Counting the Dead

James Dunnigan of Strategy Page summarized the American deaths per 1,000 deployed troops. So far in Iraq, the US military is suffering about 3.6 deaths per 1,000 deployed troops. Here are the numbers, by year, from our war in Vietnam:

We are suffering a much higher wounded:killed ratio in Iraq than we did in Vietnam, mostly due to improved body armor and medical capabilities, so the total number of casualties is higher relative to Vietnam than deaths are. It would be interesting to see a comparison of those numbers.

Go read Dunnigan’s whole article.

More Computer voting

From Andrew Case, posting at Transterrestrial Musings:

Basically the commentator felt that since ATMs are so reliable, we should trust voting machines. This completely ignores that fact that ATM errors have multiple redundant means of catching errors, since they generate a paper trail at the time of the transaction, the customer has additional opportunities to catch errors when they receive their bank statement, and the bank has enormous incentives to ensure correct accounting if they want to stay in business. If there is a potential problem with an ATM it can be taken off line for a couple of days until it is fixed.

In the case of electronic voting machines, they are put to the test once every couple of years, set up by people with minimal training, there is no independent audit trail, and there is considerable incentive to falsify votes, knowing that if you are successful you or your allies will control the investigation into what happened.

I do not buy claims that only the GOP would try to falsify the election. Michael Moore and his legion probably think that’s the case, and I’ve had people tell me that to my face, but it’s pretty ridiculous.

In any event, I’m worried about this. Not specifically because I expect electronic cheating. I’m worried because we will all always be worried about electronic cheating. Because claims that the other side committed electronic cheating will always carry weight. Because distrust of government plus distrust of electronic devices equals overwhelming expectation of electronic cheating.

I just don’t see any bright side. I don’t see any benefit. I don’t see any reason to attempt to commit national suicide.

Written about previously on MO here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here.

Plans discussed for high tech monorail system in Michigan

Although I don’t pretend for one second that any sort of rail system will make a dent in personal travel by automobile, I would welcome the option to travel by train (since no one in their right mind goes Amtrack) and especially would like to see fewer big trucks on the road. We’ll see.

USS Clueless has a post on nuclear reactors and how they can be used to create weapons-grade material even if they are in a pure civilian power plant. The reason for the post was a reader email wondering if claims that the Iraqi Osirak plant, bombed by the Israelis in 1981, was incapable of producing nuclear weapons were accurate.

Although I don’t really understand the science, I knew that such claims were pure bunk. Steven den Beste explains it to us, and underscores that any nuclear power plant is inherently capable of creating material for use in nuclear weapons. It’s unavoidable.

What I didn’t know was that the Osirak plant, built with extensive help from the French in particular, wasn’t even a civilian nuclear power plant. At all. In any way. Another reader contacted SDB with the details. The Osirak reactor was what’s called a “Materials Test Reactor”. MTRs are used for research when planning and designing larger, more powerful reactors. Since Iraq was buying reactors from the French and had no intention of building its own on its own, this reason doesn’t seem to hold heavy water.

Coincidentally, MTRs also have the capability of producing precise weapons-grade material. Hmmmm.

We don’t hear much about that. I wonder why.

SUBMARINES: The U.S. Navy Confronts the Threat From Below (July 30, 2004 entry)

Strategy Page notes the declining ASW of the US Navy.

Potential naval opponents like China, Iran and North Korea don’t, like the Soviets did, send their subs out onto the high seas. Instead, their subs are kept close to shore, in shallower water that makes it more difficult to find them. Worse, these new opponents don’t have those incredibly noisy nuclear subs the Soviets built in large numbers. The new enemy uses diesel-electric boats which, when running just on batteries, are much more difficult to find than those always loud Soviet nukes.

But it gets worse. American ASW sailors are out of practice. In the Cold War days, it was easy to find some Soviet subs to practice on. As a result, American ASW forces had lots of experience and were always ready to go to war. No more. The Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans keep their subs within territorial waters most of the time. They won’t come out on the high seas to play with our ASW people. So we have to arrange play dates with allies who operate diesel-electric subs. These allies usually kick out butts, because they practice sneaking around all the time, and our ASW folks get too little practice to deal with these experienced crews. While our allies operate better (quieter, better trained crews and superior electronics) subs than our potential opponents have, they are not available often enough for our ASW crews to perfect their skills. To be good at ASW, you have to practice regularly, and a lot. And you have to have someone realistic to practice on. Finally, the kind of superior boats our allies use will eventually be available to our opponents.

MO has kept a bit of an eye on this issue, noting both the possible significant reduction in US sub forces and the planned significant expansion of Chinese sub forces. Couple these stories with the idea that maybe our ASW crews and tactics don’t get the training they need to stay sharp and you’ve got trouble.

One new technology that I’ve got my eye on is the LASH system (noted on MO in August), which uses visual detection instead of acoustic detection. This method negates the advantages of the quiet diesel boats employed by our potential enemies, and it increases the likelihood of picking up enemy boats in coastal waters.

We cannot let our enemies get ahead of us in the submarine game. The threat of Chinese or North Korean subs would keep American carrier groups farther from the action than we want in the event of a war, and much of our current overwhelming naval advantage would be squandered.

Maybe what we should do is pick up one or two good diesel boat from an ally and crew them with top-notch personnel as a red team in a sort of submarine Top Gun. Base one sub on each US coast, provide a team of trainers and advisers to work with ship and air crews, and practice like we want to play.

We don’t want anyone to even get into the same ballpark our navy plays in. There are no points for second place.

I received another comment from a reader on this story. I responded in in the comments section but I want to share my opinion (who, me?) about why this issue is an issue.

The reader correctly points out

Hugely nitpicky, I can’t believe we’re analyzing it this closely, but that’s what this whole thread is, hugely nitpicky. I’m amazed that you find this such an important topic.

and

In any event, you’re making a huge deal out of something that is perfectly explainable. And at the same time I didn’t see you devote nearly this much attention when Cheney told Sen. Leahy to go “fuck himself”. And that’s even in violation of senate rules. How can you be so hung up on this?

I guess I’m “hung up” on this because, while I expect politicians to behave badly at times and won’t get all up-in-arms over it, I don’t expect them to be praised for it. Here’s my response:

The reason I originally posted on this wasn’t so much to point out Mrs. Kerry’s words but to point out the reaction that Hilary Clinton had. My original post was a quickie with a quote from a story summarizing the incident and a quick quote and comment on what Clinton said. I then updated soon after when I saw that the NY Times was reporting the use of the word “un-American” more or less as heresay. I had seen the quote from Mrs. Kerry earlier but didn’t think it worth my time. It was Clinton’s reaction and the mood of Kerry apologists that made me post. And even when I did it certainly wasn’t an in-depth effort.

That’s the difference. Well, that and the fact that I’m biased.

There’s no doubt that there are more important stories out there. But a main argument from Kerry supporters has been that we just don’t know the guy yet. I think we got an introduction to his wife, and despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, senior advisers, and ardent supporters, I don’t think America wants more “activity” like what she pulled the other evening.

I’m disappointed with Mrs. Kerry, but I’m equally disappointed with those that are defending her without much of a leg to stand on. And I’m appalled at those who are trying to make her some sort of hero for what she did.

I am so tired of this campaign already. But I’ll nit-pick on as best I can.

Many times I am more surprised by the ration of the public to a story or event than I am by the story or event itself. The recent incident where Teresa Kerry told a reporter to “shove it” is one of these cases.

The main line of defense for Mrs. Kerry’s supporters seems to be the use of the word “activities” by the reporter when he questioned her after her speech. She said “traits” and the reporter said “activities”.

(Cue “Imperial March” from the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK soundtrack and roll montage of Joe McCarthy images)

Maybe the reporter was simply wrong. Maybe he was intentionally misquoting her. Maybe he’s working on a story that compares Mrs. Kerry to Joseph McCarthy.

It doesn’t matter. The correct reaction to the situation wasn’t flat denials followed by “Shove it!”. What if this woman becomes the First Lady of the United States? You think she might face reporters who are trying to trap her from time to time? Will Hillary Clinton say “You go, girl!” if Mrs. Kerry works a Q&A session at a White House funtion like she handled this reporter?

Sheeesh.

But what gets me even more is the effort that Kerry supporters are putting into defending Mrs. Kerry. I received two comments on my original post:

It is alot of hot air because the reporter asked her what she meant by un-American “Activities” which she she didn’t say. They were trying to twist her words in a McCarthy way.

and

So did the reporter accuse her of saying “un-American” or “un-American activities”? I the latter, or if you don’t know, then you should stop referring to her “flat denials in the face of obvious truth” as you did in your follow-up post.

Despite Mrs. Kerry’s flat denials, she was missing the obvious truth. According to CNN (that bastion of GOP sympathy):

In the interview with CNN, Hemmer said “the quote I have is that you said un-American.”

Heinz Kerry then said, “No, un-Pennsylvanian.”

Hemmer then read her the quote from her address to Pennsylvania delegates and she acknowledged saying it.

“That’s absolutely correct. I would say that again.”

Nope. I didn’t say that. No. Nope. No way. Yes I did. And I’d say it again.

???

She said it. After several denials, she admits that she said un-American. So the entire defense of her behavior rests upon the use of the term “activities” by the reporter.

Flimsy, no?

Sure, the reporter got the word wrong, and it certainly could have been on purpose. But if you watch the video (available for now here) you can see that he’s stumbling and gesturing as if trying to find the right word when he says “activities”.

Pretty damning evidence, isn’t it. And no wonder Mrs. Kerry denied everything he said and told him off once she found out what paper he worked for. I mean, he used the word “activities”.

The problem is that she flatly denied saying “un-American” at all, she refused to discuss it at all, she refused to acknowledge the line of questioning at all, and she then told him to “shove it” based upon the organization that employed him.

Do not forget the context of the encounter. It was minutes after she claimed to want more civility in politics.

If she had simply engaged the discussion for thirty seconds, she could have easily cleared up any misunderstanding that the reporter may have had. If the reporter or newspaper misrepresented her when it published the story, she would have a leg to stand on when denying it. Instead she makes herself look bad in the eyes of many.

Some folks don’t think she did anything wrong. Hillary Clinton is one of them, apparently. Fair enough. I just don’t have much personal respect for Mrs. Kerry’s actions, and I question the reasoning of those who are defending them.

Hillary Clinton thinks it’s great. Kerry’s senior adviser thinks that Americans want to hear more of this. The only two readers to comment on my post think it’s the reporter who was out of line.

Watch the video. Read a transcript. Flat denial. Obvious truth. Bad form.

I know that I’m only a Closet Nerd, but I really enjoy Dilbert. As always, check out Dilbert.com to sign up for free daily cartoons in your inbox.

I’ve long held (hoped) that United Airlines Flight 93 was actually shot down by the US military, and that the event was hushed up to avoid disturbing the public and that the tale of heroism by the flight’s passengers was hyped to create a rallying cry (“Let’s Roll”) and to cover the real cause for the hijackers’ failure to hit Washington, DC.

I just started my cover-to-cover reading of the 9/11 Commission Report, and I’ve changed my mind about Flight 93 after reading the summary of events on the plane that morning in Chapter 1 (beginning on page 10).

There’s no doubt that the Commission was a partisan showboat of an effort, but as a simple citizen I guess I don’t have much choice at this point but to buy what I’m being sold. At least it’s not as hard as swallowing the “lone gunman” and “magic bullet theory” ideas must have been in the mid-1960s.

Any feelings on reactions to this report compared to the Warren Commission report? I know it’s early, and most people haven’t been able to wade through the whole thing yet, but snatching that “first glance” impression might be valuable when we want to step back and reflect on this somewhere down the road.

I really wished we had shot Flight 93 down.

On the morning of 9/11, I was pulled away from my office’s desk and its internet connection to attend a 10:00 meeting about production schedules. It felt surreal as I walked from my office in the back corner of the building to the plant manager’s near the front, and of course everyone I passed was talking about that morning’s events. I had called my wife at home, and she told me the TV was talking about a plane crash in Pennsylvania, but that the announcers said they had been told it didn’t appear related to the hijackings.

While we were waiting for the meeting to begin, someone asked me if there were more than just the three planes. I told him that there was apparently a fourth, but that it had crashed in a rural area and that the news people said it wasn’t related to the attacks. “Yeah, sure,” he said. “Just a complete coincidence.” I agreed and said that maybe we had shot it down on its way somewhere. I don’t remember if he asked me more or if I just volunteered the opinion, but I added that I “hoped” we had, since it would mean that “we could”.

While not 100% convinced, as of tonight I’m willing to buy the passengers-caused-the-Flight-93-failure scenario. I guess I’ll soon read more about our ability (or lack thereof) to intercept hijacked airliners.

And yes, I purchased a printed version of the report. I fully realize that it’s available online, and I’ve spent a little time with the PDFs already. Call me oldskool, but it’s just not the same as sitting down with a book. And I get to use my highlighter.

UPDATE: Upon further review, I’ve realized that I couldn’t possibly have been talking about the destruction of Flight 93 while waiting for a 10:00 meeting to begin, since it didn’t crash until 10:03. I pulled my old day planner, but I made no note of the meeting in my hand-written schedule, which isn’t terribly unusual. I went into my Outlook archives, and there it is. 11:00 – Building Committee Presentation. Apparently we looked at some slides about how we were going to manage capacity through the end of the year.