Category Archives: defense policy

US Access to Space

Posted on by
Reply

Last weekend, a SpaceX rocket carrying supplies to the Space Station exploded while staging after launch. This follows an Orbital Sciences resupply rocket explosion last fall and a Russian resupply rocket failure last spring.

USAF General (Ret) William Shelton, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, is lamenting legislation barring the use of Russian rocket engines in our launchers, and his concern is sparked by those failures.

The problem, and it’s a legitimate concern, is that SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, are the only two American reliable rocket companies we have—Orbital Sciences hasn’t succeeded yet—and ULA uses those Russian rocket engines in its launchers. With the legislation, of the two rocket companies (and at least two are strongly desired for safety and redundantly assured access to space), only one will be able to fly until ULA develops another engine.

The other side of the problem, though, is that of the two current American companies, one can fly only with the engines supplied by one of our enemies. That’s not very reliable, either.

Another Reason We Need Regime Change in DC

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy sent their third letter since June calling on the DOJ to reveal its questionable cell phone surveillance policies, after yet another whistleblower allegation of abuse.

Keep doing this, absolutely. But don’t expect any answers for another several months.

We’ll need an administration from the other party before the Eric Holder/Loretta Lynch DoJ can be expected to deliver. And with that change, extended to DoJ, the present DoJ incumbents need to be haled into court and sanctioned for their willful obstruction of these investigations.

Another Faded Pink Line

Posted on by
Reply

“I think it’s fair to say the parties are planning to stay past the 30th to keep negotiating as we have always said we may have to,” the US State Department official said.

Who needs deadlines?

There’s this killer [sic], too:

The final nuclear agreement is meant to block any smooth Iranian path to nuclear weapons by committing to Tehran to tight inspections and concrete measures to wind back their nuclear program for 10 to 15 years.

Not block Iran from getting nuclear weapons, only to make it more “difficult.”

In Which I Disagree with Jason Chaffetz

Posted on by
Reply

A little bit. Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Jason Chaffetz (R, UT) led a letter to President Barack Obama in which he and 17 other Congressmen called for OPM Director Katherine Archuleta and OPM Chief Information Officer (CIO) Donna Seymour to be fired.

My disagreements are two. Chaffetz, in his letter, said

Director Archuleta and her leadership team failed to correct serious vulnerabilities to OPM’s network and cybersecurity posture….

He said much the same thing about Seymour. This was no failure to correct, though. These are two highly intelligent women, at the pinnacle of their careers whose talents have taken them to upper reaches of our Federal government. They knew what they were doing and not doing. They chose not to correct the vulnerabilities and security.

My second point of disagreement is this. Chaffetz closed his letter with this request of Obama:

Therefore, we respectfully request that you address this serious issue by removing Director Archuleta and Ms. Seymour from their positions.

That’s inadequate. Archuleta’s and Seymour’s number twos in their respective offices also knew what was going on and what was not being done, as did Archuleta’s and Seymour’s senior staffs. Those folks condoned the inaction by their decision not to scream bloody murder about their boss’ decisions not to act. Judgment like that cannot be acceptable in such positions; those people should be fired, also.

There is one point on which I do agree with Chaffetz most definitely. These two…officials…and their number twos, and on down the respective senior staffs, should be fired. Not allowed to resign, not allowed to retire—fired.

Terror Sponsors

Posted on by
Reply

And yet we’re going to let them have nuclear weapons.

James Clapper, DNI, has made the call.

Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its ability to influence regional crises and conduct terrorism. This has been the consistent view of the IC [Intelligence Community] for more than three decades.

And

Iran and Hizballah’s efforts in Syria have been instrumental in preventing the collapse of the Assad regime, which they view as critical to maintaining their “axis of resistance” against Israel and the West.

Hmm….