Death sentence for hacking "Critical National Information Infrastructure"? What EXACTLY is Critical National Information Infrastructure?
How come starving "Critical National Information Infrastructure" of allocated funds by way of embezzlement does not carry the death penalty? It seems the stiffest punishments are ALWAYS reserved for crimes committed by ordinary citizens!
tevinsolt: the same delusion op is suffering from, is what many black Americans are suffering from. can imagine, they believe they are the true Hebrews taking from Israel to captivity, those idiots skipped History classes. west African descent thinking they're linked to a culture hundreds of miles away on another continent it is laughable and equally sad.
I'm not commenting on the veracity of what you wrote but the allusion that "history classes" correctly convey historical facts. In your own lifetime, haven’t you seen history being distorted? What makes you think that those in power did not re-write the history in the textbooks used to teach us?
… Why do we have the most corrupt government system, public/private system and why are we accepting of it as a people? The only think holding a black man back is the black man himself.
My guy, like I said, I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions but it is not that simple. I personally detest people making excuses for their failures and not taking responsibility for them. I believe one should keep trying in spite of those standing in one's way. Nobody said life was fair.
We have nobody to blame than ourselves; however, that does not mean that others are not enablers of our shortsightedness.
Here's how -
1. Oil gets stolen from Niger Delta by the shipload. Who buys them?
2. A popular politician becomes wise and wants to kick against colonialism. He ends up dead or his puppet opposition gets funded miraculously.
3. Why are all the French colonies in Africa, 14 countries, still using a currency dictated by France? CFA's value is pegged to the Euro, which is controlled by the European Central Bank.
4. African politicians steal money and invest where?
5. Nigerian politicians steal money and hide it in which banks?
6. Why is China re-colonizing Africa by buying and tying up all our natural resources? What happens when we need access to the resources or realize that the cheap money they gave us has been mismanaged?
7. Who is going to deal with the long term effect of the oil spill in the Niger Delta? Assuming the Nigerian govt does not know any better, can the same be said for the foreign companies that operate in Nigeria? Can they try the same thing in non-third world countries?
Like I said, ultimately, the responsibility is ours and caused by our greed and shortsightedness but there are others that are complicit. I just wish we can be strategic for once and see past our nose!
kobonaire: Why can't the "black man" prove himself in the modern day time rather than trying this convoluted approach of staking a claim that "Jesus is a black man". The concept of Jesus is in itself mythical because it is faith based (religion). If the "black man" really wants the "respect and admiration" of the world then she should strive to improve him/her self in this era that we live in.
I do not believe in making excuses but your question is somewhat naive. What do you mean by "prove himself"? Are you saying that if you compare a group of white babies to a group of black babies from well-adjusted parents, if tested as kids before environmental factors kicks in, one group will be better than the other? If you believe one group is better, then how is it possible for the other group to sometimes test higher than the first group? Nigerians are known to excel academically all over the world. Can you imagine if we have the same type of structure and encouragement as white people?
Our surroundings (parents, teachers, friends, schools, social class, and family connections) help mold who we grow up to be! You cannot simply compare the end result and use that as prove! On average, even Nigerians that spent the first 18 years of their life in Nigeria but now live in the US will be more “informed” and better “exposed” than their counterparts still in Nigeria. It is not that the Nigerians in the US are necessarily smarter; it is because they’re exposed to more in their daily lives especially if they schooled and work in the US.
How one is treated in the environment they grow up in matters a great deal!
White people appear superior not because they inherently have better intelligence but because the societal factors that hold some groups down and discourages them, mostly, do not work against them.
zizirecords: ... The main reason blacks worship white people and believe they are superior is because we all believe Jesus is white. Change him to black and we will see ourselves as equal if not stronger than white people.
I guess people never wondered why (1) white is considered pure, (2) white is beautiful, (3) white is considered superior, and (4) why a child of mixed race is considered a member of the lesser race (hypodescent)?
We've been made to believe that Santa Claus and Jesus are white (and Northern European) but are we being mislead?
Santa Claus is a fictional character based on Saint Nicholas who was the Greek Bishop of Myra (part of modern-day Turkey). Jesus is said to be Jew of first-century Palestine.
Would we be wrong in accepting a more dark-skinned (or is it brown-skinned) version of Jesus and Santa Claus or should we just accept them the way they're presented to us?
If you think that we should accept them the way they're presented to us, do you think such acceptance contributes (unconsciously) to our thinking that "white" is more beautiful than "black" or that "white" is good and "black" is bad?
There must be a reason that most blacks, especially in Africa, think being light-skinned is more beautiful or that “black” represents the devil. If you say “black” represents bad and/or the devil, and you’re black, what does that make you?
1. No sign of blood anywhere. 2. It appears they died in agony.
My guess is that died of some sort of chemical weapon. Their death is certainly good news but the govt should be careful not to take illegal actions that they would have to account for in the future; at the very least, stop with the pictures!
Years after the menace of Boko Haram subsides, people would have forgotten how they held the NE at ransom but some people will be looking to settle an old score by trying to get the govt to account for the killings.
The govt is between a rock and a hard place! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Time = money but is money everything? See how I related your question back to the topic? The topic is not meant to resonate with everybody. You might just be at the stage where the question does not apply to you.
I made $15m in my mid-20s after I sold a tech startup. I talked to a lot of people about this question, and thought a lot about how to stay the same person I was before and after making money.
Here's my answer: being rich is better than not being rich, but it's not nearly as good as you imagine it is.
The answer why is a bit more complicated.
First, one of the only real things being rich gives you is that you don't have to worry about money as much anymore. There will still be some expenses that you cannot afford (and you will wish you could), but most expenses can be made without thinking about what it costs. This is definitely better, without a doubt.
Being rich does come with some downsides, though. The first thing you are thinking reading that, is, "cry me a river". That is one of the downsides. You are not allowed to complain about anything, ever. Since most people imagine being rich as nirvana, you are no longer allowed to have any human needs or frustrations in the public eye. Yet, you are still a human being, but most people don't treat you like one.
There's the second downside. Most people now want something out of you, and it can be harder to figure out whether someone is being nice to you because they like you, or they are being nice to you because of your money. If you aren't married yet, good luck trying to figure out (and/or always having self doubt) about whether a partner is into you or your money.
Then you have friends & family. Hopefully your relationship with them doesn't sour, but it can get harder. Both can get really weird about it and start to treat you differently. They might come and ask for a loan (bad idea: if you give, always give a gift). One common problem is that they don't appreciate Christmas presents the way that they used to, and they can get unrealistic expectations for how large a present should be and be disappointed when you don't meet their unrealistic expectations. You have to start making decisions for your parents on what does and does not cost too much, and frankly, it's awkward.
Add all of these up and you can start to feel a certain sense of isolation.
You sometimes lay awake at night, wondering if you made the right investment decisions, whether it might all go away. You know that feeling standing on a tall building, the feeling you might lose your mind and jump? Sometimes you're worried that you might lose your mind and spend it all.
The next thing you need to understand about money is this: all of the things you picture buying, they are only worthwhile to you because you cannot afford them (or have to work really hard to acquire them). Maybe you have your eye on a new Audi -- once you can easily afford it, it just doesn't mean as much to you anymore.
Everything is relative, and you are more or less powerless to that. Yes, the first month you drive the Audi, or eat in a fancy restaurant, you really enjoy it. But then you sort of get used to it. And then you are looking towards the next thing, the next level up. And the problem is that you have reset your expectations, and everything below that level doesn't get you quite as excited anymore.
This happens to everyone. Good people can maintain perspective, actively fight it, and stay grounded. Worse people complain about it and commit general acts of douchebaggery. But remember this: it would happen to you, too, even though you might not think so. You'll just have to trust me on this one.
Most people hold the illusion that if only they had more money, their life would be better and they would be happier. Then they get rich, and that doesn't happen, and it can throw them into a serious life crisis.
If you're part of the middle class, you have just as many opportunities to do with your life what you want of it. If you're not happy now, you won't be happy because of money.
Whether you're rich or not, make your life what you want it to be, and don't use money as an excuse. Go out there, get involved, be active, pursue your passion, and make a difference.
In my experience, for an entrepreneur at least -- getting enough money to have freedom is worth it and a glorious thing.
Here are my experiences:
1. "Made" $10M+ in paper gains on DotBomb 1.0 stock, lost all but $50k. Felt horrible. Took me 4 years to get over it. Horrible. Terrible emotional scars. Of almost having had something, but having lost it forever.
2. Made $2M on first start-up. This was the best experience ever. The good feeling lasted four years -- the good feeling -- every single day, until Lehman Brothers and lost half of it (until the market came back). This was the happiest time of my life, from here until Lehman. Why?
$2M after taxes was about $1.5m. At the time I was making about $150k a year. After taxes that's about $90k in California. So, in selling my first start-up, I made the equivalent of almost 20 years of income (ignoring inflation). Plus, at the time, the market was reliably growing 10% YoY, so I didn't even have to worry about inflation. That meant I never, ever again had to do a job, or something, I didn't want to do. I did have to work again - clearly. So the pressure to work wasn't gone. Which is actually a good thing, it keeps you alive, the need to work at some point, in some fashion. But the freedom to only do exactly what I wanted to do was new. It was glorious.
3. Made $20M on second start-up. Finally, real f'you money. I feel no better. Yes, I bought a better house. I didn't even bother to buy nicer cars. Who cares. I just bought some more jeans. Look, I am intellectually proud and gratified to have this money. But it didn't buy my freedom, which I had from before. It didn't improve the quality of my life.
So the $2M was the best. Losing $10M was the very worst. The $20M wasn't as sweet as the $2M.
So for me at least, the learning is the one thing that matters money can buy you is freedom. Some may call this f'you money, but it's not about that for entrepreneurs. It's about having freedom from the man, freedom to just go for it.
I certainly don't regret it.
Wealth removes constraints. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the extent to which you needed those constraints. If you have a serious alcohol or other drug addiction, wealth could be fatal for you. In general, it makes people more of whatever they already were. If you're an asshole, getting more money will probably make you more of an asshole. However, if you have purpose and meaning in your life that goes beyond chasing the golden carrot, money can give you the freedom to focus on the things that truly matter to you.
One of the biggest dangers of wealth is that it often causes people to cut themselves off from the larger society, either out of fear or the belief that they are somehow better than others. We are all one.
I found wealth to be a personality multiplier. For example, if you're cruel and unkind, then being wealthy will make you even more cruel and unkind (because you don't even have survival-related reasons to be nice to anyone anymore). If, instead, you are kind and generous, then being wealthy will make you more so (because wealth enables more opportunities for doing so, plus people respond more strongly to your positivity, thereby creating a feedback loop).
And because wealth is a personality multiplier, it is also an experience multiplier. If you are miserable middle-class, you will likely be even more miserable wealthy. That's because all your personality traits that causes you to be miserable (eg, greed, cruelty, paranoia, inner turmoil) get multiplied. Similarly, if you're happy middle-class, you're likely to be even happier wealthy, for the same reason. Personality traits that causes you to be happy (eg, generosity, kindness, inner peace) multiply, thereby multiplying happiness.
So my advice is: learn to be happy BEFORE becoming wealthy. Most importantly, learn the skills that lead to inner peace, inner joy and compassion. Those skills make you happy when you're middle class, and will make you even happier when you get rich. Without those skills, the most likely outcome of wealth is misery.
jcflex: ... Some officials stated that the party hierarchy viewed Mr. Obasanjo’s public departure from the party as a dangerous signal and as a major threat. “Chief Obasanjo doesn’t just come out swinging the way he has done recently unless he is privy to the existence of some third forces that are against President Jonathan. And to the best of our knowledge, the former president has never fought a battle like this and lost, no matter how long it takes him,” one of the officials said. ... http://saharareporters.com/2015/02/17/pdp-faction-wants-jonathan-out-candidate-party-faces-deepening-schisms
1. Interesting quote. 2. I’ve had this believe that the US knows of something seriously wrong with the present administration for them to openly distance themselves. Something that they do not want to be a part of must have happened or is happening and Obasanjo, with his international exposure, finally dumping a party that he had promised to remain loyal to suggests that the problem might be more wide spread than GEJ’s government.
Section 131 says: “A person shall be qualified for election to the office of President if (a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) he has attained the age of forty (40) years; (c )he is a member of a political party; and (d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.
“In Section 318, School Certificate or equivalent means (a) a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s Certificate, the City and Guilds Certificate; or (b) education up to Secondary School Certificate level; or “(c) Primary Six School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent and (i) service in the public or private sector in the Federation in any capacity acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) for a minimum of 10 years; and “(ii) attendance at courses and training in such institutions as may be acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for periods totaling up to a minimum of one year, and “(iii) the ability to read, write, understand and communicate in the English Language to the satisfaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC); and “(d) Any other qualification acceptable by INEC.”
The out for Buhari is the "equivalent" requirement to the need for having a "School Certificate." What is deemed "equivalent" to a "school certificate"? Has this question ever been answered by the courts?
Assuming he's deemed to have an equivalent certificate, the next issue will then be his sworn affidavit. Like I said earlier, it is not easy to prove that someone perjured himself. This is not an open-and-shut case as some would think. Time for the lawyers to earn their pay! :-)
mikeansy: ... The above is completely different from the case of perjury against him in which he claims his certificate is with army even though he possibly may not have one. This is a criminal case that could lead to imprisonment if found guilty!
My post was referring to his sworn affidavit about his certificate being with the military. Here'e the issue to be litigated as I see it:
Did Buhari commit perjury when he submitted his application to INEC as a presidential candidate?
omolami: Ignorance is not an excuse in law.Learn fast.Buhari is liable and so will face disqualification.
You are right about not being able to use "ignorance" as an excuse but I never said he could claim ignorance. I said he could use "mistake" as a defense because "mistake" is an affirmative defense to the charge of perjury.
Mistake = blunder Ignorance = lack of knowledge
If he made a mistake and misremembered pertinent facts then he could not have had the requisite intention to commit perjury. It will be interesting to see what his defense strategy is. PDP has to prove they he knew he was telling a lie.
Here's the quagmire: on one hand they’re claiming Buhari is senile and forgetful; and on the other hand, they will have to claim that he remembered what happened 50 years ago. So which is it?
For the charge of perjury to stick, Buhari must have (1) sworn an oath to tell the truth; and (2) intentionally made a false statement. He did swear an oath but did he intentionally make a false statement? Lawyers are going to have a field day!
It is very difficult to prove perjury charges because perjury is a crime of intent, which means that a defendant charged with perjury can only be found guilty if the prosecutor shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to make the false statement under oath. Making a mistake or remembering facts inaccurately is not an intentional misstatement.
For Buhari to successfully defend himself all he simply has to say he made an error or mis-remembered the facts because it happened so long (50 years?) ago .
I doubt he will be disqualified based on his INEC application.
perculiarperson: If they were used to rig, how come PDP didn't win in Osun? At least the winner was declared by the court today? Nigerians are too gullible!!!
That army man should be brought to book. If it was the truth, why didnt he include his name?
APC Fools!!! APC has failed woefully!!!
investnotspend: A Nigerian Army Captain, who leaked the audio evidence of how some top officials of the Federal Government and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, used the Nigerian Army and other security agencies to rig the governorship election in Ekiti and Osun States last year, has spoken out about the matter. In a statement entitled: “How Nigerian Army personnel were used to rig Ekiti and Osun States Gubernatorial Elections 2014″, Captain Sagir Koli gave details of all that transpired between himself, his commanding officer, two ministers and some politicians prior to the elections in Ekiti state....
Kudos for losing the weapons or for getting back what they bequeathed? And they are looking for more sophisticated weapons from the US? What will happen if such sophisticated weapon miraculously finds itself in the hands of Boko Haram?
Not to get involved in your squabble but I think your proof is slightly lacking. Likes are instantly recorded but number of views gets updated every 24 hours or so. When a video goes viral, during the surge, the number of likes will probably surpass the views until a steady state is reached.
As of right now, the video has 5282 Views and 197 likes.
ROSSIKE: Actually it was "assertions" made by US soldiers who were directly quoted in the links posted. Showing these silly pictures does not obviate their claims, and is of no comfort to their bereaved families.
Agreed. But has it ever occurred to you that this might just be the cries of soldiers thinking of fighting a casualty free war? Since you're the expert, how about you summarize what their EXACT complaints were and what was deemed inadequate? Are things as black or white as you portray them to be?
Here's what they were complaining about...
Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way....
"What we hear from soldiers is that they are told that they are going to get body armor just before they leave or just after they get there. But they don't want to take a chance,"...A bill being considered in Congress would reimburse families who bought body armor before the Army asked for increased production to bridge the gap between soldiers who had armor and those that did not...
Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal as inadequate armor.
The debate is especially valid in the Iraq war, when comparing lightly equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Side armor has been sent to Iraq in increasing amounts, but many troops do not want to wear it because it adds 10 lb to the 16 lb vest and they say the added weight could decrease mobility and get them killed in certain combat scenarios
And here's the result of the newly issued body armor
Infantry: Troops Reject New Body Armor as Dangerous
March 28, 2006: The new, heavier, body armor arriving in Iraq is creating a potential public relations problem. Many of the troops don't want to wear the new stuff. Why? Because the heavier new armor could get them killed. The new protective vests includes side armor.
Side armor, which adds about ten pounds to the 16 pound weight of the Interceptor Protective Vest, has been available since 2003 (when 250 sets were sent to Iraq.) About a thousand sets were delivered in 2004, and more last year. Side armor is obviously not new, but its availability has not been widespread. While the side armor provided useful protection, the added weight (for a trooper already carrying over fifty pounds), and material, restricts movement. The new armor is most popular with those guarding convoys. These troops spend most of their time sitting down, and the side armor provides additional protection from roadside bombs, which throw out a lot of fragments, at troops sitting facing forward. The bombs are often accompanied by an ambush force armed with machine-guns and assault rifles. Sometimes, the troops have to get out of their vehicles and battle the ambushers. This is often intense and disorganized combat, with fire coming from all directions. Again, the side armor can be very useful. But the troops won't be running around so long that the additional weight and movement restriction will become a major problem. For the same reason, combat troops that are spending most of their time in their vehicles, don't mind the disadvantages of the side armor.
But infantry that are out running around most of the time, going up stairs, through windows and battling the enemy in an urban environment, nimbleness is more important. Some of these guys have been known to leave the back plate, or even the front plate, out, just to save a few pounds. Not being able to scramble through a window in time can get you killed, as can many battlefield maneuvers that put a premium on speed and maneuverability. American commandoes, including Special Forces, often go into action without the body armor, because the consider mobility more important.
These different attitudes towards how much armor to wear are similar to those found in police forces. That's why the police have both lightweight armor (worn by most cops, most of the time) and heavier rigs for SWAT teams or anyone out on a raid, and even heavier getup for bomb disposal personnel.
The senior commanders are under a lot of pressure to "protect the troops." Many people back home have invested a lot of themselves in efforts to get better armor for the troops. Hearing that the troops value lightness and speed, over armor and more weight, will upset some politicians and pundits. But if the opinions of the troops counts for anything, weight matters, often more than anything else.
Contrary to the OP’s assertion, the military actually has surplus equipment that are given out to police departments across the country for free. There’s even debates today over the militarization of the police force. Here are photos from the recent incident that happened in Ferguson that shows all the free stuff the local police department got from the military.
…the government giving away thousands of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, weapons and more pedestrian items such as cars and clothing, even smaller police departments in cities and towns with low crime rates are acquiring items...
…The 12-person police department in High Springs received an MRAP in the last year. …
…Jefferson County Sheriff John P. Burns said his department acquired a Humvee a couple of years ago and then an MRAP six months ago. Burns said it ensures his police officers can be protected in a hostage situation or when executing warrants….
…The Dakota County Sheriff's Office received the state's first MRAP last August…said the redistributed equipment is a "good use of tax dollars." "If we were to go out and purchase the vehicle, it would be well over $800,000," he said….
… Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo…didn’t hide her outrage at how the Defense Department’s military surplus program is administered...“What in the world are we doing buying things that we’re not using…McCaskill criticized the Defense Department program, in particular, for giving mine-resistant trucks, also known as MRAPS, to police departments.
Do people even read the linked articles before coming to a conclusion? Here's one of the linked articles. Are these the same type of basic necessities being complained about by the Nigerian Army?
Take a look at the problems American soldiers are complaining about – 1. Not having less lethal alternatives when dealing with a situation so as to reduce collateral damage. 2. Communication systems that ONLY provide bandwidth rates in the tens of kilobits per second ONCE they leave their vehicles as opposed to megabits per second. 3. Inability to send and receive streaming video at adequate ranges and with sufficient reliability. 4. Massive loads of batteries that soldiers need to carry to power their devices, etc
5/10/2013 Study: U.S. Soldiers Not Adequately Equipped for War By Sandra I. Erwin
It costs the United States $1.2 million to send one soldier to fight in Afghanistan for one year. American troops, despite that large investment, are not being equipped or trained to overmatch their enemies, says a new report by the National Research Council.
The Army champions its soldiers as the most important weapons in its arsenal, but yet continues to shortchange them in how they are equipped and trained for war, says the report, titled, “Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields.” The 255-page study, released May 10, began three years ago at the request of the assistant secretary of the Army.
A group of retired officers and researchers who participated in the study concluded that the Army's procurement methods and policies have not caught up to the realities of combat.
Testimony from hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were interviewed for the study reveals that the current “suite of equipment and support does not afford the same high degree of overmatch capability exhibited by large weapons platforms,” says the report.
Soldier weapons and gear are designed to be technologically advanced, but often do not take the “human dimension” into account. As a result, equipment designs do not “adequately include the complexities of individual soldier tasks and human interactions within teams.”
Army leaders have touted small units as the center of gravity in current and future battlefields. That requires a different way of thinking about weapons and gear that soldiers will need when they operate as a small unit, the study says. While the Army provides soldiers with advanced rifles and other small arms, it does not offer them other “less-than-lethal alternatives” that might be useful in low-intensity conflicts or situations when they need to control civilians without injuring or killing them.
The Pentagon’s acquisition policies are harshly criticized in the report for being counterproductive. The Defense Department’s procurement apparatus is geared to buy big-ticket weaponry, and soldier gear does not receive the attention it deserves, the study says. “The goal of achieving overmatch capabilities cannot be accomplished until small-unit and soldier requirements are accorded the same high levels of attention as major materiel systems requirements.” It is unlikely that “solutions to achieve overmatch capabilities can be successfully implemented within the Army’s current acquisition framework.”
Army officials have recognized these shortcomings, and have kicked off a modernization plan that focuses on the needs of the squad. But it could take years for these efforts to materialize.
The NRC report also stresses the value of training. “Focused training is essential to improving the performance of soldiers and tactical small units to levels that can assure overmatch,” the study says. “With the tactical small unit as the centerpiece of future Army operations, small- unit leader training will be more important than ever.” It recommends the Army invest in more individual and collective training events, including live, virtual, and constructive simulations and electronic games.
Another major point in the study is the need to integrate soldiers and small units into the Army’s information networks. “The Army has already recognized the important role of the network in achieving expanded capabilities in combat,” the report says. “Yet, dismounted soldiers and tactical small units today have limited organic capability, such as radios, to take advantage of networking in all mission environments.”
When a small unit leaves a forward operating base or disembarks from a vehicle, it has very limited access to technology for command decision tasks such as communicating, developing situational understanding, and understanding the human terrain, the report says. “A squad leader's communications system provides bandwidth rates in the tens of kilobits per second — a far cry from the multiple megabyte rates available within a FOB.” Sand tables and paper maps are used for mission rehearsal and execution. Sensing during a mission is primarily dependent on the eyes and ears of members of the unit. “These shortcomings prevent small units and soldiers from achieving optimal performance in making and executing personal and team decisions.”
Soldiers should have “timely, relevant information on the location of friendly assets, the identification and location of enemy forces and equipment, the identification and location of noncombatants, and the ability to document and communicate this information to each other and higher echelons. … Information must be timely to ensure that units are not surprised in tactical situations.”
A small unit lacks the capability to send and receive secure data, voice, and streaming video at adequate ranges and with sufficient reliability, the study says. The Army is attempting to address these needs with the Nett Warrior program, and with experiments using smartphones. The Nett Warrior, however, is limited by low bandwidth, and the smartphone effort is dependent on commercial networks, the report says. “High-bandwidth communications networks are needed that can operate in austere locations, in complex terrain, in all weather, and under day and night conditions.”
Information exchange — especially for digital images and streaming video — is currently “very poor” at the small unit level, the report says. “Bandwidth rate is one issue. Another is that operation tempo does not give units time to download, evaluate, and make judgments on available information. … Soldiers would benefit from advances in dynamic information networks that enhance information exchange.”
The NRC panel also raises the issue of combat load, which has been a subject of much debate in the military over the past decade as troops’ rucksacks grew heavier and more cumbersome. “Excessive soldier loads degrade not only maneuverability of both individual soldiers and units but also their resilience, survivability and effectiveness,” the report says. “With such heavy burdens, traversing rough terrain and making rapid changes in direction, speed, and orientation greatly increase soldiers’ susceptibility to injuries." One possible solution, the panel suggests, could be to offload gear to robotic carriers.
Massive loads of batteries that soldiers need to power their devices contribute to the problem. “There is no doctrinal philosophy for the small unit to recharge the battery; there is no organizational equipment to support recharging; there is no hint of the training required; there is no parallel materiel development of a recharger or fuel reformer to exploit new rechargeable battery or fuel-cell technologies,” the study says. “Advances in portable power will contribute to the decisiveness of small units by giving future soldiers high confidence that their equipment ensemble will have sufficient energy to carry out the mission. Achieving this goal will help to reduce fatigue, eliminate the anxiety associated with resupply.”
Many of the topics covered in the NRC study echo critics, such as retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, who have blasted the Pentagon for not paying enough attention to the needs of small infantry units.
Scales, a military historian and analyst, has pointed out that ground forces are “not dominant” in combat partly because of inadequate equipment and training. Compared to the overwhelming superiority that the United States has in naval and air warfare, when it comes to ground combat, the American military “hasn’t come as far as it should,” says Scales. “It doesn’t dominate in the tactical fight.”
Scales blames these deficiencies on a Beltway culture that is fixated on expensive weapon systems, on “picking a fight with China” and on hypothetical wars in space and cyberspace. Washington policy makers dodge meaningful discussions about the tactical aspects of war on the ground because close-contact combat is “dirty, horrific and bloody,” says Scales. “People just don’t want to talk about that.”
Lmao...it's a new year, let the sleeping dog lie. Just leave it yeah. ... Happy New Year, Wall.e. Just read more and learn how to be a critical thinker without bias. It helps a lot.
We all have biases; the key is to be aware of them and try to correct for them. Try staying above the fray and win people over with your superior arguments and not personal attacks, especially when it seems unprovoked. You seem better than that! Anyway, that was last year like you said. This year presents a new opportunity for us all to be better.
Don't be cowardly about it - name names, so I can talk some sense into ya head.
Naw...kid, that wasn't specifically for you but if the shoe fits you and anybody else, y’all gladly throw that sh*t on! Miss me with all that sense talk! Aren’t you the kid still in school? Listen kid, I’m not on your level by any measure…. And on anything intellectual, I’ve forgotten more stuff than you’ll ever come across.
Suing an Australian in Australia in Nigeria is a non-starter. I would think the judge would throw out the case for not having personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
With all due respect, exactly what is the general hoping to get? How do you compel someone in a different country to come to your country, a non-neutral ground, to defend a suit? Assuming the general wins, then what? How is the judge going to get the defendant to abide by the judgment?
You sue people where they have ties. You cannot even bring a state court type suit against someone in Lagos, who has no ties to Abuja, in Abuja because the guy neither lives nor works in Abuja.
Why can't Nigerians debate an issue without the name-calling? People just open their mouth like they have verbal diarrhea and start raining insults on someone who has a different point of view, and these are people that would meet you in real life and start calling you "sir" even though you're about the same age.
I sometimes wonder why I waste my time coming to this site as I’ve gained almost nothing just insults.
Anyway, continue on with your Tuesday morning armchair quarterbacking…maybe Nigeria will hire you guys as a foreign "analyst."
There are two main weapon systems suits that (mostly western forces) try to never use unless its fir real war and against a peer state [read China,Russia]:
Cyber war tools (stuxnet,major bandwidth hacks,communication nodes and operating systems).
Electronic warfare tools (radar systems,sensor disruption,anti disruptive systems[resilient system ]anti-jamming technologies like frequency hopping and DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum).
Not a matter of movies, even when this systems are built they try to test them as far away from human/urban areas as much as possible.Places like china lake and far up the Arctic or Antarctica places it will be hard to have spy's come looking .
The U.S. Air Force, has taken the lead in developing electronic tools for attacking and defending satellite communications, he satellites themselves, and has been training people to use these techniques. This effort involves figuring out new, or improved, ways to jam satellites. Then you keep that stuff secret, in case potential enemies have not figured this out themselves. Next, you work on ways to defeat the weapons developed. Most of this is playing around with the signals themselves. You can un-jam a jamming signal with another signal. However, a lot of trial and error is required and you want to get that done way in advance of any actual war. When you do have to use this stuff for real, you have to expect that the enemy may well have come up with some angle you missed. Thus, there will be some rapid improvisation, and you will have more time and resources for this if you have worked out ahead of time the details of disasters you have already anticipated. No one is releasing much information about this, for obvious reasons. There won't be much discussion from any government, unless there is a terrorist attack using these techniques.
You are mostly correct but you fail to consider that there are various levels of secret weapons. The weapon you would use against China, Russia, or Iran is different from the one you would use against NK, Venezuela, or some other 3rd world country. Whatever was done to NK is not that sophisticated in the grand scheme of things as it seemed to be related to shutting down the power needed for their routers. There is ALWAYS MAJOR top secret weapons being developed and improved in response to EVERY single country's capability. Take a look at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), whose motto is "Creating and Preventing Strategic Surprise."
Currently, if you have unique knowledge/idea for a product or service that relates to cyber security, you'll easily get funding by the private sector and/or the government to develop it.
I would even go a step further; if you want to become the next billionaire, develop a solution for corporations that prevents hacking.
EDIT: By the way, you can easily jam satellites by just swamping the bandwidth with very loud "noise." It is even better to send confusing info or wrong info by pretending to be the satellite or the person commanding the satellite.
Go and die,we have been cooking with fire before the arrival of Europeans,also am not the same class with someone that is inferior like you,let me also tell you that many things that they europeans are using is from Africa,Egypt if you have forgotten. Go and dring your alumo boy.fool.
Na hunger mess with your brain so or you're just too dumb to get your point across coherently? Either way, you need to lay off the internet and go deal with your immediate problem. Asswipe!
SirShymex: Lol, Obama just disgraced black men and black skin worldwide, with this statement. Why didn't someone give him the teleprompter? Obama, stop it - your sanctions aren't working.
Putin acknowledged that Western economic sanctions over Russia's actions in Ukraine was just one factor behind Russia's economic crisis, accounting for roughly 25 to 30 percent of the ruble's troubles.
President Vladimir Putin blamed "external factors" such as oil prices and sanctions for Russia's financial crisis Thursday, but admitted he should have done more to diversify the economy.
Speaking to journalists at his annual press conference, Putin said it could take Russia two years to overcome the tough economic situation facing the country.
Putin said sanctions -- imposed by the West over Moscow's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine -- were responsible for 25% of Russia's economic woes.
While he was speaking, EU leaders approved a new round of sanctions on Crimea, banning any investment in the area.
Putin's optimism about the economy's ability to pull through is based on an assumption that demand for Russian oil will grow again. "That is a fact of life," he said.
Half of Russian government revenue comes from oil and gas exports. If oil prices stay at $60 a barrel, the Russian economy is expected to shrink by almost 5% in 2015.
Putin said it was possible that the U.S. could be conspiring with Saudi Arabia to depress oil prices as a way of hurting Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
"We all see the lowering of the oil price. There's lots of talk about what's causing it. Could it be the agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of Russia and Venezuela? It could."
Asked about the collapse in the ruble -- the currency has lost 45% against the dollar this year -- Putin said the central bank could have acted "sooner and in a harsher way."
The bank's drastic interest rate hike last week was adequate, he said, adding that he expects rates to head lower "sooner rather than later."