By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jeremy_B_Thompson]Jeremy B Thompson
The United State Department of Defense deals with most military contracts. Their aim is to deliver quality equipment and services to their armies, while ensuring that they remain good stewards of taxpayer's money. In light of the attention being given to the Federal deficit and the fact that costs must be cut, procuring affordable and efficient defense programs has become more important.
Defense procurement has always cost the government a lot of money, with many programs running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sometimes these programs do not even generate the kinds of results that were expected, making them very expensive experiments that always have a chance of failing. Now, with the economy being close to a second recession and with spending being reduced, it is time for the DoD to ensure that their programs are both viable and cost effective.
DoD procurement has to change, and change quickly. They must ensure that all their defense programs can produce results quickly and efficiently. It is not efficient to have a missile defense program that costs $2 billion dollars but may produce results fifteen or twenty years in the future, and is just as likely to fail. The DPAP, the branch of the DoD that is responsible for contacting and procurement policies, aims to achieve acquisition excellence through good leadership and integrity. This can only be achieved if the right contracts are selected, based on what positives they will bring to the military, as opposed to selecting the most expensive programs.
A lot of time, DoD procurement focuses on big money projects that steal the limelight and show the might of the United States military. That is all well and good, but with the country needing to balance budgets, the right policy would be to only have DoD contracts that are necessary, legitimate, and will bring immediate benefit to the military. Signing another weapons contract when the army already has plenty of weapons and missiles is a mistake. It may be more important to focus on other areas where the military is lacking.
A major source of concern for the United States is the amount of money that was paid to contractors and sub contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq. Close to $20 billion of defense procurement contract money has been paid out over the years, and very little returns have been seen. While it is easier to pay sub contractors who will do the job locally, these instances should prove to the government that it might be better to give these contracts to United States companies that can be trusted to do a good job, or at least not take the government's money if they know the job cannot be done.
The U.S. military is a steward of their taxpayers' money, as their mission statement suggests, and they must use this money with care. [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/defense-procurement.aspx]Defense Procurement is changing due to new budget constraints forced on the military by the American people and Congress. Visit our website to learn how.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?How-To-Build-an-Affordable-and-Efficient-Procurement-Strategy-for-Defense-Programs&id=6650014] How To Build an Affordable and Efficient Procurement Strategy for Defense Programs
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Defense Logistics: Challenges and Opportunities in 2011
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jerry_O_Smith]Jerry O Smith
The main 2011 logistic challenge and opportunity for U.S. forces is finding new methods to implement cost savings without reducing the service performance. Acquisition programs need to be designed to acquire new equipment without delaying or eliminating deliveries to the forces in the field. Programs need to ensure equipment being used is withdrawn before life cycle expiration. The air force medical logistics teams are looking at methods to ensure the safety of our forces while simultaneously dealing with imposed budgets designed to save money.
Best practices in this effort include consolidating and improving supply chain management while planning provisions to accommodate performance through a single point supporting the full range of military operations. The air force medical logistics team consist of subject matter experts combined with contractor support and material management, which is responsible for identifying system readiness and equipment nearing expiration of life cycles. Systems are being used to track environmental conditions and extraordinary operational duties, reduce redundancy, and improve supply rate efficiency by 34 percent. The objectives are to increase equipment availability by 20 percent and decrease the costs of operations and support functions by 10 percent during the 2011 fiscal year.
Defense logistics teams have been assigned three primary functions: planning for wide enterprise, material maintenance and distribution. The centers exercise command and control from a single point with strategies to reduce personnel costs and maintain functionality of operational executions. Supply chain management will operate under best practices, observing business regulations; their procedures need to meet supply chain system assessments. The procedures are intended to identify needed performance improvement, submitting metrics and analyzed capabilities for review. Concepts will be adapted, and change management, risk mitigation, and planning will be integrated. Supply chain organizations are using enhanced information technology systems with program goals capable of reaching target defense logistic improvements by 2012. Defense logistics teams will be working from multiple support locations performing services with precision to align the entire air force medical logistics supply chain process.
Changes ahead for logistical support of military operations are linked to technologies assisting with responses to unavoidable strategic risks. Immediate stability ensures air force logistics capability of dealing with unpredictable actions with deliberate and practical responses. Instability from all corners of the world is the largest challenge of managing military logistics in new environments with armed conflicts and maintaining global security to support the military's ability to deliver equipment on time. [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/home.aspx]Defense Logistics is a complicated area of the government's procurement activities. If you're tasked with [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/defense.aspx]air force medical logistics in your organization, visit our website to learn more about this topic.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Defense-Logistics:-Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-2011&id=6649973] Defense Logistics: Challenges and Opportunities in 2011
The main 2011 logistic challenge and opportunity for U.S. forces is finding new methods to implement cost savings without reducing the service performance. Acquisition programs need to be designed to acquire new equipment without delaying or eliminating deliveries to the forces in the field. Programs need to ensure equipment being used is withdrawn before life cycle expiration. The air force medical logistics teams are looking at methods to ensure the safety of our forces while simultaneously dealing with imposed budgets designed to save money.
Best practices in this effort include consolidating and improving supply chain management while planning provisions to accommodate performance through a single point supporting the full range of military operations. The air force medical logistics team consist of subject matter experts combined with contractor support and material management, which is responsible for identifying system readiness and equipment nearing expiration of life cycles. Systems are being used to track environmental conditions and extraordinary operational duties, reduce redundancy, and improve supply rate efficiency by 34 percent. The objectives are to increase equipment availability by 20 percent and decrease the costs of operations and support functions by 10 percent during the 2011 fiscal year.
Defense logistics teams have been assigned three primary functions: planning for wide enterprise, material maintenance and distribution. The centers exercise command and control from a single point with strategies to reduce personnel costs and maintain functionality of operational executions. Supply chain management will operate under best practices, observing business regulations; their procedures need to meet supply chain system assessments. The procedures are intended to identify needed performance improvement, submitting metrics and analyzed capabilities for review. Concepts will be adapted, and change management, risk mitigation, and planning will be integrated. Supply chain organizations are using enhanced information technology systems with program goals capable of reaching target defense logistic improvements by 2012. Defense logistics teams will be working from multiple support locations performing services with precision to align the entire air force medical logistics supply chain process.
Changes ahead for logistical support of military operations are linked to technologies assisting with responses to unavoidable strategic risks. Immediate stability ensures air force logistics capability of dealing with unpredictable actions with deliberate and practical responses. Instability from all corners of the world is the largest challenge of managing military logistics in new environments with armed conflicts and maintaining global security to support the military's ability to deliver equipment on time. [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/home.aspx]Defense Logistics is a complicated area of the government's procurement activities. If you're tasked with [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/defense.aspx]air force medical logistics in your organization, visit our website to learn more about this topic.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Defense-Logistics:-Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-2011&id=6649973] Defense Logistics: Challenges and Opportunities in 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Base Realigment and Closure Updates and Their Impact on Logistics
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jeremy_B_Thompson]Jeremy B Thompson
Base Realignment and Closure, which is also known as BRAC, is a United States Federal government procedure to close or realign all military installations that are deemed superfluous or which don't make any significant contribution anymore due to various factors. The BRAC recommends either closing or realigning these installations by overcoming the usual political and military challenges that are faced whenever there are attempts made to reduce or eliminate long-standing institutions. A military set-up can require millions of dollars annually; therefore members of Congress will often put up a stiff fight against such closing them down.
The last BRAC process was initiated in 2005 when the Pentagon released a list of military centers approved for the BRAC process. This commission also suggested that the next round of BRAC processes should be authorized in 2015 and from there on, a BRAC initiative must be conducted every 8 years.
The Base Realignment and Closure initiative has, for its primary goal, the saving Department money by creating efficiencies and reducing overhead. But, as is normal with such types of plans, there is a price to be paid in terms of relocating or replacing the employees; perhaps even the demolition of buildings or rehabilitation of buildings.
In support of the BRAC initiative, many contracts have been awarded to a large number of contractors who help with relocation of personnel, equipment and also perform the function of Information Technology management during the handover process as well as other service providers like housekeeping services.
Although the Base Realignment and Closures process is feared by many because of its potential to create unemployment and the strenuous efforts needed to implement a viable plan to reuse or repurpose bases, research has demonstrated that these realignment and closure procedures do not have the extreme effects feared by many communities. The impact could be less than expected because unlike other major employers, military installations could be considered to be relatively isolated units and therefore economic entities which spend their dollars outside the community where it's located, spending income on the base rather than in the local community. However, in rural areas, the impact could be higher and the economic recovery process slower.
Local government expenditure and services can be adversely affected due to the base realignment and closure initiatives and goals. This of course depends on the magnitude to which the military base is integrated into the local community's fiscal planning.
The [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/base-realignment-and-closure.aspx]Base Realignment and Closure commission made a huge impact on military spending in the USA. Visit our website to learn more.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Base-Realigment-and-Closure-Updates-and-Their-Impact-on-Logistics&id=6649981] Base Realigment and Closure Updates and Their Impact on Logistics
Base Realignment and Closure, which is also known as BRAC, is a United States Federal government procedure to close or realign all military installations that are deemed superfluous or which don't make any significant contribution anymore due to various factors. The BRAC recommends either closing or realigning these installations by overcoming the usual political and military challenges that are faced whenever there are attempts made to reduce or eliminate long-standing institutions. A military set-up can require millions of dollars annually; therefore members of Congress will often put up a stiff fight against such closing them down.
The last BRAC process was initiated in 2005 when the Pentagon released a list of military centers approved for the BRAC process. This commission also suggested that the next round of BRAC processes should be authorized in 2015 and from there on, a BRAC initiative must be conducted every 8 years.
The Base Realignment and Closure initiative has, for its primary goal, the saving Department money by creating efficiencies and reducing overhead. But, as is normal with such types of plans, there is a price to be paid in terms of relocating or replacing the employees; perhaps even the demolition of buildings or rehabilitation of buildings.
In support of the BRAC initiative, many contracts have been awarded to a large number of contractors who help with relocation of personnel, equipment and also perform the function of Information Technology management during the handover process as well as other service providers like housekeeping services.
Although the Base Realignment and Closures process is feared by many because of its potential to create unemployment and the strenuous efforts needed to implement a viable plan to reuse or repurpose bases, research has demonstrated that these realignment and closure procedures do not have the extreme effects feared by many communities. The impact could be less than expected because unlike other major employers, military installations could be considered to be relatively isolated units and therefore economic entities which spend their dollars outside the community where it's located, spending income on the base rather than in the local community. However, in rural areas, the impact could be higher and the economic recovery process slower.
Local government expenditure and services can be adversely affected due to the base realignment and closure initiatives and goals. This of course depends on the magnitude to which the military base is integrated into the local community's fiscal planning.
The [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/base-realignment-and-closure.aspx]Base Realignment and Closure commission made a huge impact on military spending in the USA. Visit our website to learn more.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Base-Realigment-and-Closure-Updates-and-Their-Impact-on-Logistics&id=6649981] Base Realigment and Closure Updates and Their Impact on Logistics
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
How To Build Affordability Into Defense Contracts
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jeremy_B_Thompson]Jeremy B Thompson
In today's economic situation, the affordability of weapons systems development projects must be taken into careful consideration. Already, defense contracts are being drawn up with this in mind and many defense contractors are incorporating affordability initiatives into their program development plans. Recently, in an address to defense industry executives, the Pentagon's chief weapons purchaser gave the clear message that affordability will be the new mantra in new weapons programs like the SSBN-X, the ground combat vehicle and long range strike capabilities weapons.
This is because the days of over-sized defense budgets are long gone. As long as the funds gushed in the last two decades, there was plenty of waste and abuse of these budgets. Now, the defense industry will, like any other competitive industry, get "incentivized" to bring in more productivity and efficiency. This is a good thing, as the security of our nation depends on this efficiency.
Defense contractors will now have to think about adapting to the same changes that made the prices of products and services gradually drop in the private sector. Carter's line of reasoning - "Your computer costs less every year, why not defense weapons?"
This new approach is certain to lead to a lot fewer cost-plus contracts and fixed price contracts will be more encouraged. The fact that the government has agreed to cut the planned defense budget over 12 years by $400 billion is sure to affect defense contractors.
There are four basic ways to build affordability into defense contracts. The first is to initiate better management of costs and affordability through improved understanding and management of requirements, schedules and incentives. Two aspects of an affordability initiative are product improvement and process improvements. By adapting new manufacturing methods or materials to enhance the final product and by incorporating changes in detailed production plans, a new workflow can build affordability into defense contracts.
Another way of building affordability into defense contracts is to promote greater competition as well as getting rid of redundant capabilities and more direct acquisition management at all levels. This will also constitute removing obstacles to competition. Negotiation of all single bid offers through cost or price analysis and also through non-certified data will go a long way towards encouraging competition. Evaluation criteria and the time taken for evaluation also must be improved so as to promote real competition. Competition can also be enhanced by requiring more frequent reevaluations of knowledge-based services.
Are you involved with negotiating [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/defense-contracts.aspx]defense contracts? We tackle this complex area on our website, so why not check us out?
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?How-To-Build-Affordability-Into-Defense-Contracts&id=6650003] How To Build Affordability Into Defense Contracts
In today's economic situation, the affordability of weapons systems development projects must be taken into careful consideration. Already, defense contracts are being drawn up with this in mind and many defense contractors are incorporating affordability initiatives into their program development plans. Recently, in an address to defense industry executives, the Pentagon's chief weapons purchaser gave the clear message that affordability will be the new mantra in new weapons programs like the SSBN-X, the ground combat vehicle and long range strike capabilities weapons.
This is because the days of over-sized defense budgets are long gone. As long as the funds gushed in the last two decades, there was plenty of waste and abuse of these budgets. Now, the defense industry will, like any other competitive industry, get "incentivized" to bring in more productivity and efficiency. This is a good thing, as the security of our nation depends on this efficiency.
Defense contractors will now have to think about adapting to the same changes that made the prices of products and services gradually drop in the private sector. Carter's line of reasoning - "Your computer costs less every year, why not defense weapons?"
This new approach is certain to lead to a lot fewer cost-plus contracts and fixed price contracts will be more encouraged. The fact that the government has agreed to cut the planned defense budget over 12 years by $400 billion is sure to affect defense contractors.
There are four basic ways to build affordability into defense contracts. The first is to initiate better management of costs and affordability through improved understanding and management of requirements, schedules and incentives. Two aspects of an affordability initiative are product improvement and process improvements. By adapting new manufacturing methods or materials to enhance the final product and by incorporating changes in detailed production plans, a new workflow can build affordability into defense contracts.
Another way of building affordability into defense contracts is to promote greater competition as well as getting rid of redundant capabilities and more direct acquisition management at all levels. This will also constitute removing obstacles to competition. Negotiation of all single bid offers through cost or price analysis and also through non-certified data will go a long way towards encouraging competition. Evaluation criteria and the time taken for evaluation also must be improved so as to promote real competition. Competition can also be enhanced by requiring more frequent reevaluations of knowledge-based services.
Are you involved with negotiating [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/defense-contracts.aspx]defense contracts? We tackle this complex area on our website, so why not check us out?
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?How-To-Build-Affordability-Into-Defense-Contracts&id=6650003] How To Build Affordability Into Defense Contracts
Monday, November 14, 2011
Affordability and DoD Contracts
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jerry_O_Smith]Jerry O Smith
Affordability plays a huge role in the contracts the Department of Defense (DoD) signs for various projects. This DoD acquisition process is now regulated by new laws that were enacted by the government recently. Defense Secretary's $101 billion "efficiency initiative" was created in order to ensure that the Department of Defense makes as many savings as it possibly can in the coming years, in line with the spending cuts that the entire country is trying to push through. Every military service has now been required to find $2 billion of savings in 2012, $3 billion in 2013, and $5 billion by 2014. The list goes on, until 2016 when $10 billion of savings should be achieved by the United States military and its various branches. These savings will fund military pay and benefits as well as weapons acquisition programs.
The fact is that DoD acquisition contracts are now directly linked to how much money they can save. The country has created a deficit of almost $2 trillion and can no longer frivolously spend on defense contracts that the army sees fit to enact. Only money that is being saved can be spent. While Gates came up with a good savings plan, Ashton Carter, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, came up with further contracting reforms to save the military money.
The first principle Carter brought into law is that affordability is as important as technical capability when it comes making decisions about weapons programs, such as the Army Ground Combat Vehicles and the Air Force Long Range Strike Missiles. Any programs that are not financially viable must be let go of and all programs must strictly comply with regulations that inhibit spending on new equipments and maintaining current ones.
Similarly, there are now portfolio capability reviews that will be conducted to ensure that any program that is redundant is let go. The Air Force's Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program is one that is particularly at risk of being shut down for its huge costs and limited effectiveness. The Army's Medium Extended Air Defense System is also being threatened, because shutting down these and a few other programs could save the army billions of dollars. They are looking to find programs that cost between $10 to $12 million each and do not rip holes in the United States Treasury's budget.
There are other policies as well, and these are merely two examples of how both the Defense Secretary and his undersecretary are striving to reduce United States Military spending, especially in the DoD acquisition process, while still maintaining our status as the primary army in the world.
The [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/dod-acquisition-process.aspx]DoD acquisition process has changed significantly since the implementation of new directives and budgets. Browse our website for information about this important trend.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Affordability-and-DoD-Contracts&id=6650027] Affordability and DoD Contracts
Affordability plays a huge role in the contracts the Department of Defense (DoD) signs for various projects. This DoD acquisition process is now regulated by new laws that were enacted by the government recently. Defense Secretary's $101 billion "efficiency initiative" was created in order to ensure that the Department of Defense makes as many savings as it possibly can in the coming years, in line with the spending cuts that the entire country is trying to push through. Every military service has now been required to find $2 billion of savings in 2012, $3 billion in 2013, and $5 billion by 2014. The list goes on, until 2016 when $10 billion of savings should be achieved by the United States military and its various branches. These savings will fund military pay and benefits as well as weapons acquisition programs.
The fact is that DoD acquisition contracts are now directly linked to how much money they can save. The country has created a deficit of almost $2 trillion and can no longer frivolously spend on defense contracts that the army sees fit to enact. Only money that is being saved can be spent. While Gates came up with a good savings plan, Ashton Carter, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, came up with further contracting reforms to save the military money.
The first principle Carter brought into law is that affordability is as important as technical capability when it comes making decisions about weapons programs, such as the Army Ground Combat Vehicles and the Air Force Long Range Strike Missiles. Any programs that are not financially viable must be let go of and all programs must strictly comply with regulations that inhibit spending on new equipments and maintaining current ones.
Similarly, there are now portfolio capability reviews that will be conducted to ensure that any program that is redundant is let go. The Air Force's Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program is one that is particularly at risk of being shut down for its huge costs and limited effectiveness. The Army's Medium Extended Air Defense System is also being threatened, because shutting down these and a few other programs could save the army billions of dollars. They are looking to find programs that cost between $10 to $12 million each and do not rip holes in the United States Treasury's budget.
There are other policies as well, and these are merely two examples of how both the Defense Secretary and his undersecretary are striving to reduce United States Military spending, especially in the DoD acquisition process, while still maintaining our status as the primary army in the world.
The [http://www.wbresearch.com/defenselogisticsusa/dod-acquisition-process.aspx]DoD acquisition process has changed significantly since the implementation of new directives and budgets. Browse our website for information about this important trend.
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Affordability-and-DoD-Contracts&id=6650027] Affordability and DoD Contracts
Saturday, November 12, 2011
UAVs to Monitor Iran's Nuclear Weapons Enrichment Program and Testing
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow]Lance Winslow
Okay so, apparently, the old CIA assessment of Iran and their nuclear enrichment program to make nuclear weapons was wrong, and the Iranians didn't actually stop those centrifuges. Of course, that wouldn't be the first time the CIA assessments of a foreign government's WMD program was incorrect. See that point.
Now then, let's let bygones be bygones and consider where we are today. Is there a way we can for sure know that Iran has stopped enriching uranium? Hard to say if we can be 100% accurate using satellites, or other intelligence, but I have another idea for this.
First, however, I'd like to state that I feel the answer to this issue is somewhat irrelevant, and that pre-emption is more than justified NOW, as Iran has been funding terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah and that is well known. Further, Iran has assisted in the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, meddling in the stabilizing of those nations.
Let's discuss however a concept on how to do proper surveillance to verify that Iran is or isn't working on nuclear weapons. You see, there are many ways to test for nuclear weapons work - spectral imaging from Satellites, downwind air quality checks using sunlight and UAVs (or micro-air vehicles in grid formation) to gather samples
The NOAA has this technology, they use it for weather data, and/or can use it for collecting pollution particulate. Here is how I would envision this happening;
Small micro-air vehicles can penetrate without detection, like small birds, especially using special materials, upload information to satellite, relay to ship in Arabian Sea. Also we can use Sunlight backdrops and long-range frequency scanning for specific concentrations of various gases released in the enrichment process, as we did with N. Korean from the S. Korean side.
The micro-air vehicles can fly in a grid pattern at the proper altitude to collect the air-samples, then send the data to the satellites if the gases that follow uranium enrichment are present. Even if the MAVs or micro-air vehicles cannot make it back, that's okay, at least we have the data we need, and we can self-destruct these units to prevent them from getting into the hands of the enemy in this case.
It seems that the "trust but verify" concept of the Reagan Administration is completely out the window, as the Iranian leadership has been less-than-forthcoming in the past on this issue, not only with the US, NATO, UN, but also with the IAEA. It's time to verify what we already know, so we can feel good about the decisions we are making, but trust must be earned, unfortunately it hasn't in this case. What's that quote; "Shame on Me?"
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Lance+Winslow#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Future+Concepts&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AFuture+Concepts]Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?UAVs-to-Monitor-Irans-Nuclear-Weapons-Enrichment-Program-and-Testing&id=6658690] UAVs to Monitor Iran's Nuclear Weapons Enrichment Program and Testing
Okay so, apparently, the old CIA assessment of Iran and their nuclear enrichment program to make nuclear weapons was wrong, and the Iranians didn't actually stop those centrifuges. Of course, that wouldn't be the first time the CIA assessments of a foreign government's WMD program was incorrect. See that point.
Now then, let's let bygones be bygones and consider where we are today. Is there a way we can for sure know that Iran has stopped enriching uranium? Hard to say if we can be 100% accurate using satellites, or other intelligence, but I have another idea for this.
First, however, I'd like to state that I feel the answer to this issue is somewhat irrelevant, and that pre-emption is more than justified NOW, as Iran has been funding terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah and that is well known. Further, Iran has assisted in the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, meddling in the stabilizing of those nations.
Let's discuss however a concept on how to do proper surveillance to verify that Iran is or isn't working on nuclear weapons. You see, there are many ways to test for nuclear weapons work - spectral imaging from Satellites, downwind air quality checks using sunlight and UAVs (or micro-air vehicles in grid formation) to gather samples
The NOAA has this technology, they use it for weather data, and/or can use it for collecting pollution particulate. Here is how I would envision this happening;
Small micro-air vehicles can penetrate without detection, like small birds, especially using special materials, upload information to satellite, relay to ship in Arabian Sea. Also we can use Sunlight backdrops and long-range frequency scanning for specific concentrations of various gases released in the enrichment process, as we did with N. Korean from the S. Korean side.
The micro-air vehicles can fly in a grid pattern at the proper altitude to collect the air-samples, then send the data to the satellites if the gases that follow uranium enrichment are present. Even if the MAVs or micro-air vehicles cannot make it back, that's okay, at least we have the data we need, and we can self-destruct these units to prevent them from getting into the hands of the enemy in this case.
It seems that the "trust but verify" concept of the Reagan Administration is completely out the window, as the Iranian leadership has been less-than-forthcoming in the past on this issue, not only with the US, NATO, UN, but also with the IAEA. It's time to verify what we already know, so we can feel good about the decisions we are making, but trust must be earned, unfortunately it hasn't in this case. What's that quote; "Shame on Me?"
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Lance+Winslow#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Future+Concepts&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AFuture+Concepts]Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?UAVs-to-Monitor-Irans-Nuclear-Weapons-Enrichment-Program-and-Testing&id=6658690] UAVs to Monitor Iran's Nuclear Weapons Enrichment Program and Testing
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The West Coast During World War Two
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Peter_Uzelac]Peter Uzelac
Life on America's West Coast changed dramatically after the December 7, 1941 Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The radical changes enacted after the attack changed how people went about their daily lives and the new laws and social changes that resulted are talked about and debated to this very day.
The driving force behind these changes of course were geographic. Hawaii, while not really next door to California, was close enough for American's to be quite concerned. While you couldn't say there was hysteria, there was a degree of concern about a possible land invasion of the western U.S. While theoretically possible, the probability of such an invasion was low. For the Japanese to carry it out would have been a logistic undertaking like never before. The forces necessary to accomplish such an expedition would have been almost impossible to pull off. The large American population on the west coast along with the terrain would have presented great difficulty. While this was most likely realized by those in our military there were still many other concerns regarding our overall west coast security. One of those concerns were the number of Japanese living on the west coast, mostly in California. Many of these people were Japanese born and had not attained citizenship. On the other hand, many were born on American soil and were indeed U.S. citizens.
The West Coast truly was experiencing a unique situation. Never before had the possibility arisen that the U.S. might be invaded by another nation. You had to have gone back to the War of 1812 for a similar circumstance. The probability of course was small. The Hawaiian Islands would have been taken first and this proved not to be in Japan's game plan. Furthermore, after the Japanese stunning defeat in the Battle of Midway, the tide turned the other way with prospects of an invasion of Japan's home islands. Regardless of the long shot of action being seen on our west coast, there were several other concerns which did emerge.
Anti-Japanese factions, mostly in California, began petitioning the federal government to do something about what they perceived was a security threat. The threat they were alluding to was possible Japanese-American spying and/or sabotage. America's West Coast was home to many naval bases, shipyards and other war related industries. Could a spy secretly radio out American ship movements to submarines positioned off the coast? Could someone sympathetic to Japan's cause sabotage a factory producing war equipment? Both of these were possible. German saboteurs were known to operate on the east coast. Neither of these scenarios were out of the question. In regards to the west coast which had the distinction of being home to thousands of people of Japanese ancestry, the question was..what to do?
The result was Executive Order 9066 signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This order allowed military commanders to designate areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded."This action come without a lot of prodding. After Pearl harbor there had been a great deal of both discrimination and harassment directed at Japanese-Americans. There were signs posted on storefronts, newspaper editorials, student harassment at schools, property destruction and of course some relatively minor acts of violence all directed toward the Japanese-Americans. When Executive Order 9066 was signed into law the federal government ordered 120,000 Japanese-Americans who lived on the West coast to leave their homes and jobs and live in 10 relocation camps in remote areas in the western states. In many of these cases the Japanese who were rounded up lost their homes and belongings while away at the camps. Two-thirds of the people interned were native-born American citizens. To add to their hardship, the Japanese of the west coast were only allowed to bring along a few possessions and in some cases family members were split up in separate camps. The camps were located in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. The conditions at many of these camps were considered poor, especially in regards to medical treatment. The climate itself at many of these western camps was more harsh than what many had been accustomed to on the west coast and this sometimes caused physical problems. To learn more about personal experiences endured by the internees, there are several very good books available at most public libraries that offer detailed accounts. These are quite interesting and revealing stories.
In December 1944, Public Proclamation 21 finally allowed the internees to return home. Some returned back home and started on the road to rebuilding their lives. What they found back home in regards to the property they left behind was another matter. Many lost everything. Others who had been soured by the experience decided to return to Japan. Another interesting fact was that during the entire war only ten people were convicted of spying in the U.S. and none of these were of Japanese ancestry.
During the war years there were several Japanese attacks along the west coast however what occurred are better described as uncoordinated isolated incidents. One was the shelling by a Japanese submarine of an oil platform in Santa Barbara California resulting in some dam but no injuries. The submarine then left the area never to be seen again. Another incident occurred at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon when n June 21, 1942 a Japanese submarine fired on Fort Stevens. The only damage sustained was to a baseball field backstop. The submarine followed local fishing boats to avoid minefields. Searchlights spotted the sub but there was no return fire from the Americans mainly because the attack was at night and they chose not to give away their positions by firing. Another hazard to people on the west coast were the incendiary devices which were launched from Japan by balloon and taken to the North American continent by natural wind currents. The first bomb balloon was launched on November 3, 1944. From then until April 1945, the Japanese launched an estimated 9,300 balloons, up to 100 a day. Every month the balloons kept appearing, falling, or being sighted in some 26 states and localities from Mexico all the way to Alaska and as far east as the states of Kansas, Iowa, and Michigan. The goal of this effort was an attempt to set the northwest forests on fire. Most balloons never made it to their destination, and of the ones that did, only a few sporadic small fires resulted which were quickly put out by fire fighters. There was an incident with a balloon which apparently landed in the woods in rural Oregon. A group of children led by a Reverend Mitchell and his wife from Bly, Oregon set out for a Sunday afternoon picnic. While Reverend Mitchell parked the car, his wife and the five children explored the area. The group discovered a device the U.S. government knew about but had kept secret. This was the balloon bomb device. When one of them touched the device, it exploded. The explosion killed Mrs. Mitchell and the five children. The six Oregonians became the only known deaths on the United States mainland from enemy attack during all of World War Two. Records indicate that after the Oregon tragedy that claimed six lives, the federal government made the public aware of these dangerous devices sent over from Japan. On August 20, 1950, the company Weyerhaeuser, who owned the land where the explosion occurred, dedicated a bronze memorial plaque to the six victims. The explosion site is now part of a National Forest Service Recreational Area.
The residents of the west coast were certainly more affected by World War Two than many of their counterparts around the nation. With that being said, there were precautions taken in many other areas. The Galveston, Texas and Louisiana area which was a central shipping point for oil was the target of several German U-Boat attacks. As a result, there were regular blackouts in effect and a concerted effort by the Navy and Coast Guard to hunt for the U-Boats. rel=nofollow [http://westerntrips.blogspot.com/2011/05/galvestons-strategic-world-war-two.html]Galveston's World War Two defenses were quite extensive. The same was the case in San Francisco defenses. Spotter planes were launched from the Alameda Naval Air Station and other bases to patrol the coast. San Francisco defenses also included artillery batteries along both side of the inlet to the Bay.
World War Two presented the west coast with a set of problems never before encountered by the American public. Some of the steps taken were extreme and the program of Japanese internment was certainly one of these. It was a controversial move which is still debated to this day. At it's worse, the internment came about by the efforts of anti-Japanese factions within the non-Asian community. These may have been groups of people who disliked the Japanese presence on the mainland even before Pearl Harbor. At it's best, it was an honest effort by the federal government to react to a situation which it never encountered before.
By Peter Uzelac [http://westerntrips.blogspot.com/]westerntrips.blogspot.com
Peter Uzelac enjoys researching the history of America's West. You can contact him at [mailto:peterstripg@aol.com]peterstripg@aol.com or at westerntrips.blogspot.com
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?The-West-Coast-During-World-War-Two&id=6651854] The West Coast During World War Two
Life on America's West Coast changed dramatically after the December 7, 1941 Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The radical changes enacted after the attack changed how people went about their daily lives and the new laws and social changes that resulted are talked about and debated to this very day.
The driving force behind these changes of course were geographic. Hawaii, while not really next door to California, was close enough for American's to be quite concerned. While you couldn't say there was hysteria, there was a degree of concern about a possible land invasion of the western U.S. While theoretically possible, the probability of such an invasion was low. For the Japanese to carry it out would have been a logistic undertaking like never before. The forces necessary to accomplish such an expedition would have been almost impossible to pull off. The large American population on the west coast along with the terrain would have presented great difficulty. While this was most likely realized by those in our military there were still many other concerns regarding our overall west coast security. One of those concerns were the number of Japanese living on the west coast, mostly in California. Many of these people were Japanese born and had not attained citizenship. On the other hand, many were born on American soil and were indeed U.S. citizens.
The West Coast truly was experiencing a unique situation. Never before had the possibility arisen that the U.S. might be invaded by another nation. You had to have gone back to the War of 1812 for a similar circumstance. The probability of course was small. The Hawaiian Islands would have been taken first and this proved not to be in Japan's game plan. Furthermore, after the Japanese stunning defeat in the Battle of Midway, the tide turned the other way with prospects of an invasion of Japan's home islands. Regardless of the long shot of action being seen on our west coast, there were several other concerns which did emerge.
Anti-Japanese factions, mostly in California, began petitioning the federal government to do something about what they perceived was a security threat. The threat they were alluding to was possible Japanese-American spying and/or sabotage. America's West Coast was home to many naval bases, shipyards and other war related industries. Could a spy secretly radio out American ship movements to submarines positioned off the coast? Could someone sympathetic to Japan's cause sabotage a factory producing war equipment? Both of these were possible. German saboteurs were known to operate on the east coast. Neither of these scenarios were out of the question. In regards to the west coast which had the distinction of being home to thousands of people of Japanese ancestry, the question was..what to do?
The result was Executive Order 9066 signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This order allowed military commanders to designate areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded."This action come without a lot of prodding. After Pearl harbor there had been a great deal of both discrimination and harassment directed at Japanese-Americans. There were signs posted on storefronts, newspaper editorials, student harassment at schools, property destruction and of course some relatively minor acts of violence all directed toward the Japanese-Americans. When Executive Order 9066 was signed into law the federal government ordered 120,000 Japanese-Americans who lived on the West coast to leave their homes and jobs and live in 10 relocation camps in remote areas in the western states. In many of these cases the Japanese who were rounded up lost their homes and belongings while away at the camps. Two-thirds of the people interned were native-born American citizens. To add to their hardship, the Japanese of the west coast were only allowed to bring along a few possessions and in some cases family members were split up in separate camps. The camps were located in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. The conditions at many of these camps were considered poor, especially in regards to medical treatment. The climate itself at many of these western camps was more harsh than what many had been accustomed to on the west coast and this sometimes caused physical problems. To learn more about personal experiences endured by the internees, there are several very good books available at most public libraries that offer detailed accounts. These are quite interesting and revealing stories.
In December 1944, Public Proclamation 21 finally allowed the internees to return home. Some returned back home and started on the road to rebuilding their lives. What they found back home in regards to the property they left behind was another matter. Many lost everything. Others who had been soured by the experience decided to return to Japan. Another interesting fact was that during the entire war only ten people were convicted of spying in the U.S. and none of these were of Japanese ancestry.
During the war years there were several Japanese attacks along the west coast however what occurred are better described as uncoordinated isolated incidents. One was the shelling by a Japanese submarine of an oil platform in Santa Barbara California resulting in some dam but no injuries. The submarine then left the area never to be seen again. Another incident occurred at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon when n June 21, 1942 a Japanese submarine fired on Fort Stevens. The only damage sustained was to a baseball field backstop. The submarine followed local fishing boats to avoid minefields. Searchlights spotted the sub but there was no return fire from the Americans mainly because the attack was at night and they chose not to give away their positions by firing. Another hazard to people on the west coast were the incendiary devices which were launched from Japan by balloon and taken to the North American continent by natural wind currents. The first bomb balloon was launched on November 3, 1944. From then until April 1945, the Japanese launched an estimated 9,300 balloons, up to 100 a day. Every month the balloons kept appearing, falling, or being sighted in some 26 states and localities from Mexico all the way to Alaska and as far east as the states of Kansas, Iowa, and Michigan. The goal of this effort was an attempt to set the northwest forests on fire. Most balloons never made it to their destination, and of the ones that did, only a few sporadic small fires resulted which were quickly put out by fire fighters. There was an incident with a balloon which apparently landed in the woods in rural Oregon. A group of children led by a Reverend Mitchell and his wife from Bly, Oregon set out for a Sunday afternoon picnic. While Reverend Mitchell parked the car, his wife and the five children explored the area. The group discovered a device the U.S. government knew about but had kept secret. This was the balloon bomb device. When one of them touched the device, it exploded. The explosion killed Mrs. Mitchell and the five children. The six Oregonians became the only known deaths on the United States mainland from enemy attack during all of World War Two. Records indicate that after the Oregon tragedy that claimed six lives, the federal government made the public aware of these dangerous devices sent over from Japan. On August 20, 1950, the company Weyerhaeuser, who owned the land where the explosion occurred, dedicated a bronze memorial plaque to the six victims. The explosion site is now part of a National Forest Service Recreational Area.
The residents of the west coast were certainly more affected by World War Two than many of their counterparts around the nation. With that being said, there were precautions taken in many other areas. The Galveston, Texas and Louisiana area which was a central shipping point for oil was the target of several German U-Boat attacks. As a result, there were regular blackouts in effect and a concerted effort by the Navy and Coast Guard to hunt for the U-Boats. rel=nofollow [http://westerntrips.blogspot.com/2011/05/galvestons-strategic-world-war-two.html]Galveston's World War Two defenses were quite extensive. The same was the case in San Francisco defenses. Spotter planes were launched from the Alameda Naval Air Station and other bases to patrol the coast. San Francisco defenses also included artillery batteries along both side of the inlet to the Bay.
World War Two presented the west coast with a set of problems never before encountered by the American public. Some of the steps taken were extreme and the program of Japanese internment was certainly one of these. It was a controversial move which is still debated to this day. At it's worse, the internment came about by the efforts of anti-Japanese factions within the non-Asian community. These may have been groups of people who disliked the Japanese presence on the mainland even before Pearl Harbor. At it's best, it was an honest effort by the federal government to react to a situation which it never encountered before.
By Peter Uzelac [http://westerntrips.blogspot.com/]westerntrips.blogspot.com
Peter Uzelac enjoys researching the history of America's West. You can contact him at [mailto:peterstripg@aol.com]peterstripg@aol.com or at westerntrips.blogspot.com
Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?The-West-Coast-During-World-War-Two&id=6651854] The West Coast During World War Two
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)