I bought my first computer in 1987. It was an IBM PC XT 286 with an Intel 80286 processor and 20 megabytes of storage on the hard drive. I owned a small business at the time that was involved in the New England electronics market selling equipment to the mini computer makers. Working on the manufacturing and repair of the electronics was much easier for me than understanding how to use the damn things in every day business.
The total price for the machine and a package of Computer Associates software for inventory, billing, accounts payable, receivable and financial accounting was about $8,000. I can still remember the salesman telling me that the hard drive would be more than I would need in my life time. Of course it wasn't long before I owned a 386, 486 and then Pentium machines. As my confidence grew I began to go to computer flea markets and pick up parts and start to assemble my own PC clones. That is not entirely true since most of the expertise was provided by my brother in-law or my son.
In any event, at one show I saw my first gigabyte of hard drive, and I regaled my friends with the story of what the IBM salesman told me. The unit was available for around $1,000 and I thought that soon the price would come down and I would have one for my own.
All of this came back to me yesterday as I went down to Circuit City to buy an external hard drive. Recently I have been consuming large amounts on my internal drive because of my love for Itunes. A year or so ago, my gadget loving friend Bob told me that getting an Ipod would change every aspect of my interest in music.
Sure enough Bob was right. I got a Nano last year for my birthday and nothing about music has been the same since. I down loaded the software and ever since I have been adding to my collection. Just recently, another friend, who I introduced to Itunes, graciously allowed me access to his over 1700 cd collection. I have been at it for three weeks and have gotten about half way through. At this point I have over 6500 songs on my machine.
To put this into perspective, in order to accommodate each song averaging about 4 megabytes of storage for each song, I would need 1400 of the first machine that I bought. The amount storage taken up by these tunes totals about 22 gigabytes and it was starting to noticeably slow my machine. Even with a gig of RAM and a 3.2 gigahertz microprocessor, I am not able to copy a Cd, play the tune and also surf the net at the same time. My how my expectations have been raised!
So down the store I go to get some more storage. Every time I go there I am astonished. The first thing that strikes me is that virtually without exception, not one of the items in the entire store was invented when I was a schoolboy. The math of the pricing of the new external storage is what struck me the most yesterday. I ended up buying an I/O Magic 250 gigabyte external hard drive for $139 plus tax. Let's recap. The first gigabyte of hard drive I ever saw was a $1000 and yesterday I bought 250 gigabyte for 56 cents per gig.
When I opened the box I was disturbed to find that there wasn't a manual with the unit. I thought this strange until I went to the company website and read that most of their units come without one. The basic reason is you don't need one. The website said if you have a problem just give us a call. I didn't need to call because I just plugged it into the computer and into the wall and it worked perfectly.
Of course a revolution in the price and reliability are not the only changes in the computer business. The New England market used to consist of over 10 million square feet of mini computer manufacturing capability in the early seventies to early nineties. That item no longer exists and that space for the most part is devoted to something else.
I can remember attending a business function where a president of one of the leading mini computer firms commented in his address that the personal computer was a passing fad. Like the manufacturing buildings, he is doing something else now. One can only wonder what other changes lay ahead?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Equal justice under the law
While we wait to hear from the jury in the Libby perjury case it might be useful to spend a few minutes contrasting the judicial treatment received by two senior members of opposing political factions.
I. Lewis Libby was charged with perjury in lying about his role in outing a CIA operative. The actual outer Richard Armitage, was granted immunity and can be heard during the trial actually doing the supposed crime with Bob Woodward. It was already acknowledged that Armitage had been the source of the original column by Bob Novak.
Beyond the charge of perjury it had also been alleged that Libby was the point man for a full court administration response to undermine hapless Joe Wilson by damaging him and his family by outing his covert wife. The supposed leader of this Machiavellian effort was none other than VP Dick Cheney.
During the course of testimony we now find that the retribution consisted of two conversations. One in which Judith Miller acknowledged Libby mentioning Plame and the other in which Matt Cooper told Libby that he heard Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and according to Cooper's notes Libby replied that "yes, I heard that too." Cooper considered that high level confirmation of Plame's status.
That amounts to the entire Cheney led effort to out Valerie Plame. Apparently that is enough cannon fodder for conspiracy theorists. After three years and millions of dollars in legal fees, prosecutor Fitzgerald has indicted no one for the original referral of a crime and has based his whole case on Tim Russert's memory. If convicted, Libby faces possible jail time but for the most part he has already been convicted by virtue of the damage done to his professional life and to his pocketbook.
Now compare the treatment of one Sandy Berger, former National Security advisor to President Clinton. Berger was playing a role in representing the Clinton administration in the 9/11 committee hearings. During the process Berger was caught red handed stealing classified documents apparently for the purpose of revising history for the protection of his own or Clinton's legacy relative to the Clinton administrations activities prior to the twin tower attacks. This is only speculation since Berger's case was tied up so neatly and swept under the rug before any real questions got answered.
How was Berger treated differently than Libby? Well lets start anywhere in the story. For instance when the Archives knew Berger was a thief did they set up surveillance? Did they set up a sting? Heck no, they called Clinton lawyer David Kendall.
The rest of the story is even more cloudy. The Justice Department negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor, a $10,000 fine and loss of security clearance for 3 years for Mr. Berger. This settlement was summarily rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson and replaced by a $56,000 fine, 2 years probation, 100 hours of community service and loss of security clearance.
When informed of Berger being caught red handed in a breach of national security and possible commission of a felony it was reported that some senior members of the Clinton administration were heard to remark "that darn Sandy, he is so forgetful". When confronted with the accusation of theft of the documents Berger flat out denied it and then later admitted it. It is note worthy that Sandy 'forgot" he stole documents and then lied about it within days of the crime. Contrast Libby being charged with perjury some years after a rather innocuous conversation.
This is similar to treatment received in the court of public opinion in the congressional page cases involving Mark Foley and Gerry Studds. Foley talked dirty with a page in emails and resigned in disgrace. Gerry Studds was censured by the house for actually doing dirty and he got re-elected 6 times.
I. Lewis Libby was charged with perjury in lying about his role in outing a CIA operative. The actual outer Richard Armitage, was granted immunity and can be heard during the trial actually doing the supposed crime with Bob Woodward. It was already acknowledged that Armitage had been the source of the original column by Bob Novak.
Beyond the charge of perjury it had also been alleged that Libby was the point man for a full court administration response to undermine hapless Joe Wilson by damaging him and his family by outing his covert wife. The supposed leader of this Machiavellian effort was none other than VP Dick Cheney.
During the course of testimony we now find that the retribution consisted of two conversations. One in which Judith Miller acknowledged Libby mentioning Plame and the other in which Matt Cooper told Libby that he heard Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and according to Cooper's notes Libby replied that "yes, I heard that too." Cooper considered that high level confirmation of Plame's status.
That amounts to the entire Cheney led effort to out Valerie Plame. Apparently that is enough cannon fodder for conspiracy theorists. After three years and millions of dollars in legal fees, prosecutor Fitzgerald has indicted no one for the original referral of a crime and has based his whole case on Tim Russert's memory. If convicted, Libby faces possible jail time but for the most part he has already been convicted by virtue of the damage done to his professional life and to his pocketbook.
Now compare the treatment of one Sandy Berger, former National Security advisor to President Clinton. Berger was playing a role in representing the Clinton administration in the 9/11 committee hearings. During the process Berger was caught red handed stealing classified documents apparently for the purpose of revising history for the protection of his own or Clinton's legacy relative to the Clinton administrations activities prior to the twin tower attacks. This is only speculation since Berger's case was tied up so neatly and swept under the rug before any real questions got answered.
How was Berger treated differently than Libby? Well lets start anywhere in the story. For instance when the Archives knew Berger was a thief did they set up surveillance? Did they set up a sting? Heck no, they called Clinton lawyer David Kendall.
The rest of the story is even more cloudy. The Justice Department negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor, a $10,000 fine and loss of security clearance for 3 years for Mr. Berger. This settlement was summarily rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson and replaced by a $56,000 fine, 2 years probation, 100 hours of community service and loss of security clearance.
When informed of Berger being caught red handed in a breach of national security and possible commission of a felony it was reported that some senior members of the Clinton administration were heard to remark "that darn Sandy, he is so forgetful". When confronted with the accusation of theft of the documents Berger flat out denied it and then later admitted it. It is note worthy that Sandy 'forgot" he stole documents and then lied about it within days of the crime. Contrast Libby being charged with perjury some years after a rather innocuous conversation.
This is similar to treatment received in the court of public opinion in the congressional page cases involving Mark Foley and Gerry Studds. Foley talked dirty with a page in emails and resigned in disgrace. Gerry Studds was censured by the house for actually doing dirty and he got re-elected 6 times.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Fraud abetted by government
Stop and Shop announced today the latest in a line of thefts of customers personal credit card information. The incident was of particular interest because it apparently involved the actual bugging of in store credit card readers. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/02/19/stop__shop_reports_credit_data_was_stolen/
This has been a rather common way of stealing card info but up to this point it has been mostly by individuals in an establishment who while running your card for a purchase would then also swipe it into a magnetic device that would copy the information from the swipe strip. The actual physical "bugging" of in store machines is a quantum leap forward in electronic crime.
There is no report as of yet as to the damage done by this security breach but it has a disturbing element in that it seems that thieves have stepped up their game and always seem to be one step ahead of the government. This is the third major breach in Massachusetts this year. The other notables included the Boston Globe and TJX companies.
With increasing reports of the theft of electonic data how long will it be before we have a major incident that results in 100's of million dollars in damage or more? More importantly than the national financial implications is the damage done to the individuals whose indentities have been compromised. The following site tells the stories of a number of victims. http://www.privacyrights.org/cases/victim.htm
Anybody who has a even a small mistake on their credit report can relate stories of anger and frustration in trying to clear the wrong information. The credit bureaus are so arrogant they don't even bother to have a number for you to call. Write a letter and in 60 days they may look at it if they feel like it.
Strangely enough, the real major damage is likely to be caused by the government and will probably occur in the financial services industry somewhere. The post 9/11 security knee jerk reactions have resulted in information gathering in banking and brokerage that is so intrusive and cumbersome that it may result in 10 or 15 pages of information and applications in order to open an account. Information may include other bank accounts and source of your funds.
Once opened, even more information is necessary to get access to your account on line. Here are some of the things asked on one website. The standard request for your mother's maiden name along with your first car, the street you lived on as a kid, your elementary school, the name of your first dog, your father's middle name, your favorite color, and your favorite hobby. Some of this stuff is more information than your wife knows about you.
This is done ostensibly for the protection of the client but when a breach occurs it will be the clients who are damaged most. With all these applications collecting all your personal information laying around in some file cabinet and some electronic wharehouse, how long will be before some enterprising criminal and some lax corporate or government entity bump into one another?
Guinness keeps a book of world records. I wonder how long it will be before some criminals sets a record for electronic crime and how long before another will break it?
This has been a rather common way of stealing card info but up to this point it has been mostly by individuals in an establishment who while running your card for a purchase would then also swipe it into a magnetic device that would copy the information from the swipe strip. The actual physical "bugging" of in store machines is a quantum leap forward in electronic crime.
There is no report as of yet as to the damage done by this security breach but it has a disturbing element in that it seems that thieves have stepped up their game and always seem to be one step ahead of the government. This is the third major breach in Massachusetts this year. The other notables included the Boston Globe and TJX companies.
With increasing reports of the theft of electonic data how long will it be before we have a major incident that results in 100's of million dollars in damage or more? More importantly than the national financial implications is the damage done to the individuals whose indentities have been compromised. The following site tells the stories of a number of victims. http://www.privacyrights.org/cases/victim.htm
Anybody who has a even a small mistake on their credit report can relate stories of anger and frustration in trying to clear the wrong information. The credit bureaus are so arrogant they don't even bother to have a number for you to call. Write a letter and in 60 days they may look at it if they feel like it.
Strangely enough, the real major damage is likely to be caused by the government and will probably occur in the financial services industry somewhere. The post 9/11 security knee jerk reactions have resulted in information gathering in banking and brokerage that is so intrusive and cumbersome that it may result in 10 or 15 pages of information and applications in order to open an account. Information may include other bank accounts and source of your funds.
Once opened, even more information is necessary to get access to your account on line. Here are some of the things asked on one website. The standard request for your mother's maiden name along with your first car, the street you lived on as a kid, your elementary school, the name of your first dog, your father's middle name, your favorite color, and your favorite hobby. Some of this stuff is more information than your wife knows about you.
This is done ostensibly for the protection of the client but when a breach occurs it will be the clients who are damaged most. With all these applications collecting all your personal information laying around in some file cabinet and some electronic wharehouse, how long will be before some enterprising criminal and some lax corporate or government entity bump into one another?
Guinness keeps a book of world records. I wonder how long it will be before some criminals sets a record for electronic crime and how long before another will break it?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Richardson's got credentials
Presidential campaigns in the United States are a long, expensive and arduous process. By 2008 we should have had ample opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff. The media darlings such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not be able to suck all the oxygen out of the room for such a long period of time. The media will tire of the same shallow and vapid messages from people whose resumes are as thin as theirs are.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is virtually nothing in either of these two candidates resumes that would qualify them to run the biggest economy, social system, military and most extensive education system in the world. Being a senator provides a wonderful opportunity to speak on a host of issues but as far as results are concerned the senate provides a very short list of effective leaders. The primary production that comes out of the senate is just talk. The American people know this and that is the reason that historically senators fall short in the run for the white house. It is however a perfect proving ground for the uselessness of the VP position.
There is one announced candidate in the Democratic field that has genuine credentials to lead this nation. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a former Secretary of Energy, United Nations Ambassador, and former congressman. His political credentials are quite impressive as well having served as the Democratic convention chairman as well chairman of the Democratic Governors Association to name a few.
On issues of major importance Richardson has been in the forefront. His state is affected dramatically by the immigrant issue. As a former Secretary of Energy he is quite knowledgeable on our dependence on foreign oil and the need for alternative energy sources. Foreign policy is Richardson's strong suit as he is a graduate of Tufts Fletcher School of Diplomacy and he has tremendous field experience as our ambassador to the U.N. He is no strange to the complexities of the Middle East.
Despite these credentials it has been difficult for Richardson to get media attention. An example is his appearance on Chris Matthew's Hardball show last night. In the midst of detailing his resume Matthews asked him a moronic question about Hillary's reference to having experience dealing with evil men. During Richardson's response Matthews had a small inset of the governor playing next to a much larger scene of a smiling Hillary shaking hands with supporters. What relevance the question had to Richardson's candidacy I have no idea.
In any event as the campaign grinds on, voters will get an opportunity to see Richardson in action and will compare the happy feel good talk of Obama and remember the baggage of the Clinton's. In any face to face appearances by the candidates they will be able to measure the substance of each without the filter of media bias. It is in these situations where Americans will get to see the differences in a real candidate versus the phonies.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is virtually nothing in either of these two candidates resumes that would qualify them to run the biggest economy, social system, military and most extensive education system in the world. Being a senator provides a wonderful opportunity to speak on a host of issues but as far as results are concerned the senate provides a very short list of effective leaders. The primary production that comes out of the senate is just talk. The American people know this and that is the reason that historically senators fall short in the run for the white house. It is however a perfect proving ground for the uselessness of the VP position.
There is one announced candidate in the Democratic field that has genuine credentials to lead this nation. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a former Secretary of Energy, United Nations Ambassador, and former congressman. His political credentials are quite impressive as well having served as the Democratic convention chairman as well chairman of the Democratic Governors Association to name a few.
On issues of major importance Richardson has been in the forefront. His state is affected dramatically by the immigrant issue. As a former Secretary of Energy he is quite knowledgeable on our dependence on foreign oil and the need for alternative energy sources. Foreign policy is Richardson's strong suit as he is a graduate of Tufts Fletcher School of Diplomacy and he has tremendous field experience as our ambassador to the U.N. He is no strange to the complexities of the Middle East.
Despite these credentials it has been difficult for Richardson to get media attention. An example is his appearance on Chris Matthew's Hardball show last night. In the midst of detailing his resume Matthews asked him a moronic question about Hillary's reference to having experience dealing with evil men. During Richardson's response Matthews had a small inset of the governor playing next to a much larger scene of a smiling Hillary shaking hands with supporters. What relevance the question had to Richardson's candidacy I have no idea.
In any event as the campaign grinds on, voters will get an opportunity to see Richardson in action and will compare the happy feel good talk of Obama and remember the baggage of the Clinton's. In any face to face appearances by the candidates they will be able to measure the substance of each without the filter of media bias. It is in these situations where Americans will get to see the differences in a real candidate versus the phonies.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Russert, light as a feather
More than I. Lewis Libby is on trial in the Plamegate perjury trial. The reputations of a number supposedly important players on the national press scene have taken some serious hits. The biggest name in the press that has taken a fall over the past few days is the supposedly hard hitting host of Meet the Press, Tim Russert.
According to Mr. Russert, he never spoke to Libby about the status of Valerie Plame at the CIA. Also according to Russert, he had the vice president's chief of staff on the phone at a time that this was a huge national story and he never inquired about the subject at all. Nor did they discuss other issues of real importance. That's some really nice press work Tim. At least Miller and Cooper kept notes even though they were shoddy and in some cases unreadable.
Tim also informed the world that at the time his network was pontificating about the sanctity of a reporter and the need to protect his sources of privileged information, Russert was telling everything he knew about the subject to the FBI. Apparently he forgot to mention that tidbit in his affidavit to the court. This bit of information was of no interest to Matt Lauer of the Today Show who in a fawning interview with Russert the morning following his testimony helped polish Russert's image.
I happen to be listening to NPR on the way home and to hear them tell it, Russert was the nail in Libby's coffin as the announcer said in solemn tones that Russert had flatly denied that he had told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA. But Russert, much like the previous prosecution witnesses, Cooper, Miller and FBI agent Bond, had some severe memory lapses. As an example, Russert couldn't remember making two calls to a media outlet to complain about a derogatory story. When confronted with proof, Russert had to offer an apology. Nor could he recall parts of the Libby conversation except to say he was sure about Plame.
It would be interesting to hear the jury's take on the film introduced of Russert talking about the then impending Libby indictment as almost like "Christmas Eve". This bit of humor came out as defense attorney Wells embarrassed Russert on cross examination. So at this point the prosecution has rested its case with its star witness looking like a forgetful buffoon.
It will be interesting to see if the defense makes some sort of a motion to throw this pile of nonsense out of court. The prosecution has not presented one single irrefutable point relative to the five charges Libby faces. A reasonable judge in most places in the country would issue a directed verdict and end this farce. Washington however is a lot like Hollywood so perhaps the presiding judge has a case of Lance Ito disease. He might not want this spectacle to ever end.
According to Mr. Russert, he never spoke to Libby about the status of Valerie Plame at the CIA. Also according to Russert, he had the vice president's chief of staff on the phone at a time that this was a huge national story and he never inquired about the subject at all. Nor did they discuss other issues of real importance. That's some really nice press work Tim. At least Miller and Cooper kept notes even though they were shoddy and in some cases unreadable.
Tim also informed the world that at the time his network was pontificating about the sanctity of a reporter and the need to protect his sources of privileged information, Russert was telling everything he knew about the subject to the FBI. Apparently he forgot to mention that tidbit in his affidavit to the court. This bit of information was of no interest to Matt Lauer of the Today Show who in a fawning interview with Russert the morning following his testimony helped polish Russert's image.
I happen to be listening to NPR on the way home and to hear them tell it, Russert was the nail in Libby's coffin as the announcer said in solemn tones that Russert had flatly denied that he had told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA. But Russert, much like the previous prosecution witnesses, Cooper, Miller and FBI agent Bond, had some severe memory lapses. As an example, Russert couldn't remember making two calls to a media outlet to complain about a derogatory story. When confronted with proof, Russert had to offer an apology. Nor could he recall parts of the Libby conversation except to say he was sure about Plame.
It would be interesting to hear the jury's take on the film introduced of Russert talking about the then impending Libby indictment as almost like "Christmas Eve". This bit of humor came out as defense attorney Wells embarrassed Russert on cross examination. So at this point the prosecution has rested its case with its star witness looking like a forgetful buffoon.
It will be interesting to see if the defense makes some sort of a motion to throw this pile of nonsense out of court. The prosecution has not presented one single irrefutable point relative to the five charges Libby faces. A reasonable judge in most places in the country would issue a directed verdict and end this farce. Washington however is a lot like Hollywood so perhaps the presiding judge has a case of Lance Ito disease. He might not want this spectacle to ever end.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The terror trifecta
There has been a great deal of speculation as to when, where and how another terrorist attack might come in this country. The United States has spent a great deal of time and energy since 9/11 to insulate the U.S. homeland from a repeat of the outrage of the Bin Laden/Saudi terrorist gang attack. The significance of the event cannot be under estimated in terms of the human, political and economic impact that was had on the United States. The geopolitical fall out as a result included the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq and almost 6 years after the attack the reverberations are still being felt.
From a strategic stand point it is difficult to assess what was gained by the forces who supported and launched the attack. It did prove that the United States was not invincible and that democracies as a whole have basic tenets that make them more vulnerable to terror than police states do. The attacks did nothing however to increase the attackers wealth or influence or permanently settle any political scores. An argument could be made that the 9/11 attacks have actually strengthened the United States in many ways.
Our economy has recovered quite nicely with corporate profits and stock market driven 401k's alike reaching new highs. Our security vulnerabilities, although many, have been significantly addressed in almost every walk of life. On the military scene our forces have routed the organized opposition and we hold strong military positions in places that have significant strategic interest. On the world stage many Americans fret about polls showing a drop in respect for our country but with all due respect, do poll numbers have any importance what so ever?
Contrast this with what is going on across Bin Laden's world. He may be alive but I bet his living conditions are not ones of splendor.The Middle East is in flames. Lebanon is close to civil war. The West bank and Gaza have Hamas and Fatah murdering one another and in Iraq it is no longer the American soldier who is the primary target. More Iraqi Sunni and Shia die from sectarian violence in a month than the United States suffered in casualties in the entire war. Let's be clear. The war in Iraq is over and we won. It is the Iraqis themselves who are now responsible for sorting out the rest of the situation.
There is one area in which the United States still has an Achilles heel. One single effective terrorist strike on that heel could significantly change the world stage not only here but in all the Western democracies. That target is not here in the United States. That place that could hurt us the most is in Saudi Arabia.
Who would, why would they and where would such an attack happen? The who is very simple. Iran has the most to gain in a trifecta of areas if Saudi Arabian oil production was severely curtailed. Those three areas are economic, political and religious.
The why is very simple as well. Recent reports indicate that Iran may have a dwindling supply of oil. In order to maximize the revenue from that oil Iran could pump more or they could pump less but get a much higher price for the remaining amount that they have. Worldwide demand alone could accomplish part of this task but what impact would a production cut of say 10 or 15% have on world prices? A doubling or tripling of today's 58 dollars per barrel is possible. Currently the Saudis alone have the most control over this price. A reduction in Saudi influence is an automatic gain for the Iranians.
Some might say that the rapid expansion of alternative fuels in the U.S and other countries can off set this impact. Maybe in the future but certainly not today. Even with the explosive growth of ethanol production, the U.S is scheduled to produce about 292,000 barrels per day http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#A. Even with an expected 50% increase in this production next year it is still a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the 9.1 million barrels per day of U.S. gasoline consumption and over all 20 million barrel per day U.S. appetite for petroleum. http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
The religious implications of an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia are cloudy and are more complex than this writer could begin to address. What is clear is that the Shia have long been considered heretics and are despised in certain places in the Middle East. Would a crippling blow against the bastion of Sunni dominance be cheered by the long oppressed Shia? http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
The where of such an attack has long been thought to be the Straits of Hormuz. This is a two mile wide waterway at the end of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. It has long been thought that the sinking of a super tanker or some other such event might block the waterway and prevent 50% of the worlds oil production from leaving the Gulf. In a 1984 film, Countdown to Looking Glass http://imdb.com/title/tt0087090/, Omani gun boats trying to blockade the Gulf precipitated a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union.
The logistics of such an operation would appear to be nearly impossible. The U.S Navy presence in the area and the sheer size of the straits would make this scenario implausible. A much more likely target is the Abqaiq processing facility through which two thirds of all Saudi production passes through. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html
The distance from Iran to the heart of Saudi production capability is only the width of the Gulf which in some case is roughly one hundred and fifty miles. What complicates the matter from a defense standpoint is that Iran has a coast line of over 500 miles along this waterway. The Iranians have already demonstrated missle capability sufficient to bridge this distance. A number of conventional explosions in the area could interrupt production for months and throw the democracies into chaos. A small nuclear airburst would set the area of like a volcano and burn for who knows how long. The result would be life changing in the West for years.
From a strategic stand point it is difficult to assess what was gained by the forces who supported and launched the attack. It did prove that the United States was not invincible and that democracies as a whole have basic tenets that make them more vulnerable to terror than police states do. The attacks did nothing however to increase the attackers wealth or influence or permanently settle any political scores. An argument could be made that the 9/11 attacks have actually strengthened the United States in many ways.
Our economy has recovered quite nicely with corporate profits and stock market driven 401k's alike reaching new highs. Our security vulnerabilities, although many, have been significantly addressed in almost every walk of life. On the military scene our forces have routed the organized opposition and we hold strong military positions in places that have significant strategic interest. On the world stage many Americans fret about polls showing a drop in respect for our country but with all due respect, do poll numbers have any importance what so ever?
Contrast this with what is going on across Bin Laden's world. He may be alive but I bet his living conditions are not ones of splendor.The Middle East is in flames. Lebanon is close to civil war. The West bank and Gaza have Hamas and Fatah murdering one another and in Iraq it is no longer the American soldier who is the primary target. More Iraqi Sunni and Shia die from sectarian violence in a month than the United States suffered in casualties in the entire war. Let's be clear. The war in Iraq is over and we won. It is the Iraqis themselves who are now responsible for sorting out the rest of the situation.
There is one area in which the United States still has an Achilles heel. One single effective terrorist strike on that heel could significantly change the world stage not only here but in all the Western democracies. That target is not here in the United States. That place that could hurt us the most is in Saudi Arabia.
Who would, why would they and where would such an attack happen? The who is very simple. Iran has the most to gain in a trifecta of areas if Saudi Arabian oil production was severely curtailed. Those three areas are economic, political and religious.
The why is very simple as well. Recent reports indicate that Iran may have a dwindling supply of oil. In order to maximize the revenue from that oil Iran could pump more or they could pump less but get a much higher price for the remaining amount that they have. Worldwide demand alone could accomplish part of this task but what impact would a production cut of say 10 or 15% have on world prices? A doubling or tripling of today's 58 dollars per barrel is possible. Currently the Saudis alone have the most control over this price. A reduction in Saudi influence is an automatic gain for the Iranians.
Some might say that the rapid expansion of alternative fuels in the U.S and other countries can off set this impact. Maybe in the future but certainly not today. Even with the explosive growth of ethanol production, the U.S is scheduled to produce about 292,000 barrels per day http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#A. Even with an expected 50% increase in this production next year it is still a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the 9.1 million barrels per day of U.S. gasoline consumption and over all 20 million barrel per day U.S. appetite for petroleum. http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
The religious implications of an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia are cloudy and are more complex than this writer could begin to address. What is clear is that the Shia have long been considered heretics and are despised in certain places in the Middle East. Would a crippling blow against the bastion of Sunni dominance be cheered by the long oppressed Shia? http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
The where of such an attack has long been thought to be the Straits of Hormuz. This is a two mile wide waterway at the end of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. It has long been thought that the sinking of a super tanker or some other such event might block the waterway and prevent 50% of the worlds oil production from leaving the Gulf. In a 1984 film, Countdown to Looking Glass http://imdb.com/title/tt0087090/, Omani gun boats trying to blockade the Gulf precipitated a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union.
The logistics of such an operation would appear to be nearly impossible. The U.S Navy presence in the area and the sheer size of the straits would make this scenario implausible. A much more likely target is the Abqaiq processing facility through which two thirds of all Saudi production passes through. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html
The distance from Iran to the heart of Saudi production capability is only the width of the Gulf which in some case is roughly one hundred and fifty miles. What complicates the matter from a defense standpoint is that Iran has a coast line of over 500 miles along this waterway. The Iranians have already demonstrated missle capability sufficient to bridge this distance. A number of conventional explosions in the area could interrupt production for months and throw the democracies into chaos. A small nuclear airburst would set the area of like a volcano and burn for who knows how long. The result would be life changing in the West for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)