borgsdemons.com Blog

The Event Horizon has some unique properties. As a hunk of matter, a spaceship, or a politician approach the Event Horizon, time slows. Radio-active decay is less vigorous, Tang(tm) takes longer and longer to drink, and the ability to affect events beyond the Event Horizon diminishes.

As November approaches, the isotopes in possession of the Iranians capable of making a nuke vanish below a critical mass in any geometry. As the election nears, a planet in desperate need of a carbon diet might finally see the faint beginnings of change and escape velocity from the Event Horizon might finally be reached.

As the Event Horizon nears, we can only hope that those who have served the Nation and the national interest so poorly will fall beyond the ability to influence future events.

Lets shed some light on the Shahab-3 [Meteor-3]. The standard version is on its transporter above. It’s basically a slightly improved SCUD-C and based on a North Korean design. Interestingly, the FAS reports 1280km–not miles–which would put it out of range of Israel. Looks like the mainstream press needs lessons on the difference between a kilometer and a mile. Semi-professionally, this range figure looks good to me for the design because it’s basically the same as the SCUD-C and SCUD-D. Yes, there appears to be a lengthened version with 1500km range. However, the trade off is a smaller warhead, a heavier missile, and an even more massive transporter.

Just like the SCUDs, it has a horrific fuel mixture. The propellant is a mixture of gasoline and kerosene (the worst of both worlds). In fact, since the oxidizer is fairly volatile itself, better thrust would be achieved using hydrazine–nasty stuff. Hydrazine and Nitric Acid was the propellant and oxidizer of our Titan missile systems. The oxidizer is a wonderfully “stable” combination of fuming Nitric Acid and Nitrous Oxide. One of the joys of such fuel is that the oxidizer tank must be lined with paraffin wax. If the system gets too hot and the paraffin starts to melt or shift, the reaction could be–say–”energetic.” For example, dropping a wrench in a Titan silo was considered a good recipe for incineration when the metal wrench breached the oxidizer and propellant tanks mixing them together for instant and vigorous combustion.

To top it all off, the ignition sequence starts with a solid fuel rocket spinning the propellant and oxidizer turbines up to speed before primary ignition. I wouldn’t want anything to overheat or explode in those first few seconds–like solid fuel motors have a habit of doing. I probably wouldn’t want anybody shooting at me during this process either–imagine the effect of a small arm’s round breaching both tanks.

The mainstream photos make this thing look sleek and elusive–it ain’t! This is a humongous SCUD you can launch from a nice, prepared concrete pad or a highway. Even in the best of circumstances, this thing would be an iffy proposition to move cross-country and even iffier to launch without a thorough inspection first. Notice also that the stepped down cone on the missile pictured here is missing on most of mainstream photos. That’s the guidance package!
That being said, it has the beginning of an inertial guidance system, and it would be perfectly capable of blowing a four city block-sized crater through the keel of a stationary Nimitz-class carrier. A very stationary, as in moored tightly to its dock stationary, carrier.

Much attention has been focused on the War Powers Act. Most agree that it has done little to curb military adventurism by this Administration. Baker and Christopher have headed a group that has recently come up with some technical revisions to the War Powers Act. However, I submit that these statutes have failed in every way since 1973 to redress the imbalance of power between the Legislative and the Executive Branches.  Furthermore, no minor repair to the Act is going to suddenly protect Congress’s right to declare war under the Constitution.
War Powers, whether by statute or by Constitution, is all screwed up because the balance of power in all things military is grossly biased toward the Executive Branch. The all-mighty dollar just isn’t enough in the hands of the Legislative Branch to cause the Executive Branch to alter course one iota. No War Powers Act, past, present, or future is going to make a dent in this problem until: 1) representatives have the power to directly override the Commander in Chief upon good cause; 2) the appointment of flag-rank officers in all branches is largely de-coupled from the Executive Branch (so that their loyalty is not practically vested solely in the President, and so some semblance of appointment for merit re-enters the picture; and 3) the Joint Chiefs and the insanely byzantine parallel chains of command must go and be replaced by a General Staff system with a deterministic chain-of-command.

Left with just the purse, the Legislative Branch assumes all the political risks of cutting off funding for an ongoing military operation.  By contrast, the Executive Branch is in a no-lose situation. Cutoff the funding and the Executive Branch can (and will) transfer responsibility for the failure of the operation squarely on the shoulders of Congress.  Provide funds grudgingly, and the People see Congress as complicit in the disaster.  Either way, Congress fails to check Executive power.  Ultimately, something short of impeachment is necessary so that, on good cause shown, the Legislative branch can seize the military wheel and steer us back on course.

This is a much larger undertaking than a mere re-write of the War Powers Act. The balance of power must be redressed if needless adventurism by the Executive is to be curbed.

Eight years have really crapped-out the Company. The CIA has alternated between scapegoat for 9/11 and speech writer for President “W”. It is said that analysts are so tired of having their reports completely rewritten that there are now many fewer of them. The politicos have reacted almost with glee–now they can write fiction directly without having to twist the hard work of those who know better. Field operatives complain of being denied critical resources necessary to accomplish nationally-sanctioned goals. At the same time, NeoCon lawyers without an ethical care, validate torture and some do what they’re told.

However, there’s also an inherent problem that will prevent the CIA from ever being a top-flight intelligence agency (quite apart from the spine-less loony tuners appointed to run the show). The continued reliance on “National Assets” (satellites, signal intelligence, and the occasional aerial recon) means that the South Koreans have better intelligence on our intentions than we will ever have over even a friendly Middle Eastern country like Israel.

We need to come to grips with the reality that we are a lower-ranking second tier power when it comes to HUMINT. In the bad old days when we could just assume that the Soviets loathed us, that might have been O.K. However, in this “war on terror,” I submit it is far more critical to know Al Qaeda’s specific intent than it is to have a middling inventory of their assets. Primarily, the whole discussion so far over the “war on terror” is concerned with “assets” more because we can count them (or cook the numbers) than because it signifies anything meaningful.

The build-up to war with Iran is a perfect example. We’re busy county centrifuges, reactors, and engineers, but the really critical info (which we are all but clueless about) is the intent of Iran now, and in the future.  The judgment of history will soon be that the centrifuges and reactors no longer existed, and the engineers had better things to do.
So, the next president needs to appoint a CIA Director who will both instill confidence inside the Company and be willing to quickly fall on a bayonet if he/she is asked to deviate very far from what the analysts say. However, the decades-long weakness in HUMINT needs to be cured too or there will be no data for the analysts to answer the critical intent questions with (which quickly leads to the temptation to “fudge” to compensate).  So far, the evidence is not encouraging.
If the CIA is to be dissolved, that will require something no one has ever successfully accomplished–the unification of the branch military intelligence services along with the removal of counter-intelligence from the FBI (who have always done a very, very bad job of it). There’s no snowball insulated enough to fly that mission while the Joint Chiefs system is in place. But our military services are just another area in need of serious attention from men and women of ability and integrity. Will we get it?