harder to dupe. And when we play 1000 Blank White Cards with the studios, they won't be able to play this card on us:

Dungbreros, all of them.