North Korea, Part Deux

Now that the detection community has had their chance to collect their little particles and gases, get them back to the lab, and analyze them, apparently enough radiation was present in these collections for someone to decide that the North Koreans did indeed explode a nuclear weapon last week. Fair enough.

But I still have my doubts about their capability. Or whether they are as menacing a threat as the fear mongers (usually this is the neocons, but in this case, seems to be the left--but this is another story altogether) might have us believe.

If indeed their test was a nuclear weapon, it is far more likely that it was a dud (see my earlier post) than the more advanced 'suitcase bomb' type of device. The worst you could say so far is that they have a "big dirty bomb." But any regime that has a nuclear reactor of any type could do that. In fact, you don't even need that. A kid in the US built a nuclear reactor in the trunk of his car using old watch faces, lantern mantles and parts of used smoke detectors. It didn't generate electric power, but it created a hell of a mess, radiologically speaking.

Perhaps that is why the North Koreans seem intent on testing another device. It seems the want the real McCoy.

As for the fear mongers, I'm not too worried. North Korean missles fall apart in mid-air. The bombs are (so-far) duds. They've no navy to speak of. No money or resources to support offensive military actions. But most of all, they have no motive to break a cease-fire that has held for 53 years. Unless of course, they've simply gone as bonkers as the Jihadists and don't need a rational reason to slaughter their fellow man.

But you never know.

Goose and Gander: Take a Rest!

Something struck me the other day as rather odd when I was reading a local newspaper article about the two major candidates for the House seat in my district. The paper compared their views, records, etc. for voters. Fine. Then I saw that the paper researched how each dealt with the draft in the Viet Nam era.

The Democrat had volunteered for the Navy. The Republican used school deferment.

In a related article, the paper, which is a solid left/Dem supporter, went on to add comments about how terrible it was that this Republican avoided military service in his own time and yet supported Dubya during the run up to the Iraq war.

They can do that on the opinion page, no problem. However, the stink of hypocrisy is all over this thing. And now that I think about it, the same came be said for the Dubya/Kerry thing as well (remember what a big deal that was at the time?).

The democrats seem to want to point out that for a left wing individual, avoiding (by any means, legal or illegal) and protesting the war in Viet Nam was the right and noble thing to do. Except, of course, if that person happens today to be a Republican, in which case that person was a coward or a nepotist. Or a hypocrite.

Come on.

I understand there are valid points to made about how people (who are now running for public office) behaved during that time. The choices people make reveal their character. But what digs me is that this issue, which seems to keep coming up, is used as a political football. And it doesn't really matter to the spin doctors what choice the future candidates made--if it was the opposition, it was a bad choice. Tell me, how is it OK for a yippie to break the law, move to Canada, then come back to the US and run for office (I'm talking about Hanoi Jane's former hubby here) win, and all is well and good, because he was "doing the right thing" by avoiding the war? The same standard is not applied to the opposition, who took advantage of their daddy's influence, or money or whatever, to effectively do the same thing. "One guy is good, one is bad," is what they would have voters believe. Horse hockey.

I also understand that in today's vitriolic political environment, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is beyond ridicule, and "scruples" is just a word, not any type of practicing character trait. How dumb do they think the voters are? I'm pretty sure some are willing to fall for that type of red herring, thinking it really does makes a difference in how that candidate will legistlate in the future. But not many. Most political mudslinging is just hedonistic mental masturbation. Preaching to the choir. This crud doesn't really seem to change the way people look at the candidiates. Righties vote for the right, lefties for the left.

What is really accomplished in the end? In my mind, they simply paint themselves as foolish, petty, childish, assumptive charlatans. Which they are. Perhaps not all, but most of them.

Now HERE is a revelation of character: someone who refuses to engage in negative mudslinging, and runs on the issues. It's depressing, but I can't remember anyone like that.

It's futile and perhaps even a little silly to get up in arms about what happened 30 or 40 years ago, when most of those folks were just plain scared s***less of dying in that bulls*** war. So get real people. U.S involvement in that war ended 33 years ago. It's time to let it rest. And get down to issues.

Forty-Two: The Answer to the Meaning of Life

Thank God for God! Because he gives us all second chances at being who he wants us to be. (And third chances, and forth, etc. )

It seems that about every five years or so, I come across some new epiphany that completely shifts my perspective about things in the world, or about who I am, or how I behave or think or... whatever.

I certainly changed a lot from age 5 to age 12. Then again between 13 and 18. Same for 18 to 23, 23 to 28, 28 to 33, 33 to 38, and now again at 42. Each one of these stages in my life is marked by particular bookends of experience, each of landmark porportions (at least for me--in my life). I won't bore you with the details.

But it keeps happening. As if were being honed or groomed or sharpened like a blade. But what the heck for? I don't know. I've never known. When I was young, I never knew what I wanted to be "when I grew up." Maybe that's why it took so long for me to feel like an adult--like my parents were adults--instead of a teenager stuck in a man's body. I had no clear idea why I was on this earth. And to be honest, I still don't.

I will admit that it has always seemed to me that the way of the artist seemed the clearest path, but also the one most fraught with peril. The term "starving artist" exists for a reason. At times, I thought seriously about becoming a musician full time. I've dabbled in painting (which I sucked at) and drawing (a little better, but not much). But when writing came along, (came along! I've been writing creatively since about 1978, though only seriously for about four or five years) it seemed I'd found something that fit. Something that seemed "grown up." Is it? I really couldn't say. Maybe all "artists" are just people who have issues with growing up.

What was the latest bookend to mark yet another stage in my anthropomorphic journey?

Wouldn't you like to know.

Just Sharing...

My favorite things:
Honesty, wit, candor, forebearance, music, spices, green eyes, trees, friends, long conversations, patience, a good book, a good movie, a good quote, any kind of terrier, kindness, forgiveness, serendipity, great art, writing, listening, watching, thinking, the great apes, great cooking, Spain, anything Celtic, anyone willing to really listen, mountains, Natalie Portman's face, barbeque, hiking, skiing, birdsong, falling asleep to the sound of rain, waking up to the sound of rain, fresh air, PBS, letters (snail mail), black walnuts, red hair, anyone smiling, the color yellow, jammin', stars, the first kiss, and love.

My least favorite things:
Politics, quarreling, unfriendly cats, money, war, lies, sex disguised as love, corruption, brussel sprouts, fury, impatience, pride, indifference, destruction, greed, selfishness, death metal, overpayed CEO's, deference to religious dogma over human kindness, suffering, commercialism disguised as art, today's news media, violence in the name of God, okra, global warming, partisanship that trumps reason, blind obedience, blowhards, the examples Paris Hilton and Terrel Owens set, MS Window OS, the tactics of animal rights activists, billboards, vengeance, reality TV, pollution, and hatred.

North Korea: Nukes or No Nukes?

Yesterday, the North Koreans claimed to have tested an underground nuclear device. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. I have some very serious doubts about their claim.

Who am I to doubt? Let me explain. For fourteen years I worked with the Air Force agency whose primary mission was to detect nuclear explosions underground, underwater, in space, in the atmosphere, basically--anywhere. We employed a great many techniques and sensors to do this, and while nothing is foolproof, I think we had a pretty good handle on things. My speciality was space-borne sensors for atmostpheric and space detection, but in my last four years in the AF, I came to work with a wide variety of technicians from all the different disciplines, and so became uniquely and intimately familiar with all of the different processes by which nuclear explosions can be detected. I also consulted with many scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratories (where the first bomb was built), Sandia National Laboratories (where most of the rest of our nuclear arsensal was built), and a wide variety of prominent national and international scientists and experts. I tell you all this not out of pride or ego, but to assure you, I know what I'm talking about.

Initial seismic data reported earth tremors in North Korea that could only come from a rather large underground explosion. This is based on the magnitude of the tremor, arrival times at varying distances and waveform of the seismogram. The waveform of an underground explosion looks quite different from that of an earthquake (which are constant and usuallly miniscule).

So we have an underground explosion of quite a large size, yet how do we know if the explosion were nuclear in nature vs. conventional (i.e. TNT or some other chemical explosives)? The best way would be to take some kind of radiation reading. Nuclear explosions give off very distinctive, charachteristic gases, effluents and particles. But the explosion was underground in a country almost no outsiders have access to, least of all U.S Military personnel, so what's left to us?

Answer: not a whole lot. So we must judge by the data we have (or have yet to collect). The report on the magnitude of the earth tremor is the most telling in this case. Yeild estimates based on ground movement (honed through years of experience with underground testing done in the US and USSR) suggest that the North Korean explosion yeilded less than a kiloton of explosive power. (A kiloton is the equivalent explosive power of 1000 tons of TNT).

This is extremely odd. For it is a curious fact that it is much easier (taking less technology, effort, money, design expertise) to build a weapon yeilding between 10 and 30 kilotons of energy than one in the subkiloton range. When the US, USSR, Great Britain and France each tested their first nuclear weapons, all fell into the 10-30 kiloton range. Yet we are told by the North Koreans they (with all their financial and technical shortcomings and problems) were able to build their VERY FIRST working device identical to one that took the US more than a decade to build after the Manhattan Project. I must say it is NOT impossible for them to have done so, only highly unlikely.

It could be another way. They dug a hole in the ground and set off 500 tons (.5 kilotons) of TNT or other chemical explosives, in order to frighten the international community, to make them believe they have nuclear weapons, and to improve their internation stature and strengthen their position in future negotiations. Does the idea of so much TNT put you off? Before the US detonated their first device in Almogordo, New Mexico in 1945, they first set off 100 tons of TNT in one explosion to set a benchmark to be used to measure the explosive power of the upcoming nuclear test. So the idea is not a new one, nor is the figure of 500 tons of TNT terrifically out of the question (500 tons=One million pounds=approximately 650,000-750,000 sticks of dynamite), even for North Korea.

So tell me, which is more likely, that the cash starved North Koreans built a moderately advanced nuclear weapon and succeded in testing it on their first attempt? Or that by ruse, they are using the tension and wariness of the world community to increase their own regional and/or world influence?

I know what I think.

Birth of Libaconterianist

I haven't posted in a while and I feel obliged to do so, though right this moment, I don't have much to say. Perhaps by the end of this sentance, something will have struck me.

Okay. I've got it. I'll try to explain my political philosophy as best I may. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion among people who know me, so maybe this will help clear some of that up.

Well, I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of the best way to explain it, and I'm finding it difficult to formulate in a manifesto style, so I think I'll do it in a much easier way, a way that compares me to established political movements in this country.

How I am like a Liberal:
I believe in justice and equal opportunity for all regardless of race, religion, sex, age, etc....

How I am like a Conservative:
I think abortion is (in most cases) murder.

How I am like a Libertarian:
I believe we are all empowered by the Constitution to live the way we wish without government intrusion in to our lives.

How I am like a Anarchist:
I believe governments create far more problems than they solve (war, wasting money, war, they are a self-perpetuating beauracracy that looks out for its own best interests, war, etc.)

In a nutshell--that's me. Sure there's a lot more about me from issue to specific issue, but that constitutes the major themes upon which I base most of my other political beliefs.

So please--don't call me a Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian or Anarchist, I'm a little of each, and wholly none of the above. Unless you want to call me a Libaconterianist, in which case, I guess I couldn't really complain.

Peace.