Not as pessimistic about the role of the UN as is Andrew Sullivan.

=======

Sullivan write:

LEAVING THEM BEHIND: The lesson from this is a simple one: we have to abandon the U.N. as an instrument in world affairs. I'm not saying complete U.S. withdrawal, although I'm beginning to think that now makes a lot of sense. I mean temporary U.S. disengagement. The body is now a joke of immense proportions. If it cannot enforce a resolution it passed only a couple of months ago, it cannot enforce anything. If it cannot read the plain meaning of its own words, it is an absurdist theater piece, not a genuine international body. It isn't in danger of becoming the League of Nations. It now is the League of Nations. The difference is that this time, after 9/11, U.S. isolationism is not an option. So U.S. non-U.N. multilateralism is the only option for any future threats to world order. God knows we cannot rely on Europe to keep the peace. The Old Europeans will regret this deeply in the years to come. They have just told us in no uncertain terms to ignore them. We should. We will. And in the post-Saddam settlement, we must actively shut out the French and Germans from any slice of the economic action and tear up whatever contracts they had with Saddam. They have told us how highly they value the lives of American citizens. We can now tell them how highly we value their export markets. - 6:44:31 PM
=======

I'm figuring Powell knew going into today's UN Security Council session that most of the representatives would make statements supportive of more inspections. However, I think he might have been taken aback some by how strongly some of the statements were worded. It sounded on the radio that Powell was thinking on his feet countering their arguements vigorously. Right now, many of the countries can continue to do their best impersonation of an ostrich with its head in the sand. When the USA and UK push for a deadline, we shall see how the Security Council reacts. If they still don't move then Sullivan is right that we have to abandon the UN.

World: Iraq situation

The war is for political gain

Some say Bush is using the war talk to divert from the economic troubles here at home.

War is no guarantee of re-election. Ask LBJ. He knew he could not get re-elected in 1968 so he dropped out of the race. Ask Bush 41, he won the war and still lost the presidency in 1992.

This war will require ground forces to play a larger role than in 1991 because we will have to occupy and run Iraq. After a brief air campaign, ground troops will have to go in and if they encounter resistance, there will be many body bags coming home. The 24-hour cable news will be showing the flag draped coffins, the grieving widows and widowers and the orphaned children.

What if the war goes swiftly and the Iraqi army drops their guns, abandon their tanks and raise their arms and wave white flags but the US Army doesn’t find caches of chemical weapons, nerve gas canisters, stashes of anthrax or other deadly biological agents?

The American people will vote Bush out for waging a war for no reason.

If Bush wants to get re-elected in 2004, he should drop the war with Iraq and throw all his energy and political clout on turning the economy around. The polls tell him that Americans are concerned about the economy first and foremost. The only way the war will benefit Bush is if it is swift (probable), the WMDs get found (probable), post-war Iraq is rebuilt into a peaceful nation (doubtful before Nov. 2004) and the American people haven’t forgotten by election day (ask Bush41). Feeling lucky GW?

The war is for oil

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Some say the USA just wants to control the oil supplies of the world.

This is the most repeated refrain of the anti-war crowd.

(1) The USA is far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil compared to Japan or Europe. Instead of spending $50-$100 billion (and that is the conservative estimate) on the war, why not throw that money to the auto-makers to help them build more fuel efficient cars so we don’t have to depend on Middle Eastern oil?

(2) Why not just buy Saddam Hussein’s oil? It will cost less to BUY it from them then to TAKE it from them. And if we do invade, Hussein will probably blow up the oil fields and it will cost us millions just to get the oil pumping again. Do the math! Factor in the costs of war, the cost of rebuilding a functional infrastructure in Iraq and after a few years, you finally you get 1 million barrels of oil flowing at $20 a barrel. Guess how much revenue you get? 20 million dollars/day times 365 days/year = $7.3 billion. And of out that money you got to pay the workers and help the Iraqis get their country back. It could be decades before the USA would "turn a profit" on the damm oil.

(3) If the USA just wants oil, why not invade the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia? Or why go half way around the world, why not turn Venezuela into the 51st State of the Union?

(4) If the war is just about oil then why bother with the hassle of dealing with the UN? The world hates us anyway, why waste time working with the UN? Just go in there and start the bombing tomorrow?

On the merits

If you haven’t gotten where I’m going, I’ll say it outright: whether Bush is right or wrong, he is pursuing the war because he believes it is necessary. So let us debate the issue of Iraq on the merits and not on the above two non-issues.

In response to 9/11, Bush could have lobbed a few cruise missiles and bombed a few training camps and called it a day. Instead, he took the bolder and riskier step of taking down the Taliban.

He could have left Iraq alone and concentrated on other matters that could score him more political points. Instead, he believes Hussein poses a danger and has staked his presidency and his standing for history by pursuing an UNPOPULAR war.

Where do we go from here?

From listening to the UNMOVIC reports, it is probably unlikely that Hussein has nuclear bombs and probably won’t have them anytime soon. It is a pretty complicated technology to master. However, if we allow them to keep working on it, they will eventually get a nuclear capability.

They have a history of using chemicals in battle and competency to make biologicals. The US should provide as much intelligence as possible to UNMOVIC to "find" them and thus ratchet further the pressure on Hussein. Next, the US should set a deadline. Right now, French, Russia, China and others can say, let’s give the inspectors more time and be very hostile to the US in their public statements. But once a proposal is out on the floor with a date certain, they will have to think harder if they want to veto. And in back channel communications, the USA and UK should make it abundantly clear that if Iraq doesn’t come clean, then military action will be taken with (preferable) or without UN support.

What are they smoking over there?

What are the French and German's thinking? They want more inspectors
to play cat and mouse with Iraq. So 300 guys instead of 100 running around Iraq hoping to find stuff? And so let's say we do that. How long will they keep looking? Will they eventually be kicked out like in 1998?

Meanwhile, Turkey who have decided not to be an ostrich with its head in the sand has asked NATO for help should a war break out. Once again, the French leads the way with a veto.

Saddam Hussein must be sitting there laughing his head off thinking.... if I can just stall these clowns a little longer, they will all go away and all my precious WMDs will be safe again. The behavior of the French is totally ridiculous and NYT's Friedman blasts the French for their obstructionist behavior.

Columbia Investigation Continues

A segment of the left wing was found today. Data from the shuttle before the catastrophic break up indicated rising heat in the left wing. However, the cause remains unknown. Initially, considerable attention was focused on the launch where a piece of insulating foam coming off the external tank struck the left wing. NASA engineers examined that extensively and their analysis suggests that the foam piece was probably not large enough and not moving at high enough a velocity to do the kind of damage needed to endanger the shuttle. The theory gaining some press attention is perhaps some "space junk" hit the shuttle while it was in orbit.

As for the future of manned space flight, I hope NASA is able to win support for a shuttle replacement. The shuttle is a 1970s design. We have three left and there is no capacity to build more. NASA needs to develop a new ship for the purpose of transporting people to space with the latest technology. Private industry should be challenged to develop rockets to launch large payloads. The shuttle was designed to do both but it has become apparent that it was asking much too much of the technology of the era. It makes more sense to separate the functions.

Massive tax cuts don't make sense right now

Conceptually, tax cuts are always appealing to people. But the reality is that we are in a state of war and sacrifices need to be made. In WW2, the American people were asked to sacrifice. Rationing was the order of the day. People used their extra money to buy war bonds. And of course, millions went to war and gave the fullest measure of devotion possible.
We have been at war since September 11, 2001 and what kind of sacrifices have we made? Some inconviences at the airport and at public venues due to increased security? But is that really sacrifice? President Bush needs to use the bully pulpit and level with the American people and say, look, we are at war and it is costing us lives and treasure and will continue to cost more. But if we defeat terrorism in this generation, the benefit will be worth the price for our people and for the free peoples of the world. Freedom is not free. Nothing worth doing is without cost. Our soldiers are offering service with their mortal lives. We here at home must offer our willingness to forgo some comforts.

Columbia Lost During Landing Approach, Crew of Seven Feared Dead

This morning the space shuttle Columbia was approaching Florida for landing when it apparently broke apart. The last data was received while the Columbia was about 200,000 feet up. Debris have been reported in various counties in East Texas.

The crew was a cross section of America and the world. Col. Rick D. Husband served as commander. The pilot was Cmdr. William C. McCool. Payload specialists included: Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson; Dr. Kalpana Chawla, an Indian-American aerospace engineer; and two physicians, Capt. David M. Brown and Cmdr. Laurel Clark. The final member of the crew was the first Israeli astronaut, Col. Ilan Ramon.

Speculation on what may have occurred is already underway. Undoubtedly, an investigation will be called for. After the Challenger explosion, investigations and redesign work led to a 2 1/2 year hiatus of flights. One often mentioned idea in early news coverage involved the launch phase where debris from the external tank struck the orbiter. Since this kind of debris damage is usually very minor and has occurred in other flights, it was deemed not likely to be serious. However, if the damage was greater than expected then the shuttle structural integrity could be compromised and thus vulnerable to the extreme heat and pressures of re-entry.

Like most of my generation, I've grown up following the space program since I was a child and though it seems routine, we know it isn't. I admire the people who willingly choose to do their missions even with the risks that it involves. Space travel and research will always be risky. People will ask if the benefits are worth the risks. The scientific spin-offs and technologies from the space program become the fabric of our daily lives. But I suppose one should not under-estimate the intangible benefit of helping us to dream, of inspiring courage and of giving us a vision of our world as single planet hurtling through the vast emptiness of space. Let's offer a prayer for comfort to their family and friends as they experience their grief and if possible, a prayer of thanksgiving for the courage and example of the lost crew.

The Stuff of Nuclear Bombs

With Iraq and North Korea in the news so much, I was curious about the "manufacturing" of nuclear bombs. The DOE has a simple yet informative chart.

What follows is a quick FAQ about some of the terminology.


Just how big could the rogue nation bombs be?

They would probably be similar or smaller in destructive force to the ones used in WW2 since they are based on the same physics. The ones used in WW2 were fission bombs where the destructive energy is released by the splitting of atoms and yield explosive forces in kilotons of TNT range. Eventually, techology advanced to fission-fusion bombs where the destructive energy is derived from the fusion of atoms. These bombs can be in the megaton range. A fission explosion is utilized to provide the high energy needed for the subsequent fusion step. Rogue nuclear programs would be developing fission weapons.


Keep hearing about uranium and plutonium, what is that all about?

It turns out that there are 2 types of material that make nuclear weapons work: uranium or plutonium. Splitting (fission) either type of atom is the key to the bombs. Uranium ore is a mix of at least 2 types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. Most of it is U-238. It turns out that U-235 is the one needed for bombs hence there is a need to "enrich" the uranium. One way that is done is using gas centrifuges which is able to separate U-235 from U-238.


Then there is the plutonium angle. Nuclear reactors generate plutonium as a waste. Bomb makers have to purify the plutonium out of the waste in order to get weapon's grade material to work with. Either process is very difficult and expensive. Iraq, Iran and North Korea's dictators would rather spend billions of dollars to get bombs instead of feed their own people. Is that evil or not?

There are many web pages about nuclear technology and here are a few I came across:

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/

http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm

http://www.nci.org/

@ the Movies

Lord of the Rings -- the Two Towers: A-

I read the trilogy back in high school so details are faded but I've really enjoyed the 2 films so far. I think the first film was a tad better in that the pacing was better. In Two towers, they have to follow 3 threads and the jumping around though done very well, at times the momentum seem to wane. 2 nit picks... perhaps the scenes wound up on the cutting room floor... but the Ents deciding to fight Sauraman seemed sudden and uncharacteristic of the Ents. The change of heart of Boromir's brother seemed sudden. I've been told by Tolkein fans that those two episodes indeed were altered in the film. Overall, the action and adventure and the scenary and good versus evil themes had me riveted.

ST- Nemesis: B

The even number good, odd number not so good continues... the visual effects do indicate they have a lower budget... compared to the frantic space battles of Star Wars, ST's battle looks pretty tame. Also, I don't know if it was our theater or it was intentional but the movie seemed dark -- literally, it seemed like everything was underexposed! The story was a bit predictable but still fun and interesting and the characters are true to what we have grown to love... hard to believe the pilot "Farpoint" episode was in 1987.... 15 years ago!!


007 -- Die another day: B+

What can you say? They got the formula down and do it well. Beautiful women, fast cars, exotic locales, icky villians, and an outlandish dominate the world plot and a wink and a nod from the Bond actor -- Connery, Moore and Bronsnan have it down; while Dalton and Lazenby just didn't quite get that tongue in cheek flavor.


Harry Potter--Chamber of secrets: B+

Not having read the books may or may not be a plus but it is pleasant entertainment. The films have the "mechanics" of magic like LoR but the "good vs. evil" subtext isn't as strong as LoR. I suppose that may be driven by the fact that the story is about a teenager where issues of identity and finding a place in the world and companions for the journey are stronger issues. Nonetheless, good fun and a bit scarier than the first installment. If you get whigged out by spiders and snakes beware! 8-)


Clancy--Sum of all Fears: B

I read the book many years ago and I wondered how they would adapt the story to having Ryan early in his career and nixing the Islamic terror angle. That bit of PC was annoying. The neo-Nazi movement though troubling is nowhere nearly as insane or as powerful as the Jihadist. Current events have shown the neo-Nazi (or nativist/racist/facist flavored policital parties) are in decline... France's lePenn was beaten badly and Austria's Haider has self-destructed so using them as the villians was a stretch. But leaving that aside, enjoyed the story line overall. There was one Ryan having to slug it out scene which is not in the spirit of the character in the books. In the film, there was an earlier scene where he has to take up a gun and that was handled more consistently. The whole Ryan as the James Bond type who slugs it out with the bad guys is one of the big nitpicks I had with Patriot Games finale where the final fight was way too Hollywood. Anyway, hope Afleck will get to run with the role a couple more times. Wonder which book will they try to develop a screenplay for?