Things Lining Up Nicely For An Israeli Attack On Iran

The link builds a case for Israel striking Iran's nuclear program.

That case is predicated on the diplomatic, economic, and informational elements of world power failing to dissuade Iran to give up their nuclear program. If no improvement in Iran occurs, could there be an Israeli strike by the spring of 2010?

Given that many folks think Iran has crafted a plethora of secret and dispersed site, the challenge of eradicating the program would be great.

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

A really weird article--I had to post it; the headline caught my eye. The guy has a line of hair care products, right?

Using my worst wine and food clichés, I will attempt to capture essence of the man’s thinking as such:

Impoverished, with a half-ordered set of inarticulate opinions, he moves well beyond merely hinting at a manic, yet truly disordered, ethos. Combines the chewy gracelessness of a much-microwaved or even carelessly caramelized cerebellum with a full-menu of stunningly disfocused intellectual assertions that thickly coat the reader's mind with vacuous rants and superlative putridness.

Read the article to capture the full, bold bouquet of a set of furiously freaky ruminations.

Iran: We put nuclear site there in case of attack

The headline brings to mind lyrics from Joe Walsh's Life's Been Good:

"I lock the doors in case I'm attacked."

What's next, Iran?  Another Joe Walsh paraphrase "I wear a lab coat sometimes until four, We just enrich 'cause we can't find the door"?

Could Iran Be Developing A...Nuclear Warhead?

You don't have to be too profound to put this in order:

1. Iran has a clandestine nuclear program.
2. Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon program. 

Don't they inherently tend to go together?

I'll be posting my resume at analyst.gov any moment now.

Russian Help Is On The Way!

Russia has responded to Iran’s short-range rocket tests by acknowledging that they are “causing concern.”

Likewise, Russia will boldly lead the way on the rogue Iranian nuclear program by encouraging Iran to cooperate with the IAEA.

More beneficial approaches are discussed at Wired here and here.

Also, what are the implications/parallels of the revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facility with regard to their missile programs? Is it possible we don’t know what we don’t know?

Massive NRO Growth?

DoD Buzz reports on some of the fall-out of the DNI-directed Obering panel as it affects the NRO. Besides the options of 1) maintaining the status quo and 2) rewriting the NRO charter to give it all USAF and intel community space, there is a third option.

The third option will be for the NRO to operate all U.S. military and intel space and ISR assets. If the story is true, this third option would be organizationally revolutionary. Basically, we’d be talking about a Space Corps or something approaching a U.S. Space Force.

Iran welcomes U.S. missile defense reversal

I tend to think Iranian leadership is lying anytime their lips are moving, often to a cartoonish effect like former neighbor Baghdad Bob. But here I am indeed confident they are truly pleased to see the European missile defense effort in Poland and the Czech Republic is being shuttered.

Of course, the reasons behind this happiness are a little more muddled.

Iran welcomes the actions for the same reasons the Russians did: it improves their power within their region of influence.

Really, having observed Iran for thirty years, wouldn’t we think Iran would love it if the U.S. used precious defense dollars chasing our tails in pursuing technologies and strategies that will never work?

So, while there is little doubt Iranian leadership is overjoyed with the missile defense decision, the words behind the announcement are just another part of their strategic communication/disinformation program.

China's Self-Described Quantum Leap In Military Power

China’s Defense Minister has offered some interesting observations, especially in light of Secretary Gates' speech to the Air Force Association earlier this month.

Secretary Gates said we should be most concerned about China's ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options.

This could be done by cyber and ASAT investments, anti-air and anti-ship weapons, and ballistic missiles.

Basically, China is doing or has already done much of this. It’s a gigantic anti-access strategy to keep us from getting in close enough to fight effectively.

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal to Be Slashed?

The Guardian reports a draft Nuclear Posture Review (being performed by the Department of Defense) has been rejected by President Obama for its ‘timidity.’ According to “European officials,” (they're ubiquitous, aren't they?) the rejection regards three reasons:

1. The President wants to measure the U.S. nuclear arsenal in “hundreds rather that thousands of deployed strategic warheads.”

2. The President wants to narrow the range of conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons.

3. The President wants to explore ways of ensuring the reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or making new weapons.

Why Russia Won't Give On Iran

Russia has worked hard to present themselves as America’s indispensible partner in the attempt to reign in the Iranian nuclear program. While it seems Russia can influence Iran, a better question is will they choose to do so?

Russia is clearly nostalgic for a return to the days when everyone recognized their superpower bona fides. While that time has long past, Russia continues to bluster/take actions which are an attempt to hold it in as superior a position as possible.

These actions include Russia posturing itself as the decider regarding meaningful sanctions (and enforcement) against Iran, as well as toying with Israel. That is, if Russian air defenses are sold to Iran, an Israeli air attack against Iran’s nuclear sites might be much more difficult.

Accordingly, expect Russia to string the U.S., Iran, and Israel along as long as they possibly can.  And when Russia can't or won't go any further, expect China to assume the role.

Europe’s Shelved Missile Defense: Realpolitik, Hedging, Wisdom, or Bad Call?

What is the fundamental importance of a missile defense system? It keeps the fight “over there.” That is, a viable missile defense system keeps an adversary’s missiles from killing its intended victims.

As missiles have proliferated, missile defense has become more important, especially when a rogue (nation or otherwise) has or is going to get nuclear weapons. As such, motherly analogies from the domestic front come to mind: “A stitch in time saves nine,” or even “Kids, if you’re going to fight, do it outside.”

Congress Faces NASA's Shaky Future

A great (and nearly blow-by-blow) description of the Augustine Commission at the House Committee on Science and Technology.

BTW, Wired reveals that Rep. Giffords is married to an astronaut.

Hey, if you have a vision, all it takes is time and money.

Strategy? Strategy?! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Strategy

Author Gaetano Marano says the Augustine Commission only provided options that were already well known and that what's missing is a clear strategy for the future of U.S. manned spaceflight.

What can I say?  When the man's right, he's right.

Lawmakers Criticize Obama Space Panel

The Augustine Commission, the group of government and industry space-experienced folks who have been studying America’s manned space flight plans and found them lacking, have come under Congressional criticism.

The commission feels NASA can’t get to the moon by 2020 with their shuttle replacement rocket, and that other plans need to be pursued. NASA is out of airspeed, altitude, ideas, and is short on cash. The Commission says they need another $3 billion per year to fulfill their charter. However, there are few-to-no shovel-ready ideas immediately available.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords said the options the commission provided were cartoon-like.

Panel chair Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed-Martin shot back with the line of the day to Giffords, saying “I respect your feelings; I must question your facts.”

NASA Appears To Needs More Public Affairs Officers

Using the bully pulpit of the Space Shuttle, astronaut Jose Hernandez says world leaders need to work together, and that the U.S. immigration system needs to be reformed so illegal immigrants can work openly in America and retire in a "traditional U.S. system."

AP author Julie Watson goes on to note (I think without irony) "the American dream for Mexicans and their families is fading."

What Is SBIRS Point Of No Return?

It’s been said that human beings are the only creatures capable of deceiving themselves.

If you agree with that, you may also agree to the human tendency to keep throwing good money after bad product, that is, it’s tough to know just when to cut your losses and walk away. The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program comes to mind as the poster-child for space acquisition. SBIRS is almost eight years behind schedule and $8 billion over original budget.

Mystery Explained: Glow in Night Sky Was Astronaut Urine

Just one of those things that space-faring nations do.

West of Denver at 96,000 Feet

While this photo is from a 2006 NOAA balloon test, is it possible that near-space can be cheaper, better, and faster than actual-space?

China Goes Heavy

China has broken ground on its newest space launch center. Its lowish latitude gives it significant weight-to-orbit advantages over existing launch sites.

The Hainan Space Satellite Launch Center will be used for launches of the Chinese Long March 5, the new super-heavy launch vehicle capable of putting satellites into geosynchronous orbit, lunar missions, space probes, and heavy satellites.

Having a heavy-lift capability is a space game-changer for the Chinese.

The Army Builds a B-52

Sorry that the link is fee-for-service...but here's my take.

Defense Daily reports Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli is advocating for "platforms that are versatile in complex environments, leverage the power of the network and give crews confidence by surviving that first strike."

Chiarelli goes on to say "Technology is changing too fast to allow new starts to take 10 to 15 years to get into the hands of the soldiers. We must build a platform that can be adapted over time to accommodate future technological innovation."

Sounds like the Army's ground-based version of the B-52 to me. According to Wiki, the Buff first flew in '52.

Dude, Where's My Government Job?

Oh you said I'd be working near the DMZ? I thought you said near the DMV...

You Dropped A Bomb On Me

China shows off a new road-mobile missile-in-a-can.

A few things come to mind:

• Plan your trip carefully. No sharp turns, fellas


• When out of garrison, at all costs, avoid sliding off the road into the culvert. It could take hours for that wrecker to show up from base.


• We used to call the Soviets "Ivan." What should we call you?

Mobile systems certainly complicate targeting schemes and add survivability.

Photoshop Benefits Britney Spears and Outer Space

As most pictures from outer space are taken in wavelengths that are not visible to the human eye, lots of re-work and coloring has to be undertaken to make them 1) visible, and 2) pretty and presentable.

Without these changes, space photos would be analogous to those scary photos of celebrities without their makeup...or worse.

NASA: The Matrix

A interesting snapshot of the manned spaceflight options.

Wait, Maybe We Do Need Exquisite Satellites

How much value does strategic space provide? That is impossible to say, but just for exquisite electro-optical, we're willing to apparently pay at least $20 billion. How long does it take? Up to TWENTY (that is not a typo) years.

So for some applications, it would appear exquisite may actually be the minimum standard.

The link reports the Next Generation Electro-Optical system was not competitively bid and that it will indeed have exquisite capabilities. Since GeoEye can already produce 16 inch resolution commercially, I'm thinking exquisite will be...better.

Joe Rouge Addresses Air War College

Mr. Joe Rouge, Director of the National Security Space Office (NSSO) addressed the Air War College students yesterday and had a separate event with the faculty. Fantastic!

Iran Urges Disposal Of All Nuclear Arms

The subtitle, Plan Ignores Tehran's Enrichment Efforts, says a lot.

Channelling John Lennon, Iran has made a proposal to the P-5 plus-one, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany to eliminate the world's nuclear weapons.

The credibility of Iranian leadership reminds me of the Inspector General teams that frequent Air Force bases. They would immediately hit you with two lies as soon as they were off the plane: 1) "We're glad to see you," and 2) "We're here to help."

The good news is the Iranian plan does not criticize the United States. The bad news is the Iranian plan ignores facts on the ground and does nothing to address the myriad problems associated with Iran's nuclear program and their ongoing defiance of three UN Security council resolutions.

Apparently having misplaced his personal reset button in an interview associated with the release of the Iranian proposal, Samareh Hashemi (described as a longtime confident of Iranian president Ahmadinejad) called on the U.S. to apologize to Iran, attacked the American two-party system, and denounced liberal democracy.

Because Iran is such a closed society and due to their ongoing deception efforts, we tend to worst-case their intentions. Anything less would be imprudent.

UPDATE: read the proposal for yourself. The front-end is pretty freaky.

Clues about mystery payload emerge soon after launch

Enough speculation is bound to hit on the truth.

Let's see. Firm-fixed price launch (saves time and money without government oversight) that the NRO would never agree to.

That leaves a couple of payload sponsors and the last word in their organizational name is "agency."

New NSSC Web Page

Baby steps.

Working on a google based NSSC web site. Wish us luck.

Baby steps.

Worshipping at the Altar of Nuclear Perfection

Strive for excellence, not perfection. Perfection is God’s domain.
- Unknown

The Air Force’s top priority is to restore its nuclear enterprise. This priority has been in place for about a year and accomplishing the task has been an exceedingly challenging endeavor. Just as you don’t become physically fit or highly educated overnight, it is similarly difficult to restore a bureaucratic, flaccid, and far flung nuclear enterprise to a pristine condition in a year or two when it has been in a state of institutional decline approaching two decades.

Part of the restoration included creating an Air Force major command to oversee its nuclear forces. This was realized with the recent activation of Global Strike Command and its dedicated focus on the USAF strategic nuclear deterrence mission. However, the activation has made some nostalgic for a modern-day return of the Strategic Air Command, that not-forgotten Air Force within the Air Force. With its bomber and ICBM fleets, SAC provided the preponderance of the nation’s nuclear deterrence for 40-plus years until its deactivation in 1992.

SAC was notorious for its mission focus. While normal operations included the day-to-day activities of pulling alerts, training, and testing, there were also major but less frequent activities such as implementing revisions to the nuclear war plan and changing the cryptographic codes. However, for many former SAC warriors, the preeminent memory of the command is probably the many months spent in the “inspection prep” mode, readying oneself or one’s organization for a never-ending cycle of inspections and evaluations. First in precedence was the SAC Inspector General, followed by SAC’s command evaluators, with the numbered air force evaluators bringing up the rear. Headquarters Air Force inspectors, you ask? No one ever gave them a second thought.

Inspections and evaluations were SAC’s way of proving to itself that the mission was being performed correctly. Within SAC’s mission focus, two particular areas were emphasized. The first was readiness and the second was compliance. Compliance, in its extreme form, becomes focused on perfection, which for some epitomized SAC’s basic character. However, as with anything, an inordinate preoccupation on perfection can create some unintended consequences which are worthy of exploration.

The first and most dangerous unintended consequence is that any culture which requires exceedingly high achievement as its minimum standard is capable of endangering personal and institutional integrity. Top-level sporting activities provide any number of excellent examples, with many coaches and athletes in professional football, baseball, cycling, and Olympic sports doing whatever it takes to win. While the analogy is incomplete in that you didn’t “win” an inspection, test, or evaluation in SAC, you certainly could lose one. Unqualified or unsatisfactory ratings were able to create dire career consequences that were capable of motivating some to avoid failure “by any means necessary.” However, the SAC IG, to its great credit would almost never write errors for program-type discrepancies--even some whoppers--that had been previously self-identified and documented by the unit. SAC wanted integrity to be preserved and felt that could be done with a robust self-examination program that encouraged organizations to first search out and find problems and then, to take action to solve the issues.

Next, a preoccupation with perfection can lead to an overemphasis on rework. Regarding inspections, and while it’s unlikely SAC intended things to work out this way, the goal for many units was not to achieve true-perfection, but rather, to achieve inspection-perfection. For example, regarding nuclear-associated paperwork and documentation, it was never good enough to merely do something right the first time and file it away until it was inspected; rather, the documentation had to be checked again and again and again. With the seldom-ending litany of inspections, re-checking already done work came to be viewed as a sort of insurance that had to be purchased. While it could sometimes help avoid poor inspection results, fixing things after the fact (but before they were inspected) could in no way ensure excellence. Getting it right to begin with was desirable; having it right for the inspection was mandatory. As Bill Creech would tell us, inspecting for quality at the end of a process is generally much more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than building it in throughout the process.

Finally, an overemphasis on perfection can lead to a reduction in initiative. When much of the focus is on rework and checking (and checking the checkers), it can have the unintended detrimental effect of reducing initiative for other important but less urgent work. Even if there were ways to do things cheaper, faster, and better within the nuclear community, the culture was one of extreme compliance and was not one of improvement. While a checklist mentality can be useful, compliance itself is not sufficient for true excellence. In SAC, there was little time or energy left for institutional processes to improve existing nuclear practices.

This discussion on perfection has relevance given the tone of the Air Force’s February 2009 Communications Background Sheet on the Nuclear Enterprise. The background sheet states “Regardless of the size of the nuclear enterprise we are entrusted with, the standard -- perfection -- remains the same.” Later in the same document, this theme is rephrased as “Perfection isn’t the goal, it is the standard. That’s the demand of the business.” So, is actual perfection a viable standard or is it really a metaphor for excellence and compliance? Certainly that’s an area that can be given some literary clean-up as it seems there should be standards other than 1) perfection and 2) failure. Second, if a unit’s nuclear program actually is perfect, that only means they’ve met the minimum standard. There is lots of stick and very little carrot here, which hearkens back to an old SAC-era phrase “Reward is the absence of punishment.”

For some time, Air Force leaders have been running away from the nuclear mission. This was no doubt due to a variety of factors. First, with the end of the Cold War, the large cuts in the nation’s nuclear weapons inventory signaled the national-level significance of the nuclear mission had diminished. The Air Force’s corresponding de-emphasis--and its consequences--should have been an easily expected and better managed corollary. Second, with the merger of the space operations and missile operations career fields, space and not ICBMs, has become the long-term place to be. Similarly, for bomber crews, conventional and not nuclear missions were preeminent for some time. Third, with more cuts looming in the pending end-of-2009 Nuclear Posture Review and with nuclear modernization serving as a political football, the challenges associated with the long-term viability of the nuclear career fields will be bigger than ever. If the Air Force wants to have enduring and exquisite competencies in the nuclear arena, two elements, promotions and pay, hold the keys and other areas, such as follow-on assignments and education programs will compliment the first two. In the meantime, a reasonable and prudent Airman might see some benefit to moving as far away from a mission area that demands perfection as a minimum standard.

U.S. Space Leadership: Reverting to the Mean?

The phrase ‘reverting to the mean’ is often used in the financial industry to address the nearly-inevitable likelihood that a fund or stock’s spectacular success over the long term (think ponzi-scheme king Bernie Madoff) is simply unsustainable. Reverting to the mean is viewed with such certainty it is sometimes linked two other high-probability events, death and taxes. But just what causes something to revert to the mean? Often it’s because of changed conditions like market competition, consumer preferences, or government intervention (which itself is capable of pulling a company’s returns back to earth or conversely, back from Chapter 11). Gaming is another great example of reverting to the mean: think about how many people had to lose money so that guy shilling for the gambling house on the radio could say “I won a hunnert fifty-six thousand dollars and you can be a winner too.”

For some time, U.S. space programs have been reverting towards the mean. Ok, while there really isn’t a real mean for space programs, the general idea is relative to the U.S., others are catching up, and relative to these others, the United States is not nearly as dominant as it has been. This seems to be especially true regarding the United States as a space launching nation. Need proof? Let’s see--China now has a serious commercial space program and a robust manned space flight effort as well. When they get their heavy lift Long March 5 on line in 2014, they’ll be capable of launching a wide variety of very heavy payloads including up to 55000 pounds to a low earth orbit, as well as to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Russia? They possess the know-how behind the amazing RD-180 engines and some exceedingly mature space launch systems. Besides the space shuttle, the Russian Soyuz and Proton systems provide rides to the International Space Station. Arianespace? That French-led endeavor, along with its nine other European partners, are probably pretty happy with the Ariane 5’s 32 consecutive successful launches. How about some other space launching nations that few seldom think of like India, Japan, and Iran? So far, indigenous South and North Korean space programs have only been suborbital…so far.

Reverting to the mean for U.S. human space flight isn’t too bothersome--unless you’re NASA--as the value of manned space flight is basically a spectacular stunt, kind of like a grizzly bear dunking a basketball. First you say “Wow!” Then you say “Weird.” Next, it’s “Are you going to eat the rest of that hot dog?” Finally you say “Why is that bear dunking a basketball anyway?” From a military perspective however, a loss of U.S. space launch leadership is more problematic: space launch is that necessary first enabler for all other operations in the space domain, such as the traditional unmanned space missions of providing ISR, communications, weather, and GPS that not only enable the U.S. military but are also thoroughly intertwined with our economy.

Just as the United States has a national security requirement to be capable of performing military missions in the air, on the ground, and on and under the sea, we similarly have a need to be able to get to space and to operate our space systems. If we lose the ability to get to space, we put our capacity to operate in the space domain at serious risk. Because of the decision made to get military payloads off the space shuttle following the 1986 Challenger disaster and because we were then in the Cold War, a number of already developed space launch systems came quickly into great prominence.

The Atlas and Titan programs provided ICBM-based space launch vehicles and the Delta program, which started life as the Thor IRBM did the same. However, these recycled rockets, especially Titan in its heavy-lift configuration, were not particularly responsive nor were they cheap. As their fly-out approached, this afforded the military space community an opportunity to envision cheaper, better, and faster ways of getting to space, which became the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. But the assumptions associated with the EELV program--that an “explosion” of commercial space activities would provide the military the ability to reduce its own launch costs by sharing expenses with other space launch users--has never come close to fulfillment. The lack of a robust U.S. commercial space launch industry for the size payloads the military and intelligence communities commonly flies has in fact resulted in massive EELV cost overruns and even more consolidation within the U.S. space launch service industry.

Now, the high cost of getting to space (as well as the high cost of satellites and associated space systems) is dragging U.S. space programs back towards the mean. With the DoD space systems, this is the culmination of excessive rework, of a requirements process that has trends towards exquisite solutions, the planned use of not-ready technologies, funding instability, and too often, a lack of government and contractor proficiency. Other nations seem to lack many of the cost-busting challenges the U.S. suffers from including their reduced labor rates and less entangled bureaucracies.

Is there anything that can save us from reverting to the mean? In the long term--50 years or more--maybe not. However, if things are to improve in the next five years, it is almost certain to be caused by market-based competition from U.S. launch systems like SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Orbital Sciences’ Taurus 2 launch vehicles, or OSC’s Peacekeeper ICBM-derived Minotaur 4 and 5 launch vehicles. These systems, using old-school rocketry like Falcon 9’s RP-1 (kerosene that’s been space-rated) and liquid oxygen burning engines and using similar proven concepts like recycling existing ICBM components a la the legacy Delta, Atlas, and Titan programs have an excellent chance to get our national space launch efforts back on a more affordable footing. While improvements in U.S. launch programs alone won’t preserve our space leadership, they are an essential and compelling starting point to do just that.

First clown in space to advocate for water

While Steve Miller may be known as the space cowboy, the gangster of love, and Maurice, only Guy Laliberte is the space clown.

I have been abducted by aliens, says Japan's first lady

I wouldn't fool you but I've seen the saucers.

World War II? Nothing to do with Stalin, says Russia's President

Perhaps you thought Ramses was the king of denial?

The sort of Russian "thinking" outlined in this article should be a serious caveat emptor for the administration as they work with the Russians on arms control and missile defense issues. If this is the sort of stuff they're selling, I'm hoping we're not buying.

2039's Largest Piece of Space Debris

While Deep Purple sang of Space Truckin', Japan has something else in mind, which in comparison makes Space Truckin' sound like science-fact.

Mitsubishi and IHI plan a $21 billion project to build a solar-power generator in space in the next three decades. The station will microwave electrical power to earth and tests are to start as soon as 2015.

The station will have about 1.5 square miles worth of on-orbit solar panels and will generate one gigawatt, enough to run almost 300,000 average homes in Tokyo. As another reference to help you get your head around that number, you may remember Doc Brown needed 1.21 gigawatts to run the flux capacitor in Back to the Future.

One consultant says the program's costs need to be reduced to one percent of the current estimates for viability.