Monthly Archives: October 2012

View 747 Wednesday, October 24, 2012

An Anniversary of Note from the 70 years War

Jerry,

This week is the fiftieth anniversary of the Minuteman I being place on strategic alert.

Regards, Charles Adams, Bellevue, NE

<http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2008/november/i_history.pdf>

"…The first operational Minuteman site was Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., where the first 10-missile ‘flight’ was rushed into activation on Oct. 27, 1962, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. U.S. President John F. Kennedy referred to the missiles as his "ace in the hole" during this historic standoff with the Soviet Union…"

I recall those times. I had some involvement in command and control systems of the time (all long obsolete). And I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis: we were in my back yard filling burlap bags with dirt. We then carried them into the basement. Seattle wasn’t a primary target but we were East of a naval target area. East and downwind…

Last night Greta van Sustern of Fox News showed a printed copy of an eMail from the State department delegation in Libya that apparently went to the situation rooms in both the White House and the State Department in Foggy Bottom. It stated quite clearly that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed terrorists with AK-47 rifles and RPG’s. This was about two hours into the attack. There was no mention of any protests against any video.

The existence of the eMail is now confirmed by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/email-state-department-told-white-house-militants-claimed-responsibility-for-libya-attack/2012/10/24/b4cd09b0-1def-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html. There was no mention of this in today’s Wall Street Journal or the Los Angeles Times although Ms. Van Sustern was displaying the memo at 7PM Pacific Time last night. I saw it.

We do not usually do breaking news here, and we certainly do not have all the data; but it does seem to me that the President certainly knew by Wednesday morning 12 September that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an organized attack by a terrorist organization – or at least that such an organization was claiming it.

We also have reason to believe that the White House was aware of the attack within two hours of its beginning. The attack continued for some seven hours, and at least two of those killed were killed in the last hours.

The United States maintains forces that could have reached Benghazi by helicopter within two hours from Italy. I do not have a list of other assets in the Mediterranean, but it does appear that we had some resources in the area. They were not sent.

From the first debate:

ROMNEY: And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?

But I find more troubling than this, that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador, the first time that’s happened since 1979, when — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, other political event.

At that time the official US position was that the attack on our consulate was a demonstration against a U-Tube video defaming the Prophet Mohammed PBUH that got out of hand. That was still the official position of the United States Department of State – and one presumes the White House – as late as Sunday September 16 when the US Ambassador to the UN declared it on several Sunday news shows.

As of now there has been no statement from the White House in explanation.

As to what might have been done: we knew that conditions in Benghazi were deteriorating long before September 11, 2012, and also that 9-11 is a memorable anniversary. Benghazi is a seaport. The United States has ships called helicopter carriers. Helicopters land on them. Helicopters can carry Marines. Marines carry rifles in addition to bayonets and ammunition. Marines have been known to defend US diplomatic institutions against local attack, and their effectiveness is well known.

As to obtaining Libyan permission to allow a US helicopter carrier – say something like the late USS Tripoli – to berth in Benghazi, their refusal would itself be something worth knowing, and they certainly have no capability of preventing such a ship to stand off shore; and surely the Libyan provisional government would not refuse a US request to send in helicopters to rescue American diplomatic personnel. We could negotiate that in advance of 9-11, and doing that would be simple prudence.

It is not as if we have not gone through such things before. The United States has some experience in these matters. And we did have warning in advance.

Despite that warning, an American diplomatic institution was attacked, and four Americans including our Minister Plenipotentiary and Ambassador Extraordinary were killed. Clearly something went very wrong. Such matters should not happen, and if they do, precautions must be taken to see that they do not happen again.

Surely the White House owes us more of an explanation than continued references to a U-Tube movie trailer?

As it happens I have some experience in thinking about incidents of this sort. Back in the 1950’s I partnered with some senior officers of the US Navy to write papers on international security. Our conclusion, based in part on experiences of the British Royal Marines in Africa, was that ships capable of carrying about a battalion of Marines with helicopter transportation and air support would be capable of handling the vast majority of violent incidents taking place within 100 km. of deep water. Those papers are said to have been influential in the design and commissioning of the Iwo Jima class helicopter assault carriers including the USS Tripoli which served as President George H W Bush’s flagship when he visited Somalia. My son Phillip was an ensign on the Tripoli at that time. I don’t claim much credit in ship design, but I did have some small input in development of tactical use; count me as a fan of Iwo Jima class as a means of force projection. Alas, they are pretty well gone, and I am not all that impressed with what replaced them.

I still believe that the Navy needs the modern equivalent of the Iwo Jima class ships: a battalion of marines with transport and fire support. Their purpose is to deal with situation like the Benghazi incident – largely by deterring them. The threat of an avenging company of Marines not an hour away is a very effective deterrent to terrorists planning an armed attack. They can’t stop a suicide bomber, but they can sure stop a group with AK-47’s, RPG’s, LMG’s, and mortars.

Perhaps someone should explain that to the President. We know that he knows that we have ships that airplanes can land on. Given the results in Benghazi it may be that no one explained how the LPH ships worked, and why we need such assets in this dangerous world.

I have an appointment with a podiatrist, and no, there is nothing wrong with my feet; but since I am mildly diabetic Kaiser has decided that I should have a foot inspection and pedicure. That seems like a very good idea, and it happens this afternoon. On our Knights of Lazarus pilgrimage to Israel one of our companions was a podiatrist, and he is, so far as I know, the only one I have ever met, and I know little about the subject. Perhaps I will find out more.

And that went well. Now to work on fiction. And the Pledge Drive continues. If you don’t know what that is, this place operates on the Public Radio model. It’s free, but it will not stay open without new and renewing subscribers. We get plenty of subscribers, but people sometimes need reminding. This is your reminder. If you have not subscribed, this would be a good time to do it. If you have not renewed your subscription in a while, this would be a great time to renew. Thanks to all who have. As usual the pledge drive corresponds with KUSC’s pledge drives. I don’t ask for anything like as much money as they do, but then I don’t  have the expenses they have.

Subscribe now! Renew now!.  There. I’m done shouting at you, and the drive ends at the end of the week.http://www.jerrypournelle.com/paying.html

Regarding the Italian trial of the scientists, I have this from another conference. It sums it up nicely:

According to Nature:

What happened outside the meeting room may haunt the scientists, and perhaps the world of risk assessment, for many years. Two members of the commission, Barberi and De Bernardinis, along with mayor Cialente and an official from Abruzzo’s civil-protection department, held a press conference to discuss the findings of the meeting. In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L’Aquila was “certainly normal” and posed “no danger”, adding that “the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, i’s a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy”. When prompted by a journalist who said, “So we should have a nice glass of wine,” De Bernardinis replied “Absolutely”, and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.

Oops. The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04quake.html?_r=2&> weighed in with an expert:

The statement by the official, who is not a seismologist, violated a cardinal rule of risk communication, which is that those involved should speak only to their expertise, said Dennis Mileti, an emeritus professor of behavioral science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “This person should not have been speaking,” said Dr. Mileti, who has studied risk communication.

Yes, we often find officials keeping silent on important matters of the day. Anyway, the earthquake came and killed and after the funerals people remembered the wine quip. Fingers were pointed, collars were fingered, a trial was ordered. Guilty! The judge gave the six scientists who had the conclave with De Bernardinis six whopping years in prison.

But the trial was not, contrary to many discussions, because the scientists failed to predict the quake. The prosecutor, one Picuti, said (in Nature), “The basis of the charges is not that they didn’t predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L’Aquila…They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors and they did not.”

“This isn’t a trial against science,” insists [surgeon and local resident] Vittorini, who is a civil party to the suit. But he says that a persistent message from authorities of “Be calm, don’t worry”, and a lack of specific advice, deprived him and others of an opportunity to make an informed decision about what to do on the night of the earthquake. “That’s why I feel betrayed by science,” he says. “Either they didn’t know certain things, which is a problem, or they didn’t know how to communicate what they did know, which is also a problem.”

The busted Italian forecast was of the Bobby “Don’t Worry Be Happy” McFerrin, there-is-no-reason-for-concern kind. And those fellows paid the price. But what of the opposite: endless end-of-the-world predictions.

The problem with coppering your risks against Type I Errors is the commission of more Type II Errors. That is, if RUN FOR THE HILLS! causes panic when no earthquake eventuates, DON’T WORRY BE HAPPY causes worse problems when an earthquake does happen. Apparently "We don’t know for sure and we need to study this for many more years" is not an acceptable public announcement. Run or stay put? Which? In law there is no space for random error. The product always has a "design flaw," the injustice is always intentional. But no matter how fine the decision rules are, there will always be an alpha-risk of running when nothing happens and a beta-risk of staying put when something does.

The only thing the scientists can say is that "In the past whenever we have seen tremors like this, there has been a major earthquake p% of the time." If p is small, folks relax and don’t worry. But there is a first time for everything, especially when there is no causal link between the prior condition and the event of interest. It’s like learning that no incumbent senator has ever won a presidential election… until one did (Harding). Correlation is not causation. Really.

I don’t know Italian law. I am glad I didn’t have to give a statement about how much to worry about an earthquake. I do recall people asking me about the danger of nuclear war, and how much they ought to spend on survival measures. But that was a long time ago. And all the nuclear survival preparations I wrote about when I was doing Survive columns did not turn out to be needed…

View 747 Tuesday, October 23, 2012

I was on  TWIT this week. See http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/376

Here is a more complete account of the earthquake prediction story:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22412-seismologists-found-guilty-of-manslaughter.html

From a colleague in another conference:

From what I have seen so far, the actual case seems to be about scientific over-reach. The scientists were convicted not of failing to predict an earthquake, but of declaring that an earthquake was "very unlikely." If, as reported, the scientists correctly stated that it was impossible to predict an earthquake, why did they then qualify it with a statement that one was very unlikely? By implication, the statement predicted an earthquake was "very unlikely" to occur, and if we can’t predict earthquakes will happen, how can we predict one won’t happen? While there is a definite anti-science trend in some quarters, I think it is not entirely fed by ignorance. Instead, scientific over-reaching, pretending to knowledge we do not in fact have, has led to too many cases of "nothing can go wrong," "there’s nothing to worry about," "we understand all of the risks," and so on. I think that is what led to the convictions in Italy.

Given the state of earthquake prediction science – there isn’t any, and no one can reliably do it – it’s hard to understand how one might be convicted of manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake. Surely there is more to the story, and so far we have not seen trial transcripts. From the New Scientist article:

So what did the six seismologists that have been charged do?
They spoke at a meeting on 31 March 2009 – a week before the quake – organised by Italy’s Civil Protection Department. At the meeting, they said that while they could not rule out a major quake, and it was best to be prepared, there was no particularly good reason to think that one was coming.

Afterwards, the department’s deputy head Bernardo De Bernardinis told the media that the small shocks were reducing the seismic stresses, lowering the chances of a major quake. "That’s completely wrong," Musson says.

This statement, according to the prosecution, gave false confidence to the inhabitants of L’Aquila. This may be true. However, Musson says, "I haven’t been able to work out why the other six are being held responsible".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22412-seismologists-found-guilty-of-manslaughter.html

One thing we can expect from this is a great deal more care given to statements about upcoming disasters.

Now imagine what would happen if, instead of global warming, we get big glaciers? Or perhaps sociologists can be charged with crimes for spending money on various crime reduction schemes if they don’t work? Or perhaps the soothsayers can be changed with not giving true sooth. There is still much to learn from this.

The debate went about as I expected. Mr. Obama believes our Libya policy has been a success, and Mr. Romney was smart enough to let that stand without challenge. Given Mr. Obama’s reaction to comments on Benghazi in the debate before this one, that seems an intelligent thing to do: there is little Mr. Romney could tell the debate audience that it does not already know about the success or lack thereof of our Libya policy.

Mr. Romney’s best line: “Attacking me is not a foreign policy.” Mr. Obama’s: On being told that we have many fewer ships than we had in past times, “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.” He then added that we now have ships called aircraft carriers. Airplanes land on them.

The pledge drive continues. This place operates on the public radio model. It is free, but it will not continue unless people subscribe to it. My thanks to all those who have subscribed or renewed their subscriptions. Enough have come in that it is taking me a while to record them all. That’s a Good Thing. And thanks to all.

If you haven’t subscribed this would be a good time to do it. And if you can’t remember when you last subscribed, this would be a good time to renew your subscription. Thanks.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/paying.html

Mail is accumulating. I’ll get to a batch tonight, And I’m working on reviews.

View 747 Monday, October 22, 2012

I am beginning to catch up, and we’re preparing a reopening of Chaos Manor Reviews with bits on the new iPad, Kindle Fire, and Windows 7 vs Windows 8. I have new machines (elegant ones) for 7 and for 8 so the comparisons are fair.

Bottom line is that for most users you’ll find 7 good enough, and if you’re upgrading from XP or Vista 7 is probably where you want to go; but if you’re planning new hardware there are reasons you might consider 8. More on that when it’s done. I’ll also have book reviews, some like the new Home Lab books by Robert Bruce Thompson LONG overdue. If you’re home schooling and you are not familiar with Thompson’s home lab books from O’Reilly, you should go inform yourself. Full reviews coming up.

Tonight is the foreign policy debate between President Obama and Candidate Romney. You will not forget which is the candidate and which is President; the President will make certain of that.

The Democrat strategy will be that this is a sensitive matter of national security, there are Things You Do Not Know, there are Things We Can’t Tell You, and there are Delicate Issues at Stake. And Mr. Obama will try to show that Mr. Romney is being disrespectful to the President, and that is a dangerous thing to do, and lessens the prestige of these United States, and How Dare You accuse me of making politics out of foreign policy matters? Politics used to stop at the water’s edge. What’s wrong with you people?

Mr. Romney’s strategy should be to avoid looking unpresidential and to avoid looking disrespectful. That will mean that he will not go hard after Mr. Obama, but Mr. Obama is correct: he is the President of these United States, and dissing him will not be good for the country. Since it is obvious to everyone in this country that the Administration’s policy in Libya was not optimum, it will not really be necessary for Mr. Romney to make that point. The voters will see that one for themselves. Mr. Romney can emphasize what he plans to do that is widely different from what we are doing now, but again he needs to be careful not to commit the nation to more adventures.

This will be a tightrope across Niagara for Romney. He is more than up to doing it well. Those who want to see him show up the President as an incompetent will be disappointed; or at least I hope for that outcome.

Regarding Benghazi, it is now clear that the President should have seen the attack coming, and ought to have had some Marines ready to go in to defend the Consulate – or else he ought to have closed that diplomatic post. The Brits had already pulled out of there.

Once the attack happened it was obvious to everyone but the White House that it was a terrorist attack. There may or may not have been good reason to pretend that we were prepared to accept the “disgusting movie” explanation, and for the President to send out spokespeople to say that we would accept that explanation. We really don’t want relations with what passes for government in Libya to get any worse than they are now. And of course the President can’t say anything like that.

This is why Mr. Romney should be careful.

It appears that the Administration was clueless. It’s pretty certain that they didn’t pay enough attention to the warning signs. It should have been preventable – a helicopter sent in to evacuate all the American citizens should have been possible without diplomatic consequences, and I expect we have enough Marines in Tripoli who could have been sent to Benghazi in time for that matter – but we didn’t do that. It may even be that the White House didn’t understand the situation by dawn of 12 September although that seems less likely. I think it more likely that someone, possibly at State and possibly in the White House, understood as soon as the reports on the severity and organization of the attack came in that this was an organized act of war in the continuing War on Civilization; but a policy decision was made to pretend otherwise for reasons of state. It has since become clear that no one can possibly believe that.

My thanks to all those who have responded to the Pledge Drive and sent in new subscriptions or renewals. This place operates on the public radio model: it’s free, but it stays open because of its subscribers. You can find out more on that at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/paying.html

This would be a great time to subscribe.

A minor inquiry:

We use Windows Security Essentials and have done so since it came into existence, and it has been Good Enough. Today I had a problem with a main system (this one in fact) seeming to run slowly. I reset it and it came up slowly. But that, it turned 0ut, was because somehow some update I allowed installed The Weather Channel, which can really slow things down. I got rid of that and as I sometimes do decided it would be no bad thing to do an outside scan. Made use of the ESET on line scanner. And that wouldn’t work. It began to download the updated scanning package and stopped. That was a bit of a concern – some attacks do try to disable protective packages – so I tried it on another machine that hasn’t been subject to any problems and the same thing happened. I then ran the McAfee online scan, which found nothing wrong with either system. And checked Windows Security Essentials, which doesn’t believe anything is wrong. And consulted Rick Hellewell my expert security advisor.

We all agree there’s nothing to be concerned about but I wondered if anyone out there had noticed a problem with the ESET on-line scanner. (I sometimes use ESET mostly because they are a long time sponsor of Leo Laporte. As it happens I did a TWIT show with Leo and John Dvorak and Dwight Silverman yesterday.) Has anyone heard of some kind of problem with their on-line scan system? Overloaded perhaps although since the download stalled out at the same percentage on each machine at different times of day, that seems highly unlikely. More likely a glitch in their profile file.

AHA!

I just got a notice to upgrade Java. Since the ESET scanner uses a Java script, it’s pretty clear. Once I get Java updated I’ll try this again.

Of course that opens up another topic.

The debate is done, and it is possible to award it on points to Mr. Obama, or perhaps it was a tie. However, all Mr. Romney had to do was to continue to be presidential, and he did that. Mr. Obama had to make the case that Mr. Romney is not fit to be President, and Mr. Obama did not do that. Mr. Romney remained Presidential, he presented his case, and he showed that he is familiar with foreign policy and the foreign policy issues; he showed that he could be President.

This is a big win for Mr. Romney, particularly since the President tried his best to goad Mr. Romney into some kind of explosion, or a statement that could be construed as disrespectful for the office or the nation; and that didn’t happen. Thus no matter how one scores the debate on technical points, the big winner was Mr. Romney – and indeed for most of the debate, if you had not known who was President and who aspired to the job, you might have thought that Mr. Obama was the candidate running up from behind in hopes of catching the leader.

We will of course see huge spins tomorrow.

Subject: A possible tie

Jerry, I’ve been hearing speculation on the radio about the possibility that the votes in the Electoral College could end up as a tie. This would throw the election into the House of Representatives. And, as it would be decided by the current, Republican controlled House, that would give the presidency to Romney. (I’m not sure how correct that is, as each state has only one vote instead of the members voting separately, but that’s what I heard.)

Now this is just plain Bad News for Mr. Obama. Not the probability that the House would, in effect, reject him, but the fact that the possibility is even being discussed. Just the fact that people are publicly considering a tie shows that the very best he can hope for is just barely squeaking by, and for him, that’s not good.

The Republicans hold a majority in the House, but if the House decides the presidency, each state has one vote, decided by its delegation. I don’t know the actual makeup of the House state by state. Probably there are a majority of Republicans but I am not sure.

But at the moment it appears that the election will be decided by the ground game. Who can get the most votes out. Those who feel strongly about the outcome should take heed.