December 20, 2013

US Navy Sailors Sue TEPCO Over Cluster-Fukushima Snafu

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/53253/us-navy-sailors-sue-tepco-over-cluster-fukushima-snafu

"Why has this not made national headlines??? The Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan is nuclear powered. Radiation detection equipment did not pick up on this?? Why have these sailors and marines medical records been removed from permanent tracking. Criminal implications galore. This should be all over mainstream media. Someone please forward all these ene reports to the media…. Tepco is the lowest of snakes. Hari Kari for the lot of em!!"
— Comment on enenews, August 15, 2013, by "timemachine2020"

US Navy Sailors Sue TEPCO Over Cluster-Fukushima Snafu
by William Boardman | December 19, 2013 - 9:12am

The story referred to in the enenews.com comment above has had some coverage by Energy News, Tuner Radio Network, Stars and Stripes and a few others, but coverage, if any, by mainstream media is scant to none. All the same, it's a real story, with real villains (TEPCO, Japanese government, U.S. Navy for starters), and real victims (a growing number of American service personnel put in harm's way and abandoned by their government when things got tough).

The core of this story is the lawsuit filed December 21, 2012, by attorney Paul C. Garner of Brooks & Associates of Encinatas, California, on behalf of nine plaintiffs (including a one-year-old), all of whom "were among the members of the U.S. Navy crew and attached to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), whose home port was San Diego, California, when they were exposed to radiation off the coast at Fukushima prefecture, Japan, whereat the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is located, on and after March 11, 2011, during the mission known as 'Operation Tomodachi.'" The complainant seeks a jury trial, but the case is still in the pre-trial stage. The plaintiffs are seeking $40 million each in damages as well as a fund of more than a billion dollars to be used for their future medical expenses.

The U.S.S. Reagan is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a crew of about 5,000 that arrived off the coast of Fukushima the day after the tsunami with other ships as part of Operation Tomodachi, or "friend" in Japanese.

On March 11, 2011, an earthquake near Fukushima caused a tsunami that killed an estimated 19,000 people and swamped the Fukushima nuclear power plant. In the aftermath of the tsunami, three of the six reactors at Fukushima melted down, releasing radiation into the air, ground, and water. The precise sequence of events remains unclear, but the Japanese government and TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company, a wholly owned public benefit subsidiary of the government of Japan) were not being fully forthcoming about the danger as the disaster developed.

December 20, 2013

A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon Or Boneyard Bound?

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/



A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon Or Boneyard Bound?
By Colin Clark and Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
on December 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

WASHINGTON: The A-10 Warthog is ugly, tough, lethal, and fairly flexible. Its famous 30mm gun can destroy tanks or other armored vehicles with remarkable efficiency, not to mention enemy troops. Its titanium tub of a cockpit protects the plane’s pilot from most ground fire. Its pilots are trained to fly low and slow and to kill the enemy even when he is within yards of US forces. The Army and Marines love the Warthog.



In short, the A-10 appears to be the exemplar of Close Air Support, protecting Marines and Army troops when they face being overwhelmed by the enemy. Some members of Congress, with an eye on bases in their states and districts, love the plane as well and have championed legislation blocking the plane’s retirement.



Why, then, people ask, is the Air Force seriously considering sending the Warthogs to the great boneyard and their pilots to other missions? The answer is complex, but it boils down to three things: money, smart bombs, and threats.



First and foremost, retiring the entire A-10 fleet would save the Air Force $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Retiring just some or even most of the A-10s wouldn’t reap nearly the same savings, because there are fixed costs in training and maintenance you can’t get rid off as long as you keep any planes.

December 20, 2013

Concurrency’s Costs: An F-35 Example

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/concurrencys-costs-an-f-35-example/



Concurrency’s Costs: An F-35 Example
By Colin Clark on December 19, 2013 at 5:18 PM

WASHINGTON: Everyone now knows Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon placed far too much faith in the benefits of concurrency – that is, building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing. But we’ve had relatively few data points to illustrate the issue. Thanks to a Request for Proposals issued Dec. 16, however, we now know that:

~snip~

So, while the F-35 program is certainly in much better nick than it was two years ago when most of the new costs — mostly related to concurrency — were unveiled, this little data point demonstrates quite clearly why Adm. David Venlet told us two years ago in his exclusive interview that relying so heavily on concurrency was “a miscalculation.”

“Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation,” Venlet said at the time. “You’d like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we’re doing is, we’re taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, ‘Give me that jet back in the first year. I’ve got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don’t, we’re not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.’ That’s what concurrency is doing to us.”

And it’s still doing it to us.

December 20, 2013

Dead Sea: Environmentalists Question Pipeline Rescue Plan

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/environmentalists-question-pipeline-rescue-plan-for-the-dead-sea-a-939681.html



An "historic" agreement between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians is supposed to save the shrinking Dead Sea. But some environmentalists believe the plan to pump water from the Red Sea could do the salt lake more harm than good.

Dead Sea: Environmentalists Question Pipeline Rescue Plan
By Julia Amalia Heyer and Samiha Shafy
December 19, 2013 – 04:55 PM

Even as it shrinks in size, the Dead Sea, a turquoise blue shimmering salt lake, remains a mystical place. Boat jetties jut out into nothingness, abandoned as the water has retreated further and further; each year the level dropping by a meter. The Dead Sea is dwindling to nothing, deprived of water by humans.

Where there once was water, there is now a crumbling coastline, which is already riddled with deep craters that can open up suddenly. Nonetheless, the lake's withered beauty still attracts many to its shores.

The only question is, for how long?

The Dead Sea is now set to be saved -- but the plans of its self-appointed savior may actually turn out to be more like euthanasia.

December 20, 2013

Filmmaker Randy Olson: Climate Change Is an Inconvenient Bore

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/filmmaker-randy-olson-climate-change-is-becoming-boring-a-940061.html



Has the climate change "brand" been ruined? Scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson says that the problem with trying to raise awareness about global warming is that it's the most boring subject on earth.

Filmmaker Randy Olson: Climate Change Is an Inconvenient Bore
Interview Conducted By Axel Bojanowski
December 20, 2013 – 11:15 AM

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Dr. Olson, you say you've figured out the most boring subject humanity has ever confronted: global warming. So I have to ask, I have studied the subject and ...

Randy Olson: OK, this is probably going to be the most boring interview I've ever done. And I probably shouldn't even do it because it's kind of a losing proposition, but I will because I think this issue of climate change is truly important, and that it is a major tragedy how poorly it's been handled.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wait -- you say our interview is a hopeless effort?

Olson: Not hopeless, just a long shot -- discussing how boring something is without being boring is tough.

December 20, 2013

(Canadian OpEd) Column: A new ambassador for a cold relationship

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Column+ambassador+cold+relationship/9292952/story.html

Column: A new ambassador for a cold relationship
By Andrew Cohen, Ottawa Citizen
December 16, 2013

So great is the institutional paralysis of the United States in 2013 that the world’s indispensable nation still remains without an ambassador in the capital of its largest trading partner. In Washington, no one is terribly fussed.

The U.S. Senate has finally given a hearing to Bruce Heyman, whom Barack Obama has nominated as his ambassador to Canada. Unsurprisingly, the confirmation hearing was light on news, thin in attendance and short in duration.

One reason that it has taken so long may be that the Senate is tying Heyman’s appointment to the approval of the much-studied Keystone XL Pipeline. Senators resent the administration’s glacial process and are treating Heyman’s nomination with the same urgency.

Or, more likely, it may be that the Senate simply doesn’t much care when the next U.S. ambassador arrives in Ottawa. The relationship between Canada and the United States is so big and bureaucratic — codified in agreements, treaties, protocols and exchanges, administered by a welter of agencies and departments — that, day-to-day, it largely runs itself.

December 20, 2013

Nonexistent Advances in Weapon Control One Year after Newtown

http://watchingamerica.com/News/228241/non-existent-advances-in-weapon-control-one-year-after-newtown/

Today it is easier to obtain and carry a firearm than before.

Nonexistent Advances in Weapon Control One Year after Newtown
El País, Spain
By Eva Saiz
Translated By Cydney Seigerman
14 December 2013
Edited by Gillian Palmer

One year ago, the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 27 people died, 20 of them children, shook the United States as no similar massacre had done before. The scale of the tragedy was considered a turning point to change, once and for all, the nation’s culture of violence and to achieve more restrictive control over the use of weapons. President Barack Obama himself made this job a personal crusade. Today, however, it is easier to obtain and carry a firearm than before.

"Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?" Obama asked during his speech in Newtown, Conn. two days after the shooting. With the polls on his side, the president started an ambitious campaign to pass legislation that restricted access to weapons and required that criminal and mental records be considered during all sales of weapons and ammunition. However, a bipartisan proposal reflecting these ideals died in the Senate. This was thanks to the support of various Democratic senators from states with traditionally lenient firearms policies who were afraid of losing their seats in the 2014 election.

The White House was not the only one to begin a strong offense in favor of greater weapon control. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Congresswoman and shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords, and other organizations plan to earmark more than $25 million next year to support candidates that defend a restrictive vision toward the use of weapons. They will need to see if this amount is sufficient to stand up to the omnipotent weapons lobby in the U.S., which won the battle this year. In order to attract the support of politicians in the Capitol, the National Rifle Association and other related groups spent $12.2 million in 2013, compared to the $1.6 million from associations that oppose the principles defended by the NRA.

On the eve of the Sandy Hook anniversary, support for more restrictive legislation over the control of weapons has also fallen. Although support for increased background checks continues to be high, it has decreased from about 90 percent to close to 80 percent since the spring. Likewise, today, 49 percent of Americans are in favor of more stringent laws, compared to the 58 percent that shared this opinion in October, according to Gallup.

December 20, 2013

In Syria, in Search of Options, Any Options

http://watchingamerica.com/News/228356/in-syria-in-search-of-options-any-options/

In Syria, in Search of Options, Any Options
Veja, Brazil
By Caio Blinder
Translated By Jane Dorwart
5 December 2013
Edited by Bora Mici

For some time now, the militias of analysts from the Blinder & Blainder Institute have been lost in their projections about Syria. For a while, they fired first and asked questions later. Now, they ask too many questions and offer too few answers. Let's do battle!

There is information that the Obama government, so reluctant to stick a hand in the Syrian muck, could finally be forced to take a more active role by targeting jihadi groups fighting the Assad regime, other rebel groups and even the moderates between them. This activism would be the product of the vigorous, yet fragmented jihadi threat in various parts of the Middle East, in an arc that goes from Mali to Yemen, and which obviously has a nerve point in Syria. European jihadis, who were fighting in Syria alongside Islamic groups, are now coming home and planning terrorist acts, after taking intensive courses.

With a certain delicacy, The New York Times observes that the price of countering the terrorist threat could be a certain "accommodation, even if just a temporary or tactical, with the brutal, but secular government of Assad" — the government that has committed war crimes, according to "massive evidence" released this week by United Nations investigators.

This American move will require domestic and international negotiations. In the foreground is an increasingly furious Saudi ally, furious with Washington and active in its support of various jihadi groups. In The New York Times, Ryan Crocker gets to the point. He says, "We need to start talking to the Assad regime again about counterterrorism," adding that, however bad the Syrian dictator is, he is not as bad as the jihadis, who would take over in his absence.

December 20, 2013

Dismantling of a Superpower

http://watchingamerica.com/News/228336/dismantling-of-a-superpower/

A new realism is noticeable in the U.S. Americans no longer want a foreign policy based on omnipresence.

Dismantling of a Superpower
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany
By Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger
Translated By Holly Bickerton
10 December 2013
Edited by Kyrstie Lane

American soldiers have already left Iraq, they will leave Afghanistan next year, and the U.S. did not want to take the lead in the Libyan conflict. And if we look beyond East Asia and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. does not feel obliged to bear the brunt when it comes to defusing big or small conflicts elsewhere. Washington has not said anything serious about events in Ukraine. The country that it wants to build up the most is the United States. President Obama seems to actually take to heart the motto he has given to his presidency. It is striking that a majority of Americans strongly criticize his foreign policy to some extent, but are in favor of this motto and of a dismantling of the commitment to world affairs, and do not disfavor a slimmed-down role for America at all. Two wars and a long recession have left deep scars on the collective psyche. Military interventions are now the last thing that Americans want – just look at Syria.

Foreign Policy Based on National Priorities

A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center looked into this and uncovered many sobering, but nevertheless realistic views. Among the sobering findings is the evaluation of America's significance in the world: A majority of those asked (53 percent) believe that the United States has a less important and powerful role than 10 years ago. It is the first time in 40 years that a majority believes this. The percentage of those with such a pessimistic view was only 20 percent in 2004! The percentage of those who believe, to put it bluntly, that the U.S. should mind its own business and not interfere in other countries' affairs has grown significantly. Here, as well, one can see an echo of Obama's policy toward Syria. Or, conversely, Obama's conduct in this conflict can be interpreted as a reflection of public opinion. Eighty percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement that the U.S. should pay more attention to problems at home. It should offer protection against threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but fighting poverty overseas and promoting democracy? No thanks! It fits with the gloominess of neo-realism that 70 percent of those surveyed think that the U.S. is less respected by other countries than it was in the past. This view is clouded by political party affiliations: Republican-minded voters feel that there is a loss of respect; Democratic-minded voters thought the same thing during the Bush administration.

From this snapshot of opinions one could come to the striking conclusion that the U.S. is retreating from world politics on a broad front. After the “unipolar moment” following the end of the Cold War and particularly following 9/11, it switched back to isolationism mode. The authors of the study warn against such an unequivocal conclusion. Two-thirds of Americans consider U.S. participation in the global economy to be a good thing; three-quarters are explicitly in favor of growing trade and business ties between the U.S. and other countries. One conclusion to take from this is that the Obama administration actually has the majority of the population on its side when it comes to trade negotiations with Asian countries and the European Union. The range of opinions should be interpreted carefully: The majority of Americans are in favor of a geopolitical dismantling of the notion of being a superpower and of a foreign policy which is closely based on national priorities; but they completely disfavor such curtailment when it comes to the economy, trade and investment.

Who Will Pull the Chestnuts Out of the Fire?

The comparison sounds bold and it can only be made with certain qualifications, but in a broad sense this is similar to how most Germans think. Many Germans are proud of the title "world champion in exports"; they know that "their" money is mainly earned abroad. At the same time, many Germans think that because we live in a complex world that is full of conflict, it is possible to live quite comfortably as a "big Switzerland." Federal President Gauck strongly criticized this view in his speech to mark the Day of German Unity, Oct. 3. The nation cannot be an isolated island, but must assume more responsibility in the world, he said.

December 20, 2013

Obama: The Betrayal of a Handshake

http://watchingamerica.com/News/228349/obama-the-betrayal-of-a-handshake/

The U.S. administration has never made any secret of its soft line: The easing of sanctions, and perhaps even a gradual end to the embargo, are policies that are always floating around, though never made official.

Obama: The Betrayal of a Handshake
L'Opinione, Italy
By Stefano Magni
Translated By Axel Ndianabo
12 December 2013
Edited by Keith Armstrong

A handshake could surely change diplomatic relations in the Florida Straits. For the past two days, the photos and videos of the historic gesture of friendship and respect between Raul Castro and Barack Obama — on the occasion of Nelson Mandela's state funeral — have been circulating. The fact that the South African leader’s funeral would be turned — by all international leftists — into some sort of festival was quite predictable. Just when Lenin's statue was being symbolically toppled from the Ukrainian square, effectively wiping out one of the remnants of the old and red Soviet system, timeless leaders such as Robert Mugabe and Raul Castro seized the opportunity in South Africa to make the world believe that their old revolutionary message is still alive and full of prospects.

For them to believe this, they both must close their eyes on the reality of the countries they are leading. Mugabe's Zimbabwe, particularly, is an anachronistic example of "Afro-communism," with its Maoist tendencies. It is a system that has produced — in addition to violence against dissidents and the expulsion of white farmers — the highest rate of unemployment and the worst inflation in recent history, one that is even worse than Germany in the 1920s. As for Cuba, despite boasting of a health care system considered among the best in the world (though hospitals lack everything and patients are expected to bring all the necessities from home), the cities are falling to pieces; the cars that are circulating are the same ones from the 1950s, before the revolution; and housing, despite the liberalization, remains a serious problem for everyone.

We have no way of knowing how many still believe in the revolution: It is not possible [for residents of these countries] to vote, neither with a pencil in the ballot box, nor with their feet, if they ever decided to leave. A demonstration of loyalty to the old Marxist-Leninist ideals and the history of revolutions against colonialism, imperialism, apartheid and capitalism was very predictable. Much less predictable, however, was the handshake between Raul Castro and Barack Obama. The U.S. administration has never made any secret of its soft line: The easing of sanctions, and perhaps even a gradual end to the embargo, are policies that are always floating around, though never made official.

The circumstances and actions taken by the Cuban regime prevent these policies from being completely implemented. It is true: Reforms are in place. Raul Castro has liberalized housing, exit visas and a few businesses. He has also reformed the monetary system, by abolishing the dual currency system. The Havana regime is relatively on track. But democracy is not even mentioned. Neither is the true freedom to emigrate: The possibility of leaving the country remains at the discretion of political authorities. There still is no room for opponents of the regime: Oswaldo Paya has died just a year ago, in circumstances that the regime will not reveal, silencing his daughter and all the witnesses.