A group of more than 200 Japanese pensioners are volunteering to tackle the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station.
The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, is made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60.
They say they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.
Admirable sense of duty to start with, but smart too:
Volunteering to take the place of younger workers at the power station is not brave, Mr Yamada says, but logical. Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends via e-mail and even messages on Twitter.
"I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live," he says. "Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer."
There is real shortage of both logic and pragmatism in this world, and these guys have both. So many people don't understand radiation at all but of course these engineers do. The unspoken bit here is the risk of sterility or genetic damage, but with workers (effectively if not absolutely)past their reproductive years this problem is obviated.
This seemed a nice change from my railing and doomsaying, and it ties in with the previous post on nuclear hysteria too so win-win. I hope to still be of some use when I'm elderly, and this group's members are good role models for anyone who's looking for that.
Tuesday 31 May 2011
Monday 30 May 2011
Power madness
Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.
The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.
Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.
Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.
There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.
This is first and foremost a huge mistake. Germany gets 23% of it's power from nuclear and this will need to be replaced. The biggest problem is that I hear about "sustainable" and "green" replacements, but I've not heard a plan yet, let alone one that uses existing tech.
Next, it's panicky nonsense; this economic policy fiasco was precipitated by the recent disaster in Japan, but apparently geology/geography is not taught in German schools. Central Europe is in a low-tectonic activity zone (certainly compared to Japan) and all but the Baltic coast is totally immune to tsunami. This is the radical Greens at work, as there is no rational reason to completely junk such a large part of their energy production.
The costs of this (increased energy costs leading to decreased economic competitiveness, etc.) have implications throughout the Euro zone, and if Greece etc. need bailouts down the road, who will be able to do it? The death knell has yet to sound for the Euro, but the ringers are limbering up. Death pool for the Euro anyone?
The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.
Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.
Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.
There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.
This is first and foremost a huge mistake. Germany gets 23% of it's power from nuclear and this will need to be replaced. The biggest problem is that I hear about "sustainable" and "green" replacements, but I've not heard a plan yet, let alone one that uses existing tech.
Next, it's panicky nonsense; this economic policy fiasco was precipitated by the recent disaster in Japan, but apparently geology/geography is not taught in German schools. Central Europe is in a low-tectonic activity zone (certainly compared to Japan) and all but the Baltic coast is totally immune to tsunami. This is the radical Greens at work, as there is no rational reason to completely junk such a large part of their energy production.
The costs of this (increased energy costs leading to decreased economic competitiveness, etc.) have implications throughout the Euro zone, and if Greece etc. need bailouts down the road, who will be able to do it? The death knell has yet to sound for the Euro, but the ringers are limbering up. Death pool for the Euro anyone?
Friday 27 May 2011
More power to us
Petrol prices being unreasonably high again, it seems a good time to get into a ramble about how we will continue to support an advanced technological society. If it was easy everyone would be doing it, but it seems that salvaging a decent standard of living for our kids and grand kids will take some work and imagination.
For the moment, oil rules the energy world. It is abundant (Peak Oil pundits notwithstanding), and the most easily transported source of dense energy, but the sky is not blue for consumers and the economy. Yes we have lots of it, but what we're running out of is cheap, easy to get oil. If the Abiogenic Oil hypothesis is correct it may be renewable, but not on any timescale that will help us so that's largely irrelevant even it happens.
The Alberta Oil Sands were "mothballed" for years because the price of oil was too low for them to be commercially viable. The fact that they're being worked in a big way today is proof that the days of cheap oil are over. That said the current high prices (c.$1.25/L) at the pumps are mostly speculation, and such high prices at the sharp end are not justified on the supply side.
The cost of transport going up over 20% in the last year has placed great inflationary pressure on individuals and businesses which in turn sets off a vicious circle of higher prices for everything and less discretionary spending. It also increases costs for government operations (fire, police, military, etc.) and lessens the amount of sales tax they (fed and provincial/state) pull in. At the municipal level it means higher property taxes, further eroding spending power.
I hope those examples suffice to make my point, which is: Cheap Energy is the Key to Prosperity. Prosperity is fundamental to the kinder gentler welfare states we try to pull off, so wherever you fall on the political spectrum/Venn diagram you should be in favour of prosperity. The news to a lot of people seems to be that the money for policies has to come from somewhere (that would be you on the Left), and squeezing the taxpayers is a process of rapidly diminishing returns. You do indeed run out of other peoples' money...
The good news is that as long as we can keep the clueless Luddite environmentalists at bay we have clean sustainable options. I will go on record here as saying that wind turbines are NOT included in this, as they are worse than useless for large-scale power generation, kill birds and bats in huge swathes, blight the landscape and very possibly make people ill with the vibrations they cause. Not in MY backyard; I'd rather have a nice quiet thorium power plant.
Fear ruins so much of what we might accomplish. The radiation bogeyman easily has people shitting their pants even when there is no massive disaster to give them something to be concerned about. This is obviously an allusion to the Daiichi reactor incidents. The earthquake which precipitated the tsunami which overwhelmed the redundant safety features on those 40+ year-old designs was massive, and there are limits to engineering.
Lessons had been learned since those plants were designed and even more can be done; after all that natural disaster killed over 18,000 people and destroyed billions of any unit of currency in property. The radiation from the leaks hasn't killed anyone to date and even if (IF!) a few die of cancer a few years early that's still a formidable safety record even in failure considering the forces and substances involved.
More (smaller, better designed) fission plants, check. The Grail of nuclear energy is fusion power, but that is perennially "30 years away" so I'll disregard it. I've mentioned it before, but our best option to replace everything we don't like (read: coal) is some form of Thorium reactor. We have lots of it, the technology needs tweaking but is within the state of the art and it's as safe as anything involving toxic metals at high temperatures can be. That sounds flippant, but they can't explode or melt down, so any accident would be an industrial one and do a lot less damage than say a refinery explosion.
Sold; when do we get them? What else? Space-based solar would be great but I don't see it happening even in my lifetime. Ground solar is not yet efficient enough to offset it's cost and the fact that the sun isn't always shining on you, but improvement continues. If battery tech can advance with them we'll have worthwhile home systems, at least for those who can afford it.
This comes back to the "cheap" part of the energy question. Every dollar that you need to spend on energy in any form is money you don't have to keep businesses going, keeping people employed, keeping taxes going to fix your roads, etc., etc. Spending $50K to wean yourself off the fickle (where I live anyway) grid with solar power will take a long time to pay off. Think of the economics of the current generation of hybrid and electric cars; less at the pump, sure, but how much gas could you buy with the extra you spent for the low-rate production semi-experimental vehicle you're driving?
Again with the "no free lunches". I don't see a lot of political leadership which either thinks things all the way through or encourages the public to do so, I guess that's why I keep doing this. Start working on Thorium power now, not in 20 years when we'll have needed it for 10. Go ahead political leaders, surprise me and actually do something with legitimate foresight.
For the moment, oil rules the energy world. It is abundant (Peak Oil pundits notwithstanding), and the most easily transported source of dense energy, but the sky is not blue for consumers and the economy. Yes we have lots of it, but what we're running out of is cheap, easy to get oil. If the Abiogenic Oil hypothesis is correct it may be renewable, but not on any timescale that will help us so that's largely irrelevant even it happens.
The Alberta Oil Sands were "mothballed" for years because the price of oil was too low for them to be commercially viable. The fact that they're being worked in a big way today is proof that the days of cheap oil are over. That said the current high prices (c.$1.25/L) at the pumps are mostly speculation, and such high prices at the sharp end are not justified on the supply side.
The cost of transport going up over 20% in the last year has placed great inflationary pressure on individuals and businesses which in turn sets off a vicious circle of higher prices for everything and less discretionary spending. It also increases costs for government operations (fire, police, military, etc.) and lessens the amount of sales tax they (fed and provincial/state) pull in. At the municipal level it means higher property taxes, further eroding spending power.
I hope those examples suffice to make my point, which is: Cheap Energy is the Key to Prosperity. Prosperity is fundamental to the kinder gentler welfare states we try to pull off, so wherever you fall on the political spectrum/Venn diagram you should be in favour of prosperity. The news to a lot of people seems to be that the money for policies has to come from somewhere (that would be you on the Left), and squeezing the taxpayers is a process of rapidly diminishing returns. You do indeed run out of other peoples' money...
The good news is that as long as we can keep the clueless Luddite environmentalists at bay we have clean sustainable options. I will go on record here as saying that wind turbines are NOT included in this, as they are worse than useless for large-scale power generation, kill birds and bats in huge swathes, blight the landscape and very possibly make people ill with the vibrations they cause. Not in MY backyard; I'd rather have a nice quiet thorium power plant.
Fear ruins so much of what we might accomplish. The radiation bogeyman easily has people shitting their pants even when there is no massive disaster to give them something to be concerned about. This is obviously an allusion to the Daiichi reactor incidents. The earthquake which precipitated the tsunami which overwhelmed the redundant safety features on those 40+ year-old designs was massive, and there are limits to engineering.
Lessons had been learned since those plants were designed and even more can be done; after all that natural disaster killed over 18,000 people and destroyed billions of any unit of currency in property. The radiation from the leaks hasn't killed anyone to date and even if (IF!) a few die of cancer a few years early that's still a formidable safety record even in failure considering the forces and substances involved.
More (smaller, better designed) fission plants, check. The Grail of nuclear energy is fusion power, but that is perennially "30 years away" so I'll disregard it. I've mentioned it before, but our best option to replace everything we don't like (read: coal) is some form of Thorium reactor. We have lots of it, the technology needs tweaking but is within the state of the art and it's as safe as anything involving toxic metals at high temperatures can be. That sounds flippant, but they can't explode or melt down, so any accident would be an industrial one and do a lot less damage than say a refinery explosion.
Sold; when do we get them? What else? Space-based solar would be great but I don't see it happening even in my lifetime. Ground solar is not yet efficient enough to offset it's cost and the fact that the sun isn't always shining on you, but improvement continues. If battery tech can advance with them we'll have worthwhile home systems, at least for those who can afford it.
This comes back to the "cheap" part of the energy question. Every dollar that you need to spend on energy in any form is money you don't have to keep businesses going, keeping people employed, keeping taxes going to fix your roads, etc., etc. Spending $50K to wean yourself off the fickle (where I live anyway) grid with solar power will take a long time to pay off. Think of the economics of the current generation of hybrid and electric cars; less at the pump, sure, but how much gas could you buy with the extra you spent for the low-rate production semi-experimental vehicle you're driving?
Again with the "no free lunches". I don't see a lot of political leadership which either thinks things all the way through or encourages the public to do so, I guess that's why I keep doing this. Start working on Thorium power now, not in 20 years when we'll have needed it for 10. Go ahead political leaders, surprise me and actually do something with legitimate foresight.
Friday 20 May 2011
Too smart for our own good
I have threatened to write about Energy Policy, but before I get into the nuts and bolts of that (superficially at least) I want to say something about ideas and ideology.
I regard myself as a conservative, but this does not mean that I am a slavish follower of Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter, or to be more local, believe that Stephen Harper can do no wrong. Conservative, to me, means someone who likes what is proven to work and adopts new things because they will work too. Not "should" work, WILL work; chances need to be taken from time-to-time, but not with everything, and not "just because" or for the sake of Change.
The worst possible reason to do anything is for Good Intentions. This I see as the key dividing line between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will do something to achieve a set goal, liberals are prone to big picture stuff that runs counter to typical human interests or responses. It's also a key reason that liberals commonly attack their opponents as not being very intelligent. Sarah Palin is an excellent current example of this. Sarah is no Rhodes Scholar (aside: I wonder how many of the lefty recipients of that even know who Cecil Rhodes was and what he stood for?) but neither is 99.99% of the rest of the population.
True disasters are the province of the 99th percentile of brainiacs, so a MENSA card is not in my books a prerequisite for political office. You do need to be clever enough to develop and defend your ideas, but an IQ of 125-140 will allow you to do that as long as you're willing to work a bit harder than the more "gifted".
Sarah looks great on TV, but does she really have the "optimal" brain power for the job she may or may not be seeking? I have no idea (I honestly suspect "no") but she DOES connect to a lot of regular people. The elites hate her of course, but she strikes me as a practical sort for the most part, and politics needs more people who want to make things work and less lawyers who want to change things. One thing I am certain of is that Sarah Palin could not be more of a disaster in the White House than the much "smarter" Barack Obama.
What the hell does this have to do with energy policy? Any planning will be done by the government of the day and ideology plays into it. Sarah Palin's "drill baby, drill" is about keeping the lights on, something that conservatives tend to be big on. Obama has hobbled domestic energy production and intends to do as much more of it as he can through cap and trade, etc. His positions are ideological (thank you, big brains), not practical
Sixty percent of Canadian voters are not happy about the Conservative majority government we currently have, but this government will ensure that nothing overly progressive happens to our economy, and that is both the basis and necessity for establishing a sustainable cheap energy future. Anyone who doesn't support that outcome is either too stupid to have a worthwhile opinion or too "clever" for our/their own good.
Conservatives know that there are no free lunches, and liberals/socialists expect someone else to pay for theirs. With the latter group neutralized for the time being, hopefully some productive work can get done. What I think that means is (probably, what do you want for free?) next.
I regard myself as a conservative, but this does not mean that I am a slavish follower of Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter, or to be more local, believe that Stephen Harper can do no wrong. Conservative, to me, means someone who likes what is proven to work and adopts new things because they will work too. Not "should" work, WILL work; chances need to be taken from time-to-time, but not with everything, and not "just because" or for the sake of Change.
The worst possible reason to do anything is for Good Intentions. This I see as the key dividing line between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will do something to achieve a set goal, liberals are prone to big picture stuff that runs counter to typical human interests or responses. It's also a key reason that liberals commonly attack their opponents as not being very intelligent. Sarah Palin is an excellent current example of this. Sarah is no Rhodes Scholar (aside: I wonder how many of the lefty recipients of that even know who Cecil Rhodes was and what he stood for?) but neither is 99.99% of the rest of the population.
True disasters are the province of the 99th percentile of brainiacs, so a MENSA card is not in my books a prerequisite for political office. You do need to be clever enough to develop and defend your ideas, but an IQ of 125-140 will allow you to do that as long as you're willing to work a bit harder than the more "gifted".
Sarah looks great on TV, but does she really have the "optimal" brain power for the job she may or may not be seeking? I have no idea (I honestly suspect "no") but she DOES connect to a lot of regular people. The elites hate her of course, but she strikes me as a practical sort for the most part, and politics needs more people who want to make things work and less lawyers who want to change things. One thing I am certain of is that Sarah Palin could not be more of a disaster in the White House than the much "smarter" Barack Obama.
What the hell does this have to do with energy policy? Any planning will be done by the government of the day and ideology plays into it. Sarah Palin's "drill baby, drill" is about keeping the lights on, something that conservatives tend to be big on. Obama has hobbled domestic energy production and intends to do as much more of it as he can through cap and trade, etc. His positions are ideological (thank you, big brains), not practical
Sixty percent of Canadian voters are not happy about the Conservative majority government we currently have, but this government will ensure that nothing overly progressive happens to our economy, and that is both the basis and necessity for establishing a sustainable cheap energy future. Anyone who doesn't support that outcome is either too stupid to have a worthwhile opinion or too "clever" for our/their own good.
Conservatives know that there are no free lunches, and liberals/socialists expect someone else to pay for theirs. With the latter group neutralized for the time being, hopefully some productive work can get done. What I think that means is (probably, what do you want for free?) next.
Monday 16 May 2011
The ICC hands Gaddafi a shovel, and the IDF to the frontiers
Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.
The Libyan government has already said it will ignore the announcement.
Libya did not recognise its jurisdiction, like a few other African countries and the United States, he added.
Not a whole lot more to say about that, but there is this today as well:
Israeli forces on high alert for Nakba Day, Sunday, May 15, failed to seal three national borders on the Golan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip against large-scale incursions. Dozens of Syrians and Hizballah invaders were able to overrun the Israeli Golan village of Majd al Shams and hoist Syrian and Palestinian flags in the main square; Hizballah-sponsored Palestinian demonstrators breached the Lebanese-Israeli border and damaged IDF installations; and hundreds of Palestinians battered the Erez crossing from the Gaza Strip.
Debka has a very Israeli perspective on this, but the facts are not in dispute. Round two will be interesting to watch, but I'm sure the Israelis can't fail to see what will happen to them if they're soft again. The c. 700,000 Palestinians who got themselves kicked off their land 50 years ago are now pushing 5 million, drawing even with the Jewish population of Israel. Like it or not, Israel's only way to survive in any recognizable state (and preserve the life of most of its' residents) is to build a wall around itself and shoot to kill. Fire Mission Regiment, linear, prox in effect...
Wednesday 11 May 2011
History is made at night
Capping OBL seems to have ended an era in some ways, although events will grind away past the convenient point which historians will pick to delineate said era. That inconvenient History failed to stop for Francis Fukuyama twenty years ago, and it doesn't care what I think either, although that won't keep me from railing about stuff.
Status of the current Middle East/North African imbroglios? Still fucked, the lot of them from Syria to Libya (Tunisia a possible exception). Things as I write this are particularly interesting in Syria as the Assad dynasty for my money only has weeks or months to live. Bashar seems (unlike his dad) to be only brutal enough to piss people off, not enough to completely cow or eliminate them. Of course the playing field has changed since Hama in 1982 and with cellphone video cameras and social media it is likely no longer possible to keep the lid on military operations against your own people. Also, this isn't a Muslim Brotherhood exclusive uprising like Hama; pretty much everyone not in the Baath party has had enough of it.
I have a lot of company in being perplexed over what "we" are trying to accomplish in Libya. Unless he is killed my prediction remains that Gaddafi will outlast NATO (not "Nato" as I keep seeing it in the media) and retake as much of the country as he wants, possibly hiving off Cyrenaica as a sop/out to the rebels and international community. The latter part is what I would do, and he has in fact offered that already. This has been rejected by people who don't have a better plan, so the whole thing will likely end with a whimper as the coalition bombing Gaddafi's forces (and home) falls apart.
What else? Iran's nuclear program moves forward haltingly after the Stuxnext worm and it's progeny/imitators. The more I think about Iran having nukes as a deterrent against US interference, the more I feel they are wasting money and effort. If the US/Israel were going to hit Iran for any reason (and there are several excellent ones) the window is wide open even if Iraq is not cooperative. There are of course other reasons they want them, reasons not lost on the Saudis as discussed here earlier.
Further east we're back to Pakistan again. It's been abundantly clear for a long time that Pakistan is not on our side in the big picture, if for no other reason than it is a failing state with extremist Muslim tendencies and nuclear weapons. They could not be trusted at any level with the details of the Bin Laden raid, and if they couldn't be trusted with that they can't be trusted with anything we need from them. India is the West's natural ally in that area, and efforts should shift to them; I believe this is happening, but as long (oh, how much longer?) as the US is in Afghanistan they will be dealing with Pakistan.
That's the mid-latitude Eurasian belt, or at least the high points. The world is a busy place, but you will notice that I've little to say about sub-Saharan Africa. The reason for that is simply that I consider most of it to be beyond hope, and not capable of causing North America much more trouble than it already does. This is still "Arithmetic on the Frontier" but the "Frontier" to me these days is moving to the boundaries of our continental shelf. Probably some stuff closer to physical home next post.
Status of the current Middle East/North African imbroglios? Still fucked, the lot of them from Syria to Libya (Tunisia a possible exception). Things as I write this are particularly interesting in Syria as the Assad dynasty for my money only has weeks or months to live. Bashar seems (unlike his dad) to be only brutal enough to piss people off, not enough to completely cow or eliminate them. Of course the playing field has changed since Hama in 1982 and with cellphone video cameras and social media it is likely no longer possible to keep the lid on military operations against your own people. Also, this isn't a Muslim Brotherhood exclusive uprising like Hama; pretty much everyone not in the Baath party has had enough of it.
I have a lot of company in being perplexed over what "we" are trying to accomplish in Libya. Unless he is killed my prediction remains that Gaddafi will outlast NATO (not "Nato" as I keep seeing it in the media) and retake as much of the country as he wants, possibly hiving off Cyrenaica as a sop/out to the rebels and international community. The latter part is what I would do, and he has in fact offered that already. This has been rejected by people who don't have a better plan, so the whole thing will likely end with a whimper as the coalition bombing Gaddafi's forces (and home) falls apart.
What else? Iran's nuclear program moves forward haltingly after the Stuxnext worm and it's progeny/imitators. The more I think about Iran having nukes as a deterrent against US interference, the more I feel they are wasting money and effort. If the US/Israel were going to hit Iran for any reason (and there are several excellent ones) the window is wide open even if Iraq is not cooperative. There are of course other reasons they want them, reasons not lost on the Saudis as discussed here earlier.
Further east we're back to Pakistan again. It's been abundantly clear for a long time that Pakistan is not on our side in the big picture, if for no other reason than it is a failing state with extremist Muslim tendencies and nuclear weapons. They could not be trusted at any level with the details of the Bin Laden raid, and if they couldn't be trusted with that they can't be trusted with anything we need from them. India is the West's natural ally in that area, and efforts should shift to them; I believe this is happening, but as long (oh, how much longer?) as the US is in Afghanistan they will be dealing with Pakistan.
That's the mid-latitude Eurasian belt, or at least the high points. The world is a busy place, but you will notice that I've little to say about sub-Saharan Africa. The reason for that is simply that I consider most of it to be beyond hope, and not capable of causing North America much more trouble than it already does. This is still "Arithmetic on the Frontier" but the "Frontier" to me these days is moving to the boundaries of our continental shelf. Probably some stuff closer to physical home next post.
Monday 2 May 2011
Bin Laden finally dead, now what?
It's ridiculous that it took this long, but it's done. With $50M on his head this shows how motivated his compatriots are that it took nearly 10 years of constant search by the US to take him out.
As for his body being "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition", I would have fed it to pigs, then cremated the pigs and scattered THAT at sea. The people he had killed in pursuit of his jihad were not accorded any sort of respect, therefore OBL was not entitled to it either. It would also send a message, besides the "we'll get you no matter how long it takes" one that this raid sent. The burial at sea is reputedly due to no countries being willing to take it; that may be true, but even if it isn't the last thing you want is a shrine. Hitler's remain were apparently dumped in a sewer, and body count aside I don't see where a terrorist rates better treatment.
I mentioned the price on his head. How much has it cost since 1998 to kill this guy? Cruise missile strikes under Clinton, invasions of Afghanistan and the fiasco in Iraq, operations in Pakistan, it adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars. It was all a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
9/11 was Al Queda's hail-Mary play and they were never likely to match it, let alone surpass it. The actual threat called for world-wide CT action, economic warfare and a lot of patience. Nighttime Special Forces raids, tracking money around the world, smart bombs on compounds, Hellfire strikes on vehicles, that's what's been getting the job done. This is work for section, platoon and maybe company size units with a lot of air support, not Striker Brigades and armoured divisions.
I addressed OBL's "Bleed to Bankruptcy" plan some time ago, but I think it worked pretty well for him. The US is tottering economically partly due to all of these military expenses, but they would have been manageable were it not for the globalization shit-kicking that American manufacturing has taken.
Whither now, GWOT? Although I've described all the physical means to combat these buggers, the boots and drones are no good without intel. A good way to get the intel is to have it come to you. Rewards are brilliant, as they cost nothing unless you get what you're looking for. I would turn in any bad guy for say $10M and passports to a decent country in any name me and my family wanted, and I'm sure I'm not alone. More of that must be an important front in the War on Whatever-it-is-We're-Calling-it-These-Days.
As for his body being "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition", I would have fed it to pigs, then cremated the pigs and scattered THAT at sea. The people he had killed in pursuit of his jihad were not accorded any sort of respect, therefore OBL was not entitled to it either. It would also send a message, besides the "we'll get you no matter how long it takes" one that this raid sent. The burial at sea is reputedly due to no countries being willing to take it; that may be true, but even if it isn't the last thing you want is a shrine. Hitler's remain were apparently dumped in a sewer, and body count aside I don't see where a terrorist rates better treatment.
I mentioned the price on his head. How much has it cost since 1998 to kill this guy? Cruise missile strikes under Clinton, invasions of Afghanistan and the fiasco in Iraq, operations in Pakistan, it adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars. It was all a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
9/11 was Al Queda's hail-Mary play and they were never likely to match it, let alone surpass it. The actual threat called for world-wide CT action, economic warfare and a lot of patience. Nighttime Special Forces raids, tracking money around the world, smart bombs on compounds, Hellfire strikes on vehicles, that's what's been getting the job done. This is work for section, platoon and maybe company size units with a lot of air support, not Striker Brigades and armoured divisions.
I addressed OBL's "Bleed to Bankruptcy" plan some time ago, but I think it worked pretty well for him. The US is tottering economically partly due to all of these military expenses, but they would have been manageable were it not for the globalization shit-kicking that American manufacturing has taken.
Whither now, GWOT? Although I've described all the physical means to combat these buggers, the boots and drones are no good without intel. A good way to get the intel is to have it come to you. Rewards are brilliant, as they cost nothing unless you get what you're looking for. I would turn in any bad guy for say $10M and passports to a decent country in any name me and my family wanted, and I'm sure I'm not alone. More of that must be an important front in the War on Whatever-it-is-We're-Calling-it-These-Days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)