The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies in Congressfrequently claim that gun violence is highest in places with the toughest crime laws. But a new study from the Center for American Progress (CAP) suggests something closer to the opposite is true — the states with laxer gun laws tend to be the ones contributing the highest shares of national gun deaths and injuries.
The authors of the report, called “America Under The Gun,” developed a list of ten indices of gun violence, ranging from gun homicide levels to firearm assaults to crime gun export rate (the number of guns sold in that state used in crimes around the country), and ranked each state from 1-50 along each index. They then took the average of each state’s ranking to determine its overall level of gun violence relative to other states. Lousiana was the highest, with an average of fifth-worst across all ten indices, while Hawaii’s 45.4 ranking was the best.
A statistical regression comparing these rankings with strength of gun law found a correlation between weak gun laws and violence levels as measured by the 10-index average. Comparing a state’s relative ranking in strength of gun law (as judged by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) to a state’s relative gun violence ranking yielded clear evidence that states with looser gun laws contributed more to the national gun violence epidemic:
"While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a state’s gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws."
Here is the map:
Click Image To Enlarge
COMMENTARY:
10 Indices Used In The Gun Violence Study
The data analyzed in the Center For American Progress' report "America Under The Gun" used the following 10 indicators of gun violence:
Overall firearm deaths in 2010
Overall firearm deaths from 2001 through 2010
Firearm homicides in 2010
Firearm suicides in 2010
Firearm homicides among women from 2001 through 2010
Firearm deaths among children ages 0 to 17, from 2001 through 2010
Law-enforcement agents feloniously killed with a firearm from 2002 through 2011
Aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011
Crime-gun export rates in 2009
Percentage of crime guns with a short “time to crime” in 2009
Sources of Information Used In The Gun Violence Study
In this report the Center For American Progress analyzed data from the following sources:
National Center for Injury Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
Data used in the 10 indices was taken from the years 2001 through 2011.
Top 10 States Ranked By Highest Levels of Gun Violence
Based on an analysis of the above data, the Center For American Progress determined that the following 10 states ranked the highest for the highest levels of gun violence:
Louisiana
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Mississippi
South Carolina
New Mexico
Missouri
Arkansas
Georgia
Aggregate State Rankings For Gun-Violence Outcomes
The Center For American Progress determined the aggregate state rankings for gun-violence outcomes for all 50 states to be as follows:
Click Image To Enlarge
Out of the top 25 states ranked by aggregate score for gun-violence outcomes, 20 were identified as solid red states. Four states are classified as battleground states during national elections (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida) and voted blue during the 2008 and 2012 general elections. Michigan was the only swing state out of the top 25.
Overall Firearm Deaths For The Year 2010
The Center For American Progress ranked all 50 states based on overall firearms deaths for the years 2001 through 2010. Here's the list of the 50 states in alphabetical order.
Click Image To Enlarge
Firearm Homicides In 2010
Every day in the United States, 33 people on average are murdered with a gun. This amounts to roughly one gun murder every 44 minutes According to CDC data, there were more than 11,000 firearm homicides in the United States in 2010—comprising 68 percent of all homicides that year—with a hugely uneven distribution across the states.
Louisiana ranks first in firearm homicides in the country in 2010, with 9.53 gun murders annually for every 100,000 people—more than two-and-a-half times the national average. This is a staggering number considering that 12 states have a rate of less than two homicides annually for every 100,000 people. Indeed, even the state ranked second on this list—Mississippi, with 6.91 gun homicides annually for every 100,000 people—doesn’t come close to Louisiana’s rate.
Click Image To Enlarge
Where did your home state rank in the above study?
Where are the world's guns - and which countries have the highest rates of firearms murders?
The Aurora shooting has re-lit the arguments over gun control in the US.
How does the US really compare on firearms? The world's crime figures are collected by the UNODC through its annual crime survey. It has a special section of data on firearm homicides - and provides detailed information by size of population and compared to other crimes. It is not a perfect dataset - some key nations are missing from the data, including Russia, China and Afghanistan. But it does include the US, UK and many other developed nations.
The Small Arms Survey is also useful - although it is from 2007, it collates civilian gun ownership rates for 178 countries around the world, and has 'normalised' the data to include a rate per 100,000 population.
It shows that with less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison
So, given those caveats, we can see which countries have the highest ownership rates for firearms - and which have the highest gun murder rates.
The key facts are:
The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - a total of 270 million guns as of 2007 or an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people.
But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.
Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean
Even China and India, with four time the population of the U.S. do not have anywhere the number of guns owned by Americans. In fact, if you added all the guns owned by private citizens in the other countries of the world. It would not match the 270 million guns (as of 2007) in the hands of Americans. That number is now probably 300 million or very close to it.
How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI's uniform crime reports for 2010 provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America.
In early January 2011 the shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner in front of supporters in Tucson, Arizona left six dead, including a nine-year-old child. But since then, the issue has been given scant attention.
The FBI crime statistics are based on reports to FBI bureau and local law enforcement. The figures are not complete - there are no stats for Florida on firearm murders and the data for Illinois is "incomplete". But even so it provides a detailed picture of attacks by state.
Click To View Interactive Map
Click the above map then click on a state to explore it - or use the dropdown menu to choose different ways of seeing the data
In fact, gun crime, like all crime across the US is going down - you can see how much in the graph above.
In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.
The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:
While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states.
If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 2009
DC is followed by Louisiana (7.75) and Missouri (5.34)
DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98
If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25)
Gun Crime In The U.S. by State for 2010
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%):
This article lists individual gun owners as a percentage of each state's population, as of 2007.
This data was very relevant during the 2012 General Election and state elections for governors and U.S. senatorial and congressional races. The data clearly explains why candidates President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney refused to meaningfully address gun control and ownership issues before the November 2012 election day: thirteen of fourteen 2012 battleground states have gun ownership rates of 30% or more.
* Battleground state during the 2012 General Election. Source - USACarry.com
Interestingly, the top ten states with the highest gun ownership rates (all 50% or more) are considered staunchly Republican-red states. And nine of the ten states with the lowest gun ownership rates (all less than 30%) are considered staunchly Democratic blue states. The sole exception is Florida, a battleground state with a 24.5% gun ownership rate.
The South is the most violent region in the United States
The FBI divides America into four regions:
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
In 2010, the South accounted for 41.5% of all violent crimes reported to the FBI, but the data ignores relevant issues that tended to inflate violent crime statistics for the South.
Between 2000-2010, the South actually experienced a 22.3% decline in its violent crime ra1te, beating the U.S. decline of 20.3%.
Illegal immigration-related crime tended to inflate violent crime statistics for some of the Southern states, and this had a significant impact on southern states like Texas and Florida.
A 15 year old was charged with nine murders after crashing a van smuggling illegal immigrants near the Mexico border.
Fifteen more illegal immigrants died recently when another smuggler crashed his overloaded truck. Minus the dead driver, that’s 23 more murders in Texas this year, all related to illegal immigration.
In Florida, a Haitian illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet and deportation order murdered three people in their North Miami home. After Haiti’s 2010 earthquake, the president put deportations on hold, so ICE put him back on the street.
Obviously, illegal immigrants commit violence in other parts of the country. Simply saying that the South is more violent ignores the impact of policies created by the federal government. In fact, our elected federal officials have yet to fully address the illegal immigrant problem in the U.S. or ignored it altogether. Illegal immigration is such a hot issue, that Mitt Romney lost the hispanic vote by a wide margin by supporting self-deportation.
COMMENTARY: First, I would like to say that I fully support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gives all Americans the right to bear arms. Second, I am for nationalized gun legislation and control of all firearms. I have never fully subscribed to the notion that gun regulation is a "states right." Here's why.
A lack of uniformity in gun ownership laws, with some states requiring background checks, while some have hardly any or none at all.
Differences as to who can legally sell firearms. Many states allow the sale of firearms at gun shows and flea markets.
The length of time required for approval to own a firearm. In Kentucky, I can walk out the door with a gun without a background check, waiting period or registration.
The types of firearms that can be legally owned. Some states have no legislation to prevent conversion of a semi-automatic assault-type rifle to fully-automated.
The types of firearms that can be legally owned.
As you can see from the above statistics, there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and reduced violent crimes involving guns. Compounding the problem are inconsistencies in gun regulations between states and liberal regulations governing acquiring military-style assault weapons In fact, the reverse is true according to statistics compiled by the FBI:
Women are 12 times more likely to be killed with a firearm by their husband during a domestic dispute when there is a gun in the house.
An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U.S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world.
More guns has not reduced the number of mass killings, in fact there are now more of them, and the numbers of individuals killed and wounded is increasing: Columbine High School massacre which killed 13 and wounded 26 others, "The Dark Knight Rises" midnight premiere in an Aurora, Colorada movie theater killed 12 and injured 58, the Virginia Tech student mass shootings killed 32 and wounded 15.
According to the FBI (see above graph), guns are the overwhelming weapon of choice when it comes to violent crimes.
States with "shoot first" gun laws, are more likely to result in a death by shooting which could've been prevented, or occurred due to a mistake in judgement or outright error. Shoot first laws expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense beyond the home and eliminate a person's duty to retreat before resorting to use of such deadly force. There are now 15 states with laws similar to those of Florida, and you can bet that here will be more of these unwarranted killings.
In the U.S. nearly 40% of all homicides are committed using a firearm. This ranks the U.S. 7th out of the top 32 developed nations.
In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection. It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry. This is complete lunacy and dangerous.
In Massachusetts, where we have some of the most effective gun laws, firearms kill three people per 100,000 each year, compared to the national average of 10 per 100,000. Massachusetts is one of the few states to require gun training, licensing and registration, and consumer protection standards for firearm manufacturers, and is one of only 17 states that require criminal background checks for all gun sales.
UPDATE: This morning I woke up to the shocking news that as many as 20 children, students at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connectiut were shot. Law enforcement officials are very tight in releasing details of the shootings. This is another example of just how out of control the "Culture of Guns" has become. President Obama and our Congress must find a solution to this problem. We are now experiencing mass killings, not just one or two a day, but MASS KILLINGS of innocent civiliants and even very young children as in the ase of Sandy Hook Elementary. If you are a gun owner, you must properly secure and store those guns where your children or thieves cannot get their hands on them. If you cannot absolutely secure your weapons, then you should not be owning a firearm. I know that's harsh, but we must find a way to put an end to these MASS KILLINGS using firearms. The next victim maybe your children, wife, parent or loved one.
In the wake of the recent mass shootings, reasonable people have been asking whether their state is doing everything it can to prevent people with severe mental illness from getting guns.
Unfortunately, according to latest data from the FBI, the answer right now is clearly: “No.”
When someone tries to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, they have to undergo a background check.
However, most states have failed to submit millions of mental health records into the national do-not-sell gun database – making these gun checks alarmingly incomplete.
Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen.
And what’s worse, leaders at the state and national levels have not told us how they plan on closing these fatal gaps.
Find out the risk level in your state – and then share the following map with friends and family so they can take action too.
Click Image To View an Interactive Map, then click on your State
COMMENTARY: If you click on the dark maroon colored states, you will find that some of them do little or nothing to screen gun applications for individuals with mental illnesses. Many of the individuals involved in mass killings by firearms had histories of mental illness. This includes the infamous Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean student who killed 34 students and teachers and wounded countless more at Virginia Tech and James Holmes, the University of Colorado medical school dropout who shot and killed numerous moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.
If you are concerned as I am about how easy it is to obtain a gun if you have a mental illness, violent history or previous felony conviction, then fill out the short questionnaire next to your state. This will bring this matter to the attention of POTUS Barack Obama, ex-governor Willard Romney and your own State governor. Pass the link of the map to your friends who feel the same way.
NOTE: I am NOT against gun ownership, or legislation to prevent you from owning a gun, but I am for tougher gun registration legislation and preventing the sale of guns to individuals with violent pasts, mental illnesses and felony convictions. The right to bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, many states (marooned-colored states) have very liberal gun ownership laws. Some states like Kentucky, don't even require gun ownership registration at all.
Courtesy of an infographic titled "Demand A Plan To End Gun Violence" prepared by DemandAPlan.org
President Obama bows to Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010, after all they are our bank
The USS Gerald R. Ford was supposed to help secure another half century of American naval supremacy. The hulking aircraft carrier taking shape in a dry dock in Newport News, Va., is designed to carry a crew of 4,660 and a formidable arsenal of aircraft and weapons.
But an unforeseen problem cropped up between blueprint and expected delivery in 2015: China is building a new class of ballistic missiles designed to arc through the stratosphere and explode onto the deck of a U.S. carrier, killing sailors and crippling its flight deck.
WSJ's Nathan Hodge reports on a new fleet of Chinese ballistic missiles that can strike warships nearly 2,000 miles offshore and are intended to keep U.S. warships. AP Photo/Xinhua, Pu Haiyang
Since 1945, the U.S. has ruled the waters of the western Pacific, thanks in large part to a fleet of 97,000-ton carriers—each one "4.5 acres of mobile, sovereign U.S. territory," as the Navy puts it. For nearly all of those years, China had little choice but to watch American vessels ply the waters off its coast with impunity.
Now China is engaged in a major military buildup. Part of its plan is to force U.S. carriers to stay farther away from its shores, Chinese military analysts say. So the U.S. is adjusting its own game plan. Without either nation saying so, both are quietly engaged in a tit-for-tat military-technology race. At stake is the balance of power in a corner of the seas that its growing rapidly in importance.
Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk publicly about potential conflict with China. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing isn't an explicit enemy. During a visit to China last month, Michele Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told a top general in the People's Liberation Army that "the U.S. does not seek to contain China," and that "we do not view China as an adversary," she recalled in a later briefing.
Click Image To Enlarge
Nevertheless, U.S. military officials often talk about preparing for a conflict in the Pacific—without mentioning who they might be fighting. The situation resembles a Harry Potter novel in which the characters refuse to utter the name of their adversary, says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. He says.
"You can't say China's a threat. You can't say China's a competitor."
China Unveils New "Carrier-Killer" Anti-Ship Ballistic Missle
Beijing's interest in developing anticarrier missiles is believed to date to the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996. The Chinese government, hoping to dissuade voters in Taiwan from re-electing a president considered pro-independence, conducted a series of missile tests, firing weapons into the waters off the island. President Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups, signaling that Washington was ready to defend Taiwan—a strategic setback for China.
Click Image To Enlarge
China's state media has said its new missile, called the DF-21D, was built to strike a moving ship up to about 1,700 miles away. U.S. defense analysts say the missile is designed to thwart our defenses in two key ways:
Come in at an angle too high for U.S. defenses against sea-skimming cruise missiles.
Com in too low for defenses against other ballistic missiles.
Flight path of China's DF-21D ASBM (Click Image To Enlarge)
Even if U.S. systems were able to shoot down one or two, some experts say, China could overwhelm the defenses by targeting a carrier with several missiles at the same time.
As such, the new missile—China says it isn't currently deployed—could push U.S. carriers farther from Chinese shores, making it more difficult for American fighter jets to penetrate its airspace or to establish air superiority in a conflict near China's borders.
Comparative Range of China's DF-21D missle at 2700KM (Blue) and 1500KM (Yellow) ranges(Click Image To Enlarge)
U.S. Response To New China Threat
In response, our military is developing:
The Navy is testing long-range pilotless, drone aircraft that can hover 70,000 feet above aircraft carriers and allows fleet commanders to track suspicious vessels across vast expanses of sea. A prototype of the as-yet-unnamed drone, referred to as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system, is in action with the Navy’s 5th Fleet in the Pacific and, according to one naval expert, could help keep tabs on any Iranian threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The Air Force wants a fleet of pilotless bombers capable of cruising over vast stretches of the Pacific. The Air Force presently has an extensive arsenal of medium-range pilotless drones, including the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper, and used in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now on the Pentagon wish list is a proposed fleet of 80 to 100 nuclear-capable bombers that could operate with or without a pilot in the cockpit. Pentagon weapons acquisition chief Ashton Carter met separately with representatives of Northrop, Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. These companies are expected to vie for the estimated $55-billion contract that is expected to provide jobs and decades of work for Southern California’s aerospace industry.
China Also Presents A Cyberspace Threat
The gamesmanship extends into cyberspace. U.S. officials worry that, in the event of a conflict, China would try to attack the satellite networks that control drones, as well as military networks within the U.S. The outcome of any conflict, they believe, could turn in part on who can jam the other's electronics or hack their computer networks more quickly and effectively.
In May 26, 2011, at a recent press conference held by the Defense Ministry, Geng Yansheng, spokesman of China's Defense Ministry, explained the role of "China's Blue Team," a team of hackers created to twart cyberattacks. He said.
"At present, Internet safety has become an international issue. It not only affects our civil societies but also the military. China is also a victim of Internet attacks. Right now our Internet protection system is still relatively weak. Improving Internet safety is one of the most prominent tasks of our military training. The purpose of the "Cyber Blue Team" is to improve our ability to safeguard Internet security."
Click Image To Enlarge
The Defense Ministry also emphasized that the "Cyber Blue Team" are not hackers and that the International community should not misunderstand the purpose of it. "Cyber Blue Team" is just a nickname used within the military training routines and is not an actual unit within the PLA.
China's Cyber Blue Team busy hacking (Click Image To Enlarge)
Sizing up China's electronic-warfare capabilities is more difficult. China has invested heavily in cybertechnologies, and U.S. defense officials have said Chinese hackers, potentially working with some state support, have attacked American defense networks. China has repeatedly denied any state involvement.
How China Plans To Control The Seas Through "Anti-Access, Area Denial" Technologies
Throughout history, control of the seas has been a prerequisite for any country that wants to be considered a world power. China's military buildup has included a significant naval expansion. China now has 29 Song Class electric submarines armed with antiship cruise missiles, compared with just eight in 2002, according to Rand Corp., another think tank with ties to the military. In August, China conducted a sea trial of the "Varyag", its first aircraft carrier —a vessel that isn't yet fully operational.
At one time, military planners saw Taiwan as the main point of potential friction between China and the U.S. Today, there are more possible flash points. Tensions have grown between Japan and China over islands each nation claims in the East China Sea. Large quantities of oil and gas are believed to lie under the South China Sea, and China, Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations have been asserting conflicting territorial claims on it. Last year, Vietnam claimed China had harassed one of its research vessels, and China demanded that Vietnam halt oil-exploration activities in disputed waters.
A few years ago, the U.S. military might have responded to any flare-up by sending one or more of its 11 aircraft carriers to calm allies and deter Beijing. Now, the People's Liberation Army, in addition to the missiles it has under development, has submarines capable of attacking the most visible instrument of U.S. military power.
Click Image To Enlarge
Eric Heginbotham, who specializes in East Asian security at Rand says.
"This is a rapidly emerging development. As late as 1995 or 2000, the threat to carriers was really minimal. Now, it is fairly significant. There is a whole complex of new threats emerging."
The Chinese military embarked on a military modernization effort designed to blunt U.S. power in the Pacific by developing what U.S. military strategists dubbed "anti-access, area denial" technologies.
Adm. Gary Roughead, the recently retired U.S. chief of naval operations, last year said.
"Warfare is about anti-access. You could go back and look at the Pacific campaigns in World War II, [when] the Japanese were trying to deny us access into the western Pacific."
In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao unveiled a new military doctrine calling for the armed forces to undertake "new historic missions" to safeguard China's "national interests." Chinese military officers and experts said those interests included securing international shipping lanes and access to foreign oil and safeguarding Chinese citizens working overseas.
At first, China's buildup was slow. Then some headline-grabbing advances set off alarms in Washington. In a 2007 test, China shot down one of its older weather satellites, demonstrating its ability to potentially destroy U.S. military satellites that enable warships and aircraft to communicate and to target bases on the Chinese mainland.
The Pentagon responded with a largely classified effort to protect U.S. satellites from weapons such as missiles or lasers. A year after China's antisatellite test, the U.S. demonstrated its own capabilities by blowing up a dead spy satellite with a modified ballistic-missile interceptor.
Last year, the arms race accelerated. In January, just hours before then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sat down with Chinese President Hu to mend frayed relations, China conducted the first test flight of a new, radar-evading fighter jet. The plane, called the Chendu J-20 (see video below), might allow China to launch air attacks much farther afield—possibly as far as U.S. military bases in Japan and Guam.
The aircraft carrier China launched in August was built from a hull bought from Ukraine. The Pentagon expects China to begin working on its own version, which could become operational after 2015—not long after the USS Gerald R. Ford enters service.
American military planners are even more worried about the modernization of China's submarine fleet. The newer vessels can stay submerged longer and operate more quietly than China's earlier versions. In 2006, a Chinese Song class submarine appeared in the midst of a group of American ships, undetected until it rose to the surface.
China's Type-094 Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) is now under construction
China's Song Class Type-039 and 041 electric submarines (SS) carry cruise missiles
China's technological advances have been accompanied by a shift in rhetoric by parts of its military. Hawkish Chinese military officers and analysts have long accused the U.S. of trying to contain China within the "first island chain" that includes Japan and the Philippines, both of which have mutual defense treaties with the U.S., and Taiwan, which the U.S. is bound by law to help defend. They now talk about pushing the U.S. back as far as Hawaii and enabling China's navy to operate freely in the western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and beyond.
Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military commentators, told a conference in September.
"The U.S. has four major allies within the first island chain, and is trying to starve the Chinese dragon into a Chinese worm."
The Pentagon Conducts War Games
China's beefed up military still is a long way from having the muscle to defeat the U.S. Navy head-to-head. For now, U.S. officials say, the Chinese strategy is to delay the arrival of U.S. military forces long enough to take control of contested islands or waters.
Publicly, Pentagon leaders such as Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said the U.S. would like to cultivate closer military-to-military ties with China.
Privately, China has been the focus of planning. In 2008, the U.S. military held a series of war games, called Pacific Vision, which tested its ability to counter a "near-peer competitor" in the Pacific. That phrase is widely understood within the military to be shorthand for China.
Retired Air Force Gen. Carrol "Howie" Chandler, who helped conduct the war games says.
"My whole impetus was to look at the whole western Pacific. And it was no secret that the Chinese were making investments to overcome our advantages in the Pacific."
Those games tested the ability of the U.S. to exercise air power in the region, both from land bases and from aircraft carriers. People familiar with the exercises say they informed strategic thinking about potential conflict with China. A formal game plan, called AirSea Battle, now is in the works to develop better ways to fight in the Pacific and to counter China's new weapons, Pentagon officials say.
U.S. Navy Developing New Weapons And Expanding Bases
The Navy is developing new weapons for its aircraft carriers and new aircraft to fly off them. On the new Ford carrier, the catapult that launches jets off the deck will be electromagnetic, not steam-powered, allowing for quicker takeoffs.
The carrier-capable drones under development, which will allow U.S. carriers to be effective when farther offshore, are considered a breakthrough. Rear Adm. William Shannon, who heads the Navy's office for unmanned aircraft and strike weapons, compared the drone's debut flight last year to a pioneering flight by Eugene Ely, who made the first successful landing on a naval vessel in 1911. "I look at this demonstration flight…as ushering us into the second 100 years of naval aviation," he said.
The Air Force wants a longer-range bomber for use over the Pacific. Navy and Air Force fighter jets have relatively short ranges. Without midair refueling, today's carrier planes have an effective range of about 575 miles.
China's subs, fighter planes and guided missiles will likely force carriers to stay farther than that from its coast, U.S. military strategists say.
Andrew Hoehn, a vice president at Rand says.
"The ability to operate from long distances will be fundamental to our future strategy in the Pacific. You have to have a long-range bomber. In terms of Air Force priorities, I cannot think of a larger one."
The U.S. also is considering new land bases to disperse its forces throughout the region. President Barack Obama recently announced the U.S. would use new bases in Australia, including a major port in Darwin. Many of the bases aren't expected to have a permanent American presence, but in the event of a conflict, the U.S. would be able to base aircraft there.
In light of China's military advances and shrinking U.S. defense budgets, some U.S. military officers have begun wondering whether the time has come to rethink the nation's strategic reliance on aircraft carriers like the USS Ford. A successful attack on a carrier could jeopardize the lives of as many as 5,000 sailors—more than all the troops killed in action in Iraq.
Navy Captain Henry Hendrix and retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Noel Williams wrote in an article in the naval journal Proceedings last year.
"The Gerald R. Ford is just the first of her class. She should also be the last."
COMMENTARY: In two blog posts dated February 7, 2011, July 16, 2011 and November 8, 2011 and have extensively covered the new cyberspace threat posted by China, including the U.S. USCYBERCOM or CYBERCOM and its Chinese counterpart "Blue Cyber Team." In 2011, President Barack Obama established cyberattack rules of engagement and could respond to such an attack by an attack of its own, including the use of military weapons.
China has just finished test flying its new Chendu J-20 stealth fighter jet, so not much is known about the new Chinese stealth fighter specifications and capabilities, but it is believed that the America's F-22 and new F-35 stealth fighters are more than a match. However, the J-20's stealth capabilities, larger armament payload and longer range could present a serious threat U.S. bases in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
China's navy is growing rapidly, and includes submarines (both conventional and nuclear), surface combat ships, coastal warfare, amphibious warfare and minewarfare vessels. U.S. military experts estimate there are approximately 63 submarines in its fleet, of which 10 are nuclear. They include two classes of nuclear attack submarines (SSN)--Type 091 and 093. China also has two classes of nuclear ballistic missle submarines (SSBN)--Type 092 and 093. China is also building a newer, larger nuclear ballistic missle submarine (SSBN), the Type 095. Here's an estimate of China's latest naval inventory.
China's Naval Inventory
The following chart may help explain why the U.S. Naval Pacific Fleet is supporting Taiwan and patrolling the East and South China Seas.
Click Image To Enlarge
Obama's bow to China's President not withstanding, the U.S. is not sitting on its butt while China ramps up its military. We have the largest naval fleet of any country, largest air force, largest nuclear arsenal, both day (F-22 and F-35) and night stealth fighters (F-117), and stealth bombers (B-2).
The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined, including China's. The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service, one under construction (two planned), and one in reserve. The service had 328,516 personnel on active duty and 101,689 in the Navy Reserve in January 2011. It operates 286 ships in active service and more than 3,700 aircraft.
Our nuclear submarine fleet numbers 71, giving us a 7-to-1 superiority in nuclear submarines. We have 12 super aircraft carriers to China's lone "little" aircraft carrier. The U.S. is also developing a fleet of very fast Littoral ships that can operate off costal waters and can be used in different missions, an electronic rail gun that can shoot a projectile 100 miles with precise accuracy (and shoot down China's DF-21 carrier-killer missile), and we are working on numerous secret aircraft and military weapons systems that very few people know about.
The U.S. also has the world's largest, and most sophisticated fleet of unmanned drones, many of them being used in combat over the skys of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. is now testing two unmanned, long-range, nuclear-capable bombers. When completed, that bomber fleet will number 80-100.
Obama's bow to China's president not withstanding, the U.S. is not intimidated by China, and I don't see us losing our mastery of the seas anytime soon. We will just have to learn to co-exist. Do you honestly believe they would jeopardize their entire economy, risk a war and everything they have built, over the little island of Taiwan? China also holds over $1 trillion of U.S. debt and I am sure they would like to be paid at some time.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has been secretly building up its ranks of hunter-killer commandos, such as the Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden.
Since 2009, the U.S. has boosted the number of strike teams in Afghanistan from four to 20, each with 10 to 100 men. These and other special-operations forces have carried out thousands of raids in the past year, officials said, killing about 3,200 insurgents and capturing approximately 8,000 more.
A senior U.S. official said stepped-up raids in Afghanistan honed the teams' skills, increased intelligence about militants in Pakistan and gave President Barack Obama confidence that a SEAL assault on bin Laden's compound in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad could succeed.
The raid on the bin Laden compound has raised the curtain on this and a host of other secret military capabilities, including the possible existence of new stealth helicopter technology and commando teams' use of trained dogs. Although the military jealously guards such details, the chance to take out the al Qaeda leader appeared worth the trade-off of revealing some of the commando teams' tradecraft.
Few have publicly criticized the use of hunter-killer commandos in the wake of the SEAL team's successful strike. But in the past, some critics have expressed worry that use of the teams amounts to targeted killings and that inserting commandos in countries where the U.S. isn't at war can threaten to enmesh the U.S. in bigger, more costly conflicts.
Hunting al Qaeda fighters and gathering intelligence on bin Laden was a prime justification for the buildup of commando units in Afghanistan. But their mission isn't likely to end with bin Laden's death. Officials say the Pentagon intends to further bolster the teams and increase the number of missions they are assigned to carry out.
Says a U.S. official,
"They are building their target lists and stacking them up. These guys have never been as busy as they are now."
Mr. Obama planned to travel Friday to Fort Campbell, Ky., to meet with members of the team involved in the strike on bin Laden's compound. The commandos belong to Joint Special Operations Command, the Fort Bragg, N.C.-based headquarters, usually called JSOC, which oversees the U.S. military counterterrorism missions around the world.
Since the beginning of last year, the Obama administration has embraced the hunter-killer mission with vigor.
The military distinguishes between counterinsurgency—which focuses on protecting the locals and winning their trust with government services and economic development—and what the Pentagon calls counterterrorism, which in Afghanistan is a campaign to hunt down top insurgent leaders and foreign fighters.
Some in the White House view the military's counterinsurgency mission with skepticism, worried about the huge expense of having large numbers of U.S. troops deployed overseas. By contrast, the JSOC counterterrorism teams are small, travel light and require little in the way of the heavy logistics needed to sustain conventional forces.
In Afghanistan, JSOC units are credited with weakening the Taliban over the past year with constant attacks. Those insurgents reported killed or captured in the past year by JSOC and other special-operations forces, such as Army Green Berets and Marine commandos, include some 1,500 insurgent leaders, officials say.
Although foot soldiers are easily replaced, military commanders say, eliminating midlevel commanders has helped to erode the Taliban's ability to control territory and fighters.
Still, violence levels in Afghanistan remain high, with the number of weekly attacks hitting an all-time peak last September.
Such teams have generally not ventured into Pakistan. During the George W. Bush administration, military officials proposed sending a team there to capture al Qaeda's then-No. 3, Faraj al-Libbi. Senior administration officials vetoed the plan, saying he wasn't a valuable enough target to risk angering the Pakistanis. In 2005, he was captured by Pakistani special forces working with the Central Intelligence Agency.
But in 2008, the Bush administration did approve a raid into Pakistan. In an operation code-named "Cottonmouth," a SEAL team crossed into Pakistan and grabbed a militant who later provided detailed information about al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan's North Waziristan region, a tribal area where many militants take refuge. Officials say the Central Intelligence Agency used the information to develop targets for drone strikes.
The incursion caused a furor in Pakistan, where the government publicized and condemned the strike. Within the Bush administration, State Department officials argued that further raids could permanently damage the relationship with Pakistan. The White House ruled out future strikes.
"It got to the point that bin Laden would be the only reason to go in," the senior official said.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Obama repeatedly stressed his willingness to enter Pakistan to pursue al Qaeda targets. Soon after he became president, the number of CIA missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan increased.
Before this week's attack on bin Laden's compound, as far as is known publicly, Mr. Obama hadn't authorized any commando raids into Pakistan. But senior U.S. officials said the administration used the expanded number of hunter-killer teams in Afghanistan to try to pressure the Pakistanis themselves to move against militants.
In October 2010, amid new intelligence reports that militants in the tribal areas were planning an attack on America or Europe, senior U.S. officials told their Pakistani counterparts that if an attack on the U.S. or its allies were traced to Pakistan, the military would act unilaterally and send commandos to attack plotters or training camps there.
JSOC controls the Pentagon's three classified special-mission units:
Army's 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, known as Delta Force.
Navy's Naval Special Warfare Development Group, commonly called SEAL Team Six.
Air Force's 24th Special Tactics Squadron. Units from the Army's secretive Ranger battalions are routinely assigned to JSOC, as well.
Marine Maj Gen. Richard Mills, who just finished a tour as the commander in southwest Afghanistan, told reporters on Thursday,
"SEAL Team Six is unique. Those are big boys. That particular team is your top-shelf stuff."
In public, military officials will not discuss in any detail the activities of JSOC. Its budget remains classified. Still, its commanders have risen to the most senior posts. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led JSOC at the height of the Iraq war, became the top commander in Afghanistan. Vice Adm. William McRaven, the current commander, has been tapped to lead Special Operations Command, which oversees all such troops.
CBS' video, "The Iron Will of Seal Team 6", provides a brief history of the U.S. Navy's SEAL Team 6 and the infamous Michael Marcinko, the founder of SEAL Team 6. Here's another excellent video about Seal Team 6.
The video of President Barack Obama national TV announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed:
Osama Bin Laden's compound located in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Click the above image to view the original Wall Street article, "U.S. boosts Ranks of Elite Fighting Forces", a video (see below) about America's growing special operations units and slide show of pictures taken by the Pakistani authorities of the inside of Osama Bin Laden's compound. WARNING: The slideshow shows some very graphic and distrubing images.
Prior to 2009, Army's Delta Force primarily worked in Iraq, while SEAL Team Six was assigned to Afghanistan. But as the Iraq war wound down, and the Obama administration shifted the military's focus, Delta Force units and additional Army Green Berets were reassigned to Afghanistan.
Says a senior White House official,
"The Obama administration made Pakistan and Afghanistan its primary mission, not Iraq. By doing that, we resourced that part of the world to go after bin Laden. Obama said we are in this because of bin Laden, we are going to go after bin Laden. And we did."
COMMENTARY: The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), formed in 1980 in response to Operation Eagle Claw, the failed mission to free the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage in Iran, is charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands (SOC or SOCOM) of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp.
The Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) is also under JSOC. The ISA collects specific target intelligence prior to SMU missions, and provides signals support, etc. during those missions. The ISA often operates under various cover names, the most recent one being Gray Fox. The Army once maintained the ISA, but after the September 11 attacks, shifted direct control to Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, NC. If needed, the Army Rangers and Night Stalkers can be transferred under the JSOC command. JSOC’s primary mission is believed to be identifying and destroying terrorists and terror cells worldwide.
The Navy SEALs team that conducted this operation was the legendary Team Six, aka DevGru, or the Naval Special Warfare Development Group flown into Pakistan by helicopter teams from the 160th Special Operations Air Regiment, part of the Joint Special Operations Command.
SEAL Team 6 History
Auburn graduate Richard Marcinko is the founder of the elite special forces unit ‘SEAL Team 6′ which is today widely credited with engaging and killing the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Team Six operations are highly classified and information about the unit or its current members is typically not available to the public. Acknowledging the unit’s existence, much less crediting it with the execution of a successful mission is an unusual step by the U.S. government.
Marcinko served two tours in Vietnam where he served with SEAL Team 2 as the officer in command of the Eighth Platoon. During the Tet offensive, Marcinko and his platoon helped rescue American nurses who were trapped in churches and hospitals at Chau Doc. While serving in Vietnam, Marcinko won the Silver Star, four bronze stars with combat V, two Navy Commendation Medals, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star.
Marcinko was promoted to Commanding Officer of SEAL Team Two after serving as Naval Attache to Cambodia in 1973.
During the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, Marckino was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff task force known as the Terrorist Action Team, which was charged with developing a plan to rescue American hostages.
When the plan failed the Navy decided to develop a full-time dedicated Counter-Terrorism Team. Marcinko was given the task of designing and developing the unit. He became the first commanding officer of the new unit which he named SEAL Team Six. He served as its commander for three years, 1980-1983.
Marcinko has written a number of best selling novels and his autobiography. He has written books and given lectures on management and leadership techniques. He provides hands-on training for hostage rescue teams. He also has served as a corporate advisor to numerous multi-national businesses.
He received a Masters in Political Science from Auburn University.
I don't think you would want to be messing with Mr. Marcinko anytime soon.
The Mission To Get Osama Bin Laden
The original plan was for the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to rappel down into Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and that’s how they practiced it in April on a replica of the compound the military constructed in the U.S. on which SEALs Team Six conducted two practice runs.
But on Sunday, May 1, one of the two ultra-secret stealth helicopters (see below) used for the raid, had an issue – they’re not sure what as of now – and conducted a soft crash landing. The chopper hit the deck – “it was a real white-knuckle moment,” a US official tells ABC News.
Another white-knuckle moment – at the end of the operation, Pakistan’s military scrambled fighter jets looking for the US helicopters. Who knows what could have happened if the Pakistani planes had reached the US helicopters -- but they didn’t.
The US team got back to Afghanistan by around 5:45 pm ET.
This operation happened, an official said, because of dogged, relentless intelligence work. For years, from detainees at Gitmo, the CIA had the nom de guerre of the courier, but they didn’t have his true name until 2007.
Intel spotted him in early 2009 – it took a while to follow him . Last August when intel found the compound the reaction was along the lines of “Oh my God who are they hiding here?” a official said, recalling definite recognition this was a significant find. Congressional leaders were briefed about the compound in December.
One possible complication: While CIA contractor Ray Davis was in the Pakistani prison there were concerns about his safety were this mission to be conducted.
Davis’s March 16 release cleared that possible obstacle to the operation -- a kill mission, with the clear objective to kill bin Laden.
From Ghazi Air Base in Pakistan, the modified MH-60 helicopters made their way to the garrison suburb of Abbottabad, about 30 miles from the center of Islamabad. Aboard were Navy SEALs, flown across the border from Afghanistan, along with tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers.
After bursts of fire over 40 minutes, 22 people were killed or captured. One of the dead was Osama bin Laden, done in by a double tap -- boom, boom -- to the left side of his face. His body was aboard the choppers that made the trip back. One had experienced mechanical failure and was destroyed by U.S. forces, military and White House officials tell National Journal.
Were it not for this high-value target (HVT), it might have been a routine mission for the specially trained and highly mythologized SEAL Team Six, officially called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, but known even to the locals at their home base Dam Neck in Virginia as just DevGru.
This HVT was special, and the raids required practice, so they replicated the one-acre compound at Camp Alpha, a segregated section of Bagram Air Base. Trial runs were held in early April.
On April 29, President Barack Obama approved an operation to kill bin Laden. It was a mission that required surgical accuracy, even more precision than could be delivered by the government's sophisticated Predator drones. To execute it, Obama tapped a small contingent of the Navy's elite SEAL Team Six and put them under the command of CIA Director Leon Panetta, whose analysts monitored the compound from afar.
Panetta was directly in charge of the team, a U.S. official said, and his conference room was transformed into a command center.
Details of exactly how the raid unfolded remain murky. But the al-Qaida courier, his brother and one of bin Laden's sons were killed. No Americans were injured. Senior administration officials will only say that bin Laden "resisted." And then the man behind the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil died from an American bullet to his head.
THE U.S. COUNTER-TERRORIST NETWORK
We have all heard about Delta Force, the Navy SEALS, Black Beret's and Army Rangers, but I thought I had not heard about the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the counter-terrorist organization and its chain of command. What I discovered is quite impressive and daunting, to say the least. This is what the entire organization and its various branches and arms looks like:
It's a wonder that USSOCOM gets anything done. Let's not forget that the CIA is also a silent, but very active partner of USSOCOM. CIA Director Leon Panetta was specifically put in charge of SEAL Team 6 and the mission to get Osama Bin Laden.
President Obama's decision was probably one of the gutiest calls by any U.S. President in modern times since John F. Kennedy ordered a naval embargo against Cuba back in October 1964, that nearly plunged America into the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
New reports have surfaced that Arizona shooter Jared Loughner showed off his Glock in a series of posed photos. From the New York Timesreport: "[Police have] photos of Jared L. Loughner posing with a Glock 9mm pistol… In some of the photos he is holding the gun near his crotch, and in others, presumably shot in a mirror, he is holding the gun next to his buttocks."
Sound odd? It shouldn't. It sounds like a lot of snap-happy owners that Glock and other gun brands count on for marketing.
That Loughner would strike a pose with his Glock for the camera is hardly indicative of any abnormality. Not even his inclusion of skin is all that unusual. One need not be mentally unstable to strike poses with one's Glock.
In fact, Glock (and its competitors) count on this exact kind of user-generated, photographic, voluntary brand championship as part of its grassroots, word of mouth marketing mix. Brands have long known that social networking platforms are a perfect place for "viva voce" and brand engagement, and it's no different for firearm makers.
In light of the discovery of Loughner's Glock shots, we stopped by Glock's official Facebook pageand collected a random sampling from the photo gallery.
By no means is Glock the only brand that encourages this. Below are shots from similar galleries at the official Facebook pages of Springfield Armory, Sig Sauer and Smith & Wesson (latter two below).
But there is a stronger motivator for firearm brands to better police their social media presences with regard to recent events.
The below photos are currently featured on Glock's Facebook page. Those are Glocks with the sort of high-capacity magazines that enabled Loughner to shoot so many so fast. Even though reports have these magazines currently selling out across America (in anticipation of a ban), Glock's brand only stands to be embarrassed by the association and, in the wake of the shooting with legislators itching to blame gunmakers, its failure to edit its page is, at best, irresponsible to the brand and tone deaf to its struggles to reinforce itself as a responsible manufacturer of a product that shouldn't be begrudged a few bad eggs. Looking at Glock's offical Facebook page photos leaves one believing there are a lot of bad eggs... and that Glock is fine with that.
COMMENTARY: I just reviewed Glock's Facebook photos and the above photos are all still there.
Glock doesn't make many wall postings, but you would think that they would post at least one message of remorse for the near-mortal head wound of Congresswoman Gabrille Giffords, and condolences for the death of six innocent by-standards and 19 others wounded by that psycho Jaret Loughers, in Tucson, Arizona.
Jared Loughers, a satisifed Glock owner
Glock shows more concerns about the 2nd Amendment and the right for all Americans to bear arms, than the lives of innocent killed everyday by their handguns.
In the latest installment of the Butterfly Effect: Predator drones are just the start of unmanned, autonomous warfare technology. But as the tech becomes more democratized and more deadly, what happens when anyone can assemble an army of killing machines?
1. Attack Of The Drones
Last month, NATO’s commanders in Libya went with caps-in-hand to the Pentagon to ask for reconnaissance help in the form of more Predator drones. “It’s getting more difficult to find stuff to blow up,” a senior NATO officer complained to The Los Angeles Times. The Libyan rebels’ envoy in Washington had already made a similar request. “We can't get rid of [Qaddafi] by throwing eggs at him,” the envoy told the newspaper.
The Pentagon told both camps it would think about it, citing the need for drones in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, where Predator strikes have killed dozens this month alone. So why doesn’t NATO or the rebels do what Cote d’Ivoire’s Air Force, Mexican police, and college student peacekeepers have done--buy, rent, or build drones of their own? The development of deadly hardware and software is leading to a democratization of war tech, which could soon mean that every army--private or national--has battalions of automated soliders at their command.
The Brookings Institution noted in a paper published last month.
“Drones are essentially flying--and sometimes armed--computers.”
They’re robots who follow the curve of Moore’s Law rather than the Pentagon’s budgets, rapidly evolving in performance since the Predator’s 2002 debut while falling in price to the point where Make magazine recently carried instructions on how to launch your own satellite for $8,000.
Peter W. Singer, author ofWired for War and a senior fellow at Brookings, who predicts robots on the battlefield will be a paradigm-shifting “revolution in military affairs”, said
“You have high school kids competing in robotics competitions with equipment that 10 years ago would have been considered military-grade.”
First comes the high-tech arms race with China, Israel and all the other nations competing to build their own drones. Then comes the low-cost trickledown into low-tech wars like Libya’s, where tomorrow’s rag-tag militias fight with DIY drones. Finally, if robots are simply computers with wings (and missiles), then expect to see future wars fought by the descendants of flash-trading algorithms, with humans as anxious bystanders.
2. Flattening The Battlespace
Since the Predator first appeared above Afghanistan nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon’s inventory of drones has risen from less than 50 devices to more than 7,000. But the gap between the U.S. and its closest competitors may actually be shrinking. China, for example, has pinned its military ambitions on 2,000 missiles guided by target data from some two-dozen models of surveillance drones.
The worldwide drone market is projected by the Teal Group to be worth $94 billion over the next decade, led by the Pentagon, which has asked Congress for $5 billion for next year's expenses alone. One reason for the ballooning arms race between anywhere from 44 to 70 nations (depending on which estimate you believe) is self-interest. So far, the Pentagon has refused to share its toys, instituting tight export controls on drones like the Predator or Reaper, both of which are made by General Atomics.
Another is purely financial. An F-22 stealth fighter costs $150 million, roughly 15 times a top-of-the-line Predator. The U.S. military’s blank check of a budget--more than the rest of the world’s combined--means little and less when the cost of drones keeps falling.
But the most important factor may be doctrinal. Unlike the U.S., which is still feeling its way forward with robotic warriors while entrenched generals fight for their tanks and aircraft carriers, small nations with shrinking budgets stand to gain the most from embracing robotic warfare.
Singer says.
“There’s no such thing as a first-mover advantage in war. This technology is different than an aircraft carrier. You don’t need a big military infrastructure to use it, or even to build it. This is more akin to the open source movement in software. You’re flattening the battlespace, and the barriers to entry for other actors is falling.”
3. Peak Arms
In 2004, French troops arrived in Cote d’Ivoire to help police a cease-fire in the country’s simmering civil war. Not expecting trouble, they left their air defenses at home. But on November 4, 2004, a pair of Israeli-made Aerostar drones circled their base, reconnoitering targets for the Russian-made jets which bombed them a few hours later, killing nine soldiers and a U.S. aid worker. The drones belonged to an Israeli private military firm hired by Ivoirian president Laurent Gbagbo, who claimed (unconvincingly) that the whole thing was an accident.
Hiring drone-bearing mercenaries is easy when you’re a president; what about when you’re a college student? A year later, a trio of Swarthmore students formed the Genocide Intervention Network to help bring attention to Darfur. After raising almost half a million dollars in donations, the group solicited a bid from Evergreen International to remotely fly four surveillance drones above Sudan, documenting atrocities. Sadly, the price tag was a cool $22 million a year. (They passed.)
Today, they would toss the project on Kickstarter and build their drone using Arduino modules developed by hobbyist sites such as DIY Drones. In a recent essay, the consultant and futurist Scott Smith noted that both the “maker” movement and the Libyan rebels desperately hacking together weaponry are drawing on the same open source knowledge base. Or for that matter, so are the Mexican drug cartels assembling their own tanks and submarines.
Smith says.
“We’ve come to a point where you put together a parallel system to the U.S. Department of Defense.”
And also to the point where the DoD is soliciting the hobbyists themselves to be the next generation of weapon designers via DARPA’s crowdsourcing effort, UAVForge. Smith says.
“If I were at a major arms contractor, I would be worried about being disrupted.”
He wonders if the world is headed toward “peak arms,” in which open source, distributed, low-cost tools fatally undermine big-ticket weapons sales in all but a few cases (most of them involving the Strait of Taiwan). And that goes double for non-state actors, e.g. roll-your-own NGOs and drug cartels. Smith concludes.
“The era of large scale, run-and-gun DIY micro-warfare is just around the corner.”
4. The Robot Wars
The trajectory of drones and warbots is the same as computing in general--smaller, cheaper, more ubiquitous. In February, AeroVironment unveiled the prototype of a hummingbird-sized drone that can perch on a windowsill can peer in. Insect-size is next.
But the shift from a single pair of eyes in the sky to a swarm of bots would create havoc with U.S. military doctrine, which requires having a human operator at all times, or a “man in the loop.” This is one reason why the Air Force is training more remote pilots this year (some 350) than bomber and fighter pilots combined. Then again, that’s not nearly enough for 7,000 drones, let alone 7 million, all of which would have the intelligence to fight or fly on their own, with faster-than-human response times.
That’s why the definition of "in the loop: is blurring from direct human control says Singer.
“to a veto power we’re unwilling to use.”
In the case of missile defense systems already in use,
“you can turn it on or off.”
But you can’t pick and choose which bogeys to shoot. He adds.
“The speed and complexity is such that the human interface has to be minimized to be effective.”
Which suggests the generals in War Games were right all along.
Or were they? Releasing increasingly autonomous warbots into the wild will demand new algorithms to command them, raising the specter of a “flash crash” on the battlefield as opposing algorithms clash and chase each other’s tails. Or what if hackers were to assemble a botnet for real: an army of machines ready to do their bidding? Perhaps a decade from now, there will be no “cyber-war.” There will only be war.
COMMENTARY: It's a scary thought having a bunch of little "bug" drones like the autonomous quadrocopter, flying in the still of the night, behind enemy lines, using ultra-violet, heat seeking technology, hunting for human prey, and doing it with stealth, complete silence and autonomously, without the aid of a human "pilot" controller. That would be the ultimate "bug" drone. It's like the Chinese proverb, "death by a thousand cuts." Not knowing when or where they are coming from. Knowing you are never safe, being hunted like wolves. You can run, but you can't hide. It's coming, dude, through the window of your bedroom.
Courtesy of an article dated August 1, 2011 appearing in Fast Company
If you see this dog coming for you, run. Thanks to his extensive training--and customized body armor that can cost upwards of $30,000--he's bulletproof, can hear through concrete, and can record high-def video of missions, even in the dead of night.
Since the moment it was revealed that the "nation's most courageous dog" served alongside the 80 Navy SEALs who took out Osama bin Laden, America's fascination with war dogs has hit a fevered pitch. And while the heart-tugging photos of these four-legged heroes are worth a look, so is the high-tech gear that helps them do their job.
Last year, the military spent $86,000 on four tactical vests to outfit Navy Seal dogs. The SEALs hired Winnipeg, Canada-based contractor K9 Storm to gear up their four-legged, canine partners, which it has used in battle since World War I. K9 Storm’s flagship product is the $20,000-$30,000 Intruder, an upgradeable version of their doggie armor (you can check out the full catalogue here). The tactical body armor is wired with a collapsible video arm, two-way audio, and other attachable gadgets.
"Various special ops units use the vest, including those in current headlines," says Mike Herstik, a consultant with International K-9, who has trained dogs from Israeli bomb-sniffing units to the Navy SEALSs. "It is much more than just body armor."
The big idea behind the armor add-ons boils down to a simple one: the key to any healthy relationship is communication. Each dog is assigned one human handler. To operate efficiently in a tactical situation, they need to be connected.
So how much high-tech connectivity does a dog get for $30,000 anyway?
Using a high-def camera mounted on the dog's back, handlers can see what the dog sees, using handheld monitors. Jim Slater, who cofounded K9 Storm with his wife Glori, says footage is stable because the entire module is sewn into the vest. With unpredictable light conditions, like middle-of-the-night missions, the camera adjusts automatically to night vision. The lens is protected by impact-resistant shielding. And since we're talking about SEALs notorious for amphibious assaults, the system is waterproof.
In Abbottabad, the patented load-bearing harness would have enabled a Navy SEAL handler to rappel from the helicopter with his dog strapped to his body. Once in the compound, the dog could run ahead to scout as the handler issued commands through an integrated microphone and speaker in the armor. The proprietary speaker system enables handlers to relay commands at low levels to the dog. "Handlers need to see and hear how their dog is responding," said Slater. "In a tactical situation, every second counts." The encrypted signal from dog to handler penetrates fortified barriers like concrete, steel-fortified ships, and tunnels. That translates to standard operating ranges up to four football fields.
The armor itself protects against shots from 9mm and .45 magnum handguns. Slater is a veteran police dog trainer and built the first vest after a prison riot. He realized he wore full riot gear, while his K9 partner, Olaf, was basically naked. So he started making vests. The weave technology catches bullets or ice picks like a mitt wrapping around a baseball; knives and sharpened screw drivers wielded by prisoners require tighter weaves.
Keeping the armor strong, but light, is a priority. "Every gram counts for our clients. So we prefer advanced fibers and innovative textiles," said Slater. "The entire communication module is 20 ounces." The average armor weighs between three to seven pounds, depending on the size of the dog and the level of protection.
They’ve even gone stealth. A silent hardware system prevents any metal to metal contact--you won't hear any jangling or see any reflective give-aways. K9 took the average 150-gram V-ring and developed a 5-gram version made of a Kevlar, poly-propylene, and nylon fiber blend. "It’s actually stronger, rated to 2,500 pounds. Completely silent, and ultralight," said Slater.
Of course, these systems don't come cheap--and it's the dogs themselves that are the real investment. The Navy’s first Master Military Working Dog Trainer (a trainer of other dog trainers), Luis Reyes emailed from Afghanistan: "There are many products that help MWDs [military work dogs] and many are ‘cool’ but not necessary. No amount of money can replace the life of a canine that saves the precious lives of our troops in harm's way."
Although new tech is the buzz, what put K9 Storm on the map is dedication to customization. Its mainstay dog armor is the more-affordable $2,000-$3,000 base model. Each vest they make is custom sized for the dog. "The fit has to be perfect or it will flop around," said Slater. That hinders mobility, or worse, can cause injury.
Clients can measure dogs themselves, or Slater will fly out for dog fittings. They’ve done 15-pound West Highland Terriers--which look like playful white puffballs but were bred to scare badgers out of holes, and are helpful in drug raids with confined spaces like air ducts. On the other end are St. Bernards, which push 240 pounds.
K9's client list spans 15 countries, from China to Switzerland. Buyers include SWAT teams, police and corrections agencies, security firms, search and rescue units, and border patrols. Slater and 12 employees spent years developing a proprietary computer-assisted design program to translate measurements into accurate patterns, which are hand sewn. However, it's as much a tech company as it is an armor manufacturer.
The next phase of development includes plans for remote-delivery systems and enhanced accessory functionality. They describe a system that would help dogs transport medical supplies, walkie-talkies, or water into constricted areas like rubble. They're also planning new appendages like air-level quality meters for mines.
No word on mounting mini heat-seeking missiles just yet. So, for now, bad guys will only have to tussle with highly-trained fangs exerting 700 pounds of pressure per square inch.
COMMENTARY: I thought that only our combat soldiers wore kevlar protective chest and body armor and the latest electronic gadgetry. That's what I call a combat ready robo dog. Got to protect these incredibly intelligent and brave animals who put their life on the line catching bad guys. They are worth every bit of that $30,000. I love them dogs, and every terrorist and and jihadist out there, beware punks--the U.S. Navy SEAL Robo Dogs are on your trail.
Go U.S. Navy SEALS, SEAL Team 6 and the Robo Dogs!!
Recent Comments