Electric Vehicles The November 2008 President’s Perspective, “
Oil Price Swings Should Not Delay U.S. Energy Strategy,” stated the following: “If it [the federal government] declared its intention to buy only alternative fuel or hybrid type vehicles with greatly increased efficiency, it would kick start the market production of such vehicles and lead to a larger commercial market.” The government is working on providing an alternate fuel vehicle that uses electrical power.
According to Paul Bollinger, deputy assistant secretary for privatization and partnerships, the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle manufactured by E-Z-Go will make its debut at Fort Belvoir, Va.
Steven Silverman
Philadelphia, PA
Self-Inflicted CyberwoundsIn her excellent editorial in October 2008, “
Defense Dept. Gripped by Fear of the Millennials,” Ms. Erwin quotes the deputy chief information officer at the Defense Systems Information Agency, “I absolutely believe in lockdown.” She also quotes an information officer for the Director of National Intelligence as saying “What keeps security people up at night is not the Iranians or the Chinese, it’s these things,” referring to mobile communications devices. Even as we’re spending billions to enable net-centric warfare, our own cybercops are shutting down the very devices that have ushered in the net-centric vision.
So our key cyberwarriors are building walls instead of extending networks. Am I alone in thinking of this as a cyber-era Maginot Line?
Imagine a new, young cyberwarrior, recruited by the glitzy ads, arriving at work and finding that vast numbers of websites are inaccessible, his mobile phone has been disabled, he can only email a tiny fraction of his fellow net-citizens, and that his thumb drives have all been disabled. You might forgive the new cyberwarrior for deciding that we have clearly already lost the first cyberwar. Yet these are precisely the conditions we’ve inflicted on ourselves. Our enemies can barely imagine achieving such effects on their own.
As Walt Kelly warns us “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Clayton D. Bosler
Los Angeles, CA
Combat StressI very much appreciate your December 2008 article, “
To Heal Psychological Trauma, Troops Relive War in Virtual Reality,” and the way the U.S. military is searching for new treatment of its soldiers returning from combat with post-traumatic stress disorder.
When soldiers return from combat, it is our duty to acknowledge that they are not fighting machines but human beings that sometimes need our help to get back in everyday life. Your article reflects this in an honorable way. So whether it can be a virtual therapy or traditional talk therapy, we continuously must evaluate existing therapies and be open-minded for new ways of treatment as long as there is a possibility that it can help our soldiers. For their physical and mental health, no costs should be too high for any nation.
Michael Klemm,
Strausberg, Germany
Buying the Wrong WeaponsI enjoyed reading your article “
Why the Pentagon Keeps Buying the Wrong Weapons.” (November 2008) In reference to the Lancaster model, you wrote how increased capabilities allows for smaller numbers. There may be another element at work here and a reason for pursuing this methodology when developing and procuring these flashy high-tech systems.
In my opinion, the political “Clausewitzian” element and the political linkage to war fighting may also be indirectly providing the catalyst for development of these types of flashy highly capable systems. Procuring these systems makes it an attractive option for political leaders. It is a more attractive option to send in 100 soldiers or Marines who can do the work of 1,000 and it is easier to send five aircraft or naval vessels that have the capability of 50 into danger and risk the political fallout if something terrible happened. The American public has a low threshold for American blood being spilled. To prove my point just look at the developing UAV programs. The Predator was first used as an observation/intelligence tool and now it is armed.
The Navy is developing the UCAV which is also armed. Continuing this path to its logical conclusions shows us that in the future a president may be more likely to risk a war if he or she believes the human cost to the United States is nonexistent.
Bradd A. Buckingham
Fairfax, VA
Energy ‘Must Read’
Your January 2009 article, “
Mileage Standards and Biofuels Aren’t Silver Bullets,” should be required reading for every adult, and especially every legislator in the country. It should be taught in every science class in this country. It points out the “inconvenient truths” of our energy problem.
Electricity is what separates our society from the stone age. Continuity and adequacy of electrical power have to be a top priority for government and industry.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not “subject to judicial review.” Doing an energy balance on our society quickly shows that fossil fuels will be with us for a long time, and nuclear is the only energy source that has the potential to expand adequately to replace fossil fuels in the near term.
Just because we want “carbon neutral” biofuels to work doesn’t mean they will. Only in equatorial regions do biofuels reach adequately positive energy returns, and then only at huge environmental impacts that dwarf greenhouse gas issues. Only in the United States would we provide a profit incentive (tax credit) to an energy-negative technology.
Just because we want greater energy efficiency in transportation systems doesn’t mean we can achieve them. And even when we do achieve greater efficiencies (e.g. hybrids), it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the total energy we consume to support our modern society. Solar and wind are even bigger pipedreams. Anyone who has driven on I-10 between Los Angeles and Palm Springs knows that massive wind farms are not going to spring up anywhere but there.
Now if there were only a high efficiency solar cell that produced more energy in a five-year time frame than it took to manufacture. I have no idea how we are going to solve the energy crisis, but I do know that we need to start working on it now while there are still fossil fuels to satisfy modern society’s thirst for inexpensive energy. And we need to start working on it from a foundation based upon hard science and solid engineering, not pipedreams. Successful military people are fond of saying “hope is not a strategy” when it comes to dealing with a threat. That is equally true when it comes to supplying energy for our society’s future.
Stephen I. Johnson
Spartanburg, SC
On BiofuelsThe interesting article “
Renewable Fuels” (January 2009) provided an insightful assessment on the issue of crops and corn-based ethanol as fuel, pointing out its possible unwanted impact on energy balance, environmental footprint, and food supply, all of which should not be overlooked. However, given the great energy and environmental challenges that the world faces in the immediate future, it is imperative to take a swift action to develop scientifically sound means to harvest the unlimited energy from the sun in an economic and sustained fashion. A holistic perspective is needed by taking carefully into account all aspects of research, innovation, and technology development, as well as wise resource management.
In addition to solar, wind, hydraulic types of energy, which allow us to use the energy from the sun in real time, bio-based substances offer an important way to utilize the same energy with a short delay, for example, in food production and consumption.
Charles Rong
Rockville, MD
Accountability ProblemsYour January 2009 article, “
Industry Braces for Bigger Crackdown on Corruption” reads as if government and industry are individuals whom one can hold accountable. Ironically the article fits very nicely into the state of our economy today as the triggering event (not the fault) was the result of a few in industry trying to do what a few in the government wanted them to do to help out a few non-homeowners in these United States. Loosely using numbers like “300 procurement fraud cases” and “50 individuals have been criminally charged” — both of which are fractions of the total number of procurements and the total number of government and contractor employees — is irresponsible to the 99.9 percent of the government and industry that try to do the right things.
There seems to be those in the government who believe that legislating tougher penalties will somehow cause a positive effect on the individuals that make poor choices. While I fully support compliance and accountability, what this creates is less efficiency and more cost as both government and industry organizations introduce more compliance and ethics training. All of these costs are passed on to the taxpayer. Another irony with your article is your statement with regards to “climate of fear” and “media stories” wherein you are contributing to the fear.
The bottom line is we all have to be more responsible and accountable.
R. Kendall
Sent via e-mail
No Nuclear MeltdownsYou are certainly on target with your January 2009 headline, “
Future of Nuclear Energy Hinges on Recycling Technology.”
However, you call the Three Mile Island incident a “meltdown.” It was no such thing, it was a coolant leak. TMI had no deaths and went back onstream within a few years, while Chernobyl did cause deaths and has not been reopened because it is still radioactive. For that matter, Chernobyl had a meltdown, not an explosion, and nothing even remotely close to the predictions of additional deaths from radiation have come about.
Highly politicized groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists talk about reprocessing as leading to nuclear proliferation without the slightest evidence that this has ever happened or is even in danger of happening in those countries that have been reprocessing spent nuclear fuel over the decades. There have never been any allegations from responsible sources that Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained plutonium from diverted spent nuclear fuel.
If the United States is ever going to make a serious effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power generation, then nuclear power plants will be an indispensable element in the program. Reprocessing needs to be an essential part of such a program, and as you point out, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have been doing it without incident for many years.
Roger F. Jones
Broomall, PA
Nuke RecyclingI am disappointed on your source of information in “
Future of Nuclear Energy Hinges on Recycling Technology” (January 2009). You quoted a scientist from the Union of Concerned Scientists as saying, “The most severe threat associated with nuclear power is the threat is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.” This group has opposed nuclear recycling for no good reason. Canada, Britain, France, and Russia are all recycling their nuclear fuel, so even if the United States doesn’t recycle, it is happening all over the world.
France has produced 80 percent of its electricity for the last 25 years, yet because it is recycling its nuclear fuel, the nuclear waste is contained in one room. Countries today that are seeking to or recently have built a nuclear bomb, such as Iran and North Korea, do so from their own reactors, rather than attempting to steal plutonium from other countries’ reactors.
Nuclear power is stymied in this country from unnatural fear. More radiation fell on Harrisburg, Pa., from Chernobyl than did from the Three Mile Island incident. What isn’t widely known by the public is that Chernobyl didn’t even have a concrete containment structure around the reactor. The fire at Chernobyl was started in the carbon moderator which facilitates the chain reactor. This was caused by two operator teams getting into a dispute about running the reactor. American reactors do not use carbon moderators, they are safely contained within concrete structures. If we really want to lower our dependency on foreign oil, nuclear power is a powerful and safe way to do that.
James Trent Corbett
Midlothian, VA
Border SecuritySeveral articles on homeland security in the January 2009 edition of National Defense raise serious questions regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to deploy improved sensors to detect weapons of mass destruction.
Progress has been made in preventing the entry of dangerous individuals in the country though programs such as US-VISIT and SBINET. The same cannot be said for our ability to prevent dangerous materials from reaching our shores. This is particularly the case for radiological materials, including nuclear weapons and biological agents.
As your article about the debate over next-generation radiation detectors rightly notes, the current generation of sensors perform poorly. DHS has developed an improved radiological detection system. The debate to which your article refers is not about the performance of the new sensors which is generally very good but rather the protocols under which certain tests were conducted. But while we argue about test standards, the nation is left poorly defended. If the department of defense can engage in rapid fielding of critical systems to protect our service personnel in the field, why can’t DHS do the same thing for such a critical capability?
A similar problem exists with respect to biological weapons sensors. The current generation of biological sensors has only a limited detection capability and requires that the unit’s paper filter be physically removed and analyzed at a laboratory. It takes hours to detect and report the presence of a biological hazard. The new generation has a built-in capability to analyze samples and can communicate the results wirelessly. To date, only a handful of the older sensors have been deployed to critical locations such as subway stations, train depots and airports. So while DHS undertakes bizarre activities such as tests of specialized plugs that can contain subway fires and other hazards, it has not deployed the sensors that would provide the timely warning that would make such a plug useful. We need a nationwide grid of biological sensors that would serve as our first line of defense against both weapons and pandemics.
Daniel Goure
The Lexington Institute