Archives: 2007 March

President Bush made a visit to Walter Reed hospital and after presenting medals to warriors who suffered serious injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan made the following statement, “It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear the uniform and not get the best possible care”.

Well, at least President Bush got that right.

He also said “I apologize for what they went through and we’re going to fix the problem,” . Hmmmmmmm. Let’s hope so although a review of the Bush administration’s 2008 budget is not too encouraging with further reductions in funds budgeted for the care of US military personnel.

The overall neglect and poor treatment of wounded warriors at Walter Reed was publicly disclosed about six weeks ago in a story in the Washington Post. It was highly embarrassing to the Bush administration, as it should have been, at a time when public opinion was turning vigorously against the Bush war in Iraq. So far the disgraceful scandal and subsequent bureaucratic delays has led to the resignation of the US Army Secretary and two generals.

There were those who were less than pleased at the way the President went about his visit. Some retired officers, who do not want to be named for rather obvious reasons, criticized the president for turning the visit into a photo opportunity.

President Bush really has no creditability on the Walter Reed issue and is showing just how hypocritical he and his administration can be. Veterans and active duty troops alike say a lot of the problems at Walter Reed were well known for years and had long been in need of attention.

Yet Bush and a flock of your US congressmen are saying that they were unaware of the problem. I guess that the thousands of letters written to government officials over the years by concerned servicemen and women and their families remain unread to this day.

Yet another issue in the United States that the public seems to be far ahead of the politicians on is the use of wind power as a renewable energy source. The public sees the use of wind power as one way to reduce green house gas emissions, generate clean electric power, and fight global warming by the use of a proven in the present technology.

I say proven technology because wind power as a reliable source of electricity has been used in Europe for the past fifteen years. Today in Europe the most promising source of wind power is that generated by offshore wind turbines.

This is a very promising source of clean renewal energy as offshore winds are much more reliable than onshore winds. Offshore wind park developers say that they can generate power 87% of the time, which is about the same for coal fired plants that have to close periodically for maintenance.

Currently in the United States electricity generated by wind parks supply less than 1% of the total electric power generation capacity. From this small base wind-power production is growing fast, up 160% between 2000 and 2005. In spite of their promise of delivering clean renewable power new offshore wind park projects in America face some tough opposition to gaining a more significant electricity supply market share.

This is where heavy duty politics enter the equation.

For example, take the State of Massachusetts. A wind park developer has been trying for six years to get a permit for an offshore wind park project in the waters of Cape Cod. The project is still submerged in a sea of controversy and thus far no permit has been issued.

The primary reason?

According to a report by the World Economic Forum the United States has lost it’s top position as world technology king.

The number one position is now held by Denmark. Of the top ten positions four went to Scandinavian countries. As countries are judged on technological advancements in general business, the available infrastructure, and the extent to which government policy creates a framework necessary for economic development and increased competitiveness the Scandinavian nations must get high marks for government leadership.

The US still shows a strong leadership position with innovation, it has just declined from the top spot. The American higher education system does teach students not to fear taking risks and to be willing to try new procedures. In addition, institutions of higher learning in America have a high degree of co-operation with industry, which helps with the transfer of information that leads to innovation in producing new products and services.

Unfortunately, America’s lower position in the rankings seem to be at least partly due to a lack of strong government leadership in setting a favorable regulatory environment. It is apparent that the success of the Scandinavian countries is due in large measure to their governments placing a high degree of importance on technical innovation and have forward looking regulations in place that favor innovation.

As I’ve stated from time to time in Article Discovery leadership does matter. In a highly competitive world a few years of less than stellar forward thinking competent leadership at the top levels of government will all too soon impact the quality of live enjoyed by the citizens of that nation.

This fact is an important one to keep in mind for Americans as they enter the 2008 election season. The man or woman who is elected as President in 2008 must demonstrate the utmost in competence and leadership to bring America back from eight years of flawed policies.

The Sizzler missile story posted first on Bloomberg.com hit a nerve and sparked a wave of comments around the blogasphere.

Most of the comments were from Americans, as one might expect since the story was about the possibility of American aircraft carriers being vulnerable to Sizzler missile attacks. Most comments were quite aggressive in tone. A quick summary of the comments is “if we are attacked we would nuke them back into the stone age”.

Many say that any nation that has the poor judgment to attack one of our aircraft carrier battle groups would pay a heavy price. That would be certainly true. The US would strike back hard. However, even a limited scale nuclear response against the offending nation would likely be a disaster for all.

For one thing clouds of radioactive debris from any attack would circle the earth and likely endanger human life in scores of friendly and non offending nations including America. The long term “collateral” damage from large amounts of radioactive fallout would be difficult for military planners to predict.

For another, if China attacked Taiwan, and then attacked with Sizzler missiles an American aircraft carrier battle group defending Taiwan, an American response using nuclear weapons against China would trigger a certain and terrible response.

China is a huge nation. No matter how massive our initial strike would be the Chinese would be able to launch a strike against the US from remote hardened locations that would be devastating. Both nations would suffer greatly for many generations. Going nuclear is not an option that would present anyone with a favorable outcome.

The Russian state owned arms manufacturing firm Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg was aggressively marketing the “Sizzler” anti ship missile at last month’s IDEX 2007, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. The IDEX is the Middle East’s largest weapons exposition.

The Sizzler is a weapon that the US Navy has known about for six years but still has not developed a proven defense system to counter the threat. The Sizzler is a unique highly dangerous missile. Conventional anti ship missiles fly at sub sonic speeds and fly in a straight line. They therefore can be tracked and brought down by multi layed anti missile defense systems deployed on American aircraft carriers.

The Sizzler is a much more capable and dangerous weapon. “This is a carrier-destroying weapon,” said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. “That’s its purpose.”

The Sizzler can be launched from a new class of silent diesel powered submarines. It starts out at subsonic speeds but about ten miles from a target the warhead separates from the projectile and a rocket fires increasing the missiles velocity to three times the speed of sound, about 2,000 miles per hour. As if the high speed didn’t present enough of a challenge to an aircraft carrier’s defense system the Sizzler is capable of sharp high speed evasive maneuvers that makes it highly difficult to defend against.

The Chinese are known to have deployed these missiles. If the Chinese ever decide to invade Taiwan American aircraft carriers at their current level of protection may prove to be defenseless against the Sizzler threat.