EARN MONEY: DARPA Offers $50,000 for Ideas to Re-assemble Shredded Documents

Government Security News (GSN)
Fri, 2011-10-28 08:03 AM

By: Mark Rockwell

The sometimes enigmatic government agency that has been in the vanguard of historic computer network development, including creation of the Internet, is taking a more popular approach to a more prosaic problem --  how to re-assemble shredded documents.

photo courtesy
gsnmagazine.com

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) said it is offering computer scientists, “puzzle enthusiasts and anyone else who likes solving complex problems” a $50,000 prize for the best ideas in putting shredded documents back together again.

The agency said its “Shredder Challenge” is aimed at solving a nagging problem in warzones where soldiers find remnants of destroyed documents that could possibly contain important battlefield intelligence. Piecing those documents back together could be a valuable source of information that could save soldiers’ lives. Additionally, the agency said, understanding how shredded documents could be re-assembled by clever day-to-day citizens and scientists could also help the U.S. national security community, it said.  Read more

INVISIBLE CLOAK PERFECTED: Undergraduate Student Overcomes Major Hurdle to Invisibility Cloak

[Sorry, no image or photo...I mean really now, how do you photograph something that just isn't there...]

Published 10 August 2011

An undergraduate student has overcome a major hurdle in the development of invisibility cloaks by adding an optical device into their design which not only remains invisible itself, but also has the ability to slow down light; the innovation open up the possibility for a potential invisibility cloak wearer to move around amongst ever-changing backgrounds of a variety of colors

An undergraduate student has overcome a major hurdle in the development of invisibility cloaks by adding an optical device into their design which not only remains invisible itself, but also has the ability to slow down light.

The optical device, known as an “invisible sphere,” would slow down all of the light that approaches a potential cloak, meaning that the light rays would not need to be accelerated around the cloaked objects at great speeds — a requirement that has limited invisibility cloaks to work only in a specified region of the visible spectrum.

This new research, published 9 August in the Institute of Physics and German Physical Society’s New Journal of Physics, could open up the possibility for a potential invisibility cloak wearer to move around amongst ever-changing backgrounds of a variety of colors.

Institute of Physics release reports that Hungarian-born Janos Perczel, who is studying Logic, Philosophy of Science, and Physics at the University of St Andrews and who works under the guidance of Professor Ulf Leonhardt, acknowledged the huge potential of the invisible sphere and was able to fine-tune it so that it was a suitable background for cloaking.

What Could Austerity America's Defense Posture Look Like?

By Philip Ewing Monday, August 1st, 2011 11:21 am
Posted in Rumors

The Pentagon is staring at the prospect of as much as $850 billion in budget reductions over the next 10 years and beyond — which, as DoD and service officials keep saying, will require some major strategic recalculations. Even now, we can only imagine what’s in the PowerPoint slide decks rocketing back and forth across the Building as staffs come up with alternatives and scenarios for absorbing those kinds of cuts. The only upside, from DoD’s perspective, is that it sounds as though the White House and Congress are sold on the idea of a grand strategy that lays out how to move forward and where to accept risks.

Two old caveats remain in effect, though: First, whatever the Pentagon comes up with has to survive Congress, where defense lawmakers in the age of austerity will fight harder than they ever have to keep their pieces of the military-industrial complex. And second: The Pentagon needs a better bad guy than “persistant global instability” when it’s fighting to keep budgets and hardware, and we all know what that means: China. It’s a fair bet that the Mother of All Reviews will call for the military to keep or increase its focus on the Western Pacific, even as it dials back the U.S. forces positioned elsewhere around the world.

Here’s one vision for how this movie plays out:  Read more

Southeast Asia: Crouching Tiger or Hidden Dragon? [a must read]

Vikram Nehru, Thursday, July 7, 2011

Mention Asia and many people immediately think of China and India—giants that are powering the world economy. But Southeast Asia, a sub-region of ten countries that lives in the shadow of its two large neighbors, is also a thriving trade and economic hub.

At first glance, the countries of Southeast Asia—bound by many regional trade and political agreements—seem to make no sense together. After all, the region includes a small, rich, oil kingdom (Brunei); a post-conflict society (Cambodia); and a wealthy entrepôt economy (Singapore). In addition, there is an autarkic country that has been under military rule since 1962 (Myanmar); a poor, landlocked economy blessed with hydropower and minerals (Laos); and a populous nation whose growth rates rival China’s (Vietnam), not to mention four diverse middle-income economies that aspire to join the ranks of advanced countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand).¹

Nevertheless, the countries share a strategic location and access to plentiful natural resources. Furthermore, their diversity and increasing integration lie at the heart of the region’s rapid and resilient economic growth. Politically, the region provides stability in a part of the world that is rapidly reshaping the global balance of power. As a result, its continued development—which depends on investments in infrastructure and education, as well as improvements in business climate—is important for the rest of the world.  Read more

PAKISTAN > Defense Minister Says Pakistan May Withdraw Troops From Restive Border Areas

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

By Sara Sorcher

National Journal

photo courtesy of defence.pk

WASHINGTON -- Pakistan may withdraw thousands of troops stationed within its lawless border areas -- traditional safe havens to extremists -- just days after the U.S. said it would suspend some military aid to Islamabad, the Washington Post reported. The move, sure to inflame tensions with the U.S., comes just before Islamabad’s top spy chief is due to arrive in Washington for unscheduled talks (see GSN, July 12).

Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar said on a private Pakistani television station Tuesday that Islamabad “cannot afford to keep our military out in the mountains for such a long period of time,” according to the Post. Mukhtar’s comments appeared to differ from a statement made Tuesday by top Pakistani military officials pledging for operations to continue even with lessened U.S. funding.

The chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, is headed for Washington on Wednesday to “coordinate intelligence matters,” the military said in a one-line statement, according toReuters.

Since the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden in a garrison town not far from Islamabad in May, many members of Congress from both parties have been calling for the United States to cut back or eliminate its extensive financial aid to Pakistan amid growing questions about Pakistan’s willingness to root out militants. On Sunday, the Obama administration confirmed it would withhold $800 million in aid to Pakistan, one-third of its total $2 billion in annual security assistance to the country. It's the latest sign of a rift between Washington and Islamabad since the raid; Pakistani officials angrily condemned the bin Laden mission as a violation of their sovereignty and kicked hundreds of U.S. and British military trainers out of the country in response.

The Pakistani government has long rebuffed American requests to expand its military push into North Waziristan, a lawless border area in the country's mountainous northwest, leaving militants a sanctuary to plan attacks within both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Intelligence officials there told the Post that CIA drone strikes killed more than 50 suspected militants in North and South Waziristan in four strikes starting Monday night.

FBI > Establishes Graduate Degree in WMD Studies

image courtesy of:  topsecretwriters.com

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The FBI has established a graduate program at a Pennsylvania university for its agents to study counterterrorism and weapons of mass destruction, thePittsburgh Tribune-Review reported on Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 17).

The multiple year program at Indiana University of Pennsylvania is currently only open to FBI personnel. Other departments ultimately might be able to have students study for the master of science in strategic studies in weapons of mass destruction.

"It's not going to be open enrollment (or) traditional students," university criminologist Dennis Giever said.

"You worry about whether you might be teaching the wrong person this stuff," he said.

The degree program includes studies of of radiological "dirty bombs," strikes on the energy infrastructure and food-based bioterrorism.

The FBI three years ago began talks with the university on establishing the WMD studies program, according to bureau Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate countermeasures and preparedness chief Doug Purdue.

While several universities were approached, only Indiana University of Pennsylvania had existing programs specializing in anti-WMD efforts, Purdue said.

Thirty-four FBI agents have to date taken specialized WMD classes through the university. The bureau and other government branches anticipate spending $300,000 annually to send 15 to 20 personnel to enroll in the graduate program.

Some analysts who believe there is a low risk of a WMD strike on the United States have said such efforts are an unproductive use of government funds.

"It seemed ridiculous to some people," Federation of American Scientists Terrorism Analysis Project Director Charles Blair said. "But even if the risk is really low, it's still good to have some people looking at it in an academic sense" (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/Pennlive.com, July 12).

House Approves 2012 Pentagon Budget

Friday, July 8, 2011

By Martin Matishak

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday overwhelming approved a $649 billion spending plan for the Defense Department in the next fiscal year (see GSN, June 20).

(Jul. 8) - A U.S. B-1 bomber, shown at a 2007 Air Force firepower demonstration in Nevada. The House of Representatives on Friday approved a $649 billion Defense Department appropriations bill with an amendment to prohibit the retirement of any B-1 bombers (Ethan Miller/Getty Images).

The appropriations bill, approved by a vote of 336-87, includes $530 billion for nonemergency defense spending in the coming budget cycle, which starts on October 1. Overall, the legislation cuts $9 billion from President Obama's original request for Pentagon, but marks a $17 billion increase over the fiscal 2011 defense budget.

>The legislation includes a nearly 50 percent reduction for development of so-called "prompt global strike" weapons, conventionally armed systems intended to be capable of destroying a target halfway around the world within an hour of launch (see GSN, June 16).

The White House sought roughly $205 million for the effort but the House Appropriations Committee last month cut the program to just shy of $105 million. No amendments were offered during the floor debate on Friday to reverse that action.

Most amendments to the spending bill dealt with the war in Afghanistan or the ongoing military operations in Libya.

Lawmakers voted 322-98 against an amendment offered by Representatives Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) to eliminate the full $297 million designated in the bill for development of a new, penetrating nuclear bomber. The final figure is $100 million more than the administration's request, according to the bill's accompanying report.  Read full article

RUSSIAN MILITARY > Russia to Allocate $730B for Armaments by 2020

Thursday, July 7, 2011 [Full article]

photo courtesy of DoD

Russia plans to acquire eight ballistic-missile submarines as part of a $730 billion armaments upgrade plan extending through 2020, Voice of America reported on Wednesday (see GSN, April 21).

The procurements declared by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, which are also expected to include 600 flight assets and S-400 and S-500 air defenses, would boost Moscow's military holdings of up-to-date armaments to 70 percent of the total stockpile by the end of the effort.

Russia's highest priority is to upgrade its strategic nuclear deterrent, but it must also make changes to other weapons and equipment, defense expert Pavel Felgenhauer said. "Then there's of course the air force, the air defense system, the army -- actually, everything needs rearming because right now they say that (only) 10-15 percent of our weaponry is modern," he said.

Russia's defense spending is 10 times its level from a decade ago, but the modernization effort still lags, Felgenhauer said.

"Now the present defense minister says that there was massive misappropriation of funds," the analyst said. "The Russian defense industry, which is also downgraded, and its capabilities are much smaller than in Soviet times, responded to more funding by just raising prices. They are producing the same several fighters or missiles, but for a much bigger price" (Anya Ardayeva, Voice of America, July 6).

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov received instructions from President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday to present a declaration within three days on the government's execution of this year's military acquisition plans, RIA Novosti reported.

The Defense Ministry has held up the finalization of deals for strategic nuclear weapons purchases and other acquisitions, placing the 2011 plans at risk, top missile designer Yuri Solomonov told the newspaperKommersant. The arrangements were originally expected to be in place by April 15; Medvedev pushed the due date back to end of May, though, and early that month criticized the defense sector over the slowdown (see GSN, May 11).

Medvedev on Wednesday pressed the defense minister to "find out what is going on."

"If the reports about the disruption of the state defense order are true, then those responsible for this should be punished regardless of their ranks and posts," Medvedev told Serdyukov in a video discussion. "I expect you to report back in three days" (RIA Novosti, July 6).

MILITARY > What you are allowed to know about the bomber

What We Are Allowed to Know About the Bomber Posted by Amy Butler at 6/30/2011 7:33 AM CDT photo courtesy of www.dodbuzz.com

It is not unusual to stumble across a secret or two during the Paris Air Show. 

In fact, amid the 16-hour days of slogging through rain from the train station, sweating it out on the 15th march down the chalet line (in the second day) or lugging a laptop and various power packs and cords through Paris paranoid you’ll lose one – stumbling on a secret can make it all the more invigorating and fun. And, this comes from someone that loves a good air show!

But, this year, I stumbled across an interesting secret. It’s a secret I’m allowed to know. I’m just maybe not supposed to know that I’m allowed to know it.

I noticed a pattern when I was talking to industry executives about the still forthcoming (yes, we’ve been saying forthcoming for many a Paris Air Show now) next-generation bomber program. Imagine my surprise when executives of the competing companies sounded, well, the same.

So … I started asking why. And, a while later, I got my answer. A program source let me in on the secret. Apparently those executives were told to sound the same. The U.S. Air Force, in leadership, drew up talking points for these executives on the program entitled “Unclassified Facts on the Air Force Penetrating Bomber.”

That way, everyone was literally on the same page.

This isn’t that uncommon. Often, customers have talking points for their contractors. But, this is a case of a would-be customer and would-be contractors being told what they would be able to say about what may be a would-be program. (We won’t really know if it would-be because when it will-be, it will be a SAP program). And, typically, the Air Force isn’t too happy when its talking points get out there … it makes things seem, well, canned.

At any rate, I figured I’d share what little I know of what the executives are told that they can say. (Just be sure and keep the secret that you are allowed to know what you know.)

Below is a copy of the talking points: 

PURPOSE:

Provide industry executives the unclassified facts on the new penetrating bomber program. 

FACTS:

- Based on Secretary of Defense direction, the Air Force (AF) is developing a new penetrating bomber.

- The new penetrating bomber will be a component of the joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities.

- The new penetrating bomber will be highly survivable, nuclear capable, and designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations

- The new penetrating bomber will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.

- The total annual budget by appropriation (i.e., RDT&E, Production) is unclassified.

- The Air Force plans to deliver the initial capability in the mid-2020s.

- The new program will leverage mature technologies and constrain requirements based on affordability

- The new program will focus on affordability: unit cost target set to inform design/requirement trades and ensure sufficient inventory.

- The Air Force is projecting to build a fleet of 80-100 aircraft.

- The new program will employ enhanced security measures and be protected by a Special Access Program.

- All other details are classified to protect operational advantages and the nation's investment in critical technologies and capabilities.

- For further information, contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or the Program Security Officer (PSO)

MILITARY > Cutting the Military Budget...

photo courtesy  www.dodbuzz.com

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 8:31 am
Posted in Rumors

As Fred Kaplan points out in Slate, it does a penniless United States less good — and even less good for President Obama and other politicians — if DoD can’t yield big budget “savings” until years down the road. For practical and political reasons, Secretary Panetta will be charged with seeing what he can effectively cut soon, and that could make his job even more difficult, Kaplan writes:

If the goal is to find fast ways of cutting the deficit, cutting payrolls is fastest of all. When money is authorized to buy a weapons system, it takes a while—sometimes a long while—to spend that money. For instance, according to the Fiscal Year 2012 edition of the National Defense Budget Estimates (also known as the Pentagon’s “Green Book”; see especially Table 5–11), only 15 percent of the money budgeted for a Navy shipbuilding project actually gets spent in the first year. Another 25 percent is spent in the second year, 20 percent in the third, 15 percent in the fourth, 12.5 percent in the fifth, and still another 12.5 percent in the sixth. (Similar figures apply to building military aircraft, missiles, and armored vehicles.)

To spell out one implication of this unalterable fact of military contracting, the Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes $2 billion to buy one [Arleigh Burke-class] destroyer for the Navy. Of that sum, only $300 million (15 percent of it) will wind up being spent in the first year. By the same token, if Congress or the White House removed this $2 billion destroyer from the budget, only $150 million would be saved in the first year. (And the Pentagon would probably have to pay “cancelation costs,” which are routinely incorporated into weapons-procurement contracts.) In other words, killing weapons systems is not a very good way to cut the deficit quickly.

All this is why Kaplan believes the Army will be the biggest target in Austerity America, because cutting soldiers, and their payrolls and other benefits, frees up that money on the balance sheet much faster.

And if you want to pick on the Army, you also could argue that one of its biggest and potentially most expensive priorities, the Ground Combat Vehicle, may not survive in its present form. Lawmakers have scratched their heads as to why the Army even needs a big new armored personnel carrier. Although the brass has a clear case — its current generation of vehicles is maxed out, in terms of size and power, and the Army needs something that can carry an entire squad — all the budget blades flying in Washington may find a quick and easy target in the GCV, given how early it is in development. It’s just like anything else: The more momentum the program gets, the harder it will be to stop. Everyone in the Building and on the Hill understands this, and they’ll no doubt push or pull accordingly.

For what it’s worth, Kaplan sees the F-35 as a potential target, too — although as you’ll see, he got its name wrong:

Cutting Air Force or Navy personnel would mean getting rid of airplanes or ships, a move that would sire a separate set of controversies. (Then again, it’s likely that Panetta will cancel or cut back some planes and ships, if just to spread the pain; the Air Force and Navy’s troubled Joint Strategic Fighter, aka the F-35 stealth aircraft, is a likely candidate. But there will be limits here, as his predecessor, Robert Gates, already cut a few dozen systems, and further cuts would spark political fights, especially given the already-high unemployment rate.)

By contrast, cutting Army and, to some extent, Marine personnel would mean erasing brigades or divisions from the roster and warehousing their weapons—which could then be transferred to other units as training or replacement gear, for more savings still. None of this is necessarily to say that the Army or Marines should be slashed—only that they almost certainly will be, given the traditional end-of-wars syndrome, the enormous pressures on the federal budget, and (a new factor) an emerging coalition of anti-war Democrats and anti-spending, isolationist Republicans.

FOOD > Microalgae : Texas' next big cash crop

Published 7 July 2011

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com

There are an estimated 200,000 to 800,000 species of microalgae -- microscopic algae that thrive in freshwater and marine systems; scientists say microalgae offers a huge, untapped source of fuel, food, feed, pharmaceuticals, and even pollution-busters; it is set to be Texas' next big cash crop

Microalgae productiona facility // Source: co2captureandstorage.info

Just as corn and peanuts stunned the world decades ago with their then-newly discovered multi-beneficial uses and applications,Texas AgriLife research scientists in Corpus Christi think microalgae holds even more promise.

“It’s a huge, untapped source of fuel, food, feed, pharmaceuticals and even pollution-busters,” said Dr. Carlos Fernandez, a crop physiologist at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Corpus Christi who is studying the physiological responses of microalgae to the environment. There are an estimated 200,000 to 800,000 species of microalgae, microscopic algae that thrive in freshwater and marine systems, Fernandez said.

Of all those species, only 35,000 species have been described, he said.