Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Roberts {JR}]

Al Limberg wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 16:57

Hi JR, Regarding the enemy hacking into the video output from drones, according to the early news reports I saw, it actually was accomplished by a piece of off-the-shelf software that retails for $26-$30 (although apparently not at Radio Shack).  On the bright side, they haven't been able to hack into any controls and they can't access the more spohisticated digitally encrypted info.  It sounds like its a matter of underestimating the capabilities of the enemy and not protecting ourselves properly (not that that has never happened before!).  Apparently upgrading all drones to digital encryption has become a higher priority this week. Happy Holidays! ?;o) Al

Yes this is only now hitting the broader news but has been known for some time and there are multiple companies working on secure versions, more expensive no doubt.

I saw a great lecture at West Point (on CSPAN) by some cyber experts about philosophical concerns around using robotic fighting machines and all kinds of unresolved issues.  
======

Warfare is becoming progressively more dangerous for civilians and less for military. WWII was first where more civilians than military died. It's been getting worse since them.

Ugly business, we need to get out of...  unfortunately there is still work to be done.

JR

[John Roberts {JR}]

+1...

and for all the troops, there instead of home for the holidays..

More thanks than words can express...

May next year really be better...

JR

[John Chiara]

Scott Smith wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 15:30

Women in combat SURE does raise a different set of problems!

But even the women volunteered for active duty so they must know the rules going in.

John

[Jim Galanie]

As a former Sailor, it's not the pregnancy that's being court-martialed, (UCMJ'd, Office Hours or Captain's Mast), it's the adultery charge. Adultery happens to be illegal in most states as well, but I don't know of any civilian ever prosecuted for it. However, in a military unit, fraternization (senior to junior) or onboard (Navy ship) relationships are illegal. However, there's only three ways to PROVE it: caught in the act, legal statement by one of the participants or pregnancy.

A deployed, MARRIED servicemember who turns up pregnant when she wasn't pregnant when deployed is messing around, which is not good for unit morale and is against the UCMJ, as husbands and wives are never deployed together.

Single service females who turn up pregnant are sent home and need to arrange dependent care plans within 4 months of the child being born, as they are then eligible to being redeployed.

I think this is mostly a warning to keep hands off in a combat zone. If EITHER service member is married it's adultery. It's the law. And the law is being enforced to fight a war.

The fact that military members are held to this higher standard then the civilian population is part of the deal. In the civilian world, all a guy can do with a spouse who fools around is to divorce her and not pay child support for a baby that isn't his. As for women, you can tag another guy and have him pay for your kid while their wife (and your husband) can either throw the two of you out or deal with it.

God Bless those who go in harm's way.

[Evan F. Hunter]

Jim Galanie wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 19:30

As a former Sailor, it's not the pregnancy that's being court-martialed, (UCMJ'd, Office Hours or Captain's Mast), it's the adultery charge. Adultery happens to be illegal in most states as well, but I don't know of any civilian ever prosecuted for it. However, in a military unit, fraternization (senior to junior) or onboard (Navy ship) relationships are illegal. However, there's only three ways to PROVE it: caught in the act, legal statement by one of the participants or pregnancy. A deployed, MARRIED servicemember who turns up pregnant when she wasn't pregnant when deployed is messing around, which is not good for unit morale and is against the UCMJ, as husbands and wives are never deployed together. Single service females who turn up pregnant are sent home and need to arrange dependent care plans within 4 months of the child being born, as they are then eligible to being redeployed. I think this is mostly a warning to keep hands off in a combat zone. If EITHER service member is married it's adultery. It's the law. And the law is being enforced to fight a war. The fact that military members are held to this higher standard then the civilian population is part of the deal. In the civilian world, all a guy can do with a spouse who fools around is to divorce her and not pay child support for a baby that isn't his. As for women, you can tag another guy and have him pay for your kid while their wife (and your husband) can either throw the two of you out or deal with it. God Bless those who go in harm's way.

100% Agree

[John Roberts {JR}]

Jim Galanie wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 19:30

As a former Sailor, it's not the pregnancy that's being court-martialed, (UCMJ'd, Office Hours or Captain's Mast), it's the adultery charge. Adultery happens to be illegal in most states as well, but I don't know of any civilian ever prosecuted for it. However, in a military unit, fraternization (senior to junior) or onboard (Navy ship) relationships are illegal. However, there's only three ways to PROVE it: caught in the act, legal statement by one of the participants or pregnancy. A deployed, MARRIED servicemember who turns up pregnant when she wasn't pregnant when deployed is messing around, which is not good for unit morale and is against the UCMJ, as husbands and wives are never deployed together. Single service females who turn up pregnant are sent home and need to arrange dependent care plans within 4 months of the child being born, as they are then eligible to being redeployed. I think this is mostly a warning to keep hands off in a combat zone. If EITHER service member is married it's adultery. It's the law. And the law is being enforced to fight a war. The fact that military members are held to this higher standard then the civilian population is part of the deal. In the civilian world, all a guy can do with a spouse who fools around is to divorce her and not pay child support for a baby that isn't his. As for women, you can tag another guy and have him pay for your kid while their wife (and your husband) can either throw the two of you out or deal with it. God Bless those who go in harm's way.

I believe this is about readiness.  

I just read that there are 284 married couples deployed overseas together, while it is up to the local commanders whether they work together. There was an article in Yesterday's WSJ about three couples in one company serving in Khandahar.

This is not the same army I was in by a mile.. But the military is trying to reduce the stress on military marriages made worse by separation.

JR

[Randy Gartner]

This may seem real harsh to some,however,when you enter the military,you give up most of the rights you have as civilian.I knew this would end up being a problem when they started allowing women on front line ships and in combat. The first time the USS Kennedy deployed they came back with 14 women who were pregnat. As has been said, it costs alot of money to send someone through boot camp and school.This is our tax dollars that's being thrown away when a women ( or a man for that matter)can't finish their commitment and we have to train someone else to take their place. Plus,we're talking about a war zone.You don't want your buddy watching some girls butt or screwing her when they're supposed to be watching the perimiter.It could all be solved by going back to the way it was when I was in. No women other than nurses on the front line.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Randy Gartner wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 21:08

This may seem real harsh to some,however,when you enter the military,you give up most of the rights you have as civilian.I knew this would end up being a problem when they started allowing women on front line ships and in combat. The first time the USS Kennedy deployed they came back with 14 women who were pregnat. As has been said, it costs alot of money to send someone through boot camp and school.This is our tax dollars that's being thrown away when a women ( or a man for that matter)can't finish their commitment and we have to train someone else to take their place. Plus,we're talking about a war zone.You don't want your buddy watching some girls butt or screwing her when they're supposed to be watching the perimiter.It could all be solved by going back to the way it was when I was in. No women other than nurses on the front line.

Maybe if they went back to the draft too,,,  One problem with all volunteer army is getting enough meat in the seats in the first place. I suspect letting women serve doesn't hurt the numbers, and they can be competent and vicious enough when needed.

It;s all about discipline...  we used to joke that they put salt peter in the mashed potatoes, I suspect they could keep the tiny swimmers from making it into restricted territory, with bio-chemical deterrence.

JR

[Andy Peters]

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 09:49

War is not a garden party...   In this modern age it shouldn't be that hard to avoid being with child.

You would think so, but at risk of bringing both politics AND religion into this discussion, there are fucking idiots who think that teaching "abstinence-only" to teenagers is the only sex education they need.

And there are fucking idiots who think that making their children sign "purity vows" and fathers taking their daughters to "purity balls" will somehow keep these teens from doing what people do.

And then there are the fucking idiots (old celibate men) that think that birth control is tantamount to abortion, and besides you shouldn't be having sex unless you intend to have a baby, and they and their morality have an inordinate amount of influence over public policy.

Oh, wait, members of the last group are not supposed to be fucking. Ooops. My bad.

-a

[Tim Padrick]

Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:09

In any case, I don't think the people of this Country will allow punishment of any involved in Pregnancies.

The people don't seem to have a problem with allowing punishment of soldiers for doing their jobs, so why not pregnancy,  which could be considered dereliction of duty?  (Of course they may not be aware of the former, owing to the quality of press that we have these days - they even let Bush get away with it.)