Ouch My Head Hurts!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0131/p01s03-usmi.html

I've been watching the Iraq casualty rate for a while now, using it as a metric for success. For the last two mouths it's been dropping. So I looked a round for why. It looks like another case of hard targets survive and soft targets get blow up. As more US vehicles become armored and IED countermeasures accumulate, the rebels need a place to be successful.

Although they still would very much like to kill Americans and try on an ever increasing schedule, oil and Iraqi's seem to be the new target of choice. I have to admit if I was an rebel I would hit the oil fields an pipelines first. It really pisses off the local population to not have electricity and gasoline. Just look at the hatred/craziness created by Katrina. Strip away the veneer of civilization and people will get ugly quite quickly. By turning of the lights, the anger directed at Americans will actual swell the ranks of the very people who turned the lights off. Smart strategy (assuming there was any thinking behind their actions).

Iran and the bomb (version 2.0)

I've been thinking about the possibility that Iran might acquire nuclear weapons by means other than a home grow enrichment effort. It's hard to make a guess about what the chances are. There are several possibilities, purchase spent fuel rods, purchase refined material (U-235 or plutonium) or purchase a finished warhead. Any solution would work, since Libya revealed the existence of Chinese A-bomb plans floating round the black market. Such plans make creating a bomb easier, but not easy. After all I can buy plans on how to build a car, but that doesn't mean I can get it to run. And in this case “starting the car” means detonating plastic explosives.

The first problem is finding a seller. Would you want to sell your crazy neighbor a gun? Thats quite a liability to incur. I can't see a nuclear powers letting someone else buy their way into the club. Now as a political ploy we know its already been done. China gave Pakistan the bomb, but I bet they regret it about know.

During a convention I attended last year, a lecturer talked about efforts to stop black market trade in nuclear material. (The convention was about industrial health and safety but homeland security is all the rage.) He had maps and graphs and databases (can't seem to remember what agency he was from). He also had a confession. There are so many sting operations going on in Eurasia that they keep bumping into each other. I left pretty confident that criminal sale of such material was really unlikely.

But lets assume that you acquired a warhead. If it was a soviet era nuke then its been lying around for a couple of decades. If you parked your car twenty years ago would you expect it to work today? At the very least the battery would be dead. I know that if I was designing a nuclear weapon I would use a special proprietary battery. One with characteristics not easily duplicated. I would then design the electronics to disable the device if any other battery was used. For that matter if a criminal sold you a bomb how do you test if the arming codes are correct? Also what's the self life of the special version of plastic explosives used for A-bombs. If this is a soviet era nuke (an empire never know for quality) its been bounced from country to country in all sort of conditions for a long time. Are you going to risk war with the USA on a device of questionable quality and reliability?

This post is getting kind of long, but there are a whole lot of other details to think about. Of course I'm a scientist and pragmatist. I get paid to mind the details and make sure things work, while the Iranian president is completely nuts. On the other hand every power mad psycho on the planet wants the bomb but the nuclear club remains rather exclusive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

Is a sea change coming?

Much like monitoring terrorist activity, the common man can't really know what's going on in the halls of power; all we can do is monitor the "chatter". How much activity is occurring and who's talking is the only objective truth available.

I like to monitor the "chatter", especially with Google news and other news aggregators. They allow me access to the story of the day, but they also allow me to see who and how many news organizations are reporting a particular story.

I'm seeing some unusual activity in three areas, climate change, oil and the Iraq war . Yes, it's true that I am currently obsessed with this topics, but isn't it more likely for someone obsessed with a topic to notice when subtle shifts occur?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/news/economy/climate_fortune/index.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/global_warming;_ylt=AgC6TB6nkQ86p7brteeEddys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

I'm seeing strange apocalyptic articles using quotes by oil executives, billionaires and republicans about climate change and reducing fossil fuel use. I would expect such talk in the treehugging circles or in magazines like Wired or Discover, but not in Forbes and Fortune. This activity is hardly a tsunami, but it may be the start of something. It's true that fear sells (especially on a slow news day), but I think this is more that just that.

Everyone always say 9/11 changed everything. I'm starting to wonder is Katrina changed everything. At the moment I think the noise is just a kind of political insurance. If bad things happen this year, politicians and oil executives don't want to be held accountable. If nothing else those senate hearings that grilled the oil executives may have put the fear of god in them. On the other hand oil executives have access to data and analysis we don't, especially about remaining reserves in the Middle East. (Rumors of Saudi oil production having peaked are appearing.)

And finally let's look at Iraq. Money is getting tight, really tight. I'm talking about insanely gnaw off your arm and eat it tight. I've been expecting this for a while and it has finally appeared. I've had the benefit of accessing the wisdom of those who have been in federal service since WWII. This kind of funding insanity has occurred before; after WWII, Vietnam and Gulf War I. The dragon is starving and starting to eat its tail! I don't think it's just my section but it's always possible. It's a tad scary to have one eye on retirement and the other watching the budgetary equivalent of the grim reaper approach. Beyond my own personal plight you have to wonder what's happening to the troops in the field.