<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Noah Shachtman&apos;s site</title>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:48:50 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Noah&apos;s Next Step: Into the Danger Room</title>
<description>So here&apos;s the scoop: I&apos;ve started a new blog for Wired. It&apos;s called DANGER ROOM. And it&apos;ll cover &quot;what&apos;s next in national security,&quot; from new gear to new strategies. All the familiar faces from Defense Tech will be contributing: David Axe, Sharon Weinberger, David Hambling, you name &apos;em. The site doesn&apos;t officially launch until Wednesday morning. But since you&apos;ve managed to make your way over here, I&apos;ll slip you a sneak peak. If you&apos;re an RSS type, you can get the new feed here. And you can stay on top of what&apos;s going down in the DANGER ROOM by signing up for my e-mail list here....</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003293.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003293.html</guid>
<category>Blog Bidness</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:48:50 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Navy Grows Land Forces</title>
<description>With the Army and Marine Corps stretched to breaking in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy is scrambling for ways to contribute more to inland fights. One result is a new river boat squadron, second of its type, stood up two weeks ago. Riverine Squadron Two and its sister, Ron One, are part of Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, which gathers all the Navy&apos;s coastal and land forces under one banner and adds brand new capabilities. NECC -- based alongside patrol boats (pics!) and amphibious ships at Little Creek, Virginia -- includes construction battalions, logistics troops, harbor patrol units, ordnance disposal teams and the new riverine squadrons, and is the subject of a story in the current issue of Defense Technology International. &quot;It was definitely the ongoing war that created the idea,&quot; says Captain Robert McKenna, NECC&apos;s 44-year-old training officer. &quot;We realized that the Army and Marine Corps were nearing capacity and that there was more to be done. We were looking for ways for the Navy to contribute more. Then we started looking out and said, the Navy really is contributing. And the sailors contributing the most in theater are the ones wearing this uniform.&quot; He gestures to his green and...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003289.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003289.html</guid>
<category>Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:08:31 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Britain&apos;s new nuke debate</title>
<description>The conventional Trident may be dead, but nuclear Tridents have sparked a heated debate over the future of the UK&apos;s nuclear weapons. Submarine-launched Trident missiles have been Britain&apos;s only nuclear option for almost a decade – the UK never had independent ground-launch capabilities, and all the British air-delivered nuclear weapons were dismantled by 1998. The missiles are built, maintained, and serviced in the U.S., but Britain insists that it maintains operational independence. Today, the British Tridents are based on four Vanguard-class submarines, which are aging and due to be decommissioned in the 2020s. Since the government believes that new subs will take 17 years to design and build, a decision needs to be made. If Britain does not build new subs, it will lose its independent nuclear deterrent force. Prime Minister Tony Blair&apos;s government could have made the decision on its own, but opted instead to open the issue for debate and let Parliament decide – a vote is scheduled for March 2007. Supporters of renewing the Trident say that 1) no other nuclear states are considering eliminating their arsenals, 2) the number of nuclear states is increasing, 3) the world is a risky place, 4) it is impossible to...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003274.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003274.html</guid>
<category>Nukes</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:01:32 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Researching Tomorrow&apos;s Chem-Bio Defense</title>
<description><![CDATA[ This is part three of my investigation of the DOD Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) budget for FY2008. Today, we invade the lair of the research and development community. Sixty-one percent of the R&amp;D budget for next year ($610 million) is in budget activities 6.1 through 6.3, what is called science and technology or the tech base. Not much happens in here other than applied research into potential technologies that might develop into a practical application - someday. And that pays for a lot of scientists' salaries. The other 39 percent is advanced development (about $380 million), budget activities 6.4 and 6.5. These funds are used to prove that prototypes work and that a given project is ready for manufacture and fielding. I'm going to talk about the advanced development funds first, because it's easier to explain. The medics will develop biological vaccines to counter plague and botulinum toxin ($40 million and $19 million respectively). We might see a fielded plague vaccine in 2010 - maybe. Don't count on a bot tox vaccine prior to 2015. Nearly $70 million is going to the Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative (TMTI). Although the project is supposed to be focused on far future...]]></description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003287.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003287.html</guid>
<category>Chem-Bio</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:03:31 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Taking on LockMart</title>
<description>Coast Guard commandant Admiral Thad Allen has all but surrendered to critics who’ve been saying that the service’s sprawling $24-billion Deepwater modernization program is fatally flawed and rife with corruption, according to The New York Times: “We have been running some parts of the Coast Guard like a small business when we are a Fortune 500 company,” Admiral Allen said in a speech on Tuesday to several hundred Coast Guard officials. “We need to evolve with changing times.” A new deputy commandant for mission support will oversee the design, acquisition and construction of new ships and aircraft and the maintenance of the fleet once they are built, functions that are now managed separately. That will allow the Coast Guard to avoid giving so much authority for design and construction choices to contractors, like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, which renovated the first eight trouble-plagued ships in the Deepwater program.The boats in question are the 123-foot Island-class patrol boats first fielded more than 15 years ago. Last year, former Lockheed Martin engineer Mike DeKort called out the firm for allegedly botching improvements to the boats’ communications. A report from the Coast Guard Inspector General this week confirms some of the flaws,...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003286.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003286.html</guid>
<category>Ships and Subs</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:14:54 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rapid Fire 02/14/07</title>
<description>* Centcom targets bloggers * Blogger arrested for terrorist ties * Google Earth, Iraqi lifesaver * Bad turn in Beirut * 222 &quot;chipped&quot; * Atmospheric comms field-tested * Roger Morris vs. Rummy * WWI&apos;s &quot;Tin Noses Shop&quot; * The &quot;Circus of Detention&quot; * Joel Johnson 1, gadget geeks 0 * Flipper to the rescue * Quantum &apos;puter demo * Nick testifies * Raptors break Axe&apos;s heart (Big ups: BP, RC, AT)...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003282.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003282.html</guid>
<category>Rapid Fire</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:22:07 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Real E.F.P.: Pocket-Sized Tank Killer</title>
<description>The pictures released last week of Iraqi high-tech explosives surprised me. These special &apos;superbombs&apos; that have caused so many US casualties -- they look like they had been assembled in someone&apos;s garage. These bombs belong to a class known as EFP --&apos;Explosively Formed Projectile&apos; or &apos;Explosively Formed Penetrator,&apos; depending on who you&apos;re talking to. They compress a metal liner into a slug and fire it at the target some distance away. The picture shows what a real EFP munition looks like. This is M2 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM). It&apos;s small enough to put in your pocket and weighs a couple of pounds. This version has been used by US Special Forces for the last 15 years or so. As GlobalSecurity.org describes it, SLAM is versatile, too: It will be used to support hit-and-run, ambush, and harassing, and urban warface missions. SLAM will also be employed by Light Combat Engineers and Rangers where missions warrant the use of such a device....SLAM is lightweight, lethal, easily emplaced, and can be carried in the quantity necessary to neutralize a broad range of targets. Different modes allow SLAM to be triggered by the heat or magnetic signature of a passing vehicle or by...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003285.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003285.html</guid>
<category>Ammo and Munitions</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:18 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Buying Next Year&apos;s Chem-Bio Gear</title>
<description>Following up yesterday&apos;s post on the new budget, let&apos;s see what chem-bio defense equipment the Defense Department is planning to buy. The top line items include (unsurprisingly) CB detection gear, individual protection equipment, and vaccines. About 36 percent of procurement dollars are going to buy specialized CB defense vehicles for the Army and CB detectors for the services. Nearly 24 percent is going to individual protective equipment - mostly masks and suits. The rest is seven percent for collective protection systems, five percent for decon systems, less than three percent for information systems, and nine percent for biological vaccines. Last, 16 percent for installation protection equipment, largely paying for hazmat gear and exercises. The CB Defense Program (CBDP) is buying 28 M31E2 Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS) for the Army next year, each costing about $3.4 million. These feature the Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) as the heart of the system. Most of these BIDS platoons were justified as homeland security capabilities, and we&apos;re going to be buying them for several more years. The Navy&apos;s getting eleven JBPDS for their ships, for about $330,000 each. DOD will be buying 25,000 biological assay tickets at $50 a pop as the...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003284.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003284.html</guid>
<category>Chem-Bio</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:47:51 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Navy Phone Bill: $4 Billion</title>
<description>And you thought your phone bill was high. The Navy is paying about $4 billion a year for calls, according to Defense News. And not surprisingly, there is a whole lot of padding in that tab. A check of telephone bills in the Jacksonville, Fla., area “found that when we have a digital receipt for a phone bill in the area…we are being overcharged 30 percent,” deputy chief of naval operations Vice Adm. Mark Edwards told a group of military-industrial insiders at a recent conference. Telephone service with no digital receipt showed overcharges of 18 percent, he added. The Navy’s top IT official said he wasn’t accusing telephone companies, but he just might not let it slide. “What I’m saying is: It’s my money and I want it back. And we’re going to get it back,” he said, to some chuckles. By recouping 30 percent of the $4 billion tab over the five-year defense plan, “we could build another carrier, just on the phone bill,” noted Edwards, a former ship and carrier battle group commander. “It won’t be quite that easy, but we’re working it.” And it might not end there. Edwards wants the Navy to change course by replacing...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003283.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003283.html</guid>
<category>Money Money Money</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:05:59 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nazi Roots for Iraq Super-Bombs</title>
<description>The debate these days is all about whether or not Tehran is supplying Iraq&apos;s armor-piercing bombs. But the roots of these explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, goes all the way back to Hitler-era Germany, the Yorkshire Ranter notes. Military historian Larry Grupp explains. Dr. Hubert Schardin was definitely not a Nazi. Nevertheless, he stood stiffly at attention in full Luftwaffe dress uniform at Gestapo headquarters in Budapest, Hungary. It was the spring of 1944 and Schardin, a brilliant German explosives physicist, needed assistance. Under direct orders from Adolf Hitler to develop new superweapons, he needed the Gestapo&apos;s help to locate a famous but reclusive Hungarian colonel named Misznay who could provide detailed information regarding the complex physics involved in shaped charge explosives. Colonel Misznay was, by all historical indicators, so elusive that today we are even uncertain what his real first name was. In all probability, Misznay was either a double or perhaps even a triple agent. After World War II, he dropped out of sight in the Eastern Bloc. Yet his last name lives on as a result of a special explosive phenomenon he identified, called the Misznay-Schardin effect -- a phenomenon that recognizes that fragments can be thrown...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003281.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003281.html</guid>
<category>Bomb Squad</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:00:48 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nork Nuke Deal: Back to the Future?</title>
<description>Great news. According to the Times, &quot;The United States and four other nations reached a tentative agreement to provide North Korea with roughly $400 million in fuel oil and aid, in return for the North’s starting to disable its nuclear facilities and allowing nuclear inspectors back into the country.&quot; But here&apos;s the weird thing. &quot;We almost certainly could have gotten this deal before the North Koreans tested a missile and a nuke,&quot; the Arms Control Association&apos;s Paul Kerr notes. In a way, I agree with this statement from John Bolton:&quot; This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it’s amazing we didn’t cut it back then. Not that the deal is entirely set. As Slate observes, &quot;any agreement with North Korea should be met with some skepticism because the country has changed its mind in the past, and leader Kim Jong-il still has to give his blessing.&quot;...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003280.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003280.html</guid>
<category>Nukes</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:49:23 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Inside the Pentagon&apos;s Chem-Bio Budget</title>
<description><![CDATA[ The Defense Department's chem-bio defense budget (CBDP) only accounts for less than one percent of what the U.S. military spends. But there's still a lot to pore over. I thought that I would give an overview today, talk about procurement tomorrow, and talk about RDT&amp;E on Thursday. (Go to the Defense Department Comptroller's web site for fiscal year 2008 and access the procurement and RDT&amp;E programs, to find the appropriate documents.) Overall, the DoD CBDP will obligate $1.63 billion dollars in FY 2008 against 40-odd acquisition projects and other efforts. That's a bit less than one percent of the DoD modernization budget for that year. Breaking it down, the CBDP will spend: $609.6 million for science and technology (37.4 percent) $381.9 million for advanced research and development (23.5 percent) $543.8 million for procurement (33.4 percent) $93.6 million for management functions (5.7 percent) The services were a bit snippy about this budget because of the spending pattern - R&amp;D spending is twice that of procurement, which means they don't get as many toys. It's a trend that continues through the 2008-2013 Program Objective Memorandum (POM), which is the Pentagon's five year spending plan. Part of this is because of Rumsfeld's...]]></description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003279.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003279.html</guid>
<category>Chem-Bio</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:11:40 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rapid Fire 02/12/07 (Updated)</title>
<description>* Nork nuke pact? * Must read #1: Iraq&apos;s four wars * Must read #2: NSA cyber-hunter, losing the scent * Illuminati selling Q-branch stock * Iran unveils stealthy drone * FBI&apos;s secret laptops gone * Fallen soldier is a new dad * Turbine on a chip * Ospreys grounded * The science of Godzilla * New camo: gravy! (Big ups: EM, BB, RC, MO, JQ)...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003278.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003278.html</guid>
<category>Rapid Fire</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:33:25 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Old Crows, Nest Here</title>
<description>If you&apos;re an &quot;Old Crow&quot; -- or a friend of one -- drop me a line. I&apos;m trying to learn more about the fine, fine work y&apos;all are doing. All conversations will be off-the-record, naturally....</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003277.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003277.html</guid>
<category>Blog Bidness</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:14:45 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Deadly Bombs&apos; Long, Winding Trail</title>
<description>The U.S. government&apos;s claim yesterday, that the Iranians are supplying weapons to Iraqi militants, was met with a huge amount of skepticism -- and with good reason, given the Administration&apos;s lousy intel-interpreting track record, and the strange conditions of Sunday&apos;s presentation. (More on that, in a second.) But, for what it&apos;s worth, Defense Tech has been hearing about these weapons -- especially the &quot;explosively-formed projectiles,&quot; or EFPs -- for the last eighteen months. Many of the government&apos;s assertions track, at least loosely, to what we&apos;ve heard. Soldiers in Iraq were already encountering EFPs -- and the closely-related &quot;shaped-charges&quot; -- back in the summer of &apos;05, when I visited the country. In the garden, there&apos;s a seemingly innocuous copper cylinder, concave on one end, about the size of a gallon of paint. It&apos;s called an explosively formed projectile, or EFP, and when it detonates, the concave end blows outward and melts into a bullet-shaped fragment that slices through armor and flesh. &quot;Ten days ago, one of these sons-of-bitches took out an arm of a Humvee driver and both his legs,&quot; says Captain Greg Hirschey, the 717th&apos;s commander. &quot;I get shivers up my spine every time I see one.&quot; Back then, it...</description>
<link>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003276.html</link>
<guid>http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/003276.html</guid>
<category>Bomb Squad</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:35:40 -0500</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>
