Seeking a Ban on Bomblets

BBC news has a story today on a conference being held in Ireland with the intention of creating a ban on cluster munitions. Hosted by the Cluster Munitions Coalition , the CMC seeks to ban the use of such weapons as the bomblets (shown above) create hazardous situations for civilian populations that come back after the conflicts to unexploded ordnance. South Lebanon for example is covered in the sub munitions from the border conflicts of Hizbollah and the IDF. A weapon of such an indiscriminate nature can and has become a humanitarian nightmare. Similar to the anti-personnel landmine, hundreds of non-combatants worldwide are being injured or killed by the weapons annually. While the use of such weapons in war provide certain tactical advantage (for example disable vehicles, runways, etc.) the tipping point of this weapons is its terror factor. Its ability to inflict damage to combatants as equally effectivly as non-combatants makes this a weapon that should be looked at by governments of the world as a weapon of terror similar to landmines.

What really happened at Najaf?

David Isenberg published an article earlier this past week on United Press International looking at what actually happened during an incident in April of 2004 where Blackwater security fought off an insurgent attack in Najaf. According to the recently published memior from retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez entitled Wiser in Battle, Sanchez refutes several of the claims made by Blackwater, including the most incindiary claim that Spainish soldiers abandoned thier posts and left Blackwater operatives to fend for themsleves.

From the article:

"Not true, sir," the (Spanish)commander replied. "Those Blackwater and CPA guys wanted us to put all of our troops back and surround their building. But we didn't need to do that, because there was never any threat of being overrun. Besides, it was better for us to protect the entire compound rather than just one building."

So what was it that happened exactly?

Book Review: The Transformation of War

From time to time (and as I finish them) I will attempt to write reviews of books that I read. I thought perhaps starting with a classic of military theory such as the Transformation of War would be a good place to start. Martin Van Creveld wrote this book in the pre-Global War on Terror world. This fact however does not lessen its impact in today's global environment. I would argue its prescience makes it even more relevant to policymakers.

Van Creveld's book looks at the world after WWII and sees that notion of state sponsored violence is on the decline, while Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is on the rise. Van Creveld looks at modern conflict through the lens of Karl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz's seminal Vom Kreige (On War) and deconstructs Clausewitz using his model of Non-Trinitarian warfare. Van Creveld essentially states that as the threefold division of State, Military, and People theorized as the main components of warfare by Clausewitz breaks down in the face of globalization.

Each of the chapters in the book examines specific aspects of war and how they have changed from ancient times to the near future. For example, in the final Chapter of the book entitled "The Future of War", Van Creveld writes about what war will look like in the coming years. It is in this chapter that I found Van Creveld to be most prophetic. He sees conflict as we know it becoming obsolete. Modern strategy and tactics will have to be completely rethought. The rules of war (as they are understood through such international agreements as the Geneva convention) will be called into question as the definition of what a combatant is becomes more fluid. The correlations between this chapter and the current conundrums faced by governments across the globe are hard to ignore.

It is little wonder that The Transformation of War is on the US Army's list of required reading for officers. Van Creveld's articulate (and surprisingly readable) arguments against the militaries of the world continuing in the Clausewitzian tradition challenges military doctrine at its heart . The Transformation of War looks not only at the how war will change but why it will change as well.

EA-18G "Growler" procurment leaves USAF out of the picture

Ares, a defense technology website, reports that the U.S. navy is moving ahead with its production of 85 of the specialized F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, known as "Growlers". The agreement between the USAF and the Navy, who provides thier current electronic warfare airplanes, the EA-6B Prowler, (as seen above) to the USAF for support operations is set to end in 2012, and the Navy is buying only enough for its own use. So what will the USAF do?

See the article....

Euro missile defense funding set to be cut...

A post from Global security.com reports that the U.S. House of Representatives have struck down attempts to restore $200 million dollars to be placed toward the Bush administration proposed European missile defense shield. The 10 radar installations and interceptor missile batteries are to be placed through out Eastern Europe much to the dismay of the Russian government, who sees the move as an aggressive one, as placement would be in Poland and the Czech republic which are both former Warsaw Pact nations.

The SKS: Curio?

Here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a Police officer was murdered this past Saturday in the Port Richmond Area. The weapon used? A Romanian variation of the Russian SKS semi-automatic carbine. Known as the Model 56 (not to be confused with the Chinese Type 56), this weapon is apparently fairly new to the American market, appearing only in the past few years. It would seem that this particular rifle has been modified to accept a 30 round magazine. You may ask how it's possible that a weapon of this calibre (7.62X.39mm) could bought and sold with a 30 round magazine? This weapon is covered under curios or relics laws. Basically it states that once a weapon reaches a certain age (over 50 years old), it is qualifies as a c&r. These laws however do not cover modifications to the weapons...

Unless.

Unless the weapon in question has fewer than 10 imported parts. Those 10 imported parts on an SKS include the following:

(1) Frames, receivers, Receiver castings, forgings or stampings

(2) Barrels

(3) Barrel Extensions

(4) Mounting Blocks (trunnions)

(5) Muzzle Attachments

(6) Bolts

(7) Bolt Carriers

(8) Operating Rods

(9) Gas Pistons

(10) Trigger Housings

(11) Triggers

(12) Hammers

(13) Sears

(14) Disconnectors

(15) Buttstocks

(16) Pistol Grips

(17) Forearms, Handguards

(18) Magazine Bodies

(19) Followers

(20) Floorplates



"The point is, if your newly "assembled", non C&R Yugo SKS is comprised of ten or less of the listed imported parts, is no longer considered to have been "assembled from imported parts" but is considered of US manufacture. If you can successfully play the ten or less game, your rifle is Home grown and you can "Bubba" it to your heart's content...including installing a removable magazine, bipod, pistol grip etc."

- from the Blog "Captain of A Crew of One."



In looking at this explanation, I find that I can understand in relative terms how this all works. There are layers of responsibility that assume that as a weapon passes between hands each person who assembles, sells, or buys the weapon bears some level of responsibility for it. This responsibility breaks down when one person in the chain is unable or unwilling to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the legislature of the respective federal and state governments.
I feel that people should be able to own weapons that are fully operational. Owning a weapon that can't fire is like owning a car that doesn't have a gas tank. It seems somewhat pointless. However owning a weapon in our society should carry a heavy burden of responsibility. Though the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, it would be just as impossible for the founding fathers to think of what could possibly happened to arms in the 232 years that have passed since the country's inception as would be for us to do so. So the notion of rationality seems to be the logical solution. In other words, people should be able to own weapons. It's part of the culture here in the U.S. However, it is also a part of the culture to grow and mature into its difficult choices of nationhood. This issue requires calm thinking.

The hazards of microchips

In an article recently posted on IEEE Spectrum's website, the notion of semiconductor sabotage is discussed. One theory that is laid out (but unproven) is that Israeli forces were able to render radar systems ineffective during a raid carried out against supposed nuclear facilites located in northeastern Syria. Many suspect that the Israelis were able to do this due to a "backdoor" installed in the chips used in the radar. While unproven (the article states on several occasions that there is a certain level of impractability in carrying out such operations) the questions it brings to the table are one that should be examined. As the process of globalization moves forward, the trust we instill in comanpies outside of the U.S. producing something as ubquitous as the microchip should be called into question. Second, should the manufacture of chips used in ultrasensitive projects like satellites and components for key weapons systems be entrusted to anyone other the military itself? And finally, how do we manage these questions without becoming draconian or irresponsible?

Link to the article