Europe And NATO Are Making Defense Efforts For Security Strategies

By : Victor Epand
A conference on European security has opened in Berlin. It is focusing on ways to effectively strengthen European defense efforts with a view to improving joint missions in crisis areas on the continent and elsewhere. The two-day conference in Berlin has drawn high-ranking politicians, NATO officials and EU defense experts and aims to highlight efforts to further harmonize defense cooperation within the North Atlantic Alliance and the EU's own defense initiatives.

It is being held at a time when both the EU and NATO are in the process of building up rapid reaction forces, or battle groups, as European strategists prefer to call them. Both organizations are potentially drawing upon the same pools of soldiers which indicate that rivalry can never be ruled out. But in a bid to further heal transatlantic relations after the controversy over the US-led war in Iraq, assurances are being heard ever so often that the EU's own security efforts are invariably intended to complement -- not duplicate or rival --NATO.

"It would be totally wrong to view the development of European defense capabilities separately from advances within NATO," said Germany's Social Democrat Defense Minister, Peter Struck. He added that both NATO and the European Union are currently making efforts to be better prepared for out-of-area missions in a bid to adapt to a fast changing security environment.

"NATO must be open to reform". There can be no doubt whatsoever that in future NATO has to be the place where dialogue on transatlantic security strategies must be intensified, Struck added."The alliance has to be open for reform," Struck added.

This is what German chancellor Gerhard Schroder demanded at a recent security conference in Munich, and his words are being taken seriously by NATO leaders. Struck's message to the conference was taken up by Alessandro Minuto Rizzo, deputy secretary-general of NATO. He made it clear that it had been wrong to try and sweep different threat perception levels on both sides of the Atlantic under the carpet and demanded that a fresh initiative be made to debate security strategies more openly within NATO.

"We need to understand that NATO is not only a forum for action. We must also understand that it's a forum for debate," said Minuto Rizzo. "During the Iraq controversy, NATO was manifestly under-utilized as a consultative forum, and we paid a high price for that," he said. "I'm confident that we've learned our lesson. If we want to preserve NATO as a central framework for effective multilateralism, we must engage in multilateral debate."

The conference of NATO members, currently taking place in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, has seen the conclusion of a military cooperation agreement between the military alliance and Russia. The deal - hailed as a milestone by NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Schaffer - will make it easier to hold joint military exercises and for NATO troops and Russian forces to cross each other's territory. It now requires the approval of the Russian parliament.

Speaking at the conference, a senior NATO official said the alliance has no desire at the moment to get involved in the Middle East peace process. However, he added that it is not ruling out the possibility that it may do so in the future. Ukraine's Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk was also at the NATO meeting, where he announced that his country hopes to join NATO within the next three years. He said Ukraine could contribute to greater stability and security in the region.

Author Resource:- Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.WarGear.info/. WarGear.info carries the best selection of military clothing, war gear, and combat accessories on the market.

Iran and Nuclear Power

By : Victor Epand
On Iran's nuclear ambitions, some have suggested an approach which mirrors our policy vis-a-vis N. Korea. In other words, if they really insist on the need for a peaceful nuclear infrastructure, then the world should help them build nuclear power plants which do not produce the kind of nuclear byproduct which can be used to produce nuclear weapons. The trouble is N. Korea and Iran clearly have ambitions of possessing nuclear weapons. In fact, most experts believe Pyongyang already has several such weapons in its inventory. This approach, nonetheless, may be worth pursuing with Iran - if only to call Tehran's bluff. So far, however, the U.S. and Europeans continue to pursue this issue in the UN context.

In this regard, many experts believe this close collaboration to steer Iran away from its nuclear weapons program may pay off. The following Feb. 24, 2004 article from the International Herald Tribune lays out this argument well and succinctly:

Early next month, the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of directors will once again meet to consider how to respond to new evidence that Iran has continued to hide significant elements of its nuclear program. Although the board may agree to refer the issue to the UN Security Council, the United States and Europe still differ on how best to respond to Tehran's continuing violation of its nonproliferation obligations.

The trans-Atlantic partners urgently need to coalesce around a long-term strategy for confronting Iran. Such agreement is needed to effectively deter Iranian violations and to keep the prospect of a diplomatic resolution open.

It is needed for a second reason too: This dispute has all the makings of repeating the disastrous fissures that developed over Iraq, except this time Britain appears to be siding with its European partners against the United States. That would be tragic for many reasons, not least because in this particular case there is absolutely no difference between the two sides on the ultimate objective.

Everyone, Europe and the United States as well as Australia, Canada, Japan and even Russia, knows that the consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power are exceedingly grave.

Tehran's long-range missiles would put much of Europe within reach of a possible nuclear strike. Neighboring states might respond by acquiring deterrent capabilities of their own. And Israel, which has long seen Iran as a serious threat, might decide to strike preemptively, as it did against Iraq in 1981.

To prevent such a dangerous spiral, Iran's nuclear weapons development must be halted. It is not enough that Tehran sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as it has done. Nor is it sufficient only to allow additional inspections by the IAEA.

As long as Iran has the inherent capability to produce nuclear weapons materials, be it by enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, it will have the option of following in the footsteps of North Koreas withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, ousting the inspectors and finishing a bomb.

Only when the key weapons-material-production parts of the nuclear fuel cycle have been dismantled and destroyed can there be any confidence that Tehran will not become a nuclear power.

Europeans and Americans agree on this goal. Now they need to agree on a common strategy to get there.

The first step must be an agreement to refer the issue to the Security Council, which should warn Iran that its continued failure to fulfill all its nonproliferation obligations constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

Next, the United States and Europe should agree on a common strategy that combines Europe's preference for carrots with America's preference for sticks. They have to agree on a clear set of benchmarks and deadlines for Iran to give up its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. Tehran's compliance would lead to the economic and technology cooperation that European leaders promised last fall.

At the same time, the United States and Europe would have to draw red lines that Tehran could not cross. And they would have to reach a clear understanding on the kinds of coercive actions they would take in the event of further noncompliance from economic sanctions through, ultimately, the destruction by force of Iranian nuclear facilities.

The high costs of U.S.-European disagreement over how to deal with Iran are all too obvious. It should not be beyond the capability of U.S. and European diplomats to forge a common strategy.

Author Resource:- Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.CombatCloth.info/. CombatCloth.info carries the best selection of combat clothing, gear, and accessories on the market.

New Weapons For The US Military

By : Victor Epand
I have read the article about the M-468. I believe it is a superior firearm in terms of ease of integration into the US military inventory. Those of you who read history in terms of US military small arms may remember that General Douglas McArthur wanted a rifle that would shoot the 30.06 since the US had millions of crates of it in storage. That is how Garand won the contract with the M-1 since his rifle did chamber the 30.06 round while the contenders were using other type rounds.

This sounds like a great replacement for the M-16 and the sole consideration in selecting the replacement should be what is best for the troops and not what is best for the bean counters. If this increased stopping power saves one American life what value do we place on that life if we stay with the 5.56 mm and lose that life so it fits into some neat budget of someone who will not be in harms way.

I hope the armed services accept the M-468 as the primary weapon. Shoot to wound is the most stupid statement ever made by any military, ever. The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy. I thought the 7.56 was bad, the 5.56 was worse. I don't think any enemy we have, has a shoot to wound philosophy. I'm glad our defense dept is looking to upgrade our weapons.

I have read the article about the M-468 and was quite impressed by its lethality and transitional ease. We do need a more lethal round than the 5.56mm NATO round that we use today. I as an individual soldier would like to see the U.S. Army and the military as a whole convert to this M-468. The article also added the reality check in there about the U.S. military having millions of 5.56mm in stock. My answer would simply be this in that we would still have use for the 5.56mm round due to the fact that we still have the M-249 S.A.W. in our inventories. We could get the rounds converted into drum ammunition for that purpose.

Then again what would the cost be? That is what it unfortunately boils down to. Not saving soldiers lives on the battlefield but what does it cost and what amount of effort has to go into it. I hope that the military goes to this new rifle but in all of my 17 years in the Army I am not expecting miracles.

The M-468 sounds like a great upgrade to the basic infantryman's needs. Proven technology, and small upgrades in foreshock and sir, main problem is going to be retooling to a 6.8 round. But considering how much a Y-22 air superiority plane costs, I think the cost is minimal, just cut one plane and you got all the money you need to retool. Also why do we need such a high tech toy when most of today's conflicts are infantry necessities?

The issue in general with the 5.56x45mm ball ammo (whether the original 55 grain or the newer 62 grain SS109 projectile) isn't so much a question of velocity (which is superior) or ballistic coefficient (which is adequate) but of bullet construction...it is 'ball' or full metal jacket ammunition, designed not to expand.

If it is truly the philosophy of the US military to "shoot to kill" then stop piddling around with changing calibers and allow some decent, expanding bullets to be issued. Supposedly these bullets are not allowed by the Geneva Convention, which is madness..if it is "legal" to shoot the enemy then it should be "legal" to use properly designed ammunition. The current M4 round makes a neat .223 caliber hole in the target and keeps on going. The suggested 6.8x43mm will make a nice .270 hole and keep going.

The idea is to have a bullet that expands and transfers all of its energy to the target, not one that punches little holes. I guarantee the shot/kill ratio would improve significantly...and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than adopting a whole new weapons system. The current M4/M16 system is fine...just feed it some decent ammo!

Author Resource:- Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.CombatCloth.info/. CombatCloth.info carries the best selection of combat clothing, gear, and accessories on the market.

The Real Political Spectrum

By : Rob Wickes

Now that another one of those vitriolic, antagonistic, exercises in mutual character assassination that we call an election is past us, it is the perfect opportunity to examine our perceived political polarization.

Elections reveal that we characterize most people or groups today by their view towards government either and by the type or the amount of power they feel government should wield. It's impossible to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news on television without seeing or hearing all kinds of references to "liberals" and "conservatives" or to a "right wing" and a "left wing." From such labels we're supposed to get the impression that the terms are used to describe opposite sides of an issue or opposite ends of some spectrum of political philosophy, with "moderates" and "centrist" in the middle.

From another perspective, however, such a spectrum not only does't really provide a very useful description of these groups it actually ignores or obscures what's really going on. Forget Democrats versus Republicans, left versus right, liberals versus conservatives, fascists versus communists, or revolutionaries versus reactionaries. To bring things into the proper focus, we need to rearrange the political spectrum into a more realistic representation:

On one end is the individual, making his own choices and decisions about his personal life and property; on the other end is the state, or government, where a relatively small number of people are able to make everyone else act in ways they might not otherwise have chosen, usually by wielding or threatening the use of some kind of force or other penalty for not complying.

The extremes of this more logical political spectrum would be total anarchy on one end versus rigid totalitarian dictatorship on the other. If you arbitrarily drew a line and placed totalitarianism on the left end and anarchy on the right then, yes, traditional Democrats/liberals would fall more to the left of Republicans/conservatives but the distance between the two groups is not as great as it once was and certainly do not represent the extremes. Both major parties in the country have moved inexorably to the left, when measured by their actions and policies and not merely by their rhetoric (this concept was explored in depth by David Boaz in his book, Libertarianism: A Primer).

This spectrum is a pretty useful tool for understanding politics. All political philosophies, from individualists to Marxist-Leninists, fit along this new line. On one end is the individual; on the other is the state. Every philosophy just varies in its degree of an individual's control over himself versus state control over the individual. For example, it doesn't really matter whether Medicare policies are set by Republicans or Democrats; the important thing is whether seniors are individually afforded the opportunity to determine for themselves the nature of their health plan or if the government makes enrollment in their plan mandatory.

Liberty versus Power. It is never a surprise, of course, that power is always more appealing to those who have it than to those who don't. While the nature of power has taken many forms in history, there has always been a single recurring theme: The will of some is coercively forced upon others.

Power fuels man's ambition to rule others by providing the ability to impose one's will on another. And with the imposition of will comes the likelihood that someone will take exception to it. And then you have conflict. Conflict leads to disharmony, disruption, and possibly destruction.

It seems to me that if government is the organized imposition of will by some over others, and that the imposition of will leads to conflict, then we ought, therefore, to enjoy more peace and prosperity in proportion to the degree we limit the power of government.

Do men have to be governed? Or do they just have to be restrained?

Author Resource:- Robert V. Wickes is an Ordinary Joe who believes that other Ordinary
Joes need to educate themselves about the reality of the American political
system. Learn more at http://www.mythamericabooks.com

The Top 10 Questions Ordinary Joes Should Think About Our Democracy

By : Rob Wickes

Do you believe the American political system - once the shining light of the world - is devolving into a national joke? A lot of the world believes this is true.

How can ordinary Joes make sense of the endless game of partisan ranting and empty promises? Do you really think you will be better (or worse) off just because your favorite party just won (or lost) the recent election?

Political books are usually written by politicians with agendas or media personalities hoping for the next bestseller. Robert Wickes, author of The Myth America Pageant, is neither. Rob is an "Ordinary Joe" just like his readers, who uses simple, practical, common sense to create a whole new political perspective to explore and explain America's most critical issues, including taxes, the economy, the environment, education, and, most of all, political mischief.

Finally, some is willing to reveal the truth about the historical origins, political motivations, and economic realities of our democracy with a thought-provoking, passion-evoking analysis of today's problems.

Here's his list of the 10 questions every American should be thinking about in terms of Democracy.

10. How many people vote based the last sign they saw before they entered the voting booth?

9. If only 1/2 of the population is eligible to vote, and only 1/2 of the eligible voters register to vote, and only 1/2 of the registered voters actually vote, what are the rest of you doing?

8. Is the fate of our nation is being determined by people who can't figure out how to mark their ballots correctly?

7. Why don't you have to pass a written test to prove you're qualified to vote and determine the fate of 300 million people?

6. What do those people who together give over a BILLION dollars to win a job for someone else expect in return for themselves?

5. You can't vote unless you're a citizen. You can't be a citizen unless you can pass an English test. So why do we print ballots in 18 languages?

4. If all the voters in the 8 largest states all voted for the same presidential candidate, it wouldn't matter how the entire rest of the country voted. Do you really want to get rid of the electoral college?

3. Considering the growth of government for the last 80 years, do you really think you will be better (or worse) off just because your favorite party just won (or lost) the last election?

2. Is the nation's course is being set by opinion polls using as little as 3/10,000ths of one percent of the population.

And the NUMBER ONE question Ordinary Joe needs to think about our Democracy:

1. A medical survey once concluded that 48%--almost half-of the population had some symptoms of mental illness. If "illness" is defined as a departure from normal, and if "normal" is defined as what half the population holds in common, then how do we know which half is really mentally ill?

Author Resource:- Robert V. Wickes is an Ordinary Joe who believes that other Ordinary
Joes need to educate themselves about the reality of the American political
system. Learn more at http://www.mythamericabooks.com

What Does It Really Mean To Be A U.S. Citizen?

By : David Maillie

It means we have rights. Rights that many have fought for and given their lives for. Unfortunately in current America there is, for the most part, two separate classes of citizenship, a bipartisanship if you will. You have the poor and then you have the wealthy. Yes, there is a middle class, but the republicans and George Bush are slowly getting rid of this class. Their reason for this is simple. The middle class does not like a government that only favors the rich and it has a voice. The middle class also provides a door for many to become rich. The rich and wealthy do not like the poor and they do not like to fraternize outside of their class. So, needless to say, if the republicans (the rich and wealthy) have their way there will only be two classes left, the poor and the wealthy.

Basically, this is how it works. In America you have a right to great health care if you are rich or have a great employer sponsored plan. Due to the rising cost of healthcare many employers are limiting or ending these plans for employees. Of course, at the same time, executives are actually getting more benefits than ever. So basically, the reality is you have a right to marginal health care. The great health care George Bush says we have is reserved for the rich.

You also have the right to vote. What you do not know and the government does not want you to know is that your votes do not count or matter. Just look at the close election between George Bush and Al Gore. Al Gore really won, but Jeb Bush, George Bushs brother and Governor of Florida played around with Floridas votes and voila George won. This is even though he had fewer votes. If you watched Michael Moores documentary Farenheit 9/11 you will see that many voters were outraged that their votes were not included. This was especially so with lower class and primarily black or African Americans. None were allowed to have a voice or make a formal complaint because they needed a senator to back them and of course none would speak out against Jeb or George Bush. What happened here is simple, George and Jeb Bush have conspired to great political power in a very seedy way. What they did was dig up dirt and such on every political official that might become a problem and let them know what they have so they would just let this happen. This is not a true democracy. It is becoming more like socialist Russia 20 years ago. How can we liberate Iraq when we are not liberated ourselves?

You have the right or responsibility to pay taxes. Yes, only in America do the rich on average pay only 1 percent or less of their income in taxes while the middle class and lower class pay on average 35 percent of their income. Only the rich can afford powerful tax attorneys and fancy tax havens. It was recently made known that many of the rich have even set up trusts in childrens names that they do not have. Do not worry, yo are rich, the government probably will not catch it and if they do you will get off real easy. Just make a campaign contribution or two to George Bush. Its amazing what you can get away with in America if you have money. Look at O.J. Simpson. You can literally kill someone and then hide your assets so no one can touch your money. O.J. claimed he was broke and had no funds. Right. Just look at each presidents outgoing list of pardons when they leave office. Its all full of only rich and wealthy people looking to escape felonies and similar that would put most Americans behind bars for many years. If you are rich and are facing something awful, just make a donation or two of $500,000 to a presidents library fund or similar and you will be amazed at what you can get away with.

As citizens we are not guilty until proven innocent. Actually, the poor are basically guilty, and the rich will get out of it, regardless. Actually, the rich do not even get arrested sometimes. Just look at Senator Kennedy. You can drive drunk, hit a concrete barrier, be observed as being drunk by several sworn officers and be driven home. The rest of us would be given the breathalizer and thrown in the drunk tank to await a court date for either DUI or DWUI (as senator Kennedy claimed it was a medication problem). He was drunk or under the influence and could have killed someone.

There are many more rights that we have or do not really have and are actually reserved for the rich and wealthy, but I will get into those in a later article. I am busy now reading an article from the Associated Press on how George Bushss wife, the first lady, ran a stop sign when she was 17 and killed someone but she was never charged with any crime. Yes America is a truly great democracy, but only if you are rich and wealthy.

Author Resource:- For more great controversial and eye opening information please visit Bestbraindrain.com You will be glad you did. Go there now and be enlightened to what really goes on in America and elsewhere.

Air Force Ammo Troops And Weapons Loader

By : Victor Epand
Ammo troops are the grunts of the Air Force, bottom of the barrel right above security forces and right below Armament. I'm Armament, so I can't really say much. Just like to take my chance to rag on my rivals! Ammo is the greatest job in the Air Force. My best years were working on munitions, and I have done it all.
Yet, with out the ammo, the planes would be flying around a desert with nothing (no one even mentions kamikaze...), and the marines that called in the Arial support would be screwed. They may be grunts, but id say pretty important grunts.

You see those planes would still be flying around without bombs and bullets even if ammo delivered the munitions if Weapons were not there to load them on the A/C.

By the way if you aren't ammo You are waiting on them. I have been in this game longer than you and I have done your job. I have processed 30mm ammo and built bombs from the ground up. Weapons train to do parts of your job too! During DS 1 when our MK82's were delivered with the arming loops in the wrong configuration do you think we called ammo to fix them? We are trained to install fuses, wire, install F.Z.U.'s, fin assemblies, the list goes on. I was an ammo aggie.

However you will never load an aircraft. I have waited on ammo some and they have waited on me. If you think about it everyone still has to wait for someone or other. You can't get a aircraft up without clearance and so forth and so forth. So like I said waiting is what everyone dose. No matter what job you got!

Both sides show a little ignorance as to each others jobs. I've been in loading for almost 20 years and can honestly say it takes both jobs. We (weapons load) need ammo to build our bombs and deliver them and they need us to load them and on occasion reconfigure them (move swivels and loops, change fuse settings, and even frequencies on G.C.U.'s).

With out them we'd have nothing to load and with out us they'd have a flight line full of 110 and 141 trailers full of bombs. If the Air Force wanted us to do each others job we'd be one career field you'd build your own bombs crave them to the flight line, prep your jet, load your jest and then wait for O.P.'s to change the frag. That my friends would make for a very long day.

Loaders can't load with out munitions and munitions weapons sit on the trailers without loaders. It takes both sides. Actually I don't know why the Air Force doesn't do it like the Navy and have both career fields as one (Aviation Ordinance) they build and load.

Everyone has something to complain about when it comes to other unites that I know for a fact it is just how it goes and no one can do a thing to change it. Every unit thinks that they are better then someone else , but what they don't know is that when the time come to it they can be the best thing that happens to you weather you know it or not.

Author Resource:- Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.WarGear.info/. WarGear.info carries the best selection of military clothing, war gear, and combat accessories on the market.

Do Blogs Dynamically Transform the Modern American Political Culture

By : Jonathon Hardcastle
Recently web logs, or blogs, have exploded in popularity and have come to occupy an increasingly important place in American politics. Given the disparity in resources and organization against other actors, their influence presents a puzzle. How can a collection of decentralized, nonprofit, contrarian and discordant websites exercise any influence over political and policy outputs? As the World Wide Web approaches its teens, we have new expectations about both the right to express an opinion and access to information upon which to base that opinion. Blogs have begun playing an important role in raising people's expectations Thus, blogs have demonstrated influence; the power to affect events. Blogging is now positioned inside the context of participatory journalism and the responses of mainstream media and political parties to the new technology are reflections of its emerging influence. From what evidence illustrates, blogs have managed to affect today's news agenda.

The Italian Renaissance gave Western civilization several crucial transformations. None, for this article's purposes, matters more than perspective. Boccaccio's Decameron, published in 1353, is considered to be among the earliest works of literature to propose that a point of view is crucial to understanding. Gutenberg's printing press brought forth a revolution that no one could have anticipated at the time. Today, the Internet is the most important medium since the printing press. It subsumes all that has come before and is, in the most fundamental way, transformative. When anyone can be a writer, in the largest sense and for a global audience, many wish to become one. Actually, no better environment exists nowadays for people to exercise these among many other rights, than the Internet and one of the best mediums to exercise these rights are weblogs.

According to some critics, most weblogs will never attempt to reach a public, even if they are in theory reachable by all Net users. The great majority of weblogs will probably be for personal use, while the user base will be peer to peer, not author to public. Other critics, in their attempt to evaluate the accelerating speed of the weblog trend, support that from what it seems so far, it is probable that most weblogs will be short lived, and wind up abandoned, just as most conversations are abandoned. Also it is probable that a few popular blogs will have huge user base and the vast majority will be invisible most of the time, a pattern that reminds some of the "old" and "traditional" mass media. Since the software and interface are highly flexible, and the uses of an easily updated, good-looking page are endless, weblogs will be commonly used in closed systems - private and company networks - as much as the open waters of the Web.

In relation to political coverage and news stories, bloggers have broken or magnified major news stories and blogs themselves draw fire for partisan politics, poor journalistic practices, and duplicity. But the issue still remains that blogs are still in their infancy, despite the wave of press they have received during the last two years. They provide a reasonable, but far from perfect, entry point into the news space, better at offering commentary and starting conversations than serving a current-events-indicator role.

Author Resource:- Jonathon Hardcastle writes articles on many topics including http://universeofjobs.com/