Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
December 11, 2012
Nation of Apathy: How I learned to stop worrying and love the draft
By Emily J. Yates, an Iraq veteran against the war
The phrase “no, thank you” is ubiquitous to American culture. It’s used to deflect all manner of advances – a simple, standardized mantra of dismissal, indicating politely, “I’m not interested, and please leave.” Have time for a quick survey? Can I tell you about our long-distance plan? Have you thought about a career in the U.S. Army? We toss a “no, thank you” over our shoulder, moving briskly past all that is undesirable, uninviting, uninteresting – in other words, unworthy of our attention.
I heard a whole slew of “no, thank you”s recently. It was down at the wharf in San Francisco, where thousands of tourists had flocked for the festivities of Fleet Week – a red-white-and-blue-spattered celebration of the American military, complete with taxpayer-funded flyovers by the Blue Angels. Hundreds of sailors and Marines in crisp dress uniforms flooded the piers, and military recruiters lined the pathways, almost visibly salivating over the prospect of making their quota early this month. An Iraq veteran myself, I stood in the midst of the crowd with several other veterans and allies of Iraq Veterans Against the War, handing out informational flyers containing military suicide statistics.
“Support the troops’ right to heal!” we called out above the roar of the jets passing over our heads for the umpteenth time. People swerved around us, gripping plastic souvenir bags emblazoned with variations on “GO ARMY.” Avoiding eye contact. “Stop the deployment of traumatized troops!” Faces forward, they kept moving – young, old and middle-aged alike – and if the Angels weren’t roaring overhead, I’d hear a “No, thank you” as they passed by. They weren’t interested in hearing the unpleasant things we had to say, the gentle reminders that the bright and shiny military wooing them with its seemingly bottomless budget is comprised of actual human people who are not, shockingly, invincible. But why should they listen? Why should they care? After all, they have the option of “no, thank you.”
The problem of American apathy, particularly toward ongoing U.S. overseas military involvement and its consequences, has not always existed. During all American wars before 1973, nearly the entire population rallied to support or decry conflicts as they saw fit. Everyone had an opinion about wars, and everyone felt their effects – because everyone was involved. Every American male over the age of 18 was eligible to be drafted into the military, and could be called upon at any time. There were exemptions – primarily for college students, men with physical handicaps and conscientious objectors – but the majority of American males were mandated to serve in the military when called. Those who couldn’t fight overseas were asked to serve their country in other ways – through buying war bonds, for example, or donating nylon hose to be used for making parachutes. This being the case, every single American was not only well aware that their nation was at war, but experienced it either first- or secondhand. As New York Times blogger Mike Haynie wrote, “Many of us [baby boomers] came of age under the watchful guidance of so many from the last ‘greatest generation,’ veterans supported by citizens and communities that intimately understood the role that those veterans had played in our national defense. That same understanding doesn’t exist today. A recent study from Pew Research reports that a majority of Americans indicate that 10 years at war has had little to no impact on their daily lives.”
Nation of Apathy: How I learned to stop worrying and love the draft
http://emilyyatesdoeseverything.com/nation-of-apathy-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-draft/Nation of Apathy: How I learned to stop worrying and love the draft
By Emily J. Yates, an Iraq veteran against the war
The phrase “no, thank you” is ubiquitous to American culture. It’s used to deflect all manner of advances – a simple, standardized mantra of dismissal, indicating politely, “I’m not interested, and please leave.” Have time for a quick survey? Can I tell you about our long-distance plan? Have you thought about a career in the U.S. Army? We toss a “no, thank you” over our shoulder, moving briskly past all that is undesirable, uninviting, uninteresting – in other words, unworthy of our attention.
I heard a whole slew of “no, thank you”s recently. It was down at the wharf in San Francisco, where thousands of tourists had flocked for the festivities of Fleet Week – a red-white-and-blue-spattered celebration of the American military, complete with taxpayer-funded flyovers by the Blue Angels. Hundreds of sailors and Marines in crisp dress uniforms flooded the piers, and military recruiters lined the pathways, almost visibly salivating over the prospect of making their quota early this month. An Iraq veteran myself, I stood in the midst of the crowd with several other veterans and allies of Iraq Veterans Against the War, handing out informational flyers containing military suicide statistics.
“Support the troops’ right to heal!” we called out above the roar of the jets passing over our heads for the umpteenth time. People swerved around us, gripping plastic souvenir bags emblazoned with variations on “GO ARMY.” Avoiding eye contact. “Stop the deployment of traumatized troops!” Faces forward, they kept moving – young, old and middle-aged alike – and if the Angels weren’t roaring overhead, I’d hear a “No, thank you” as they passed by. They weren’t interested in hearing the unpleasant things we had to say, the gentle reminders that the bright and shiny military wooing them with its seemingly bottomless budget is comprised of actual human people who are not, shockingly, invincible. But why should they listen? Why should they care? After all, they have the option of “no, thank you.”
The problem of American apathy, particularly toward ongoing U.S. overseas military involvement and its consequences, has not always existed. During all American wars before 1973, nearly the entire population rallied to support or decry conflicts as they saw fit. Everyone had an opinion about wars, and everyone felt their effects – because everyone was involved. Every American male over the age of 18 was eligible to be drafted into the military, and could be called upon at any time. There were exemptions – primarily for college students, men with physical handicaps and conscientious objectors – but the majority of American males were mandated to serve in the military when called. Those who couldn’t fight overseas were asked to serve their country in other ways – through buying war bonds, for example, or donating nylon hose to be used for making parachutes. This being the case, every single American was not only well aware that their nation was at war, but experienced it either first- or secondhand. As New York Times blogger Mike Haynie wrote, “Many of us [baby boomers] came of age under the watchful guidance of so many from the last ‘greatest generation,’ veterans supported by citizens and communities that intimately understood the role that those veterans had played in our national defense. That same understanding doesn’t exist today. A recent study from Pew Research reports that a majority of Americans indicate that 10 years at war has had little to no impact on their daily lives.”
December 11, 2012
Citigroup’s Amazing Abu Dhabi Adventure
By William D. Cohan 2012-12-09T23:33:01Z
Off in a small corner of the judicial system is a big-time Wall Street lawsuit that neither side in the dispute wants anyone to know much about.
Thanks, however, to George B. Daniels -- the federal judge in the case -- we can catch a rare glimpse of what happens when a multibillion-dollar investment in a supposed pillar of Wall Street goes terribly wrong.
At issue is the $7.5 billion investment that Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a large sovereign wealth fund, made in Citigroup Inc. (C) in November 2007, just after the bank fired chairman and chief executive officer Chuck Prince. Michael Klein, one of Citigroup’s most senior investment bankers, negotiated the deal; Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, in nearly his first official act after taking over for Prince as Citigroup’s chairman, flew off to Abu Dhabi to bless it.
A year later, of course, Citigroup collapsed, and American taxpayers bailed it out to the tune of $45 billion, plus another $306 billion to ring-fence a pile of toxic assets. ADIA, as the Abu Dhabi fund is known, lost nearly its entire investment after Citigroup’s shares were diluted down to pennies on the dollar by the rescue financing. (The contract also called for ADIA to get an annual dividend of 11 percent on its stock.)
Citigroup’s Amazing Abu Dhabi Adventure
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-09/citigroup-s-amazing-abu-dhabi-adventure.htmlCitigroup’s Amazing Abu Dhabi Adventure
By William D. Cohan 2012-12-09T23:33:01Z
Off in a small corner of the judicial system is a big-time Wall Street lawsuit that neither side in the dispute wants anyone to know much about.
Thanks, however, to George B. Daniels -- the federal judge in the case -- we can catch a rare glimpse of what happens when a multibillion-dollar investment in a supposed pillar of Wall Street goes terribly wrong.
At issue is the $7.5 billion investment that Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a large sovereign wealth fund, made in Citigroup Inc. (C) in November 2007, just after the bank fired chairman and chief executive officer Chuck Prince. Michael Klein, one of Citigroup’s most senior investment bankers, negotiated the deal; Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, in nearly his first official act after taking over for Prince as Citigroup’s chairman, flew off to Abu Dhabi to bless it.
A year later, of course, Citigroup collapsed, and American taxpayers bailed it out to the tune of $45 billion, plus another $306 billion to ring-fence a pile of toxic assets. ADIA, as the Abu Dhabi fund is known, lost nearly its entire investment after Citigroup’s shares were diluted down to pennies on the dollar by the rescue financing. (The contract also called for ADIA to get an annual dividend of 11 percent on its stock.)
December 11, 2012
Concerns about costs and management has led Senate committee to oppose the Defense Department’s plans to increase number of spies overseas.
Senate moves to block Pentagon plans to increase number of spies overseas
By Greg Miller, Published: December 10
The Senate has moved to block a Pentagon plan to send hundreds of additional spies overseas, citing cost concerns and management failures that have hampered the Defense Department’s existing espionage efforts.
A military spending bill approved by the Senate last week contains language barring the Pentagon from using funds to expand its espionage ranks until it has provided more details on what the program will cost and how the extra spies would be used.
The measure offers a harsh critique of the Pentagon’s espionage record, saying that the Defense Department “needs to demonstrate that it can improve the management of clandestine (human intelligence) before undertaking any further expansion.”
The action is a setback for the Pentagon’s main spy service, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has embarked on a five-year plan to assemble an espionage network overseas that is more closely modeled on the CIA and would rival that agency in size.
Senate moves to block Pentagon plans to increase number of spies overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-moves-to-block-pentagon-plans-to-increase-number-of-spies-overseas/2012/12/10/5a9a55b8-42ea-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_story.htmlConcerns about costs and management has led Senate committee to oppose the Defense Department’s plans to increase number of spies overseas.
Senate moves to block Pentagon plans to increase number of spies overseas
By Greg Miller, Published: December 10
The Senate has moved to block a Pentagon plan to send hundreds of additional spies overseas, citing cost concerns and management failures that have hampered the Defense Department’s existing espionage efforts.
A military spending bill approved by the Senate last week contains language barring the Pentagon from using funds to expand its espionage ranks until it has provided more details on what the program will cost and how the extra spies would be used.
The measure offers a harsh critique of the Pentagon’s espionage record, saying that the Defense Department “needs to demonstrate that it can improve the management of clandestine (human intelligence) before undertaking any further expansion.”
The action is a setback for the Pentagon’s main spy service, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has embarked on a five-year plan to assemble an espionage network overseas that is more closely modeled on the CIA and would rival that agency in size.
December 11, 2012
The Big Four of the Allies chat while gathering in Versailles for the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended World War I, in this 1919 photo. They are, left to right, David Lloyd George, of Great Britain, Vittorio Orlando, of Italy, Georges Clemenceau, of France, and Woodrow Wilson.
Debt and deficit lessons from 1917
By Walter Pincus, Published: December 10
As some Republicans again threaten to use the debt limit statute next year to leverage protection of tax rates for the wealthy, it’s worth going back 95 years to see how Americans viewed taxes and spending when that law passed.
The statute was born out of the need to pay for government spending from our entrance into World War I. George W. Bush’s White House didn’t consider such an issue when it launched its war on terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or undertook the more costly invasion of Iraq in 2003.
America in 1917 did not fight on a credit card. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, with Congress’s support, raised taxes and sold Liberty Bonds to cover costs. Bush, by contrast, had just lowered taxes and underestimated the costs of his military efforts. Borrowing to pay for the war helped lead to the current fiscal crisis.
~snip~
On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany. Wilson quickly sought help from Congress to raise the war funds.
Debt and deficit lessons from 1917
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lessons-from-1917/2012/12/10/88632c94-3fbc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.htmlThe Big Four of the Allies chat while gathering in Versailles for the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended World War I, in this 1919 photo. They are, left to right, David Lloyd George, of Great Britain, Vittorio Orlando, of Italy, Georges Clemenceau, of France, and Woodrow Wilson.
Debt and deficit lessons from 1917
By Walter Pincus, Published: December 10
As some Republicans again threaten to use the debt limit statute next year to leverage protection of tax rates for the wealthy, it’s worth going back 95 years to see how Americans viewed taxes and spending when that law passed.
The statute was born out of the need to pay for government spending from our entrance into World War I. George W. Bush’s White House didn’t consider such an issue when it launched its war on terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or undertook the more costly invasion of Iraq in 2003.
America in 1917 did not fight on a credit card. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, with Congress’s support, raised taxes and sold Liberty Bonds to cover costs. Bush, by contrast, had just lowered taxes and underestimated the costs of his military efforts. Borrowing to pay for the war helped lead to the current fiscal crisis.
~snip~
On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany. Wilson quickly sought help from Congress to raise the war funds.
December 11, 2012
Rising number of soldiers being dismissed for failing fitness tests
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rising-number-of-soldiers-being-dismissed-for-failing-fitness-tests/2012/12/08/13d2e444-40b8-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html
Rising number of soldiers being dismissed for failing fitness tests
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: December 10
Under intense pressure to trim its budget, the Army is dismissing a rising number of soldiers who do not meet its fitness standards, drawing from a growing pool of troops grappling with obesity.
Obesity is now the leading cause of ineligibility for people who want to join the Army, according to military officials, who see expanding waistlines in the warrior corps as a national security concern.
~snip~
During the first 10 months of this year, the Army kicked out 1,625 soldiers for being out of shape, about 15 times the number discharged for that reason in 2007, the peak of wartime deployment cycles.
~snip~
“During a war period, when we were ramping up, the physical standards didn’t have a lot of teeth because we needed bodies to go overseas, to fill platoons and brigades,” said Stew Smith, a former Navy SEAL and fitness expert who has designed workout routines for service members and law enforcement personnel struggling to meet workplace fitness standards. “During a period of drawdown, everything starts getting teeth, and that’s kind of where we are again.”
December 11, 2012
U.S. to launch military space drone on Tuesday
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, December 10, 2012 20:16 EST
The United States is planning a new launch of its tiny, pilotless military space plane on Tuesday as part of a futuristic Air Force program that has fueled speculation over its mission.
The X-37B, which weighs five tonnes and is 29 feet (8.9 meters) long, can return material to Earth in the way of the retired shuttle Orbiter program but is designed to stay in orbit for much longer at 270 days.
The last X-37B returned in June after orbiting for 469 days in a test of endurance.
The United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, approved the X-37B at Cape Canaveral in Florida after finding no danger following an anomaly during a separate launch two months ago.
U.S. to launch military space drone on Tuesday
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/10/u-s-to-launch-military-space-drone-on-tuesday/U.S. to launch military space drone on Tuesday
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, December 10, 2012 20:16 EST
The United States is planning a new launch of its tiny, pilotless military space plane on Tuesday as part of a futuristic Air Force program that has fueled speculation over its mission.
The X-37B, which weighs five tonnes and is 29 feet (8.9 meters) long, can return material to Earth in the way of the retired shuttle Orbiter program but is designed to stay in orbit for much longer at 270 days.
The last X-37B returned in June after orbiting for 469 days in a test of endurance.
The United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, approved the X-37B at Cape Canaveral in Florida after finding no danger following an anomaly during a separate launch two months ago.
December 10, 2012
?6
Bradley Manning Hearing Continues In WikiLeaks Case
By DAVID DISHNEAU 12/10/12 05:49 AM ET EST AP
FORT MEADE, Md. -- Military prosecutors are trying to show that an Army private charged with sending classified information to WikiLeaks didn't avail himself of opportunities to complain about pretrial confinement conditions that he claims were excessively harsh.
The hearing enters its 10th day Monday with more testimony expected from Chief Warrant Officer 2 Denise Barnes. She was the commander of a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., during the last three months of Pfc. Bradley Manning's confinement there.
Prosecutors also plan to call Army officers who were in Manning's chain of command while he was locked up 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing, for nine months.
The government claims the restrictions were to keep Manning from hurting or killing himself. The hearing is to determine if they amounted to illegal pretrial punishment. Manning contends the conditions were so harsh that all charges should be dropped.
Previous thread on CWO Barnes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11791863
Day 10: Bradley Manning Hearing Continues In WikiLeaks Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/bradley-manning-hearing_n_2270207.html?6
Bradley Manning Hearing Continues In WikiLeaks Case
By DAVID DISHNEAU 12/10/12 05:49 AM ET EST AP
FORT MEADE, Md. -- Military prosecutors are trying to show that an Army private charged with sending classified information to WikiLeaks didn't avail himself of opportunities to complain about pretrial confinement conditions that he claims were excessively harsh.
The hearing enters its 10th day Monday with more testimony expected from Chief Warrant Officer 2 Denise Barnes. She was the commander of a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., during the last three months of Pfc. Bradley Manning's confinement there.
Prosecutors also plan to call Army officers who were in Manning's chain of command while he was locked up 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing, for nine months.
The government claims the restrictions were to keep Manning from hurting or killing himself. The hearing is to determine if they amounted to illegal pretrial punishment. Manning contends the conditions were so harsh that all charges should be dropped.
Previous thread on CWO Barnes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11791863
December 10, 2012
Matt Lowe of Trenton is a U.S. Navy veteran who deployed aboard the USS Denver in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). He left the Navy in March after nine years in uniform and did not know for months he qualified for VA health care to treat service-connected injuries.
Uninsured rate high among young veterans
By Barrie Barber
TRENTON — Matthew Lowe left the Navy in March and didn’t know for months he could receive free health care for five years after defending his country aboard the USS Denver.
The 29-year-old Trenton man found out by chance about the Department of Veterans Affairs benefit through word of mouth.
Lowe isn’t alone: About 26 percent of veterans who served in connection with Iraq and Afghanistan tours of duty don’t have health insurance, according to a McClatchy News Service analysis of VA data.
The 2010 National Survey of Veterans, released by the VA, showed 21.2 percent of veterans under the age of 65 did not have health insurance compared to 13 percent of veterans from all eras. The survey also reported 42 percent of veterans had never used VA health care and weren’t aware of the benefits and 26 percent did not know how to apply.
unhappycamper comment: The Veterans Administration has been delivering good care to veterans despite being hamstrung by budget concerns.
This camper's take: If you make veterans, take care of them after they are damaged by their military service. AND FUCKING TELL THEM THEY HAVE MEDICAL CARE THRU THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION WHEN YOU MUSTER THEM OUT.
Uninsured rate high among young veterans
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/uninsured-rate-high-among-young-veterans/nTQSW/Matt Lowe of Trenton is a U.S. Navy veteran who deployed aboard the USS Denver in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). He left the Navy in March after nine years in uniform and did not know for months he qualified for VA health care to treat service-connected injuries.
Uninsured rate high among young veterans
By Barrie Barber
TRENTON — Matthew Lowe left the Navy in March and didn’t know for months he could receive free health care for five years after defending his country aboard the USS Denver.
The 29-year-old Trenton man found out by chance about the Department of Veterans Affairs benefit through word of mouth.
Lowe isn’t alone: About 26 percent of veterans who served in connection with Iraq and Afghanistan tours of duty don’t have health insurance, according to a McClatchy News Service analysis of VA data.
The 2010 National Survey of Veterans, released by the VA, showed 21.2 percent of veterans under the age of 65 did not have health insurance compared to 13 percent of veterans from all eras. The survey also reported 42 percent of veterans had never used VA health care and weren’t aware of the benefits and 26 percent did not know how to apply.
unhappycamper comment: The Veterans Administration has been delivering good care to veterans despite being hamstrung by budget concerns.
This camper's take: If you make veterans, take care of them after they are damaged by their military service. AND FUCKING TELL THEM THEY HAVE MEDICAL CARE THRU THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION WHEN YOU MUSTER THEM OUT.
December 10, 2012
Advisor: Testing on F-35 not over yet
December 08, 2012 11:04 PM
JAMES GILBERT
Although Marine Corps Air Station Yuma and the U.S. Marine Corps have received the first three F-35B Lightning II's, it doesn't mean the new stealthy supersonic fifth generation fighters are going to be dropping bombs on enemy targets anytime soon.
Eric Van Camp, Lockheed Martin USMC F-35 Business Development Advisor, said during a recent webinar that while the delivery of the aircraft is one of the many milestones the program has achieved this year, there is still a lot of testing that needs to be done before the fighter is combat-ready.
“The Department of the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps are going to have a fifth-generation aircraft and they are going to deploy them,” said Van Camp, a former Marine Corps aviator. “It goes where the Marines go. It is part of an unspoken contract between the Marines on the ground and the pilots who fly the planes.”
What this means essentially, Van Camp explained, is that now that the aircraft is ready to fly, the Marine Corps has begun using it, with the understanding that the capabilities of the aircraft would be rolled out and developed over time, such as weapons systems and advanced flight systems.
Advisor: Testing on F-35 not over yet
http://www.yumasun.com/news/aircraft-83785-air-corps.htmlAdvisor: Testing on F-35 not over yet
December 08, 2012 11:04 PM
JAMES GILBERT
Although Marine Corps Air Station Yuma and the U.S. Marine Corps have received the first three F-35B Lightning II's, it doesn't mean the new stealthy supersonic fifth generation fighters are going to be dropping bombs on enemy targets anytime soon.
Eric Van Camp, Lockheed Martin USMC F-35 Business Development Advisor, said during a recent webinar that while the delivery of the aircraft is one of the many milestones the program has achieved this year, there is still a lot of testing that needs to be done before the fighter is combat-ready.
“The Department of the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps are going to have a fifth-generation aircraft and they are going to deploy them,” said Van Camp, a former Marine Corps aviator. “It goes where the Marines go. It is part of an unspoken contract between the Marines on the ground and the pilots who fly the planes.”
What this means essentially, Van Camp explained, is that now that the aircraft is ready to fly, the Marine Corps has begun using it, with the understanding that the capabilities of the aircraft would be rolled out and developed over time, such as weapons systems and advanced flight systems.
December 10, 2012
The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle in the encapsulation cell at the Astrotech facility in April 2010, in Titusville, Fla. Air Force officials are scheduled to launch the third X-37B mission Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012.
Air Force's X-37B mini-shuttle shrouded in secrecy
3:52 PM, December 9, 2012
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The military's mysterious mini-shuttle is set to launch this week on a classified mission that has captured the imaginations of everyone from amateur satellite trackers to anti-nuclear protestors and potential military adversaries Russia and China.
Built by Boeing's secretive Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, Calif., the Air Force X-37B spacecraft is rumored to be everything from a space bomber to a satellite-killer or a test-bed for advanced spy satellite sensors.
~snip~
"Inquiring minds want to know, right?" said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a leading source of defense, space and intelligence information.
"But posing this question presumes that (the mini-shuttle) does serve some specific purpose. And I think that might be imposing greater rationality on the whole thing than is warranted."
Air Force's X-37B mini-shuttle shrouded in secrecy
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/1756923?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|sThe X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle in the encapsulation cell at the Astrotech facility in April 2010, in Titusville, Fla. Air Force officials are scheduled to launch the third X-37B mission Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012.
Air Force's X-37B mini-shuttle shrouded in secrecy
3:52 PM, December 9, 2012
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The military's mysterious mini-shuttle is set to launch this week on a classified mission that has captured the imaginations of everyone from amateur satellite trackers to anti-nuclear protestors and potential military adversaries Russia and China.
Built by Boeing's secretive Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, Calif., the Air Force X-37B spacecraft is rumored to be everything from a space bomber to a satellite-killer or a test-bed for advanced spy satellite sensors.
~snip~
"Inquiring minds want to know, right?" said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a leading source of defense, space and intelligence information.
"But posing this question presumes that (the mini-shuttle) does serve some specific purpose. And I think that might be imposing greater rationality on the whole thing than is warranted."
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
